How is the Vietnam War taught in the U.S?

[wrightry]

My school spent a couple of weeks on it towards the end of the year. Honestly, we went into the brutality of it and didnt hide some of the horrific details, but I'm sure there was a lot that didnt get covered. My biased text book seemed to give the vibe that the events were brutal but necessary... I kinda doubt that but we didnt go into a lot of our own failures. They werent completely ignored but they were definitely diminished.

 

[Zay-el]

snip

No, no, please excuse me. As I said, I'm not quite aware of what your history curriculum is and assumed that (like here), you have an overview of history in high school as well. It was a misinformation, misconception and false presumption on my part, I apologise.

 

[Bootscooper]

We did a pretty in-depth project on it at my school. We were each given a subject and had to make a video about it. I was given the topic of nuclear warfare. A friend of mine was given Agent Orange. It wasn't glossed over at my school.

 

[viking97]

i just finished seventh grade and i've never heard it mentioned. not once.

 

[kikon9]

When I learned about it, we spent a long time on it. Mostly the "WE FAILED BIGTIME" aspect

 

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

In Ireland the vietnamn war is pretty well covered, im planning my history project on the history of vietnamn in general, should be pretty interesting. Its pretty neutral but you get an air of "MERICA' bombing innocents because of the policy of containment and paranoia about McCarthyism and therefore mistaking freedom fighters in vietnamn, who happen to be communist, as Russia's attempts to spread communism"

Im wondering OP how do they teach the WoI in GB? i missed the thread, got a link?

Most schools just kinda gloss over it, they instead focus on the Home Issues at the time, and not the fact that technically the US won the Vietnam War

That is pretty dam funny, they actually teach you that bullshit?

What bullshit are you referring to?

That you won i gather.

Woah dude, leaving the project a tad late don't cha think? =P

 

[Goofguy]

I can't answer this question as I am Canadian. As a relevant side point though, I took an ethics course and we spent a considerable amount of time talking about the My Lai massacre. It's definitely one of those scenarios where it's easy to sit and critique from the comfort of your couch 40 years later but being there would have been... surreal. I found that discussion to resonate with me more than any other discussion on the Vietnam War.

 

[o_d]

The peace treaty was meaningless, however, without continued US presence as was seen when the North broke the treaty after the US forces left. While it was certainly the fault of the North Vietnamese for breaking the treaty, it does, however, throw into light how the US campaign cannot be called a victory. It is clear from the results of the treaty that communism could not be contained to the north without a US presence. Given how no-one would wish for US soldiers to have to remain permanently in Vietnam to maintain order, it would have to be assumed that the war in Vietnam would need to end with South Vietnam being safe from invasion without a continued, external military presence.

The US' inability to neutralize the threat to South Vietnam pretty much left them in the exact same position they were before the war started. This cannot be viewed as a victory. Even if the military's aim was simply to hold off the threat while they were present, this does not count as a victory. Why? Because the Vietnam War did not end when the Americans pulled out. It ended when North Vietnam gained control of South Vietnam, something the US failed to stop due to the withdrawal of their troops.

Correct, however it wasn't the US Military's job to destroy the threat. They were called in to halt the North Vietnamese from conquering South Vietnam. They did so, and ended up with a treaty that halted the war. There's no doubt that the inability to destroy the North Vietnamese ultimately led to the fall of the South, but the US military achieved their primary goals while they were there. The Vietnam War may not have ended in 1973, but for the US Military it did and it was a victory for them at the time. In pure military terms the US entered with a clear goal, stop the NV, and withdrew having stopped the NV. Politically the war was a failure yes, but military wise it was a victory

This was your post:

Most schools just kinda gloss over it, they instead focus on the Home Issues at the time, and not the fact that technically the US won the Vietnam War

I am not arguing that the military attained their primary goals (in the crudest form). However, your post says the US won the Vietnam War. They didn't. The North Vietnamese won the Vietnam War. While the US were involved they succeeded in stopping the North Vietnamese from winning. This does not mean the US won. In the end, the US were part of the side that lost.
If you're half way through a 400m race and are in the lead, you can't ask to stop the race and claim you've won the entire thing: you have to see it through to the end.

 

[Chris^^]

At least in my school we learned a fair bit about us search and destroy tactics that kind of stuff, the things they didn't teach us was all the evil stuff the allies did in WWII like the fire bombing of Dresden.

did you also look at the firebombing of Tokyo? that was obscene.

A good quote i heard was from Robert McNamara who said that "had [the Allies] lost the war [they] all would have been tried as war criminals"

 

[TheKruzdawg]

Honestly I can say that I didn't learn a damn thing about Vietnam in high school and I think that it's sad. We should learn about the things we've done that in the past, whether or not we were right or proud of what we did, just so we don't do something similar later. That's just common sense. It's part of our history, a big one at that, and so many people know almost nothing about it other than "we were there, supposedly the good guys, got our butts kicked and left."

 

[drisky]

i just finished seventh grade and i've never heard it mentioned. not once.

They do it in high school, thats why. Some of that stuff are considered a bit to much for middle schoolers to handle. When I was in middle school I don't think history went beyond the American Civil war.

 

[Capcom4ever]

From my experience at a college-level high school course, we learned a lot more about the the anti-war efforts such as the protests and the effect that had on our culture. It's probably taught like the ENTIRE Soviet era in Russia or more specifically the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Captcha: ntsfyl 1990. (?)

 

[Ivan Torres]

Wow, I'm surprised that most of my fellow Americans never learned much. I keep hearing about how it was glossed over. My entire 3rd Trimester of 11th Grade Highschool history was over the cold war, which was Vietnam half the time. And we watched Forrest Gump. So yeah, we kinda know what happened.

 

[emeraldrafael]

snip

No, no, please excuse me. As I said, I'm not quite aware of what your history curriculum is and assumed that (like here), you have an overview of history in high school as well. It was a misinformation, misconception and false presumption on my part, I apologise.

Its cool, just bothers me when people think the American education is bad.

... I mean, it is, but not every school.

And you can take classes to refresh yourself with them, though you'll relearn most anyway, when we reinforce history from other countries. And in the Arts class, you'll really re learn alot of the Greek and Roman stuff.

 

[Pandalisk]

In Ireland the vietnamn war is pretty well covered, im planning my history project on the history of vietnamn in general, should be pretty interesting. Its pretty neutral but you get an air of "MERICA' bombing innocents because of the policy of containment and paranoia about McCarthyism and therefore mistaking freedom fighters in vietnamn, who happen to be communist, as Russia's attempts to spread communism"

Im wondering OP how do they teach the WoI in GB? i missed the thread, got a link?

Most schools just kinda gloss over it, they instead focus on the Home Issues at the time, and not the fact that technically the US won the Vietnam War

That is pretty dam funny, they actually teach you that bullshit?

What bullshit are you referring to?

That you won i gather.

Woah dude, leaving the project a tad late don't cha think? =P

What happened to your old avatar? i had gotten used to that thing, now everything is new and strange.

haha i know right? i only have like what? minus 14 days? There's still time damnit! i have a Delorean! Naw, my Project work shall begin after the summer is out, thats when the serious work begins so this summer im going to tear the country a new one

 

[NinjaTigerXIII]

Pretty much that it was a huge fuck up, that we lost it, and we move on to the next subject. Oh and I love how this entire topic is in response to the "other topic" on the forums right now.

 

[historybuff]

Inspired by the topic asking how the War of Independence is taught in the UK.

Basically, I ask because, generally, it's held that the US entered Vietnam (amongst other countries during the Cold War, like Korea) for what can be described as less than noble reasons, and then making a bit of a mess of it. For example, at my school, we shortly studied the 'Search and Destroy' tactics, which as far as I understand, was basically US soldiers walking into Vietnam villages and wiping them clean out, regardless of whether the inhabitants were innocent or not. That's one small part of a part of the course on US foreign policy we did.

Anyhow, back to the point. What sort of stance is taken when the Vietnam war is taught to US students? Under what light do they relay the information to you? How is the Vietnam War taught in the US education system?

High school, it's taught as a turmoil-ridden time in our history. It's the backdrop for the 60s in our country.


In college, they go a lot more indepth.

The French were there first because Vietnam used to be a colonial holding but after WWII, France lost it. But it made them so much money that they asked if they could go back in and control the country again. Cue Communist revolt. They lost twice as many men before they went to the US asking for help. The US, afraid of a communist take-over because of the Cold War and the Soviet Union, went into Vietnam with the intention of helping preserve a Democratic government.

Unfortunately, it wasn't handled very well. Some people were put into power that shouldn't have been--that didn't have the best interests of the Vietnamese in mind. The Vietnam war lost public support, soldiers went beserker because of the horrible conditions, there was a loss of control of ground troops and so yeah, you would get situations where a soldier gets caught in a horrific booby trap that tears him to shreds. His buddies find him but have to keep going on. They're extra on edge and wound up because of what happened to their friends. They can't trust the children, the women or even the old men--because anyone could be part of the revolt. So you would get situations sometimes where they would go berserk and just go into a village and slaughter everyone.


So yeah, it happened. But there's a lot more to it than what people seem to think.

 

[Ivan Torres]

Wow, I'm surprised that most of my fellow Americans never learned much. I keep hearing about how it was glossed over. My entire 3rd Trimester of 11th Grade Highschool history was over the cold war, which was Vietnam half the time. And we watched Forrest Gump. So yeah, we kinda know what happened.

It also helps that (one) of my history teacher's lived through the entire Cold War starting from the late 50's. Although he never got drafted, barely missed the date.