Jon Malis & Emily Watson
“Yes, I believe that it [the Memorial] is an appropriate way to remember the Vietnam War. It might not be best one but given the circumstances it's about the most we might aspire to. We never accomplished any great victory as in the two World Wars. There are monuments all over the nation. The nation is proud of them and their accomplishments. We are more or less like the warriors of the Korean War, a reluctant war, one forced upon us by the enemies of the democracies the world. They went, did their job, fought the enemy to a standoff, and barely got any recognition for doing what was asked of them. WE, too, have been categorized as losers. We had to build our own memorial to remember the men who wet with us and never came back. As I see it, after my change of attitude, it's for our own remembrance and to let the nation know, and our descendants, that we too answered the call from our nation. We, too, went and did what was asked of us. It was not us that blew it. It is more or less what Cyrus the conqueror of the East had written on his monument, a spare one: Here lies Cyrus the Achaemenian who once was King of Kings. Begrudge me not my little monument.”
--A Vietnam Veteran
A Brief History of the Memorial:
By 1979, veterans of the Vietnam War were facing massive post-service disillusionment and disenchantment. Veterans came home to a lack of jobs and an apathetic government. Hunger strikes were being organized nationally to protest the government’s lack of care and benefits for those returning from war. More often than not, veterans suffered from some form of flashbacks and/or Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. The country, both politically and morally, wanted to look past Vietnam by sweeping it (and those who served it) under the rug.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund was created by war veteran Jan C. Scruggs with the intent of building a memorial to veterans in Washington, D.C. The design chosen was that of Maya Lin – a student at Yale University. While numerous objections were continuously raised about the design choice, the primary issue remained that the majority of the opposition was based around the notion that the deceased were not depicted as they should be – as heroes, just as the dead from any other American-involved war had been portrayed in previous memorials. As a compromise to get the Memorial built, a Three Servicemen Statue and a flagpole were added to provide a more “heroic” image. Since the unveiling of the Memorial and the statue in 1984, a women’s memorial and a plaque remembering those who died of wounds resulting from the war, but after the war were added.
An Analysis of the Memorial:
Metanarrative: The Persistent Idea Portrayed by the Memorial
In our observations, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a tribute to all those who served in the Vietnam War – those who perished and those who survived. It is not believed to project an interpretation of the war, but is perceived as apolitical. All of the veterans we interviewed said that they considered the Memorial to be an appropriate way to remember the Vietnam War because it focused on remembering those who served rather than the policies and controversies surrounding the war.
The Wall that Heals: The Overriding Function of the Memorial
One aspect of the Memorial that cannot be denied is its power to provide a place for veterans – particularly those who served in Vietnam – to have a place to mourn. Few other memorials provide a space to personally mourn an individual as well as the collective. The Memorial creates a space where people who have been hurt by the war can grieve – whether they are family members, friends or veterans. It has even been reported that if a Vietnam veteran visited the Memorial more than once, it helped him or her better cope with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.
Subnarratives Ignored by the Wall: Whose Stories Are We Forgetting?
Several narratives are ignored by the Memorial (antiwar, civilians, etc.) If we express these subnarratives in some way, we are simply telling another piece of the story of the Vietnam War. It gives society another way of understanding the war and its impact. By labeling the monument the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, perhaps the possibility of telling these stories was avoided.
Civic Denial and the Memorial
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is an example of civic denial. It is a state-sponsored means of denying part of our history (ie. the subnarratives of the Vietnam War). By dedicating a memorial about one of America’s most controversial wars (if not the most controversial) to veterans, we eliminate any possibility of addressing the subnarratives of the war. There is simply no room to do so at the Memorial. The danger in this is that by not confronting the controversial history of the Vietnam War, we are increasing the chances of history repeating itself.
Simplifying Complex Ideas of War and Loss
It is a refreshing concept to remember the individuals who fought rather than the cause they fought for because their lives are tangible and real. The ideas behind war become confusing, muddled and divisive, but the lives lost in war are real and undeniable (assuming they are all recognized). However, as we previously noted, this memorial can be equated to a memorial representation of the Vietnam War as a whole. We have to consider the possibility that the heroism of the veterans will be equated to the glorification of war, thereby continuing the myth of the glory of war.
New Ideas about the Memorial and Where It Is Headed:
Memorials as Living Reminders – After Construction, What Can Change?
When discussing the past and present of any memorial in terms of its service (or lack thereof-) to those it is meant to honor and/or memorialize, it is equally important to look towards the future – what will this memorial mean to its intended audience in 50, 100 years time?
This is especially so for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, as it not only occupies and pertains to a certain, and very necessary, niche in American history, but also as it is a living memorial. Being administered and maintained by an outside (of the NPS and, thus, the federal government) organization – the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund – it has the ability to grow and adapt itself over time to fit the needs and ideals best envisioned as our nation, and our national memories of the Vietnam War, evolve from complete subjectivity and raw emotion to being tempered by time and distance. The Memorial has seen numerous additions and renovations since its inception – including the Three Soldiers Statue (and its recent refurbishment to bring it more in-line with the artist’s original intentions), the Vietnam Women’s Memorial, and, more recently, the “In Memory” plaque.
Currently, the VVMF is planning for its most radical expansion – in both terms of physical space and the ultimate purpose – of the memorial grounds. They’re seeking the funding to build an education center for the Memorial located on an adjacent lot of the National Mall. The Education Center demonstrates a drastic shift in not only the meaning of the Memorial, but also it the overall mission of the Memorial and VVMF.
Remembrance, Education and Interpretation
When they were awarded the original site and parcel of land in the early 1980’s, the VVMF was issued a mandate – that the Memorial’s sole job is to remember those who lost their lives, not discuss the war in general. And the Memorial has exceeded all expectations in its primary duty. It has become one of the most visited attractions in all of Washington, D.C., and it is the only permanently constructed national war memorial to have a traveling replica.
Nearly 30 years later, however, the Memorial, through its chartering and operating fund, has been given a new mission – to educate the American population about not only the Vietnam War, but about the duty, honor and sacrifice of America’s troops.
Emily Watson, my writing partner for Remembering a Controversial Past, and I had a chance to meet, and tour the Memorial grounds, with Mr. Geoffrey Wiles, the Fund’s Educational Programs Manager. Instead of posting an entire transcript from our tour, there are a few key phrases discussed that I’d like to mention, then I would like to address what I hope the future of the Memorial and its new education center holds (all quotes are a direct attribution to Mr. Wiles, not the VVMF).
o “It’s about separating the warrior from the war.”
o “[Many of the] visitors who come to the wall [who are] younger than the war don’t have any connection [to the war].”
o “It’s a different experience than any of the other memorials. It allows you to feel the enormity … [the visitors center is about] allowing younger generations to see that its more than a name but an actual person”
o “[It’s about] America’s legacy in service. Those who fought in Vietnam are no different than those who have fought in the past or in the future.”
o “There is a finite number of names on the wall, but there are still many other people who deserve to be honored.”
o “The memorial itself will not change at all, but now visitors will know [something more] about the names on the wall.”
Through Mr. Wiles’ comments, I do believe that Memorial is able to follow its mandate to not invoke politics in its new education center. It is there to educate the visitor – not necessarily about the war, but about those who fought in the war. It is there to remind us that those who served and died in Vietnam are no different than those who served and died in Iraq or World War II.
The Education Center has the ability to be a positive addition to the Memorial, a negative addition to the Memorial, or both. It depends upon the information presented by the center – are all of the narratives about the war going to be discussed, or just those that glorify war and the service of those who participated in it?
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial already stands unique among a city virtually littered with memorials and monuments, and I believe that the addition of the education center will not unduly change the underlying current, so much as it will the understanding of the Memorial and those the memorial is meant to honor.
The Uncertainties of Events to Come
But there are still many unanswered questions, many of which will remain unanswered until the center is completed and operational.
To what ends will the Memorial, and the Education Center, attempt to remain politically neutral and balanced in their exhibits? What dangers lie in the Memorial generating a unified context for the remembrance of the war? How will the exhibits in the Education Center, and thus their meaning, change when the management is transferred to the National Park Service? Is there a conflict in a governmental entity attempting to remain politically neutral? Is it possible?
And ultimately, will providing this newfound context ruin the atmosphere and contemplative nature of the Memorial?
We can blindly guess as to the answers of these questions, or we can wait until the Education Center is built, using it as a case study and model as to the expanding scope, mission and purpose of memorials and memorializaion in contemporary society.
Malis & Watson's finished essay, "Remembering a Controversial Past", can be accessed via: http://www.jonmalis.com/VVMWMalisWatson.pdf
