I wrote the following piece on for publication on Memorial Day, 1985. Almost a quarter century ago. It was called "Remembering." Much has changed since then. Much has not:
The tenth anniversary of America's defeat in Vietnam has helped spark a new appreciation of the country's Vietnam veterans.The most dramatic sign of this change was last week's ticker-tape parade in New York City, where 25,000 vets were enthusiastically greeted by a million cheering people.
Men who had been ignored or even reviled for doing what they believed to be their patriotic duty were finally given the hero's welcome which they had always deserved. President Reagan call the turnout evidence of a "reawakened American spirit."
It was impossible not to feel happy for the vets. It's about time people stopped blaming the war on the men and women who were ordered to fight it. It was good to see these heroes welcomed home at last. It made me wonder how long it would be before the men and women who fought against the war are going to remain forgotten by most Americans.
Did the networks or news agencies bother to discuss the role played by American war resisters? Did an enterprising reporter somewhere break ranks and interview someone like David Miller? Does anybody remember David Miller?
Even at the height of the anti-war movement, David Miller's was hardly a household name. He was the first American to be prosecuted and convicted for refusing to be drafting. He publicly burned his draft card at a time when the war was still popular with a majority of Americans.Miller made himself a majority of one and did prison time for his act of civil disobedience. Thousands of young men later followed his example, and thousands went to jail.
I met David Miller in the spring of 1971, some time after his release. He and I and several friends drove together to the big May Day anti-war rally in Washington D.C. Though I'd admired him from afar, my encounter with Miller wasn't enjoyable. May Day was to be my first mass rally. I was 21 years old and charged up in anticipation of the rally's call for massive civil disobedience. The plan called for me to meet up with some friends I hadn't seen for a while, do the demonstration, get busted, have a time and change the world, all in a week or so.
I expected Miller to share my enthusiasm. He didn't. He was very quiet in the car. I felt like a puppy in the back seat, bouncing around, eager for action. He kept his counsel. When we finally hit D.C., I put a lot of distance between us. I didn't want to hang around such a burned-out guy .
I think of Miller fairly often these days. I think we could understand each other a bit better today. Miller wasn't the first war resister I'd met, but he was the first who'd paid a high personal price for what he did. As the early '70s dragged on by and the war continued, I thought of Miller as a warning figure for those of us considering resistance. Soon enough, our exuberance was gone, our hopes were dwindling. We all wound up "learning better" than to expect easy change. It was a tough lesson and it exacted a high price.
Tens of thousands of men and women took a personal stand against the war and paid a high price. Some went to prison, some went crazy, some died. Some lost their families, some left the country, some despaired and some survived. Where do these people fit into President Reagan's reawakened American spirit? Who bothers to remember these forgotten Americans today?
If it's taken ten years for us to stop thinking of all Vietnam vets as blood-thirsty babykillers, how long will it be before war resisters are no longer referred to as draft dodgers or cowards? With resisters, as with servicemen and everyone else in the world, motives are always complex. But it's absurd to believe resisters acted only in their own selfish interests. The vast majority of resisters acted out of the conviction, or at least the hope, that they were serving the public good by trying to slow in whatever way they could the wheels of war.
They were, as they saw it, doing their patriotic duty.
Maybe it's foolish to expect or even want the public now embracing the vets to one day extend a hand to war resisters. Still, if we can see heroism in the actions of military veterans forced to fight an insane war, can't we also see the heroism of people who chose to fight that same war on a different front? It's taking nothing from Vietnam vets to say that those who fought against the war at home deserve to be recognized as well. When that happens, the American spirit will have finally, and truly, awakened.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Erica K
Patty Kane Horrigan
Alan Milner
Christine Bollerud
Christina Simon
Ann Bancroft
Salon.com
Comments
But now I rest uneasy as I sit here lookin' back
Was it my convictions or just courage that I lacked?
Sittin' here and wondrin' while the questions mess my head
Feelin' strangely guilty for the fact that I'm not dead
Cartouche - the fight seems more and more to me to be something personal and active. And the opportunity -- necessity -- to act won't come when it's convenient or even possible-seeming.
Marie: I know you're wrestling with those same sorts of questions in Ireland. By their posts ye shall know them, Lord. I'll be talking to you soon.
Lea: Apathy's a word you don't hear any more. Maybe that's good, since it can used to instill useless guilt. These are indeed different times, but I think one thing remains: then as now, the poor are still doing most of the fighting and dying.
Tom: I was stunned by your response. Those four lines speak volumes about what every one of us has to face. I think it takes courage to remind us of that and real skill to have do it in song. Many thanks.
PS -- Another OSer, Tom Pantera, wrote about "Service Envy" a couple days ago. Like Tom's comment, it's a powerful effort to scratch at this same question of responsibility. Check it out.
Rated for nostalgia.
I think the ambivalence of those who didn't go is really, on one level, a wonderful thing. It's helped this country get past blaming the actual, on-the-ground warriors for the war -- both Vietnam and our current one -- and that's all to the good.
J, the story about David Miller was wrenching. It probably was a good thing for you at that age to see someone who'd been so forcibly disabused of his romantic notions about resistance, but of course, it took you most of the rest of a lifetime to realize that. It would be fascinating to talk to the guy now (is he still alive?) to see what perspective the years have brought him.
On a lighter note, I remember seeing an ad years ago in the National Lampoon for T-shirts from a "veterans" group: the VDD, Veterans of Domestic Disorders. Maybe some of you who protested the war should form that for real, if only for a chance to wear funny hats in parades.
Rated.
And I wonder about the righties too.
To me, at my age, there's a catch (a catch 22?) in considering any embrace of any person on either side of the political spectrum.
I think both sides still want to co-opt Vietnam veterans. Thought that for a while, and still do.
The right wants to wrap you in the flag, maybe invite you to a pot luck at the grange. The speakers who run the event will, for the most part be, either flag-wavers who never served or hardcore warriors who'd probably enjoy a week-end marching up and down the Rappahannock with Civil War re-enactors, eating baked beans and hardtack, and lecturing on war as a virtue no matter what. They'll tell your story for you and disallow any ambiguity about it. Dissent? Doubt? Won't even go there. More beans?
The left wants to give a lecture on how wrong the war was (or about how right they were) instead of just shaking a vet's hand, shutting up - and leaving it at that. Never mind being invited over for dinner, no strings attached. Fuggetaboutit.
I'm beyond most of this now. To quote Dr. King in a slight askew manner: "I may not get there with you, but I've seen the promised land."
I don't need no stinkin' crocodile tears nor treacle from anyone. Too little to late.
Been a long time gone.