Questions To Ask About the PBS Series “The Vietnam War”
Following are questions generated by previews, clips and academic reviews of the full series. They are a work in progress but may be usefully shared as food for thought with local media, individual viewers when broadcast begins and participants at house parties and community events.
1. In an op-ed in the New York Times, Ken Burns and Lynn Novick wrote, “There is no simple or single truth to be extracted from the Vietnam War. Many questions remain unanswerable. But if, with open minds and open hearts, we can consider this complex event from many perspectives and recognize more than one truth, perhaps we can stop fighting over how the war should be remembered and focus instead on what it can teach us about courage, patriotism, resilience, forgiveness and, ultimately, reconciliation.” Do you agree or disagree?
2. How does the series address historical turning points when the US could have avoided or limited the war: a) by refusing to support France’s effort to regain its colony; b) by honoring the Geneva agreement provision for elections to reunify a temporarily divided country; c) by responding favorably to peace proposals from third parties; d) by accepting the virtually identical Paris Agreement before the Christmas bombing; e) by implementing Paris Agreement provisions for political reconciliation in the south?
3. Is the debate over the moral and legal legitimacy of the war clearly conveyed? Did the US choose a side in a civil war within Viet Nam or create it? Does the “civil war” frame advance understanding beyond “invasion from the north” or confuse the issue of Vietnam’s right to independence as a unified country?
4. Are former officials challenged to accept their responsibility or are they able to blame others for the war continuing? Should Daniel Ellsberg as well as Leslie Gelb have been interviewed?
5. Merrill McPeak, a fighter pilot who flew over 200 missions in Vietnam and became a 4-star general and chief of staff of the US Air Force, states that in his view we fought on the wrong side in the war. If he is right, what are the implications for the US and Vietnam today?
6. Presidents Johnson and Nixon are shown ordering Americans into battle knowing that the war could not be won and that their lives would be wasted. Was that cynical and criminal misuse of power for political self-interest? How can we legally prevent another President from doing it again?
7. President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger ordered the bombing of non-combatant civilians in the cities of North Vietnam in 1972 in order to frighten the population into opposing their own government in its negotiations with the US. By most definitions, that was an act of terrorism determined by courts to be a crime against humanity. Should American leaders be held accountable for such actions, and if so, how could it be done?
8. Are the effects sufficiently shown, then and now, of the massive use of Agent Orange, land mines, unexploded ordnance and forced rural population transfers on environment, health and economic life in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia as well as on the well-being of US veterans? Does the series address the partially met moral obligation for US compensation to victims?
9. Is the role of the anti-war movement accurately and sufficiently portrayed based on your personal experience and contemporary accounts? Why is the role of US NGOs and Vietnam Veterans of America in post-war assistance and normalization completely ignored?
10. Does the series give enough attention to GI’s who opposed the war inside and outside the military violently and peacefully and to their supportive relations with civilian peace activists?
11. Does it distort protesters' attitudes towards returning veterans, suggesting they commonly referred to them as "baby-killers"? Should it have addressed the divisive spitting-on-veterans urban myth exposed by Vietnam veteran and sociologist Jerry Lembcke? (most recent article here)
12. At many previews for the series Ken Burns asked Vietnam Vets to stand and be applauded. In Portland, Oregon, he asked activists against the war to also be recognized. Was one approach better than the other and if so why?
13. Major US corporations were confronted by the anti-war movement. The Bank of America, a primary sponsor for the series, was the target of protests, including the burning of a branch and the police killing of a demonstrator. Should that history have been covered and the Bank’s potential antipathy to the anti-war movement been recognized? Are peace activists credited for their campaigns to charge Dow Chemical and Honeywell with responsibility for harm to civilians from napalm, cluster bombs and Agent Orange?
14. Based on what you have seen or heard in or about the series, do you think it will have a positive or negative impact on the likelihood of US involvement in future interventionist wars?
For more information contact:
Terry Provance
vnpeacecomm@gmail.com
202-686-7483
Vietnam Peace Commemoration Committee
www.vietnampeace.org
To suggest changes or additions in content, contact:
John McAuliff
director@ffrd.org
Following are questions generated by previews, clips and academic reviews of the full series. They are a work in progress but may be usefully shared as food for thought with local media, individual viewers when broadcast begins and participants at house parties and community events.
1. In an op-ed in the New York Times, Ken Burns and Lynn Novick wrote, “There is no simple or single truth to be extracted from the Vietnam War. Many questions remain unanswerable. But if, with open minds and open hearts, we can consider this complex event from many perspectives and recognize more than one truth, perhaps we can stop fighting over how the war should be remembered and focus instead on what it can teach us about courage, patriotism, resilience, forgiveness and, ultimately, reconciliation.” Do you agree or disagree?
2. How does the series address historical turning points when the US could have avoided or limited the war: a) by refusing to support France’s effort to regain its colony; b) by honoring the Geneva agreement provision for elections to reunify a temporarily divided country; c) by responding favorably to peace proposals from third parties; d) by accepting the virtually identical Paris Agreement before the Christmas bombing; e) by implementing Paris Agreement provisions for political reconciliation in the south?
3. Is the debate over the moral and legal legitimacy of the war clearly conveyed? Did the US choose a side in a civil war within Viet Nam or create it? Does the “civil war” frame advance understanding beyond “invasion from the north” or confuse the issue of Vietnam’s right to independence as a unified country?
4. Are former officials challenged to accept their responsibility or are they able to blame others for the war continuing? Should Daniel Ellsberg as well as Leslie Gelb have been interviewed?
5. Merrill McPeak, a fighter pilot who flew over 200 missions in Vietnam and became a 4-star general and chief of staff of the US Air Force, states that in his view we fought on the wrong side in the war. If he is right, what are the implications for the US and Vietnam today?
6. Presidents Johnson and Nixon are shown ordering Americans into battle knowing that the war could not be won and that their lives would be wasted. Was that cynical and criminal misuse of power for political self-interest? How can we legally prevent another President from doing it again?
7. President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger ordered the bombing of non-combatant civilians in the cities of North Vietnam in 1972 in order to frighten the population into opposing their own government in its negotiations with the US. By most definitions, that was an act of terrorism determined by courts to be a crime against humanity. Should American leaders be held accountable for such actions, and if so, how could it be done?
8. Are the effects sufficiently shown, then and now, of the massive use of Agent Orange, land mines, unexploded ordnance and forced rural population transfers on environment, health and economic life in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia as well as on the well-being of US veterans? Does the series address the partially met moral obligation for US compensation to victims?
9. Is the role of the anti-war movement accurately and sufficiently portrayed based on your personal experience and contemporary accounts? Why is the role of US NGOs and Vietnam Veterans of America in post-war assistance and normalization completely ignored?
10. Does the series give enough attention to GI’s who opposed the war inside and outside the military violently and peacefully and to their supportive relations with civilian peace activists?
11. Does it distort protesters' attitudes towards returning veterans, suggesting they commonly referred to them as "baby-killers"? Should it have addressed the divisive spitting-on-veterans urban myth exposed by Vietnam veteran and sociologist Jerry Lembcke? (most recent article here)
12. At many previews for the series Ken Burns asked Vietnam Vets to stand and be applauded. In Portland, Oregon, he asked activists against the war to also be recognized. Was one approach better than the other and if so why?
13. Major US corporations were confronted by the anti-war movement. The Bank of America, a primary sponsor for the series, was the target of protests, including the burning of a branch and the police killing of a demonstrator. Should that history have been covered and the Bank’s potential antipathy to the anti-war movement been recognized? Are peace activists credited for their campaigns to charge Dow Chemical and Honeywell with responsibility for harm to civilians from napalm, cluster bombs and Agent Orange?
14. Based on what you have seen or heard in or about the series, do you think it will have a positive or negative impact on the likelihood of US involvement in future interventionist wars?
For more information contact:
Terry Provance
vnpeacecomm@gmail.com
202-686-7483
Vietnam Peace Commemoration Committee
www.vietnampeace.org
To suggest changes or additions in content, contact:
John McAuliff
director@ffrd.org
No comments:
Post a Comment