My Final Words on War

At the beginning of Humanities Core in fall quarter, my understanding of war was primarily centered around soldiers and how killing others permanently scarred them, often leading to post-traumatic stress disorder. As a Cognitive Sciences major, I am naturally interested in how extreme situations such as war affect people’s psychology. However, my focus drifted in an entirely new direction, towards civilians in wartime (See: Tags), as the year progressed and my view of war became more complex.

Meryl Streep in a production of Mother Courage and Her Children (Source: www.boston.com)

Early in fall quarter, I became particularly interested in the distinction between history from above and history from below. Whereas I did not care much for history from above (e.g. Homer’s Iliad) because I am already so used to seeing these kinds of violent, hyper-masculine portrayals of war in the media, I became very interested in history from below. Readings set from this perspective, such as Bertolt Brecht’s Mother Courage and Her Children (1939), opened my eyes to the all-encompassing effects of war, which radiate beyond the structural ruins of war and soldiers who fought in it. This play, set during the Thirty Years’ War, explores the effects of war on commoners; however, Brecht denies the audience closure through Mother Courage’s lack of character development. As a result, the audience is able to critically analyze the aftermath of war without their judgment being clouded by joy from Mother Courage learning her lesson. I noticed that other plays, films, works of literature, and the like similarly deny the audience closure or a way to identify with characters in order to force them to think about—rather than feel for—what is portrayed. For instance, Ruth Kluger’s Still Alive: A Holocaust Girlhood Remembered (2003), an autobiographical account of Kluger’s experience in Auschwitz, rejects the idea of sentimentality so readers can critically think about the Holocaust. My Research Paper artifact, Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979), similarly isolates viewers with its absurdity and lack of closure so they can consider the implications of the Vietnam War.

I also found propaganda very interesting. Unlike the aforementioned examples, propaganda exploits emotion and national pride in order to suspend thought and manipulate the masses. Before taking Humanities Core, I only thought of propaganda’s function in an oppressive regime, such as in Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany. However, as the year went on, I learned how widespread and insidious propaganda can be. For instance, it was used to increase anti-Communist sentiment during the Cold War and, more recently, to desensitize Americans to the use of torture. Although it is generally agreed that the media has a huge influence on people’s expectations and beliefs, Humanities Core cited concrete examples, which helped my understanding of the prevalence of propaganda. For example, in winter quarter, English Professor Rodrigo Lazo argued how “requisite torture scenes” in film and television—such as in the recent action-adventure film Deadpool (2016)—watered down people’s vehement disapproval of torture.

Although my primary interest became civilian life during wartime, I still remained curious about war’s effect on soldiers. I found out more about this when I interviewed Joseph, a veteran from the Vietnam War, for the Literary Journalism assignment. He recounted how strenuous training and the threat of fines molded him and his peers into disciplined, obedient soldiers who were ready to be deployed. Although he did not go to Vietnam himself, he witnessed many soldiers return home, irreparably damaged from the war. This raises the question of the morality of military training. Although this training makes soldiers more efficient, it also damages some of them so much that they are unable to readjust to society.

Soldiers’ training includes navigating through barbed wire obstacles (Source: www.commons.wikimedia.org)

The debate on the morality of military training was further complicated when English Professor Carol Burke discussed how the atmosphere of power in the military contributed to the development of a rape culture. As evident in The Invisible War (2012), there is a pattern of the military denying female soldiers who had been raped justice. Instead, the military refuses to take action and gives the perpetrator the benefit of the doubt, continuing this cycle of sexual assault. This injustice is particularly upsetting because the military enables this violence to continue solely to preserve their reputation. Not only are these abused soldiers scarred by their experience in war, but they are also traumatized by their comrades. Hopefully the awareness raised on this issue will cause more changes to be made, but as of now, this is one of the persisting flaws in the U.S. military.

By exploring war from a variety of academic disciplines, historical contexts, and perspectives, I have gained a more thorough understanding of war and its consequences. My current opinion of war is that it is more complex than I originally thought. Humanities Core has helped me recognize war’s direct and indirect effects on soldiers and civilians, the implications of the mediation of war to those on the home front, and corruption within the military itself. Although I still believe that war can never fully be justified because it is an inherently evil act, I think that a lot can be learned from studying humanity’s response to war.

Research Paper Updates: The Influence of the Media in the Vietnam War Era

After much thought, I decided to switch my artifact for the research paper from John Erick Dowdle’s No Escape (2015) to Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979) because I think this film is more suitable for what I want to research, which is how and why the media actively shapes Americans’ perception of historical events. I am also especially interested in the role Orientalism plays in this process. Unlike No Escape, Apocalypse Now has a lot more historical significance because it was released shortly after the Vietnam War (1955-1975) and is considered one of the most famous films about the Vietnam War. In addition to that, there is more room for debate about the significance of the film and its portrayal of Southeastern Asians. While exploring this topic, I intend to consult Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978), debates about “otherness,” scholarly interpretations of Apocalypse Now, historical evidence about Americans’ attitudes toward the Vietnam War, and biographical information about Francis Ford Coppola.

The photojournalist (left) accompanies Captain Willard (right) as he first encounters the Montagnards in Cambodia (Source: www.businessinsider.com)

Francis Ford Coppola is an accomplished director, producer, and screenwriter; his most famous works include The Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now. Coppola’s Apocalypse Now—starring Marlon Brando and Martin Sheen–is an award-winning Vietnam War film that follows Captain Willard’s expedition along the Nung River to reach Colonel Kurtz, whom Captain Willard has been ordered to kill. The majority of the film focuses on the upstream journey, which represents the soldiers’ departure from civilization and descent into madness. Most of the movie was filmed in the Philippines, although some footage was shot in the Dominican Republic and the United States. Apocalypse Now was largely inspired by Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1899), which explores the scope of man’s evil through its portrayal of Belgian imperialism in the Congo.

Since Apocalypse Now is one of the most famous Vietnam War films, I am interested in how its contemporary audience reacted to it, especially since it was released so shortly after the end of the Vietnam War. My working thesis is that Apocalypse Now reflects anti-Vietnam War sentiment its contemporary audience would have felt; however, it shifts the focus from soldiers’ physical injuries to their psychological trauma, at the expense of the Vietnamese. Although the combat scenes are portrayed spectacularly, the film undoubtedly highlights American soldiers’ psychological turmoil. In the film, Vietnamese characters are dehumanized and primarily used to advance the Western plot. For instance, as Captain Willard and the accompanying soldiers make their way up the Nung River, the soldiers kill Vietnamese passerbys because a woman protests while they are searching their boat. Although that woman survived, Captain Willard mercilessly kills her, presumably because it would be inconvenient to provide her with the medical attention she needs. Even when these soldiers kill Vietnamese civilians by mistake, evil triumphs when Captain Willard gives into his selfish desire to kill the Vietnamese woman merely to advance his mission. In addition to that, the fact that the soldiers become increasingly brutal as they travel up the Nung River implies that the Vietnamese are somewhat at fault for the soldiers’ transition into a more savage state of being. I am curious about the implications of this portrayal of war shortly after the Vietnam War, such as whether it influenced or changed the national attitude toward the war.

Research Paper Updates: Orientalism in the Media

For the final quarter of Humanities Core, we are free to explore our personal interests about war further in depth for the Research Project. We must choose an artifact from the time period we want to study and analyze its importance. I want to research whether portrayals of Orientalism in the media are used to retroactively justify decisions such as imperialism or the Vietnam War. I chose this topic because I found Edward Said’s theory of Orientalism very thought-provoking and wondered if it can apply to contemporary society. In addition to that, I have not seen a lot of contemporary analysis on Orientalism of Southeast Asia. My initial inspiration was when I watched the film No Escape, which seemed blatantly racist and problematic. I narrowed and refined my topic by further researching the concepts of Orientalism and otherness, and considered how they could be applied to this film. Sources that have been key in defining my research topic include scholarly articles on Orientalism and otherness and film reviews.

My artifact is director John Erick Dowdle‘s film No Escape, which was released in the U.S. on August 26, 2015. No Escape is about an American family, the Dwyers, who move to an unspecified Southeast Asian country because the father, Jack Dwyer, gets a job there. Shortly after their arrival, they find themselves amidst an insurgency and struggle to survive. The film largely focuses on how this rebellion impacts the Dwyers rather than Southeast Asians, whom this insurgency affects more. Dowdle’s most popular films have been horror films. In No Escape, he successfully terrifies the audience throughout the film in a way similar to horror movies. Director John Erick Dowdle works with his brother Drew Dowdle, who is the producer of the film. In 2007, John visited Thailand shortly after it experienced a peaceful insurgency; during his trip there, he began to wonder what would happen if he was stuck in a foreign country in a more violent insurrection, which inspired his idea for No Escape.

Alternate poster for No Escape (Source: www.avsforum.com)

No Escape was filmed in various Southeast Asian countries, including Thailand, Vietnam, and Cambodia. I found it interesting that the film never specified the exact setting and only referred to it as a Southeast Asian country. I thought that that this conflated all Southeast Asian countries and classified them as “the other.” However, upon further research, I discovered that No Escape was inspired by an insurrection in Thailand. Dowdle chose not to identify the setting in order to honor the request of the Thai government. To comply with the Thai government, Dowdle also had to avoid using the Thai language, the color yellow because it is associated with the king, and depictions of the Buddha. In addition to that, Dowdle claimed that it was actually an anti-interventionist message because the rebellion arose from American exploitation of Southeast Asian resources, notably the water manufacturing company that Jack Dwyer works for. However, I think that this message falls short due to the portrayal of the Southeast Asian rebels as relentlessly violent, dehumanized killers. This particularly reminded me of Orientalism, which argues that the West reduces foreign countries—such as those in Southeast Asia—to primitive, broad stereotypes in order to establish the West as superior to them. In the past, this idea has been used to justify Western imperialism because it falsely framed imperialism as helping civilize a less advanced society. I think a similar dichotomy is present in No Escape because it characterizes the Dwyer family as innocent Americans who unfortunately got caught up in a Southeast Asian rebellion, while it characterizes the Southeast Asian rebels as one-dimensional characters who only care about terrorizing Southeast Asian civilians and foreigners.

I picked the film No Escape as my artifact because it really stood out to me as a problematic depiction of Southeast Asia in the media. Instead of picking a topic first and then finding an artifact, I did it the other way around. When I saw this film, I noted that I might want to consider it for my research paper (and previously blogged about it). No Escape really opened my eyes to the kind of harmful depictions of other cultures in the media and made me wonder about the function of these portrayals. My working thesis about No Escape is that it unintentionally contributes to American xenophobia, which makes it a contributor to Americans’ collective memory about events such as imperialism and the Vietnam War. I plan to find out more about my artifact by researching the film’s production through interviews with the cast and crew, film reviews that address whether or not the film is racist, and the events that transpired in Thailand that loosely inspired this movie.

Military Training: Tough Love or Unjustified Brutality?

English Professor Carol Burke’s interest in military culture led her to research the prevalence of superstitious charms in the military through a series of interviews; she published these findings in “The Things They Bring to War.” In Humanities Core lecture, she further analyzed military culture through the lens of Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987), which explores how military training psychologically wounds many soldiers. Our most recent Humanities Core project is the Literary Journalism assignment, in which we have to interview someone who has experienced war—such as a veteran or someone who was displaced due to war—and write a story that recreates their experience. Since I interviewed a veteran for this assignment, it was interesting comparing my interviewee’s experience during army training with the points Professor Burke brought up in lecture.

Representations of military training usually reveal superfluous verbal and physical abuse. Professor Burke claimed, “Basic training is a highly ritualized military rite of passage designed to transform identity, one that will allow its members to execute violence on command in the name of the state.” In Full Metal Jacket, this depersonalization of soldiers is epitomized in Private Pyle’s transformation from a joyful, goofy soldier who has a hard time performing tasks correctly into a sullen soldier who excels at following commands. The drill sergeant and soldiers’ harsh treatment of Private Pyle eventually drives him to abandon his individuality and concentrate on perfecting shooting, running the obstacle course, and the like. In my interview, Joseph admitted that during training, “There was so much yelling going on that sometimes it makes you crazy a little bit. You got people yelling at you and then you end up yelling like they do ’cause it makes an impression on you.” I thought it was interesting that in Joseph’s experience, “their power [is that] they [can] write you up and they fine you.” In addition to the verbal abuse, they added another powerful incentive to get soldiers to obey their commands: money. Based on all of these representations of army training, it does seem like the commanders and drill sergeants aimed to drive the soldiers to the brink, break them down, and reconstruct them as depersonalized killing machines, as Professor Carol Burke addressed in lecture.

The drill sergeant (right) rebukes Private Pyle (left) in Full Metal Jacket (Source: www.mentalfloss.com)

However, regardless of how unethical and mentally taxing military training is, it does create an efficient military. If soldiers go into battle with more lenient training, they would probably still retain their individuality and would not see themselves as part of a unit. In this case, it is likely that the soldiers will have an “every man for himself” mindset and will be reluctant to follow orders that endanger them. Soldiers in the military have to endure extremely rigorous training in order to be prepared for combat; compared to the risks of being unprepared on the battlefield, such as severe physical injury or death, depersonalization seems to be the lesser of two evils. In my interview, Joseph explained that a large chunk of his training included classes about safety. He stated, “They wanna get you ready for the real thing so you won’t make mistakes that are gonna cost you your life. They want you to be programmed like a robot, almost.”

Although military training seems more stressful and cruel than necessary, it has been proven to be effective. As my interviewee Joseph clarified, the commanders were very concerned about not letting the soldiers leave training unprepared for combat.

Types of War Stories: Civilians vs. Combatants

Although the effects of war permeate society as a whole, civilians and combatants have very different experiences of it. In general, the most common problems civilians can face in wartime are grappling with a loved one being deployed to war or being displaced from their homes due to the outcome of war; most civilians do not directly encounter the threat of death on a daily basis as soldiers do. However, my parents’ retelling of my grandparents’ experiences in World War II (1939-1945) revealed that they were part of the exception to this generalization. My mom’s parents lived in the Philippines when it was occupied by the Japanese (See “Piecing Together the Past” for a description of their wartime experience). My dad’s parents lived in Germany when it was being bombed by the Allies. Hearing about World War II from different perspectives marveled me about the countless subjective experiences of war.

In 1941, Nazi forces invaded Ukraine and implemented their “ethnic cleansing” policy by killing civilians who did not look Aryan (i.e. having blonde hair and blue eyes). Although Jews were the primary victims of the Holocaust during Adolf Hitler’s reign, many non-Jews, such as Ukrainians, also died or were forced to become slave laborers. WWII finally ended in 1945 when the Axis powers surrendered to the Allied powers.

My dad talked about how his mother, who was originally from Ukraine, experienced life after WWII in Germany; he admits that he does not know a lot about her experiences during the war because she is so traumatized that she is still unable to talk about it. After WWII, the casualties in Ukraine were so devastating that my grandmother and her father fled to Germany. Eventually, she found a job milking cows for a wealthy farmer outside of Munich. During this time, the United States and Britain continued bombing Germany. The farmer my grandmother worked for generously offered his basement as a bomb shelter for war survivors. My grandmother and several others accepted his offer and lived in his basement for approximately a year. The farmer ensured that everyone had ample food and protection during their stay. Although my grandmother never witnessed any violence firsthand during this time, she heard the planes flying overhead and dropping bombs.

The opening of a typical air-raid shelter (Source: www.bbc.co.uk)

The stories my parents told me do not necessarily fit Tim O’Brien’s definition of a “true” war story in “How to Tell a True War Story.” O’Brien characterizes these stories as lacking a moral, failing to give the reader or listener a sense of closure, and seeming far-fetched. My parents’ stories seemed to have a moral and gave me a sense of closure. For instance, these stories illustrated how quick wits could save people’s lives during wartime and confirmed that there were altruistic individuals amidst war. In addition to that, these stories do not seem implausible in the context of war. In such dangerous times, people had to do whatever they possibly could to stay alive, even if it meant pretending to be dead amongst decomposing bodies or accepting an employer’s offer of shelter in his basement. Perhaps I only felt a sense of resolution from these stories because I know that things ended well. Or perhaps a “true” war story has a different definition for civilians who live through a war than it does for soldiers who fight on the battlefield; after all, although inhabitants of war-torn countries were undoubtedly traumatized by their experiences, they probably did not have to take another person’s life.

Hearing the stories of my grandparents helped me understand the complexity of war and how it truly affects the nation as a whole. Although my grandparents were noncombatants, they still experienced the terrors of war firsthand.