The Vietnam Memorial Analysis

The establishment of the Vietnam Memorial consisted of an abundance of controversy both in the creation and building process because of the two opposition groups that were in play during the war. In "Never Again: A Vietnam Syndrome in American Foreign Policy", Patrick Hagopian analyzes how various factions congregated due to either support or opposition of the Vietnam War. As the Vietnam Memorial in Washington D.C was created, a vast majority of individuals, verbally protested back and forth against each other, and neither of the two groups were either right or wrong. Jack Smith, a psychologist, noted that "everyone blamed everyone else for what had gone wrong. Military men blame policy makers, right-wingers blame the pinkos and media and protesters,
the left blame the right" (Hagopian). No matter how much time passed after the war, the opposition expanded and it reached its peak with the masses losing trust in the American Government and its policy-makers.

One of the memories that surfaced towards a period of fighting in the Vietnam War was that the United States should have never been involved. One of the main factions argued that the United States had absolutely no purpose in Vietnam and the end results were countless bodies of our fighting being returned to their families. An innumerable amount of soldiers died fighting a war that was not essential for the United States well-being. This angered families and a preponderance of individuals that witnessed families being informed that their sons, daughters, or spouse had unfortunately died in combat. Thus, the making of a memorial that would recognize American Troops for fighting an unnecessary war would be completely opposed by a large portion of the masses.

"It is a V formed by two black granite walls that diminish in height as they extend outward, making the monument appear to descend into the earth. Chiseled into the walls are the names of the 57,930 men and 9 women who died or are listed as missing in the Vietnam War" (Foss). The creation itself was symbolic for the argument presented by a faction during the late 1960's and 1980's arguing against the motifs that the U.S. had to engage in the Vietnam War. For a majority, involvement in the Vietnam War represented tyranny, because we had no right to fight a battle that pertains to South Vietnam. Second, if South Vietnam wanted to remain a democratic nation, then they should have fought directly against communism, instead of depending on U.S aid. Lastly, a vast majority's conception of the Vietnam War was a battle with a no way out besides defeat. If the United States decided to remain in Vietnam until they were willing to compromise, this would never happen. Thousands of American troops were being killed and the longer the U.S. remained in Vietnam, the worse our defeat would be portrayed to other nations.

In contrast, the second faction that appeared was a group that blamed the policy-makers, for the brutal defeat in the Vietnam War. This cluster was comprised mainly of military people that believed that if the government had taken action early in the war; hence the outcome would have been different. Their view of the Vietnam Memorial is that the memorial is meaningful in the struggle, chaos and death that several troops faced during combat. Even though an infinite amount of individuals opposed the war, it was in the United States best interest to assist an ally fight the battle against communism. Unfortunately, many oppose this view and do not respect what the soldiers did, nevertheless, war in inevitable and even though many soldiers died in combat, that is just the aftermath result of war.

Nevertheless, the purpose of the memorial was controversial itself because there were different views on what the memorial would mean.
In the article, “The Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Commemorating a Difficult Past”, Wagner and Schwartz state three issues that arise when a memorial will be constructed. “(1) the social problems of fixing painful parts of the past (a military defeat, a generation of unredeemed veterans) in the public consciousness, (2) the political problem of commemorating an event for which there is no national consensus, and (3) the cultural problem of working through and against traditional expectations about the war memorial genre” (Wagner and Schwartz). As a group, Americans had to cooperate with one another to determine what the memorial would symbolize. Even though this process sounds simple, it is the opposite because every individual views the Vietnam War in a different form. With no guidelines, the masses had to decide what the significance of the memorial would be and to many the memorial would recognize the troops that died in combat, while to others the memorial would demonstrate a lesson to avoid in the
future.

“Public art is the focus of many historical surveys, case studies, and theoretically engaged analysis is on the social production of space” (Doss). In this case, two memorials were created to honor the troops that fought in the Vietnam War. One memorial demonstrated loyalty and innocence that the troops that were deployed to fight. This memorial was called, The Three Soldiers. The second memorial was the V-shaped wall that runs for miles consisted of walls carved with names of all the troops that died and those that could not be recognized. Both of these memorials represent something completely different to the masses, yet they were both derived from one action. The memorial of the three servicemen is usually remembered by the faction that believed that the government should have full-blown attacked Vietnam right at the beginning instead of trying to come to an agreement with them. On the other hand, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. represents a brutal defeat, and a war that the United Sates should never have engaged in. The 57,930 men and 9 women that were carved into the wall, demonstrates the pain and anguish that their families faced because their loved ones fought in a war that had no essential benefit to the United States.

In “Reprogramming Memories: The Historicization of the Vietnam War from the 1970s through the 1990s”, Ikui states two phases that the people face when determining what the memorials will represent. “This process reflected frustration at the ambiguous way in which the war had ended and the ensuing period of forgetfulness. The second phase was the rehabilitation of the Vietnam veterans as wounded heroes in the eighties when society found a way of recollecting the war as one in which American foot soldiers were the victims” (Ikui). As individuals that were not involved in fighting the war, we forget the terror that many of the soldiers faced during combat. We also forget about the pain that they faced when they saw their battalion die in battle. The reason why we tend to forget these factors is not because we are inhumane but on account of not wanting to be part of that pain. Meaning we do not want to be responsible for others that faced those challenges. The next step that Ikui mentions is when we finally see the American troops return and see them wounded. Once we experience this, which is when we are finally able to recollect a sense of the war and make it a part of us.

“Ambiguity and silence, then, are seen as the major factors in the Vietnam Veterans Memorial’s continuing public success” (Carney).
The Vietnam Memorials to this day have various interpretations that change among individuals. For example, when seeing the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. people feel sorrow, anger, pain and some even feel shame for the U.S. having been part of a war that meant absolutely nothing to the American public. On the other hand the Three Servicemen Memorial constructs a notion of loyalty and dependence on your partner or team. Both memorials were created for the remembrance of the Vietnam War, yet they both create different types of emotions. By the designers not having any influence on the way that individuals view these memorials, a wide array of opinions rise and that is normal because no individual will have the same thinking as someone else. The memorials themselves will create a type of collective memory that individuals will obtain by viewing these memorials. Even if they do not agree with their meaning, just by seeing these memorials, the memory of the Vietnam War becomes a part of us and our
history.