Literature from the Aftermath of the Vietnam War - Essay Example

February Collateral Survival: Literature from the Aftermath of the Vietnam War The two poems Orphanage, by Wendy Wilder Larsen and I Met You in the Orphanage Yard, by Thich Nhat Hanh, are to be found side by side in a book of poems collated and edited by Philip Mahony. They are poems about the Vietnam War, a conflict which - like many others - has produced a wealth of art and literature in its wake. Perhaps the catharses of poets can be seen as something good that emerges from even the most dire of humanity’s inhumanity. Here, a comparison and contrast will be draw between the two poems which, though on the surface similar, have in their essence all that is different about the effect the war left on its contestants. The word orphanage is an ugly one. It has Dickensian overtones of cruelty to children who are already dealt the dreadful catastrophe of losing their parents. These days, there are few or no orphanages in the Western world: the economies of prosperous countries are such that their birth rates are dropping, with the result that any unparented children quickly find a home. The aftermath of war, anywhere, however, brings about a raft of children whose fate is to survive (Williams 2003) and to find themselves at the mercy of host countries after being herded into orphanages in the theatre of conflict itself. Because conflicts kill, and kill mostly adults. Global diasporas caused by wars carry many streams of people (Williams 2003) many of whom are children. The two poems in the spotlight show a surface similarity - they are both about children left parentless by war, but, since they are written by a woman and a man with a polarity of cultures, many differences - subtle and overt - are to be found. Larsen’s poem illustrates the well-meaning but wildly inconsiderate actions that take place after any catastrophe: how (generally) white Western people offer charity without thinking of the consequences, either immediate or long-term. ‘I went with balloons, hard candies, / old National Geographics’(Mahony 1998): it is bewildering to anyone who has worked with the homeless and parentless to see the perceptions of those who have never experienced a moment of having absolutely nothing, not even a Mom. Good intentions often blow up in the face of the giver, and that is what happens in Larsen’s poem: the narrator brings gifts to an orphanage, only to find herself face to face with her own misapprehensions and lack of sensitivity. This can be taken as an analogy for countries who intervene into conflicts among communities of whose culture they have little or no idea, and of well-meaning philanthropists, especially celebrities, who think they are doing good, whereas they underestimate or gauge situations badly, resulting in an altogether different mess. The giver had no idea what the outcome of her action would be (Mahony 1998). She seemed appalled by the children’s frenzied attack on her gifts. She did not understand their neediness and despair, and was shocked by what a too-small gesture could do. Perhaps she was expecting gratitude, a pat on the back, beautiful words of thanks, or broad smiles from the children. It often happens that the expected outcome is imagined before and ahead of a correct estimate of what actually is being given. The problem the giver was trying to assuage with a metaphorical band-aid was far too large to be covered by balloons, candies and old magazines. ‘I looked over to the nun for help.’ The giver is out of her depth (Mahony 1998) The most important are the nun’s words at the end of the poem, “Next time, if you come,/ Bring enough for everyone, or bring nothing.” The meaning here is explicit: those who give must think about their actions: giving is not enough. It is not the thought that counts: the consequences are extremely important. Perhaps it is a consolation to the observer that this poem was written as a kind of exculpatory confession: ‘I made a mistake, but I realize how big the problem is now.’ This is the real meaning of this poem, this moment of coming to the realization of something bigger than was previously thought, and much more serious. It takes a big person to write something like this in such a public way: an admission of insensitivity and ignorance, which might be put right in the future, because it is a metaphor for a much larger issue. Thich Nhat Hanh’s poem on the other hand comes from the same place his name does: the other side of the cultural divide. He can relate to the plight of homelessness and being orphaned because he has seen so much of this kind of thing. His poem carries an edge of knowledge: an understanding of what it means to suffer (Thich Nhat Hanh 1999). There is an undertone of meditative calm, even though the scene is sad and desperate. The child in the orphanage yard draws circles in the dust: endless shapes of sadness that will not go away. This is a metaphor of futility. Here, the poet is not giving anything: no gift, no words, even. But the reader comes away feeling there was a moment of sharing there: an element of compassion that was bigger than any gift of candy. ‘I dared not open up your wounds.’ These are words that indicate an awareness of pain. Having experienced pain is a prerequisite of counseling and working with disadvantaged people: this poet has a trace of that understanding, through identity and history. His name says everything. Contained inside a book full of similarly empathic poems, this one by Thich Nhat Hanh bemoans ‘cruelty, hatred and violence’ which inflicted upon this little orphan the fate of being completely alone (Thich Nhat Hanh 1999). No amount of sympathy or philanthropy will bring his parents back, and that is very well expressed here. ‘... and your fingers will draw again / those small circles / of pain...’ The meaning here is a felling of helplessness by the poet who knows there is very little anyone can do to relieve the inevitable suffering of a young orphan. The two poems have a history in common: of a war that left a wake of thousands of homeless children, many of which were transported to adoptive homes all over the world, including the USA. They also have in common a certain amount of powerlessness. And there is the effect on the reader, who can take away lessons from both the poets. There are huge differences though: the poem by the Vietnamese monk is devoid of analogy, intended or otherwise: it is a straight and plain poem that describes the plight of a little one in a dusty yard, whose present is empty of love and comfort and whose future is full of uncertainty (Thich Nhat Hanh 1999). And the picture of the adult who watches and is struck speechless by the situation, but is full of empathy, is clear and unambiguous. The poem by the white overwhelmed woman, who tries her best to do good but finds her efforts are not only undersized but also misguided, is a capable analogy of the bigger global picture of what happens when the uninitiated dabble in troubles they do not fully understand. She stands and watches as her gifts are misused and torn to shreds under the young hands of orphans who themselves do not understand why she has brought what she has brought. Mutual misunderstanding is the misfortune here, and it happens a lot in intervention that means well but is not researched properly. The two poems are simply written, without complication or hard words to send the reader to dictionaries. their difficulty does not lie in language: it lies in distinguishing what is really being said. The Vietnam conflict was not a simple affair: it was long, cruel, miscalculated and wreaked havoc not only in the theatre where it took place, but left its indelible mark on the United States of America, whose dead, injured and permanently disabled fighters numbered in the hundreds of thousands. There are white orphans of the Vietnam war too: they are invisible in these two poems, but their plight was perhaps not so hopeless and desperate. ‘You turned your face away.’(Thich Nhat Hanh 1999) Those who suffer for reasons of war do so in a terrible way. Both these poems emphasize the futility and cruelty of such wars, and try to warn against the consequences of such conflicts. If the wisdom from these experiences, such as is held in these two simply-worded poems is heeded, the world need not have to care for orphans any more (Williams 2003) Sources Cited Thich Nhat Hanh, (1999) Call Me by My True Names Parallax Press Mahony, Philip (1998) From Both Sides Now Scribner Paper Fiction Williams, Indigo (2003) Not Quite/ Just the Same/ Different: the Construction of Identity in Vietnamese War Orphans Adopted by White Parents AustralAsian Digital Theses Program (ADT) Read More