Contemporary Literature, Film and popular Song? Essay Example

information and break Vietnamese resistance, were controversial issues.

In addition to mutilating bodies to obtain information, there were mass student protests demanding that their voices be heard, as they disagreed with America's involvement in the Vietnam War. The Kent State University protest is perhaps the most well-known example of such demonstrations. The American public was deeply disturbed by the disturbing tactics and imagery of war and found them difficult and unbearable to witness and read about. It is crucial to begin by examining the existing contemporary literature.

Various forms of media were utilized during the Vietnam War, including newspapers, student magazines, songs, poems, and leaflets. Columnists who expressed their anti-war stance wanted their opinions to be known to the readers, resulting in biased articles. Similarly, if the newspaper editor shared the same views, the articles would also be one-sided. Magazines, on the other hand, provided information on current events in Vietnam targeting rebellious students who wanted their views to be heard. However, the most impactful source of information was images of war, which had a visual and hard-hitting effect on the public.

Many people were appalled by the American army's actions during the Vietnam War, which involved burning down homes and destroying forests to flush out the Vietcong. This was seen as a shameful atrocity that should never have been considered, let alone carried out. While newspapers reported on these events, visual media such as film proved much more effective in conveying the horrors of war. A graphic image of a villager with missing limbs has a profound emotional impact that cannot be achieved through words alone. Unfortunately, only one film was made during the

conflict - The Green Berets (1969) - and it was widely regarded as one of the worst Vietnam War films.

The late John Wayne starred in a heavy-handed action film with a patriotic theme. However, the film industry later released more substantial and violent films about war, which also examined the disturbing effects of war on soldiers returning from Vietnam. Michael Cimino's controversial but classic Vietnam film, "The Deer Hunter," won the best picture award in 1978. It tells the story of three young steel workers from Pennsylvania who were patriotic but found only horror and death in Vietnam.

One of the soldiers dies, and another is injured while the third one suffers from mental instability upon their return. This Hollywood movie was one of the firsts to explore the impact of war on the survivors' mental health, revealing how some soldiers are left in that state. Francis Ford Coppola directed "Apocalypse Now" (1979), a spectacular adaptation of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" that addresses the madness of war. Martin Sheen plays Willard, an American military assassin tasked with traveling up river to Cambodia to eliminate an insane, rogue Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando). The film centers on the transformation of Sheen's character as he journeys up river.

As he travels up the river, he witnesses increasing madness, causing a talented soldier to completely lose his mind. Throughout the 1980's, several films based on the Vietnam War portrayed it as a living hell. One such film was Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" (1987), which was a prolific adaptation of Gustav Hasford's "The Short Times". The movie is divided into two parts, showcasing the journey of a

young marine corps soldier recruited to fight in the war. Actor Matthew Modine plays this character and the film captures his realistic and dehumanizing experiences during his boot-camp training at Parris Island under the drill instructor Lee Ermey. The movie also demonstrates his role as a photojournalist for a military magazine and his experiences as a soldier during the Tet Offensive. Though it tries to depict the same madness of war, it takes a different approach compared to other movies like Apocalypse Now, instead preferring to portray the grim reality of soldiers’ training conditions during that time, and perhaps even now.

The movie depicts a soldier's descent into madness, which leads to the killing of their drill instructor. Additionally, it includes a scene from the Tet Offensive where an unknown female peasant sniper takes out almost an entire squad of soldiers individually. The primary message conveyed by the film is that often the enemy is closer than individuals realize until they face it head-on. Music provides comfort and helps people connect with their identity irrespective of time period, culture or lifespan. By eliciting emotions such as sadness, happiness, anger, disappointment and melancholy simultaneously music breaks down barriers and enables people to engage with current events, politics and controversies.

This led to a significant transformation in society that would endure in perpetuity. The music that emerged during this era was particularly well-liked by numerous veterans. Musicians such as Jimi Hendrix, Perry Friedman, Loretta Lynne, and Joe McDonald produced hit songs such as "Eve of Destruction" and "Soldier Boy," portraying an authentic and detailed view of the war. Many songs revolved around the war and its impact on

the home front, painting a grim picture of the conflict and appealing for soldiers to be sent home unharmed. The younger generations clamored for an end to the war, with songs promoting drug use and "free love." The music industry was profoundly impacted by the war's toll on individuals, as many felt compelled to express their opinions on the topic via their music.

Through its preaching of peace, protest, and freedom, music had an impact on people. Although not everyone enjoyed the message conveyed, most paid attention and took action to bring about change. During the Vietnam War era, ongoing events overseas led to an anti-war atmosphere. Many artists expressed their dissent through their music, and as opinions on war evolved, sarcastic and negative lyrics became more common.

The song "I-Feel-Like-Im-Fixin-To-Die" by Joe McDonald illustrates the soldiers' confusion and disorientation during preparation and battle. The lyrics, "And it's one, two, three What are we fighting for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn, Next stop is Vietnam," convey a pessimistic view on war. This sentiment is echoed in the line, "Be the first one on your block, to have your boy come home in a box," which foreshadows the fate of many troops. Music allowed for vivid imagery, showcasing what was to come. The songs which evoked the greatest reaction were those pertaining to the Vietnam War itself.

Johnny Cash's "Drive On" and another artist's song both criticize the Vietnam War, although they have very different styles. The former reflects on the war and how a man tries to move on despite the terrible conditions he faced. The latter portrays the true sentiments towards the war during

and after its time. As for sources A, B, and C, support for the war in Vietnam is evident in A with President Johnson explaining the reasons why the US got involved in the war. Johnson claimed that they were fighting to protect the freedom of Vietnamese people, which influenced others to support the war.

The bias of South Vietnam was evident as Catholic farm workers dominated and the majority sided with Ho Chi Mihn, leading to support for communism. However, Johnson aimed to manipulate public perception by portraying the Vietnamese as anti-communist. He referred to America's history of aiding needy and weak countries such as Korea, WW1 and WW2, emphasizing their experience in war. Johnson failed to recognize that Vietnam was pro-communist and believed they needed support to prevent succumbing to communism, in line with the Domino Theory and US policy of Containment.

The Domino Theory was the idea that weaker nations would succumb to the influence of communism. The US responded with containment, recognizing the need to prevent the spread of communism before it could threaten western society and eventually America. President Johnson emphasized that protecting vulnerable countries was not just the responsibility of American soldiers, but of every able citizen. Source B sheds light on perceptions of war, with a party commemorating soldiers departing for Vietnam. The source notes that although anti-war activists were vocal, they were a minority and most people supported the war.

According to Source B, the majority of people did not avoid being drafted and wanted to serve their country during the war. The source also includes a report of volunteers going through military induction and being eager to participate.

The author witnessed similar scenes across the country multiple times, indicating widespread support for the war. However, it is noted that information about events in Vietnam was not shared or recognized in New York's news.

Although Source C does not explicitly endorse the war, it does offer proof that it had significant backing from those directly involved in combat. Specifically, by 1969, over 540,000 American soldiers had served in Vietnam, demonstrating that a large number of people supported the conflict enough to fight in it. Nevertheless, the source does not indicate how many of these soldiers were unwillingly drafted due to conscription rather than enlisting of their own volition. Overall, all of the aforementioned sources demonstrate that the American public generally favored their government's intervention in Vietnam.

As per Source B, it appears that the acknowledgement of a matter was not given, causing an increase in the size of anti-war protests. In regards to the reliability of Sources F and G as evidence of activities of OS servicemen in Vietnam, Source F pertains to interrogation methods employed by the US army and is presented in a factual tone with writer remarks. It is considered dependable as it offers evidence of OS servicemen with support from eyewitness accounts. Despite this, there may be doubts regarding the reliability of the source for various reasons.

This article discusses the limited information available on the interrogation techniques used by a minority of OS servicemen, leaving questions about how widespread these methods were. The uncertain language used, such as "sometimes" and "usually," reflects the unreliability of the source in representing the frequency of these incidents. The article does not focus on a

specific instance, but rather provides proof that these incidents were not common and not widespread throughout the army. The article was likely written to shock the public and change their views on the war efforts during its contemporary time, and it is important to question the reliability of newspapers that publish biased articles influenced by their owners. The most shocking tactic described involved throwing two compliant prisoners out of an airplane at 30,000 feet.

The reliability of the account is strongly affected by the author's failure to disclose being a witness to the incident. Source G contains an interview with a US soldier detailing the traumatic experience of killing an 8-year-old boy. While this interview adds credibility to the source, it was conducted in 1984 by a Vietnam veteran rather than the actual soldier involved. The time gap between the war and interview raises questions about the soldier's memory and calls into question the source's reliability. It is possible that soldiers' harsh treatment during wartime led veterans to reflect on their brutality and document it in writing.

It is possible that the author shared a common sentiment in the US that America's involvement in the war was a mistake, as reflected in their writing. There is uncertainty regarding the author's background, views, and intentions behind their work. While it is unclear whether the author was an anti-war advocate, interviews with sources suggest they held such beliefs.

Additional information from sources C, D, and E is necessary to obtain a complete understanding of the activities of OS servicemen and to explore how Johnson's comment about North Vietnam as a "fourth-rate, raggedy ass little country" is contradicted.

The intention of

this statement is to degrade Vietnam by emphasizing their lack of threat towards the U.S.A. It is a highly offensive comment that seeks to expose the insignificance of Vietnam's power in relation to the U.S.

S.A. Vietnam defied expectations and emerged as a formidable force, winning the war against the United States. Despite this, President Johnson and many Americans underestimated Vietnam's capabilities and believed victory was imminent. They failed to recognize that Vietnam had home field advantage and knew the terrain well, instead dismissing them as ill-equipped to challenge a superpower with the ability to inflict massive destruction. According to Source C, the war dragged on for more than a decade, an exceptionally long time to defeat a supposedly weak "fourth-rate" country.

After over a decade of constant fighting, the American expectation was to defeat the communists in Vietnam in a much shorter timeframe than a ceasefire and withdrawal. With such anticipation, it should have been possible to conquer a weak country in just three months. However, sources C and D demonstrate a significant escalation in the number of American troops drafted into Vietnam every year from 1962 to 1969. This escalation raises the question of why there was a need for it if the enemy was so frail. Surely, defeating such a "fourth-rate, raggedy ass little country" would not require so many well-trained American soldiers. By 1968, the Americans had committed over 500,000 troops and 13% of the government's total spending to achieve victory in Vietnam.

On paper, the task of preventing communism in a lacking, industrious country with no notable leaders may have seemed like an effortless venture. However, America overestimated its abilities and underestimated Vietnam's

resilience. Despite their initial confidence, they were proven wrong as depicted in source E with cartoon depictions of five different American presidents who served during the Vietnam conflict.

According to Source K, America's confidence in an effortless triumph in Vietnam was proven wrong. The initial goal of the conflict was to eliminate a communist menace, but it extended and brought about persistent difficulties under five different presidential administrations. It is therefore lamentable that it took such a prolonged period to put an end to the war and its aftermath.

Upon reviewing the 10 sources, it becomes evident that sources H, I, and J concentrate on the media's effect on shaping American opinions regarding war. A comprehensive analysis of the media and its influence on American views towards war will be presented. Source H, which was written by a historian in 1972 during the end of the war, advocates for Vietnamisation and withdrawal as opposed to President Johnson's strategy of increased troops fighting in Vietnam.

Broadcasting images to 50,000,000 people reaches a larger audience compared to the reception of a U.S Senator. The use of cameras allows for the broadcasting of live and impactful footage which aids in providing citizens with a better understanding of the situation in Vietnam. An image can also be influential, conveying a message equivalent to 1,000 words. While it can take months for the senate to change a bill, a broadcast can alter many people's perspectives in just a matter of hours.

According to this source, television played a crucial role in revealing President Johnson and his administration's Vietnam policy, ultimately leading to their downfall. Additionally, television exposed the government's lack of effectiveness in

handling the war, highlighting its weakness. The source also suggests that television played a significant role in showcasing the division among Americans over the war and their confusion about the best course of action.

After losing confidence in their leaders' abilities, citizens called for protests demanding that soldiers return to their native land. The credibility of Johnson and the entire Administration had been destroyed, leaving them stripped naked. Source I provides hindsight on the war and events, allowing for the recollection of thoughts and feelings. Television held great influence as it provided an alternative version of events, unlike the biased broadcasts by the government which told people what they wanted to hear.

The author points out that a film crew, if anti-war, may selectively showcase events that they deem significant in gaining public support. However, the author makes a valid point that television has the power to sensationalize isolated incidents either negatively or positively. This implies that the audience may not have received a complete perspective and that television could influence and shape public opinions towards war and its associated events.

The film aired in 1965 and prompted Americans to challenge the government's trustworthiness and handling of the Vietnam situation, an unprecedented occurrence. Television became a platform of dissent against the government, typically reserved for U.S. Senators. The film depicts America negatively by revealing that American troops were recklessly shooting at anything, to the extent that they accidentally shot each other.

During the Vietnam War, American troops faced resistance from the Vietnamese and, in some cases, responded with violence against civilians. This was documented in both Source J, a televised news report from 1968, and Source I,

which represents a specific reporter's account rather than a collective perspective. The reports indicate that American troops were becoming increasingly aware that they were not going to win the war, which led to tense situations and acts of aggression such as setting fire to villagers' huts.

As per the source, soldiers constantly reload and empty their guns to keep up with the demands of their work, highlighting the pressure and strenuous conditions they face. The week-long effort required to drive out Vietcong from Saigon exemplifies this intensity as 11,000 soldiers were needed to overcome an untrained enemy force. The media played a significant role in shaping American perspectives on the Vietnam situation. Initially, public support for the war and government decisions was strong but over time, the media portrayed it as a brutal assault on a defenseless country unable to resist a global superpower aided by a highly trained military force.

When reports of the cruel behavior of soldiers in Vietnam, such as setting houses on fire and murdering innocent women and children, became known, it caused a change in public sentiment towards backing the war. Unfortunately, this resulted in a decline in trustworthiness and backing for the American government and its officials.