Why They Continue To Fight

Americans know the Iraq War as a war against terror. The Iraq War is full of controversy because the Bush administration lied about numerous things, the most significant being the report that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As Fountain, the author of Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk claims, most of the citizens only know a few things about the war like “terrRist…freedom…evil…nina leven…Sod’m…dih-mock-cruh-see.”[1] However, soldiers returning home faced more problems than terrorists and evil. They faced an enemy they could not shoot with a rifle, that enemy being post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); however, there are multiple other issues stemming from it that make things worse. The main question composed by Sebastian Junger, an American journalist who went on a tour with Marines, is why do veterans miss war? This is a valid question because they witness so many vile things during war, it does not make any sense that they would miss any of it. Since most of the twenty-first century has been consumed by war, soldiers’ stories teach historians what life was like during the early twenty-first century. The amended question I attempt to answer is why do soldiers miss fighting in the Iraq War? There are several reasons, but alienation, broken relationships, adrenaline, and comradery are going to be the main focus.

It is peculiar that soldiers would miss war at all, but when the “new normal,” as Stockton puts it, is “violence, death and war,”[2] it makes the soldiers’ perspective a little easier to understand. Alienation and broken relationships are very common among soldiers who have returned home and they struggle to adjust to civilian life. According to one Iraqi War veteran, “’People don’t understand what you feel,’” and unfortunately, “’it might lead to isolation.’”[3] It is impossible to move on from war when people in society cannot understand, or begin to fathom, what soldiers go through on a day to day basis. Another veteran said “when you’re sound asleep and the whole world around you just explodes, I mean how do you explain that to somebody?”[4] Most Americans will never understand what, or why, soldiers do what they do in combat, so there is an automatic sense of loneliness and alienation. A perfect example of this is when Staff Sergeant (SSgt.) James goes home and his ex-wife ignores him when he tries to talk about his experience in the war.[5] Phillip Carter, another veteran of the Iraq War, claims “There’s this profound sense of alienation that you feel when you come home from war”[6] because nobody understands why they act the way they do and this has led to many broken relationships. Broken relationships are grouped with alienation because one can cause the other. According to Stockman, “Deployment often leads to divorce.”[7] SSgt. James from The Hurt Locker is divorced, or at least he thinks he is, which he might as well be because his wife does not support him.[8] He also tells his baby that the only thing he loves is war.[9] Yet another example of alienation resulting in broken relationships is Specialist (Spc.) Lynn’s relationship with everyone in his family, especially his father. His sister, Kathryn, is the only one he seems to get along with and it appears the only reason for it is because he finds her attractive. Through his two days at home, he spends most of his time alone, which shows he only feels comfortable with himself and feels alienated by his family.

Adrenaline rushes and addiction are another reason why soldiers miss fighting in Iraq. The Hurt Locker opens with a quote from Chris Hedges that helps historians understand why soldiers are addicted to war. He claims, “The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.”[10] Sergeant (Sgt.) Sanborn believes SSgt. James is crazy and an adrenaline junkie when James because of his reckless actions on their first mission together. Spc. Lynn from Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk also shows signs of getting an adrenaline fix from battle. Whenever fans at Cowboy Stadium ask him about his heroic efforts in Al-Ansakar Canal, he does not remember them and he alludes to his training and describes it as “this sort of road rage feeling…I really wasn’t thinking at all.” However, it might have been because his adrenaline level was so high that he was extremely focused on taking care of Shroom, who died in his arms. Men, especially young soldiers, are prone to being addicted to adrenaline, which is why men tend to do stupid things to feel the adrenaline high. In lieu of combat, soldiers that return home tend to abuse alcohol, get in traffic accidents and other stupid things to “blow off steam.”[11] Soldiers desire that taste of adrenaline, which is why they return to the battlefield.

Perhaps the main reason why soldiers miss the war is because of the comradery. In combat, soldiers develop a brotherhood, a bond that is stronger than any other. Junger defines brotherhood as a “mutual agreement in a group that you will put the safety of the group above your own” and that a brotherhood is completely different from a friendship that develops in society because it doesn’t matter how you feel about the other person.[12] These men go through hell and back with one another, so it is easy to see how these bonds are so powerful. The dialogs between Spc. Lynn and his squad members, especially Spc. Montoya, or Mango, make it clear that they are extremely close. The love between the squad members in The Hurt Locker: SSgt. James, Sgt. Sanborn, and Spc. Eldridge, also show how strong comradery is. They struggled at first, but once they went through a few missions together, they realized how much they need one another to succeed. During the middle of the movie, the three-man squad are shown drinking, punching one another out of fun, and talking about their lives. Having this strong of a bond can be amazing, because no level of relationship can compare. Unfortunately, when soldiers come home, “not knowing who they can count on, not knowing who love them, who they can love,” can be “terrifying” beyond belief.[13] This fear is enough to get soldiers to volunteer for another tour because they need to feel the love that comes from a brotherhood.

The Iraqi War teaches historians a lot about the twenty-first century. Soldiers’ testimonies are a valuable resource on what their life was like during and after the war. Their testimonies also explain why it is hard to come home and why they go back to war even though they suffer through unspeakable things. When they experience alienation, broken relationships, adrenaline addiction, and a very strong relationship that is rivaled by none at war, it is easy to understand why they feel uncomfortable being home with loved ones. It also helps explain why a lot of veterans go into law enforcement because it is the closest thing to combat in today’s society. The Hurt Locker and Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk are just a few examples of how difficult life can be for veterans and why they choose to fight.

[1] Ben Fountain. Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk. New York: Ecco, 2012. 2, 38

[2] Halle Stockton. “Troops Returning to Face More Struggles Back Home.” PublicSource. April 15, 2012. Accessed May 15, 2015.

[3] Ibid.

[4] “POV.” PBS. Accessed May 14, 2015. http://www.pbs.org/pov/waywegetby/video_classroom2.php#.VVY7v_lVhBd

[5] The Hurt Locker. Universal Studios Home Entertainment, 2008. DVD.

[6] Karl Vick and Olivia B. Waxman. 2014. “Life After War.” Time 184, no. 19: 46-55. Military & Government Collection, EBSCOhost

[7] Stockton. “Troops Returning to Face More Struggles Back Home.”

[8] The Hurt Locker.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] James Dao. “After Combat, the Unexpected Perils of Coming Home.” The New York Times. May 28, 2011.

[12] Sebastian Junger, TED Talk, January 2014. New York.

[13] Ibid.

The End of Morality

“It wasn’t so long ago. We had heroes.”[1] Americans used to have people to look up to and leaders to believe in; they had heroes. After the Vietnam War, America fell into a downward spiral. Throughout the 1970s, Americans began to shed more and more morals through the use of “sex, drugs, and rock and roll.” The film Wall Street and graphic novel Batman: The Dark Knight Returns help show historians that the 1980s were the end of morality. These two primary sources along with several secondary sources illustrate that this era was a time of social and economic problems. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns shows that the 1980s were full of crime and violence. Meanwhile, Wall Street shows they were full of materialism and consumerism that continued the push for immorality.

Materialism and consumerism were two huge factors of the 1980s. Markets were booming and GDP was at record highs in 1984. According the Trading Economics, in 1984, annual GDP growth was at 7.8%, and real GDP growth was at 16.9% which is the highest GDP growth percentage since the 1950s.[2] Wall Street is a perfect example of society buying into these ideas of materialism and consumerism through the use of the stock market. The stock market was a wavy for middle-class citizens to get rich fast. Wall Street shows the stock market as the main pathway to prosperity. According to Gekko, “greed, for lack of a better word, is good.”[3] This is one of the most infamous quotes from the film and it is a perfect parallel to the 1980s. Americans in the 1980s were very greedy and became extremely materialistic. Materialism and consumerism were two huge factors that helped society lose its morality and Bud Fox, a stockbroker, is a perfect example when he risks it all to gain wealth and fame. He decided to illegally trade insider information with Gordon Gekko, a stock market giant. Not only did Fox decide to break his own morals, he convinced his friend, Roger Barnes to do the same. Both young men knew the possibility of losing their licenses and getting arrested, but Fox consistently states they could not get touched. Unfortunately for Fox, he paid the price and was arrested for trading insider information. Almost every major character in Wall Street is hurt by another character because of their greed and need for material items. Money made society do things they would not normally do and it influenced them to break their morals for a few extra dollars.

Gotham City, like most cities during the 1980s, were full of crime and violence. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, over 13,408,000 crimes were committed in 1980.[4] Gangs started getting a good grip on society and controlling it, just like the Mutants or the Sons of Batman did in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.[5] Crimes like “rape and mutilation”[6] caused so much pain for Bruce Wayne that he came out of a decade-long retirement to return as Batman in order to bring hope and justice back to the city of Gotham. Unfortunately for Batman, even he appears to have lost his morals. One of his strongest desires is to kill Joker and Superman. He even uses guns throughout the comic even though in his past he has been against them. He also turns to the Mutant gang and Sons of Batman to become his new army, leading people to believe he is the new leader of two gangs. Batman succumbing to giving up his morals teaches historians that even the noble, rich, and important figures in society were losing their morality as well as regular middle-class citizens.

The news broadcasters also helped turn the 1980s into the end of morality. Throughout the comic, the news broadcasters are always talking about crime in the cities. As the comic progresses, there is an increase in crimes, which the broadcasters blame on Batman. Crime was so bad in the inner city of Gotham, that when Channel 4 News interviewed what appears to be an upper-class white male he claimed he’d “never live in the city.”[7] Even the upper-class are afraid of the criminals and gangs that are running Gotham. The news broadcasters claim “the American conscience died with the Kennedys.”[8] This statement by Miller parallels how most Americans felt during the 1960s-1980s. According to Amitai Etzioni, a sociologist and professor at George Washington University, “By the 1980s, many Americans paid only lip service to some core values and…moral order was either hollowed out or weakened.”[9] This was a direct result of the leadership in American institutions.[10] Americans lost confidence and trust in their leaders during the 1960s and that trust never came back. In Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, they rarely report any good news. There are a few interviews, like a priest saying “we must not become so embittered that we take Satan’s methods as our own,”[11] where some humanity shines through.  Most of the time, they are reporting citizens berating others, especially Batman. Then there are also interviews of men praising Batman, but “[hoping] he goes after the homos next.”[12] All the broadcasters do is publicize hatred and make criminals more and more famous. The media are more responsible for promoting immorality than the criminals committing the crimes.

The 1980s was a time period of immorality. Between greedy citizens, ridiculous crime rates, and the influence from the 1970s, the 1980s were definitely the end of morality. Wall Street, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, and various other sources confirm this idea. Fox and Gekko prove that money will make drive people to do anything. Batman shows historians that even the best can fall. The media are the biggest promoters of immorality by broadcasting mainly bad news and making criminals infamous. They help convince society into losing their morals. In today’s technological society, crime is broadcast on social media and the news. It has been said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Perhaps this statement is true of today’s society more so than any other. The 1980s are definitely nothing to be proud of, but it seems as though most of the same issues Americans faced during the 1980s, they are facing today.

[1] Frank Miller and Klaus Janson. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. DC Comics, 1986.

[2] “United States GDP Annual Growth Rate | 1948-2015 | Data | Chart | Calendar.” United States GDP Annual Growth Rate | 1948-2015 | Data | Chart | Calendar. January 1, 2015. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annual

[3] Wall Street. Twentieth Century Fox, 1987. DVD.

[4] U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, Washington, D.C., 2011. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0302.pdf (accessed April 30, 2015).

[5] Miller. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.

[6] Ibid. 24.

[7] Ibid., 45.

[8] Ibid., 45.

[9] Amitai Etzioni. The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society. New York: BasicBooks, 1996. pg. 65.

[10] Ibid. 66.

[11] Miller. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. 102.

[12] Ibid., 102.

Sexual Prowess

Sex sells. In most cases, advertisements today show men, but mainly women, in provocative stances and barely any clothes. It is ironic that even clothing advertisements show the models wearing anything but the clothes they are attempting to sell. The adage, sex sells, is true for multiple mediums as well. Sexual appeal – usually surrounding the actress – is an imperative component of Hollywood. Unfortunately, advertisements usually display unrealistic images and it results in an outrage because companies objectify women. Women in the 1960s and 1970s used their sexual appeal to their advantage to feel powerful in society. Since women during this epoch did not have any power in society other than suffrage, they used sex as a way to feel powerful. The Graduate (1967), Rabbit is Rich (1981), and various other sources show historians that sex is a common theme throughout this epoch, and that it is usually controlled by women.

Mrs. Robinson, from the film The Graduate, is a perfect example and allegory of women’s struggle for power in the 1960s. She is a married woman who is not happy with her marriage or her husband because he impregnated her, thus making her drop out of college.[1] She, like most women during this era, is submissive and obedient to her husband. She feels a need to rebel and feel liberated from him because she had no power in her relationship. Mr. Robinson made all the money and held all the power in his house, which was typical in the 1960s. She decided to seduce Benjamin, a recent college graduate, so she can feel pleasure and powerful.  It is also possible she seduced Benjamin to get payback against her husband for not giving her any power. Throughout the film, Mrs. Robinson and Benjamin slept with one another multiple times, so much so that the hotel staff knew him by name. Mrs. Robinson clearly dominated Benjamin’s life through her sexual prowess and has complete control over him. When Benjamin disobeyed her, she became furious with him, mainly because she felt her power over him fading. This attitude seems to parallel women’s attitude of the 1960s. Women would often get angered with men, mainly those in office, and go on strikes during the 1960s. One example of Benjamin disobeying her was when he decided to date Elaine, her daughter, when he was instructed by her not to do so.[2] Mrs. Robinson felt powerful when she seduced Benjamin and, perhaps more importantly she felt pleasure. According to Andrea Cornwall, “pleasure can also provide energy to fuel political mobilization,”[3] which might have been part of the reason why women of the 1960s used sex to get power. Unfortunately for Mrs. Robinson, she did not gain any political or social power; however, she probably felt liberated. Mrs. Robinson would be seen today as a cougar, which important to note because this is probably how older women in the 1960s would be viewed in today’s society. Sex was so common during the 1960s that, according to Benjamin, it was like “shaking hands.”[4] The Graduate tells historians that women during the 1960s were very sexually active and used it to their advantage to feel powerful in a society where they had none.

If there was one book that show historians what life was like during the 1980s, Rabbit is Rich seems to be it. Although, it appears as though John Updike, the author, is obsessed with sex because it is such a recurring theme in this Pulitzer Prize winner. The book reinforces the sexual foundation The Graduate laid down. Women’s sexual prowess was so powerful that even the most celibate people in society, priests, “are leaving the church in droves because they’ve got the itch.”[5] If this quote does not convince historians that sex played a huge part in society, I do not know what will. The “swinging” that occurs throughout the novel is also a testament to how prevalent sex was during the late 1970s and early 1980s. It also speaks volumes to women’s insatiable desire for more sex and power. Janice, Harry’s wife, and Harry have sex so often that she needs “a touch of a cock to lead her into sleep.”[6] Harry has to constantly use his imagination to keep up with Janice’s sex drive, which means whether she knows it or not, she is in control of him. Harry is afraid of Janice and her sexual prowess because she has power. This is an important dichotomy between The Graduate and Rabbit is Rich. In Rabbit is Rich, it is the women who hold the power, not the men. Janice is the one with all the money and power, not Harry; granted, she inherited all the money and power from her father when he died. Another theme in the book is Harry complaining about all the women in his life. It seems as though Harry is aware of the changes that have occurred in society in the last decade, which tells historians multiple things. Men during this wave of feminism were aware of the changes that were going on in society. Women were able to get real jobs and did not need to rely on men for anything. Men were also starting to lose power not only in the bedroom, but overall. There is a clear shift of power towards women during the 1980s and Rabbit is Rich shows historians this.

Women using their sexual prowess to their advantage is a common theme throughout the 1960s and 1970s. They did this because they could not handle not having any power in society. This is apparent in the film The Graduate. They used their bodies, like working in the porn industry for example, to feel empowered, which helped fuel the desire for the objectification of women. Advertisements are almost always sexual and they objectify women. Fortunately or unfortunately, we got these ideals from the 1960s and 1970s. Perhaps society has grown accustom to women being sex symbols, but it seems as though women accidentally started this different sexual revolution through their desire for power. Rabbit is Rich shows historians that sex was a huge part of society during the 1970s and 1980s; however, it was not just sex with one partner, it was multiple. The novel also displays men’s awareness of the world changing around them and their struggle to accept that women are becoming more powerful in society. Overall, I do not think women are to blame for having their sexuality exploited and used in today’s society, but these two sources show that women in the 1960s and 1970s were not afraid to use their sexual prowess to feel empowered.

[1] The Graduate. Performed by Dustin Hoffman, Anne Bancroft. MGM Home Entertainment, 1967. DVD.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Andrea Cornwall. “Women, Sexuality and the Political Power of Pleasure: Introduction.” In Women, Sexuality and the Political Power of Pleasure: Sex, Gender, and Empowerment, 1-24. Zed Books, 2013.

[4] The Graduate.

[5] John Updike. Rabbit Is Rich. New York: Fawcett Books, 1981.

[6] Ibid., 124.

Tammany Hall and Social Justice

Van Drehle argued that the Triangle fire is a link in a chain of events that ultimately ignited urban liberalism. A common theme throughout Triangle: The Fire That Changed America is the pursuit for social justice, specifically labor rights. The Triangle fire occurred in 1911, towards the end of the Progressive Era, and Van Drehle focuses on the social issues that are already going on in the United States. The Triangle fire was used by Tammany Hall to gain power in New York politics; however, they unintentionally implemented and promotes social justice.
Social justice was very difficult to achieve during the Progressive Era. The Progressive Era was a time of corruption, led by the infamous Boss Tweed in Tammany Hall. Politicians that worked in Tammany Hall only helped those who would vote for them. Van Drehle argues that the name Tammany Hall is “synonymous with graft, corruption, and…the work of dishonest bosses.” They were mainly associated with the Democratic Party and struggled to appeal to the “new immigrants” of the 20th century, that is, until the Triangle fire. The new immigrants “had little sense of debt toward Tammany and even less affection,” so they were the vote that Tammany desperately needed. According to Van Drehle,”“The Triangle fire struck directly at those people that Tammany needed most,” which were the new immigrants. The main reason why Tammany was able to sway the new immigrants, mainly Jewish and Irish, into voting for them after the fire was because a “large percentage of those immigrants worked in garment shops, or had loved ones that did” and through people like Al Smith and Frances Perkins.

“The Triangle fire struck directly at those people that Tammany needed most”

Al Smith, one of the Tammany Twins, helped create and pass numerous reforms in the workplace, most of which dealt with fire safety. He listened and worked with Perkins and the immigrants and he eventually pushed twenty-five bills through, but three stood out in regards to the Triangle fire. The first one is the requirement of automatic sprinklers in high-rise buildings. The second, mandatory fire drills and the third was doors had to be unlocked during business hours and had to swing outward. Creating new fire safety rules and regulations was what businesses needed to have a safer working environment. The most crucial detail about these bills was it enforced them through a reorganized Department of Labor. Older policies existed, like the requirement of fire escapes (see picture), but corruption in Tammany Hall made it easy for business owners to avoid the inspections. The implementation of these new regulations helped promote social justice because it made working conditions safer. Immigrants did not just want safety, but less hours as well.

Fire escapes were required, but most owners paid off Tammany so they didn’t have to be inspected.

Frances Perkins lobbied for a variety of issues, including better working conditions. She witnessed the Triangle fire first hand, but it was this experience that “perfectly suited her to help redeem the tragedy of the Triangle fire.” The main bill she was lobbying for was the fifty-four hour bill. Passing this bill would affect over “300,000 women, nearly two-thirds of whom are employed in New York City” and would help create a safer working environment.
Tammany Hall helped people by giving them what they wanted, and through this method, they became extremely successful in New York. In the elections of 1913, over “two-thirds of the seats in both houses of the legistlature” belonged to Tammany Hall members. There were many reforms during the Progressive Era and the Triangle fire helped push many of them through committees. They also helped create a huge push for social justice through multiple reforms in the labor industry in New York, which eventually diffused into the rest of the country. They did not; however, try to lead the fight for social justice because all they cared about was staying in power.

War is Hell

In Full Metal Jacket, a colonel said, “We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out.”[1] The movie Full Metal Jacket and the book The Things They Carried are extremely significant in understanding different perspectives of the Vietnam War. The quote above is just one of many from the film Full Metal Jacket. It gives a unique perspective of the war from the view point of the United States Marine Corps, more specifically Private James ‘Joker’ Davis and Animal Mother. The Things They Carried displays a unique, “story-truth,” “happening-truth,”[2] and personal perspective from the author Tim O’Brien, an ex-Army soldier. Both perspectives are from a different time period than the one Vietnam actually occurred in. The movie was released in 1987 and the book was published in 1990. These two perspectives come at least a decade after the U.S. involvement in the war. Full Metal Jacket and The Things They Carried help show historians that war is not what it seems. War is not always good, soldiers are not always the courageous heroes we claim them to be, and most stories are not always real.

War is often romanticized. It is not always a good thing to go to war. Most cultures hold their warriors in high regard and in ancient times, it was an honor to die for one’s country. My guess is that this changed during the 18^th century, sometime around the American War for Independence. Once society started seeing the horrors of war, they change their minds about war being glorious, but it seems as though some historians still ignore the gory details and romanticize it. War is a horrific event that scars almost every party involved, literally and metaphorically. O’Brien’s story about a little boy with a plastic leg is a clear example of how devastating war is. The response from Azar seeing the boy is “’war is a bitch.’”[3] What is worse is that he stated later that “some poor fucker ran out of ammo.”[4] This insinuates that killing children was common and the only reason this little boy survived is because they ran out of ammunition to kill him. There is no way to avoid the fact that war is gory and obscene. O’Brien reveals later that most of his story is fictional and the men that he served with were not real. His whole book is a hypothetical situation, but it tells a riveting and realistic story about the war. He shows that it is impossible to romanticize certain parts of war. An excellent example O’Brien gives is a dying boy he saw on the side of the road. He explains the happening-truth, which was there “were many real bodies with real faces, but…I was afraid to look.”[5] And the story-truth is “his jaw was in his throat. His one eye was shut, the other eye was a star-shaped hole.”[6] These are the types of stories historians should include in their works to show society that war is hell and not romantic.

Soldiers are not always courageous, especially during the draft era. The first primary source that shows this is Kubrick’s film Full Metal Jacket. There is a clear dichotomy between Joker and Animal Mother. After analyzing the character Joker, he is the epitome of a contradiction throughout the film. Joker joins the Marine Corps to go kill the Vietnamese, yet throughout the film he shows signs of doing everything but wanting to kill the Vietnamese. When the recruits beat Private Pyle with soap, he is the only one who hesitates.[7] After he graduates boot camp, he wants his Military Occupation Specialty (MOS) to be in journalism instead of infantry, which is where most Marines in his platoon go. Joker also has a huge issue with taking the war seriously, possibly out of fear. When he found out that Saigon was overrun, his response was “does that mean Ann Margret’s not coming?”[8] He has no problem being in combat, but when he finds out the sniper that was killing the men in his platoon is a young woman, he almost has to force himself to kill her. Joker still has morals and he is afraid and most people overlook this fact.. On the other hand, there are characters in the film that display stereotypical “grunts.” Animal Mother is the perfect example of a stereotypical Marine. Throughout the film, he is seen as an intimidating soldier who is courageous and is a killing machine. The first scene Animal is in, he is screaming “get some!” while shooting at Vietnamese people from a helicopter. It is not clear whether or not he is shooting at the Vietcong (VC) or at civilians, but to him it does not seem to matter just as long as he gets to kill people. Animal Mother is also responsible for some of the film’s best lines that show his, and possibly most soldiers’, true colors. When his platoon leader is killed, all he had to say was “better you than me.” While this seems crude, it’s the most honest comment given by any member in the platoon. O’Brien is also a perfect example of a scared draftee. O’Brien openly admits to running from the draft after his number was drawn. He states the main issue is the “draft board did not let you choose your war.”[9] O’Brien was so scared that he “sometimes felt a fear spreading inside…like weeds.”[10] He was not only afraid because of war, but because he feared exile if he did ran away to Canada. It is an understandable fear simply because he would have to leave his whole family behind. The dichotomy between these three soldiers shows historians that soldiers are not always courageous; however, there are soldiers like Animal Mother who are. Historians need to be weary of “Americanizing” or idolizing soldiers because not all soldiers are strong heroes like Animal Mother.

O’Brien makes a very good point in The Things They Carried when he discusses how to write a war story, and Joker also learns how to write a war story. The problem is, according to O’Brien, most war stories are often full of lies. O’Brien claims “a true war story is never moral…If a story seems moral, do not believe it.”[11] He continues to write about how fictional history is the best way to make the reader feel what the soldier feels when he is away at war. This makes a lot of sense because hypothetical situations are more relatable and can be more honorable and ethical. Real war stories are obscene and, like O’Brien mentions earlier in his book, are not moral. He also mentions that stories “make things present.”[12] Stories provoke our imagination and help recreate the environment in our minds. There is also a sense of falsifying war stories in Full Metal Jacket. The best example is when Joker is in a meeting with Stars and Stripes and the lieutenant edits their story lines to make them sound more moral and cheerful.[13] The truth is, society does not want to read a story about “’search and destroy’”[14] or about how soldiers are dying. They media wants to publish faux stories because if society knew the real war stories, they would be demoralized and horrified instead of uplifted. Historians should be careful when reading different accounts from newspapers because it might not contain any real information.

War is often romanticized, soldiers are often afraid, and war stories are often fake. Historians can learn these three facts from The Things They Carried and Full Metal Jacket. War is ugly, obscene, and demoralizing. Soldiers that go to Vietnam are afraid, especially in the case of Joker and O’Brien. War stories are often faux and the easiest way to spot a fake story is if the story uplifts the reader’s spirits. These three facts are not specific to the Vietnam War, but they are glaringly apparent through the two primary sources used.

[1] Full Metal Jacket, directed by Stanley Kubrick (1987; Beverly Hills, California, Warner Bros. Inc., 1999,) DVD.

[2] O’Brien, Tim. The Things They Carried. New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1990, 30.

[3] O’Brien, Tim. The Things They Carried. New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1990, 30.

[4] Ibid, 30.

[5] Ibid, 172.

[6] Ibid, 172.

[7] Kubrick. Full Metal Jacket.

[8] Ibid.

[9] O’Brien, Tim. The Things They Carried, 42.

[10] Ibid, 42.

[11] Ibid, 65.

[12] Ibid, 172.

[13] Kubrick. Full Metal Jacket.

[14] Ibid.

Living History

This will be used as an educational blog that will hopefully help you understand more about history. Most people think history is all about the past, but in reality we are making our own history every day; we’re living it, hence the name of the blog: Living History. Events that happened in the past effect how we live today, thus our own actions will effect how we live in the future.

“History reminds us that revolutions are not events so much as they are processes; that for tens of thousands of years, people have been making decisions that irrevocably shaped the world that we live in today. Just as today, we are making subtle, irrevocable decisions that people of the future will remember as revolutions”

-John Green