Question for highschool students about Vietnam

deerslayer said:
lemme give ya the breakdown of world history last year.

my teacher said that "embedded reporting" did not exist before 2003.
quote]

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWpyle.htm

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ernie Pyle[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif], the son of a farmer, wa[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]s born in 1900. After studying journalism at Indiana University he found work on a small newspaper in La Plante, Indiana. In [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1923 he moved to the Washington Daily News and eventually became the paper's managing editor.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Pyle went with the US Army to North Africa in November 1942. This was followed by the invasions of Sicily and Italy. He also accompanied Allied troops during the Normandy landings and witnessed the liberation of France. By 1944 Pyle had established himself as one of the world's outstanding reporters and Time hailed him as "America's most widely read war correspondent."[/FONT]

http://www.pbs.org/weta/reportingamericaatwar/reporters/cronkite/

Walter Cronkite first gained national recognition for his reporting from the battlefields of World War II. As a United Press correspondent, Cronkite covered the landings in North Africa and Sicily, the Allied invasion of Normandy and the subsequent battles across France and Germany. He was also a member of the "Writing 69th," a group of intrepid reporters that accompanied Allied bombers on missions over Germany.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/cwbrady.html

Matthew Brady turned his attention to the Civil War. Planning to document the war on a grand scale, he organized a corps of photographers to follow the troops in the field. Friends tried to discourage him, citing battlefield dangers and financial risks, but Brady persisted. He later said, "I had to go. A spirit in my feet said 'Go,' and I went."
Click to expand...
 
and ya know, I told her that. but the extent of the conversation was "baby, YOU'RE WRONG!"

Our teachers **** in Louisiana. I had a teacher today ask me, in front of the class, "You're handwriting is terrible! Are you dyslexic?" and then went on to nitpick on my shorthand. First off, that is unprofessional of an educator. Secondly, quality of handwriting doesn't have the first thing to do with dyslexia.
Anyway, the point here is that American education has gone down the drain, and becoming self-educated is probably the best course for those of us still in high school.
 
Missileer has the right of it. Journalism has been an integral part of every war since the Civil War, but I don't doubt it was included well before then. I'm just unaware of any assigned journalists to the US Military prior to the Civil War.

One point that the teacher or whoever said that "Imbedded reporting is an entirely new concept." had is the following: Gulf War I was the first large-scale conflict that the United States had been in since Vietnam. Because Presidient Bush and his administration was unwilling to damn our military to yet another run in with unrestricted journalist access to everything and anything, they were highly restrictive of who was allowed to know what, etc. Frankly, I think they were right to do so based on the following. Right in the middle of hostilities, some journalist asks, "So can you tell us where our troops are right this moment?" There is little doubt that unrestrictive reporting would have led to bad things. Afterall, "We're winning." just isn't a big selling story, now is it?

Old school was that journalists were actually enlisted and the military had a good amount of control of things, keeping the ugly bits out as well as not giving away important information to the enemy.

So in the most recent Iraq war, the journalists were allowed to come along again, but still were pretty restricted. They were allowed largely because the news media had been whining and complaining about being so restricted, and so forth.
 
Last edited:
Vietnam - the forgotten war.

The educators of today would like to believe that Vietnam is a war that never happened (the forgotten war). While there are still veterans living from that era, this will never happen. When students try to raise questions about Vietnam (before, during, and immediately after) teachers tend to short-circuit the discussion by decrying the war as the United States meddling in another countries politics and act as if the war never should have happened. This apparent Political Correctness is nauseating to me.

I have very very very strong memories of Vietnam and can easily remember almost every second of that service. I for one feel sad that our young people may never learn the true facts surrounding our involvement in Vietnam and the way our own government sold us down the drain. We DIDN'T lose the war in Vietnam, our government didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stay the course. They bowed to the cowards that were agitating for the end of war by voting our soldiers home before the mission was completed. In the process congress abandoned our allies to the assault of outside agitators (Chinese troops along with North Vietnamese Regulars). The reasons then for being in Vietnam were very similar to the stated reasons for being in Iraq today. The ONLY differences between then and now is that the president then DID NOT twist the facts to justify involvement in Vietnam as the president of today did for Iraq.

You can argue that the real reason for involvement in Vietnam were not the real reasons given and in hindsight you MAY not be off the mark.

This does NOT change the fact that one of the youngest armies in history went to war as children and came home as old men and women.

Educators owe it to those who went to war when asked, those who died carrying out their orders, and those who came home to a society which DID NOT support them, something more than just lip service. They have earned the right to have their story presented to todays school children with the accuracy and respect yesterdays warriors deserve.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS NO EXCUSE FOR ATTEMPTING TO REWRITE HISTORY!
 
deerslayer said:
and ya know, I told her that. but the extent of the conversation was "baby, YOU'RE WRONG!"

Our teachers **** in Louisiana. I had a teacher today ask me, in front of the class, "You're handwriting is terrible! Are you dyslexic?" and then went on to nitpick on my shorthand. First off, that is unprofessional of an educator. Secondly, quality of handwriting doesn't have the first thing to do with dyslexia.
Anyway, the point here is that American education has gone down the drain, and becoming self-educated is probably the best course for those of us still in high school.
Click to expand...

Hang tough Deerslayer. I went through the same crap with teachers in my school when they made mistakes and I pointed them out. Just remember the point of an education system is NOT to educate it IS to take individuals and turn them into human beings that fit the mould of the current society. Its a factory designed to turn out cogs for the machine. Once you look at it in this light it will make it a lot easier to cope with on a daily basis. Self-guided learning is where true education lies.

Governments approve cirriculums for this very reason. Universities receive endowments from major corporations in exchange for the uni providing courses that train young people to fit the mould of what they wish to employ. There is nothing sinister about it and it is the same the world over. In China they want people who do what they are told and do not question things so the system trains them to be this way. In the US they want people to be creative but not subversive.

The Marxist educator Frere addressed this and was the very first educationalist to publicly acknowledge the agenda of education systems. He did so in an effort to foment revolution and was successful in two Latin American countries. This is something that even teachers often times don't know about their own profession.
 
Well, you may have to wait until after high school to find out the realities of Vietnam. I remember in the 80s being invited to speak at a history class at MIT. I had met one of the engineering students and we spoke about what she was being taught about Vietnam at school. I told her a bit about my own experiences and she went back to her professor with what I had told her. It was then that he offered the invitation.
I took him up on it knowing full well that I was walking into the situation with all the preconceptions of what my they thought a typical Vietnam vet was and what the conflict was all about. You see in most of the major universities, they are fully convinced that because they've read about it somewhere, they have a complete understanding of every aspect of the war. Yes I felt I would be walking in there as the baby killing robot of the military-industrial complex just like they were taught we all were. I felt it needed to be done. So, I braced myself for the questions about our drug abuse, alcoholism, and basic uncivilized behavior. After all that's what Hollywood told them we all were.
Well I showed up at that class and just sat in the back until I was introduced. They had been studying the war in previous weeks and came prepared with their questions. I fielded a couple and straightened them out a bit about the drug abuse. I told them that no impaired personnel was allowed on a patrol and the fact was that the soldiers wanted to keep all their wits about them. I was not in a rear echelon unit, I was in an infantry unit in the Central Highlands (along the Laotian border).
In any event I stopped fielding the questions and then told them what a typical few days with my unit might have been like, had they been there. I spoke for about 30 minutes in all and then asked for any more questions. I made a point of looking each student in the eyes. Not a hand went up and not a sound was heard. I turned to the prof. and asked if he had any questions. He said just one: "Will you please do me the honor of coming back?". I did and he thanked me for enlightening his students and for changing his mind. Mission accomplished :)
The bottom line is if you want to know the truth ask someone who was there ;-)
 
Always remember, Government funded education and organized religion have their own agendas. Ignore facts and change history.
 
bulldogg said:
Self-guided learning is where true education lies.
Click to expand...

Dude, you're preaching to the choir. I've learned next to nothing in school, it has been the most inefficient thing I've ever participated in. I'll bet you 50% of all my "book smarts" have come from the history channel. Then you throw in my private reading of books, internet articles/forum interactions, discussions with friends, talk radio, etc. etc. etc. What I've actually learned in that federalized school system that has taken 35 hours a week, 16 years out of my life, has to account for less than 10% of my total "book smarts" hell, maybe less than 5%

Really, just try this. Try and take everything you've learned in a history class in the week in lecture, reading, and homework... stuff you're actually going to remember after the test. Now go watch one history channel program tonight, just any one hour program that you're interested in will do. And just weigh how much stuff you're going to remember after the history channel program and how much knowledge you have learned from class... it's pretty damned one-sided and that's just, what, 7hrs. vs. 1hr?

I know I'm getting damned close to rambling but since you hit a nerve I'll throw in one more example. I've had teachers in at least 3 classes that I can remember try and teach us about the crusades and outside of the fact that it was in Israel and the Pope ordered it I didn't know a thing. I watched one 4hr. long special on the history channel about a month ago and now I can talk about all the first 3 crusades in pretty thourough detail.

It's really qutie amazing how horrible "education " is in America.
 
Last edited:
bulldogg said:
Hang tough Deerslayer. I went through the same crap with teachers in my school when they made mistakes and I pointed them out. Just remember the point of an education system is NOT to educate it IS to take individuals and turn them into human beings that fit the mould of the current society. Its a factory designed to turn out cogs for the machine. Once you look at it in this light it will make it a lot easier to cope with on a daily basis. Self-guided learning is where true education lies.

Governments approve cirriculums for this very reason. Universities receive endowments from major corporations in exchange for the uni providing courses that train young people to fit the mould of what they wish to employ. There is nothing sinister about it and it is the same the world over. In China they want people who do what they are told and do not question things so the system trains them to be this way. In the US they want people to be creative but not subversive.

The Marxist educator Frere addressed this and was the very first educationalist to publicly acknowledge the agenda of education systems. He did so in an effort to foment revolution and was successful in two Latin American countries. This is something that even teachers often times don't know about their own profession.
Click to expand...


Which explains why I am ill-adapted for school, if not society.

"A true warrior will embrace conflict. The true smart warrior, however, will embrace those conflicts which lead to benefit."

We're a largely narcissistic society as well. Here's my take on it:
"An officer's primary duty is to his men. Secondary, to his country. Third, the betterment of his world. I do not see any obligations to himself in the performance of his duties."- Me.

Your "cogs in the machine" statement illustrates perfectly that we are a society which casts away the undesired elements, leaving perfectly good careers and men (John R. Boyd comes readily to mind) to waste. As a side note, Boyd's theories form the basis for much of the work I do.

WD, my bio teacher can't pronounce "menstruation", and she's a woman. My highest quality of education has come from the knowledge of the self-educated and from my own education.
 
I guess I'm somewhat spoiled with regard to High School and Vietnam. My teacher was my father and my father served in Vietnam. He was an artillery guy, but he had made it his highest priority to study the war and especially talk to his fellow Vietnam vets. He feels he was blessed to not have to do and see some of the terrible things other Vietnam Vets saw. He did his thesis paper for his Masters + 45 on Post Tramatic Stress Disorder, which was the first case done at that particular university I believe. He pushed through the Vietnam war memorial for the State of Wyoming as well. All in all, I'm pretty proud of my dad on all that.

I've always made a point of asking questions and listening to Vietnam Vets especially, but any war vets. I've talked to guys who were still having tremendous guilt for situation like the following: A woman is kidnapped by the Vietcong and her 5 year old child is handed a bomb in a paper bag and told that he has to give it to US GI's or they'll kill his mommy. The US soldiers tell the kid to stop and turn back in Vietnamese and do everything they can to get his to stop approaching, telling him they will shoot, etc. The kid is too scared for his mom or whatever and doen't back down. There's two possible outcomes to this: 1.) The GI's are unable to stomach shooting an innocent child, he brings the bag and the whole works blows up. The child and numerous servicemen die. 2.) The GI's shoot the kid and save everyone but the child. This is a classic case of the types of headgames that the Vietcong liked to use. The sad truth of the matter was simple: The kid was going to die no matter what the soldiers did. Even hitting the kid in the leg is likely to kill the kid and the VC will llikely kill him anyways for his "failure", even if the trauma to the body doesn't kill him outright. So you've got a no-win situation that the American media will just eat up and have a field day with.

The one item that I probably find the most insulting to the Vietnam War efforts was a certain cover for Time Magazine (if I remember right.) If you see the picture, it looks like a Vietnamese man is crying while he is unceremoniously shot in the head. If you see the video reel of that exact same scene, you see a POW who was breaking free and trying to very best kill his captors and/or break free when a SVA soldier draws his gun and shoots him in the side of the head. What looks like crying is actually a scowl/rage on the POW's part. Sure its an ugly scene, but the bastard American journalists actively choose that exact frame to try to depict the event as something completely different than it was.
 
Last edited:
Ted said:
I have been walking around with this question for quite while now, wondering whether or not to post it. After seeing We were soldiers recently, I decide to do so. But let it be clear beyond doubt that it is not to disrespect the servicemen who served there or to question their motives. It is not meant to pass judgement but I can't figure this one out.

I just wonder what you are taught in Highschool with regards to Vietnam's wishes to souvereignty. Are you still taught that because of the Domino Theory and the communist threat that their wish for self rule should be contained? How can it be that Indonesian wish to decolonisation in '49 was seen as nationalism and stimulated by the Americans and Ho Chi Minh's wishes were seen as communism and not nationalism? Soekarno was more affiliated with the PKI (Indonesian Communist Party) then Ho to the Vietnamese version?
Click to expand...
We are taught the reason for both the Korean and 'Nam wars were because of the whole containment plan
 
Do you mean that Eddy Adams Picture that won the Pulitzer in 1969? You'll find the story about the guy who took the picture:

I
n later years, Adams found himself so defined and haunted by the picture that he would not display it at his studio. He also felt it unfairly maligned Loan, who lived in Virginia after the war and died in 1989. "The guy was a hero," Adams said, recalling Loan's explanation that the man he executed was a Viet Cong captain, responsible for murdering the family of Loan's closest aide a few hours earlier.
Click to expand...

For the rest of the story (if this is the picture you are referring to) go to:
http://jan_edward.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_jan_edward_archive.html


http://jan_edward.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_jan_edward_archive.html
 
Ted said:
I just wonder what you are taught in Highschool with regards to Vietnam's wishes to souvereignty. Are you still taught that because of the Domino Theory and the communist threat that their wish for self rule should be contained? How can it be that Indonesian wish to decolonisation in '49 was seen as nationalism and stimulated by the Americans and Ho Chi Minh's wishes were seen as communism and not nationalism? Soekarno was more affiliated with the PKI (Indonesian Communist Party) then Ho to the Vietnamese version?
Click to expand...
Vietnam? What the hell is that?

I took 20th Century American history (which we spent more time talking about the 19th Century than 20th) and that was the only class where we touched on Vietnam, and I was not impressed with how it was handled. Actually, what I should say is "We touched on how Johnson's 'Great Society' was destroyed by the war in Vietnam." And we mentioned the war somewhere in there.

I can now understand why Americans are laughed at by the rest of the world for being so dumb. In the rest of the world history is rather important because they have a lot more of it, America as a nation is less than 250 years old while parts of Europe can trace their history back thousands of years. But the most amazing part about that is despite our history being so short it never failed that we would get to WWI and then the school year would end. Don't confuse that with we would study WWI and afterwords the school year ended, no, we had just begun to study WWI and the school year ended.

The best example I can give you is Geography I. The question, "Where did the Vietnam War start?" (The answer was Tonkin Gulf.) "Point it out on the map." First kid points out North Korea, as do the next four! "Are you all stupid!?" I blurted. "The US became involved in the Vietnam War when a Navy ship was attacked in the Tonkin Gulf, in Veitnam." Someone decided to offer a witty reply, "So?" "Vietnam and North Korea are two different countries!" "North Korea?"

Basically, if you asked a question about WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam or Desert Storm your most common reply would be "Don't go there!"
 
Last edited:
That does sound troublesome Damien. I remember my first contact with the American way of teaching geography. I just flew in from Europe and was astounded at difficulty level of geography (history as well). But it was good press to come home with straight A's.

I reckoned that with America's involvement around the world, interest would rise too. Seemingly that doesn't happen..... how odd ?!
 
I reckoned that with America's involvement around the world, interest would rise too. Seemingly that doesn't happen..... how odd ?!
Click to expand...

There is two groups in Us society theres one group that knows nothing about history and what goes on in the world we call them "Democrats" Then there is another group that knows a little bit more about history and what goes on in the world we call them "Republicans"
 
:) You're as funny as always Rabs. Luckily they didn't teach you how to generalize, for that would be worrysome indeed :)
 
Ted said:
That does sound troublesome Damien. I remember my first contact with the American way of teaching geography. I just flew in from Europe and was astounded at difficulty level of geography (history as well). But it was good press to come home with straight A's.

I reckoned that with America's involvement around the world, interest would rise too. Seemingly that doesn't happen..... how odd ?!
Click to expand...
It was a running joke/comment about Vietnam by the anti-war protestors: Virtually every American drafted and shipped off to Vietnam was going to a nation that he couldn't have found on a World Map beforehand.

Americans are not unique in being, as a general rule, disinterested in both Geography and History. Afterall, most will never really have much use for such knowledge throughout their lives, with the exception of going on a vacation somewhere. But the US government runs exactly opposite. They know and are extremely aware of the world outside the USA. They know full well that ignoring the rest of the World or remaining univolved has only ever led the United States into War and Trouble. For instance, the USA was completely blindsided by the outbreak of WW2. The Germans had a merry ol' time sinking the barely protected US Merchant Marine, and Pearl Harbor was an even bigger shock. The fact that US foreign policy can be seen to have directly led to both events has drastically altered US foreign policy ever since then. It is much the same as the fact that Europe has finally (for the most part) gotten over its eternal cycle of war and revenge.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes, and there was my 7th Grade Geography teacher: "We will not be covering Africa or South America, we can not afford to waste our time on those areas, we will be focusing on Europe and the Middle East because those places actually matter."

And by focus on Europe and the Middle East he meant learn country names and Capitols, nothing about the nations themselves, except Russia and the Former Soviet Republics because this was only 8 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and was still being talked about like it had happened yesterday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top