Archive for date: September 22nd, 2015

The Vietnam War was a very controversial and difficult time in American history for all Americans. This proved to be true to me after perusing through several letters from that era of many civilians that felt it was such an impactful event they felt the need to write letters to their congressman Harold T. “Bizz” Johnson asking him to please end it and return all the troops home. The opposition to the war seemed to be at its highest during the 1970s, which was the year most of the letters I reviewed were from. The letters came from a big variety of people ranging from students, parents, business owners, teachers, and even veterans. There was a persistent theme within these letters, a huge population of people mentioned they were in favor of the passing of the Cooper-Church Amendment. It would presumably help aid in the ending of the war and bring back the peoples’ beloved troops by limiting US involvement in Southeast Asia and creating new regulations as to how the President handled our troops during times of war.

While exploring various letters from that era I came across a certain letter from a man, a father of three, named R James Rasmussen who wrote very passionately about his feelings about the war in Southeast Asia. I found it very intriguing because the points that he made in his letter seemed to have more truth and facts to them than most of the other letters I read because of the statement Mr. Rasmussen made saying he was “active in local political groups in support of our representative form of government. That’s the way I’ve felt for the past 37 years. I am no longer so sure of that position.” This was a very powerful statement as it shows that he has long been a supporter of the way the government was run and was very well educated as to how the government was functioning at that time but due to the results of the war his mindset changed! I would imagine it would take something really powerful and controversial to change the mind of somebody who had supported the government for over 30 years; in this case it was the Vietnam war. Mr. Rasmussen’s point of view against the war become even more valid as he reveals later in his letter that he feared for his sons’ lives saying “I am interested in saving the real limbs and bodies of my children not their symbolic faces.” Again this is very powerful as he is showing his fatherly side and concern for the well being of his children. He knows about the thousands that were drafted and the thousands that were killed and he does not want the same fate for his children. You can see in the picture of the letter here that while reading it you can sense his anger and disappointment while he writes, he even underlines some of his most important points to make sure the reader understands his message. To end his letter he finishes with one simple statement; “I support the Cooper-Church Amendment.” This letter truly depicted the overall feelings and emotions people underwent during that era.

There came a light of hope for Americans when two Senators by the names of John Sherman Cooper and Frank Church created the Cooper-Church Amendment as an attachment to the Foreign Military Sales Act of 1971. In a nutshell this amendment created “limitations on the United States involvement in Cambodia… to avoid the involvement of the United States in Cambodia after July 1, 1970, and to expedite the withdrawal of American forces” (Limited US Involvement in the Indochina War). It limited things such as the deployment of troops, aerial combat, and most importantly the return of troops from Cambodia which is what the people really wanted in an attempt to end this, as some called it, “pointless” war. This amendment was debated for months and was finally approved by the Senate in a vote of 58 to 37 in favor of it. However, it was denied later by the House of Representatives in an opposing vote of 237 to 153. The main problem with this amendment was that the Nixon Administration argued that it basically “denied the constitutional power of the President” (Cooper Church Amendment). “The President, calling the Senate-passed amendment not “particularly precise” (Averill) would go on to say that this amendment was far from perfect and would veto the entire bill unless certain provisions were made to maintain his Constitutional power as Commander in Chief so that he has the power to protect the soldiers but also be able to send them when he feels it is necessary to defend our country or aid other countries. Thankfully it didn’t stop there. Several adjustments later and after more debating a new revised version was able to pass both houses of Congress in December of 1970 and came into action as of January 5, 1971. It became more acceptable when a section was added to the end stating:

“Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to impugn the constitutional power of the President as Commander in Chief including the exercise of that constitutional power which may be necessary to protect the lives of United States armed forces whenever deployed.” (Cooper Church Amendment)

An article in the Los Angeles Times by Joseph Alsop states “[the amendment’s] passage, by a narrow majority, was fulsomely saluted as a decisive triumph.” By then of course many US forces had been officially withdrawn from Cambodia and many people were at ease now that the soldiers were being protected more even though the war did not officially end until 1975.

Works Cited

Alsop, Joseph. “Cooper-Church Measure Dies in House-Senate Committee.” Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): 1. Oct 02 1970. ProQuest. Web. 14 Sep. 2015 .

Averill, John H. “Nixon Assails Senate Over Cambodia Curb.” Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): 16. Jul 02 1970. ProQuest. Web. 14 Sep. 2015 .

Cooper Church Amendment,  01 June 1970, Folder 14, Box 49, Douglas Pike Collection: Unit 03 – Legal and Legislative, The Vietnam Center and Archive, Texas Tech University. 13 Sep. 2015.

Limiting US Involvement In The Indochina War,  27 January 1975, Folder 12, Box 51, Douglas Pike Collection: Unit 03 – Legal and Legislative, The Vietnam Center and Archive, Texas Tech University. 14 Sep. 2015.

Rasmussen, R James. Letter to Congressman Harold T. Johnson. 21 May 1970. Broome Library Harold T. Johnson Collection. Camarillo, CA. 15 Sept. 2015. TS.

Christina Cisneros

Professor Anderson

English 330- Tuesday

8 September 2015

Information Worth Sharing

     Propaganda gathers ideas to trick people by convincing them that their actions is based from their own belief. Communication and media comes from many sources that provides us with information in various forms. Harold T. Johnson served in the House of Representatives (1959-1981) during the Vietnam Era (1961-1975). In a 1967 unprocessed letter from a patriotic citizen, Mrs. Tressa Rosecrantz wrote to Johnson about a phone call from a conscientious anti-war representative questioning Rosecrantz defense in supporting the American government. Rosecrantz informed herself about the war by reading books and newspapers on Vietnam to make an educational decision in supporting the U.S. government. Clips on television serves as an entertainment source of information in a positive, negative, or neutral fashion. During the Vietnam era, there was a battle in propaganda aside from the military war. One must identify the credibility of the source and to perceive the truth behind the lies.

     First, “Like “Us” or “Them”? Perceptions of the U.S. on the CBC-TV National News Services in the 1960,” Mallory Schwartz analyzed the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) television news on the U.S. foreign policy: Vietnam. Schwartz writes to us that the CBC-TV brought the vietnam war into the living rooms of English-speaking Canadians. In a 1963 tv news clip, reporter Dale Mont expressed a story in a neutral setting of the American efforts in training Vietnam troop. The news clips also viewed the american military aid dropping food resources and supplies in the village of Chan Wang. “Although such actions had potentially positive semantic connotations, Mont displayed no favour for the American forces, using only neutral and concrete language to describe their efforts”, as Schwartz addressed in his analysis(p.138). The clip of 1963 presented the U.S. in the Vietnam war in a natural viewing of military assistance.

     Equally important, in a 1964 CBC-TV clip transitioned to the U.S. military intervention; the audio language did not paired with the visual. The visual narrative shows an unpleasant war-like setting; the language narrative was negative; the music was tense, fast-paced, and scary. Schwartz explains, “while the visual narrative and the ominous music projected explicit and implicit American aggression, the language-base narrative did not even discuss the action shown” referring to the low-level of criticism the language paired with the visual (p.139). This clip of information provides viewers with a realistic visual setting of the war in Vietnam.  

     In any case, a 1965 CBC-TV clip shows content of an anti-war protest. Similar protest carried along through 1968 releveling chaos between police and protesters. Anti-war activists were not always presented positive. The information is “the combination of sativa, ridicule, and the reports use of negative language to describe the draft dodgers- especially through associations made with the Vietcong- made both them and their efforts appear comical”, Schwartz concludes as the CBC only criticized and was bias against those not in favor for the Americans involvement in the war (p.142). The CBC also featured stories about peace negotiations. Most of the language presented on CBC was neutral describing the actions and decisions of the U.S. government. The useful information of topic clips served as a pro-American message.

     Second in, “Another War in Vietnam–Propaganda”, Leslie Jacques tells us who were the sources of information in the forms of posters, newspapers, tv, and banners from the streets of Saigon. Posters and banners hang encouraging people to backup their soldiers in Saigon Front. Saigon is being overturn by the Viet Cong battling against the U.S. efforts in South Vietnam(LA Times). The U.S. and South Vietnamese government were heavily involved in a propaganda battle. One must read multiple sources of information in order to figure out the lies from the truth.

    In fact, the propaganda in newspapers from Saigon tells two different stories. Newspaper were seized when outspoken words targeted to retreat soldiers. Jacques notes President Nauyen Van Thieu and Members of Parliament ordered no more disclosure of information on military events and to engage no propaganda (LA Times). The South Vietnam legislatures only rely on the British Broadcasting Corp (BBC) and on the Voice of America to obtain truthful information. Information can be censor and one must be knowledgeable in identifying reliable resources.

     Furthermore, Jacques tells us Dang Due Ky was the director of the South Vietnam nationwide government-run tv station. Ky confesses that raw information must be cooked for the tv audience however he was responsible for the information that ended up being view by President Thieu. As a source of information, Ky told the truth that he thinks people ought to know(LA Times). The information presented by KY was the truth to persuade a side of knowledge. Naturally, propaganda is a relevant source of information after deducting 80 percent of the “make stuff up” story.

     Third, “U.S. Widens Vietnam Propaganda Aid”, Seth King writes to us the propaganda war between the U.S. and Viet Cong. The two sources of information presented was through leaflets and booklets.The U.S. government carried out leaflets encouraging South Vietnam people not to support their government in its fighting; the end results was death. At the same time, the Viet Cong used the other side of the leaflet announcing their success of an attack on the American billet in the city of Quinhon (NY Times). Both propaganda pieces serves as an information framework to gain knowledge of events and action taking place during the war. The U.S. govt was feeding South Vietnam with leaflets and booklets and at the same time, Viet Cong shared their side of the story on the same leaflets for their advantage. Obtaining both sides of the story is key in receiving information as being either accurate or not.

     Fourth, “A Study of Veteran Viewpoints on TV coverage of the Vietnam War”, Anthony Adams tells us to look deeper to find the truth of a message. As a result from the survey, there was a range in the accuracy presented in tv news items. Adams concludes that the higher educated veterans reported that the tv was the most realistic form in viewing the events during the war (p.251). Most important, the veterans agreed that the tv coverage influenced the viewers opinions about the war. Information is either truthful or misleading.

     Last, in a February 1971 advertisement for Vietnam veterans against the war a photo of a casket appeared in the Playboy Magazine. These veterans are recruiting other veterans and citizens who feel the same way; over 300,000 U.S. soldiers died as the U.S. continues to intervene. The Vietnam veterans were strongly passion about leaving the message stating, “And we don’t think that that’s worth it”, referring to the image of the picture: a dead U.S. soldier (p.65). Propaganda appears in magazines too and it’s the receiver’s responsibility to be well-informed to the issues happening around the world on a daily basis.

     Propaganda captures worldview information to turn one’s ideas in a convincing fashion. As a result, propaganda influences people’s behaviors. Bizz Johnson received many letters from the citizens of the U.S. of their concern in America’s involvement with the Vietnam War. Johnson replied tactful information to help support the American political decisions on this foreign issue. Schwartz concludes that the CBC-tv news brought viewers a non-persuading entertainment information on the warfare in Vietnam. Any relevant source of information builds powers of knowledge.  Jacques tells us the propaganda war in Saigon was a two-sided information battle as one must seek and beware of the truth behind all the lies. King writes to us another propaganda battle from leaflets and booklets. Finally Adams tells us the higher educated veterans are aware of the bias information sent by a particular source in making the public to be convince on a certain-sided argument. The more information one receives, the better understanding of knowing the reality of current events. Sources of information are ideas worth sharing.  

 

Works Cited

Adams, Anthony. “A Study of Veteran Viewpoints on TV  Coverage of the Vietnam War.” Journalism Quarterly. pg. 248-253. Web. 1 Sept 2015.

Jacques, Leslie. “Another War in Vietnam—Propaganda.” Los Angeles Times. 30 April 1972: k1. Web. 1 Sept 2015.

King, Seth. “U.S. Widens Vietnam Propaganda Aid.” New York Times. 17 Mar 1965: 4. Web. 1 Sept 2015.

Rosecrantz, Tressa. Letter to Congressman Harold T. Johnson. 17 May 1967. Broome Library     Harold T. Johnson Collection. Camarillo, CA. 25 August 2015.

Schwartz, Mallory. “Like “Us” or “Them”? perceptions of the United States on the CBC-TV National News Service in the 1960″. Journal of Canadian Studies. 44.3 (2010): pg 118-153. Web. 1 Sept 2015.

Unknown. Vietnam Veterans Against the War. 1971. PlayBoy Magazine. Vietnam War Era Ephemera Collection. By University Libraries University of Washington: Digital Collections. pg 65. Web.