The Things They Carried as Anti-Vietnam War Voice - Essay Example

Name: Course: Tutor: Date: “The things they carried” as Anti-Vietnam war voice Introduction The onset of the anti-Vietnam War movement in the United States began soon after the Vietnam War broke out. Following the war break out, various movements emerged, some anti-war movements advocated for USA’s continued involvement in the Vietnam War whereas some movements opposed the involvement of USA in the war on grounds that they wanted peace. The peace and antiwar movements during this time mainly consisted of graduate and college students. In order to put their grievances across they sometimes used radical violent acts or non-violent and peaceful demonstrations. The reason behind the opposition of this war was due to moral, pragmatic and legal reasons (Small 4-8). In the book, “The things they carried” Tim O’Brien depicts an account and plight of soldiers during the Vietnam War. In this book, O’Brien focuses on describing both the tangible and intangible items that each of the soldiers carried in the course of the march. He notes that the soldiers carried basic items necessary for survival and intangible items such as fears and memory (O’Brien 2-19). Although O’Brien’s account is fictional, much of his sentiments in this book epitomize the occurrences during the Vietnam War. Moreover, to some extent readers can denote that his point of view in this novel, acts as a voice to the anti-Vietnam War movement (Smith 98). This paper seeks to compare the principles of the anti-Vietnam War movement with the sentiments of Tim O’Brien in “The things they carried.” The focus of this essay will be on the rationale behind the protestors stand against US involvement in the War. Secondly, this essay will examine arguments put across against maintaining the war and the kind of rhetoric that the protestors used. In addition this essay will depict whether veterans were involved in the anti-Vietnam War movement by drawing on to the findings of O’Brien in the book. The thesis of this paper accentuates that the sentiments of O’Brien in the book, “The things they carried” gives voice to the anti-Vietnam war movement. Objections and arguments against the war During the war period, the media’s extensive coverage of the war portrayed the suffering of both the civilians and soldiers in South East Asia. The coverage of the media on the War shocked US citizens in their homes. Images of the wartime conflicts brought via the television, portrayed graphic footages of casualties and children dying as a result of the war (Groll 5-7). With no clear hope for victory, a good number of people felt that the war was all but a loss this in turn helped to stimulate the objection of the war by Americans. A good number of people joined the anti-Vietnam War movement as peace advocated since they were appalled by the impacts that the war had on safety and stability. Many sympathized with the plight of the Vietnamese thus they joined the antiwar movement (Schuman 127-150). In most cases, the rationale behind American’s objection to the Vietnam War was based on legal, pragmatic and moral arguments. The basis of the moral argument of those opposing US involvement in the war was that many innocent lives were lost. The deaths of civilians became a subject to protest especially when the media revealed footages of causalities and dead civilians. Furthermore, many accused the US government for harboring imperialistic goals in Vietnam. They perceived that U.S involvement in the Vietnam War was not justified legally. Some believed that the US government’s reasoning for participating in the Vietnam War on grounds that Vietnam was a threat to communism , was a mere excuse that was used to cover up the governments imperialistic intentions. Others argued that US involvement in South Vietnam interfered with the country’s independence or self-determination. This implied that the war in Vietnam was a civil war that was bound to influence the fate of the entire country thus it was not right for the government to intervene (Schuman 127-150). In his book, “The things they carried” O’Brien narrates the personal stories of war veterans and the things they brought along as they marched to the fronts. Among the story that he narrates was about how he had secretly planned to flee to Canada so as to avoid the draft. Apparently, he had a summer to spend before he reported to his duties in the army at the meatpacking factory, during this time he spent most of his time trying to devise a plan on how he was going to flee in order to avoid being sent to the Vietnam War. However, one day as he stopped at a fishing lodge to ponder on his next move, the lodge owner took him in and helped him confront the issue of escaping from the draft. Eventually, O’Brien succumbs to the societal pressures and confirms to the ideas of courage, obligation and duty. Instead of fleeing to Canada he returns home and decides to take part in the Vietnam War. By telling this story, O’Brien admits that he was a coward mainly because he went to participate in a war that he did not believe in, ideally he was against the war. (O’Brien 45-46). For example in Chapter 4 he notes; “I survived, but it's not a happy ending. I was a coward. I went to the war."(O’Brien 61). O’Brien portrays the war as venture in futility for instance he notes, “They moved like mules. By daylight they took sniper fire, at night they were mortared, but it was not battle, it was just the endless march, village to village, without purpose, nothing won or lost. They marched for the sake of the march.” (O’Brien 15). His sentiments throughout the book show that he was against the war, however he was to afraid to make an antagonistic stand against the war due to societal pressures. In the chapter, “On a rainy River” O’Brien depicts how he forced himself into the brave act of participating in the war by imagining how others would think of him if he did not participate in the Vietnam War (O’Brien 37). Nevertheless, despite his youthfulness, O’Brien understands the difference between a socially acceptable action and a morally acceptable action. He understands that his willingness to die so that he will not be embarrassed is a cowardice act that does not make him brave. Inwardly, he believes that their participation on the Vietnam is wrong. He wishes that he could stand up for what he believes in however something is holding him back, he understands that its shame and fear. He does not want to be considered a coward, so he goes to the Vietnam War (Smith 98-100). One of the key reasons why the Vietnam War was opposed was due to the effects that the war caused. Bowman & Isserman(2003) note that, the United States had sent over 365, 000 of its troops to Vietnam, the number of causalities increased with time and over 6, 600 people were confirmed dead by 1967(Bowman & Isserman 66-67). A good number of people in Asia, USA and other parts around the world were affected directly or indirectly. Some peace advocates that US forces withdraw from the Vietnam War fronts mainly because US withdrawal would have lessened the tensions thus causing less human bloodshed. Robbins (2007, p. 13) observes that South Vietnam was declared a “free fire zone” this implied that anyone found in this zone whether they were children, civilians or old people were considered as enemies thus bombs were dropped to them at will. Villages suspected of host Vietcong were destroyed, homes were burned, women and children were killed while those who got lucky were sent to refugee camps (Robbins 13). Similarly, O’Brien reveals that the war was in bad taste due to its effects. For instance in chapter one, the death of Ted Lavender affects the soldiers greatly, for instance Lavender deaths causes Jim Cross to lose hope and his entire outlook in life changes. Prior, to Lavenders death Cross was more of a lover and a day dreamer than he was a soldier however after Lavender was killed he begins to take seriously his duty as a soldier and distances himself from everything else. With regards to how Cross felt after the death of Lavender O’ Brien notes that “He felt shame. He hated himself He had loved Martha more than his men, and as a consequence Lavender was now dead, and this was something he would have to carry like a stone in his stomach for the rest of the war” (O’Brien 15). Moreover, O’Brien manages to show the effects of the war when he explains how they invaded the Village of Than Khe. They trashed the village, shot dogs and chickens and then burnt the entire village. O’Brien notes that “After the chopper took Lavender away, Lieutenant Jimmy Cross led his men into the village of Than Khe. They burned everything. They shot chickens and dogs, they trashed the village well, they called in artillery and watched the wreckage…..”(O’Brien 15). Some of the arguments used against the maintaining of the Vietnam War revolved around the perception of US involvement in the War. Those supporting US involvement in the war argued that the participation of US in the war was acceptable based on the Domino theory. The Domino theory suggests that if one nation is under the influence of communism other surrounding nations are bound to adapt to communism. Conversely, Anti-Vietnam movements argued that the threat of communism was not justifiable. Most activists asserted that that US was fighting a futile battle that was not their own since Vietnam was an independent nation (Weist 171). The Vietnam War can be considered as the least popular war by the American public in the history of all wars. The war was so unpopular such that the soldiers who participated in it were drafted. Over 50percent of the troops of soldiers in Vietnam were actively disobedient and were mainly politically motivated since most of them did not understand the mission behind the war. In O’ Brien’s account of the Vietnam War, discontentment and the lack of purpose is evident. Although the soldiers in this account were not particularly political they were escapists in nature who had no purpose or zeal for the war. For example, they smoked dope, they watched movies, they played checkers and they also masturbated to Jane Fonda (O’ Brien 56, 196). They did all these things in an attempt to escape or take their minds off the war that they did not understand what it stood for. The key premise of “The Things They Carried” revolves around the things the soldiers are forced to carry, some carried these things against their will. In addition to this, they carried small things for their entertainment so that they can escape from the terrible reality of the war. As for O’ Brien, writing was his way for escaping from the events of the war. In description of what the soldiers carried O’Brien notes that; “As a first lieutenant and platoon leader, Jimmy Cross carried a compass, maps, code books, binoculars, and a .45-caliber pistol that weighed 2.9 pounds fully loaded…… As an RTO, Mitchell Sanders carried the PRC-25 radio, a killer, twenty-six pounds with its battery…. As a medic, Rat Kiley carried a canvas satchel filled with morphine and plasma and malaria tablets and surgical tape and comic books and all the things a medic must carry, including M&M's for especially bad wounds, for a total weight of nearly twenty pounds”(O’ Brien 5). Rhetorics used In his book, The things, they carried O’Brien employs various elements of language in order to make his book intriguing and compelling to readers. Given the fact that much of his story centers on that Vietnam War, a war that is historically considered to be a massacre that led to the death of innocent lives (Burgan18- 20), O’Brien manages to creatively craft the story such that readers are not only saddened by what occurred but they also learn and get entertained by the events in the book. His style of writing and his point of view as a writer helps to capture the attention of the readers. Moreover, O’Brien uses language creatively by employing rhetorics such as allegory or metaphors. O’Brien’s style of writing incorporates both conversational and descriptive elements of writing. O’ Brien transitions from using a descriptive form of writing and incorporates conversational elements through out the book. For instance, in p.2 he describes that; “The things they carried were largely determined by necessities. Among the things that they carried were P-38 can openers, pocket knives, heat tabs, wristwatches, dog tags, mosquito repellent……. (O’Brien 2). He also incorporates conversations in his writings, “Like cement Kiowa whispered in the dark, ‘I swear to God- boom, down, Not a word’, ‘I’ve heard this’, said Norman Bowker…” (O’Brien 16). The point of view of O’Brien as the narrator of this book is not consistent. At the beginning of the book he uses the third person point of view. He completely distances himself from the undertakings of the soldiers. This enables readers to get insight into the minds of Jimmy Cross’ mind and other soldiers. For example using the third person point of view he illustrates, “They shared the weight of the memory. They took up what others could no longer bear. Often they carried each other, the wounded or the weak. They carried infections….” (O’Brien 14). In some instances O’Brien transitions into an all knowing third person narrator. For instance in the chapter “Field” he admits to his fault that led to the death of Kiowa. By so doing he depicts his feelings of pain and guilt. Furthermore, by distancing himself from his actions in the field and placing himself as an all knowing narrator, he enables the readers to understand his pain and hurt. In a remorseful tone he notes, “The order had come from higher, true, but still he should have exercised some field discretion. He should’ve have moved higher to higher ground for the night, he should’ve radioed in false coordinates…. (O’Brien 157). In other sections of the book, O’ Brien employs the first person narrator perspective. For example, in p, 42 he notes, “At some point in mid-July I begun thinking seriously about Canada. “The border lay a few hundred miles north an eight-hour drive. Both my conscience and my instincts were telling me to make a break for it, just take off and run……” (O’Brien 42). Some of the common rhetorics employed by O’ Brien in this book include allegory or metaphor. O’Brien employs metaphor as a rhetoric device in the chapter “Speaking of courage”. In this chapter, readers become familiar with the sewage field when Norman Bowker continues to drive around the lake while he thinks of the evens that led to Kiowa’s death. Apparently, Kiowa can be considered as one of the noblest character, O’Brien uses the character of Kiowa to represent American decency which has drowned in the war sewage. The lake in this chapter represents a stand-in field thus when he fails to stop himself from driving in circles, O’Brien communicates his inability to directly address or talk about the issue since his decency is destroyed in the war. Moreover, O’Brien notes that the lake reminds Norman of the shit field, this serves as metaphor signaling the power to kill (O’Brien 131). In addition, O’Brien demonstrates the use of rhetorics in this story by mainly representing himself in two ways. For one, he appears in this story as an author then again he shows himself as a fictional character name “Tim O’Brien”. This ingenious and decisive creation creates an intriguing tension between what is not quite true and what is true. It also brings about sense of distrust and a meditative tone in the author all through the story. Furthermore, it brings about meta-textuality within the novel. Meta-textuality is an art that comments on its own purpose and process. The style that O’Brien employs in most parts of the story is one that involves examining the sequences of events from a distance temporarily or spatially (Smith 98-115). The use of the fictional character of O’Brien enables this distance to be realized. O’Brien communicates to his readers the significance of writing stories on the Vietnam War experiences by introducing a character with a similar vocation and name like him. He shows in fiction what he does in real- life that is, writing stories aimed at passing better understanding (Smith 98-115). It is evident that O’Brien transitions from one perspective to another, the movements between perspectives also known as free direct distant helps readers to distance themselves from the perspectives of the soldiers. This effect enables readers to view themselves as if they were in a film, slowing moving across different unfamiliar landscapes carrying their different burdens. The movement of ancient men going to war is juxtaposed with the modern and rough language of the soldiers. In addition, the language used by O’Brien to depict the conversation is form of rhetoric that he uses in order to further compel the story. O’Brien depicts the soldiers using slung and curse words. For instance, in p. 13 “ Henry Dobbins thought about it , ‘Yeah well’ he said finally. ‘I don’t see no moral, there it is man. Fuck off” (O’ Brien 13). Furthermore, The soldiers use slang and use swear words against each other. For example, following Lavenders death, one of the soldiers laments “Oh shit, the guy's dead” ( O’Brien 13) They also attempt to diffuse the feelings of helplessness and danger by using terms such as “ Torn up” or “Zapped” to describe death( O’Brien 19). O’Brien uses slang and these curse words to give some life to the book , though appalling some of these phrases maybe, the use of these phrases helps to portray reality. During the Vietnam War, anti-Vietnam movements employed various methods in order to present their grievances against US involvement in the War. Besides staging peaceful protests and using violent means, other compelling and persuasive methods were used. Some of the ways used to protest against US involvement in the war include the use of art and music. During the 1960’s and 1970’s several artists were part of the movement that opposed the war however unlike they counter parts who used different means of protests, these artists employed their creativity to oppose the war visible. Some of the famous poets and writers who opposed the war during this time include Robert Duncan, Allen Ginsberg, Robert Bly and Denis Levertoy. (Greene 149-161). Their artistic works often incorporated imageries that showed the tragic events that took place during the war as well as the difference between the life in United States and Vietnam. Visual artists in the likes of Nancy Spero, Ronald Haeberle, Peter Saul and many others portrayed war equipments such as helicopters and guns in their works while showing crucial war and political figures so as to the world exactly who were in support of the war and responsible for the violence in Vietnam. Film makers in the likes of Peter Gessner, Lenny Lipton and David Ringo created movies and documentaries that featured the actual footage of anti-war marches that helped to raise awareness concerning the effects of the war. Sam Shepard and Frank O’ Hara among many other playwrights employed theatre as a tool for showing the different point of view about the war, they often satirized they role of US in the world and juxtapose the horrific impacts of the war with normal life scene (Greene 149-161). Moreover, many popular musicians appropriated music compositions in protest of US participation in the Vietnam War. Some of the notable genres of music commonly used to protest included folk and rock music. In their compositions, they highlighted some of the tragic experiences of the war. Musicians and composers also staged concerts that aimed at bringing awareness about the tragic events occurring in Vietnam (Cross 248). One of the key figures noted in the anti-war spectrum was Jimi Hendrix, who was not an official protestor but a former soldier who supported the anticommunist view. Nevertheless, he was against the violence that took place in Vietnam. Hendrix composed the song “Machine Gun” that was dedicated to the soldiers fighting in Vietnam (Cross 248). Involvement of Veterans in the anti-war movement Lembcke, (2000, p.29) observes that veterans of the anti-Vietnam war played an integral role in the antiwar movements. Some of the events that contributed to the involvement of veterans and more civilians in the anti-Vietnam protests include the shooting of four protestors at the Kent State University this in turn sparked nationwide protests particularly among college students across the country (Butt 186). Moreover, “The My Lai Massacre” of 1958 further infuriated the general public causing them to support the antiwar movement (Anderson, David & Ernst 245-264). New reports showed military abuses on innocent civilians in My Lai. Apparently, the US military attacked the MyLai village by firing guns and grenades to unarmed Vietnamese civilians. Some of the US military also abused Vietnamese women and children sexually before killing them (Burgan18- 20). In June 1967, some of these war veterans founded a non- profit corporation known as the “Vietnam Veterans Against the War” with the aim of protesting against the Vietnam War and advocating for peace. The corporation of veterans campaigned for rights, justice and peace (Chapman 578-579). According to the article “Veterans Discard Medals in War Protest at Capitol” in New York Times April 24, 1971, P. 1, in protest to the war in 1971 a group of over 100 veterans converged at the White House to return their decorations and medals however their offer was declined. In April 23rd a number of veterans threw away over 700 medals in protest. The following day the organizers of the anti war movement consisting mainly of veterans carried out demonstrations march consisting of over 500, 000 veterans, it is alleged that this march was one of the biggest demonstrations since 1969 (New York Times 1). A good number of anti-war activists were Vietnam veterans, for example, John Kerry, a 2004 presidential candidate and future senator was the first Vietnam Veteran who testified in front of the congress against US involvement in the Vietnam War. Kerry argued that U.S forces should withdraw from Vietnam he related some of his experiences and observations during the war that were characterised by war crimes and atrocities against the human life (Brinkley 6). In O’Brien’s account of the Vietnam War, his fictional character as an author who narrates his past ordeal while serving the army in Vietnam epitomizes his role as a veteran who has seen it and done it all. O’Brien notes that purpose of stories, writes O’Brien, “is to make people like Linda or the soldiers killed in Vietnam live again” (O’Brien 213, 230). Conclusion The sentiments of O’Brien in the book, “The things they carried” gives voice to the anti-Vietnam war movement. Although O’Brien’s account is fictional, much of his sentiments in this book are to some extent similar to the occurrences during the Vietnam War. By closely and attentively reading this book readers can denote that O’Brien’s point of view in this novel, acts as a voice to the anti-Vietnam War movement (Smith 98). For example, one of the key reasons why the Vietnam War was opposed was due to the effects that the war caused. The war caused the death of thousands of people and a considerable number of casualties’ .Likewise, O’Brien reveals that the war was in bad taste due to its effects. For instance in chapter one, the death of Ted Lavender affects the soldiers greatly, for instance Lavender deaths causes Jim Cross to lose hope and his entire outlook in life changes. Some of the arguments used against the maintaining of the Vietnam War revolved around the perception of US involvement in the War. Anti-Vietnam movements argued that the threat of communism was not justifiable. Most activists asserted that that US was fighting a futile battle that was not their own since Vietnam was an independent nation (Weist 171). O’Brien also considered the war as a futile venture thus he did not want to go. In his book, O’Brien employs rhetoric so as to make his story intriguing to readers. Similarly, anti-Vietnam war movements used compelling methods such as arts and music to create awareness of the effects of the war and protest against US involvement in the war. Evidently, the sentiments of O’Brien in the book, “The things they carried” gives voice to the anti-Vietnam war movement. Works cited Anderson, Terry Anderson, David & Ernst, John. The War That Never Ends: Student Opposition to the Vietnam War. Kentucky: University of Kentucky .2007 pp. 245-264. Brinkley, Douglas. Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. New York: Harper Collins. 2004, p. 6-8. Bowman, John & Isserman, Maurice. Vietnam War. New York: Infobase Publishing. 2003, p. 65-66. Butt, John. The greenwood dictionary of world history. UK: Greenwood Publishing. 2006, p. 186. Burgan, Micheal. The My Lai Massacre. New York: Compass Point Books. 2008, p18- 20. Chapman, Roger. Culture wars: an encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints and voices. New York: M.E Sharpe. 2010, p. 578-579. Cross, Charles. Room Full of Mirrors: a Biography of Jimi Hendrix. New York: Hyperion, 2006. 248. Print. Greene, Alexis. Barbara Tischler. Ed. Sights on the Sixties. Rutgets: State University Press. 1992, pp. 149-161. Groll, Morena. Vietnam War Coverage on U.S Television News Casts. New York: Grin Verlag. 2007, pp. 5-7. Lembcke, Jerry. The spitting image: myth, memory and the legacy of Vietnam. New York: NYU press. 2000, p 29. O’Brien, Tim. “The things they carried.” New York: Houghton Harcourt Publishing. 1990, pp. 1-273. Roberts, Toby & California State University. Wartalk: Tim O'Brien's postmodern rhetoric of the Vietnam War in "The Things They Carried. California: California State University. 2007, pp. 1-82. Schuman, Howard. Two Sources of Antiwar Sentiment in America,' in Hixson, Walter L. (ed) The United States and the Vietnam War: Significant Scholarly Articles. New York: Garland Publishing. 2000, pp. 127-150. Small, Melvin. Antiwarriors: the Vietnam War and the battle for America's hearts and minds. UK: Rowman & Littlefield. 2002, pp. 1-119. Smith, Patrick. Tim O’Brien: a critical companion. New York: Greenwood publishing group. 2005, pp. 98-115. Robbins, Mary. Against the Vietnam War: writings by activists. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 2007, p 13. New York Times. Veterans Discard Medals in War Protest at Capitol. April 24, 1971, P. 1 Weist, Andrew. Triumph revisited: historians battle for the Vietnam war. New York: Taylor & Francis. 2010, p. 171. Read More