[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Cheryl Scarpa
T1: scarpac@alpha.montclai.edu
Date: 10/6/97
Time: 3:18:11 PM
Remote Name: 152.163.204.137
In chapter one, the impression is given that there really are no prisoners of war. It is just a myth used to give some comfort to those who have lost loved ones to the horrrors of Vietnam. It almost seems as though the author is laughing at those who belive in this "false religion." Althoug there is no tangible evidence that POW's do actually exist, there also is no evidence that they do not exist. Thus, somehow giving a safe haven to those who are deluded while searching for life in the death of the Vietnam War. Is this an acceptable practice of grief? The author believes, "the 'MIA disease' turns families into 'emotional cripples' who 'no longer look for an accounting, but are waiting for resurrection'"(9). Is this some sick form of denial? When the author refers to this myth as a form of "religion" I can make a similair comparison. When people belive in the afterlife, it's acceptable although we have no proof. I belive that it is a comforting thought to go somewhere beyond this earth after we die, I know I'd rather belive in the pearly gates of the afterlife than imagining my rotted, worm eaten corpse 6 feet under in some deteriorating coffin. This is not an absurd thought, it helps me go to sleep at night, just like the idea that those who fought the battle are still fighting keeps some people alive. People are just searching for answers, they should not be ridiculed when they have to cling on to some hope when they are not provided with the truth. It's amazing that while the government was not providing the public with the answers they lived for, they turned the table and fed the fire with campaigns surrounding the MIA's. When the American people realized the truth behind the Wietnam War, they were appalled at the horrors they saw. Sympathy was given to those who our troops held captive and tortured to death. Soldiers raped and sodomized women and children because they were the "enemy." With this idea in mind, is it okay to do this? When I read chapter 2 I wondered if everyone you were fighting against were the true enemies. Are they not human because they are Vietanamese? Does any human deserve to be treated this way? I still cannot answer this question. Pretty sick, huh? Well anyway, the government used the public's need for answers into an eloborate campaign to continue the war. While the people were horrofied by what they saw being done to civilians, the politicians put an american face on that bound and tortured prisoner. This turned the public opinion about the war. It could not be ended until all "our boys" were returned. Public support was urged and bracelets, bumper stickers, and flags were evidence of their acceptance for the continuance of the war. Those who were against the war were somehow betraying the prisoners and missing soldiers. That is sick. Using the weaknesses of those who have lost to help the war survive.