Then it ended. I remember a classmate who remarked to me,
“Do you realized that this war was going on for
our whole lives up until now?”
It seemed that mention of it ended just as thoroughly.
Up until then, we had “our” childhood war, as our parents had “theirs”, and we were well aware of both.
We were taught about life on the homefront and abroad during World World II.
We heard it at supper, at family gatherings and its fine points were formally taught in school.
We heard the music of that era and watched the films. I myself read
William Shirer while still quite young. What I had read became too real
for me every time I caught a glimpse of blue numerals tattooed into an
elderly person’s forearm (and I still gasp as I type this).
The same can’t be said about the current time. It seems that the youth
today are not aware of “our” war as we were of our parents’, if they
are aware at all.
Today, I often meet well-educated young adults who are completely ignorant of the Vietnam War.
It wasn’t taught to them as WWII was taught to us in our history lessons.
How could it be, really? Unlike WWII, Vietnam divided us and continues to do so.
Vietnam strikes a raw nerve in America.
Unlike the name “Vietnam”, however, I can, in fact, remember the very
moment that I had first encountered the “T” word, “terrorism”.
It was during the Vietnam era (as was the most of my childhood) and from what many today would consider an unusual source,
Doonesbury!
I would devoutly read the comics daily, especially Peanuts, to catch up on the undertakings of Snoopy and Woodstock.
On the opposite page (pertinently, on the left) was Doonesbury, a rather sophisticated looking serial.
I had heard that it was “controversial” (another new word in my growing lexicon) and mentioned often in the news.
Well, at the time, I was undecided as to whether it was “controversial”, but I knew for sure that it was bold as brass!
It rocked and I liked it!
I continued to read Doonesbury. As Snoopy and Woodstock pondered the literary themes of
Jonathan Livingston Seagull, Honey Huan and Uncle Duke were, for a shorty while, discussing “terrorism”.
Another “
-ism” word, I thought. Hence, I concluded that
“terrorism” must be a belief of sorts, like Communism, Catholicism or
Conservationism; an ideology, a religion, a popular cause or a social
movement, albeit unfortunately named.
I put down that newspaper and walked across the room to look up
“terrorism” in my parents’ copy of Noah Webster’s Dictionary. While I
was at it, I also looked up “controversial”.
I immediately learned that terrorism was none of these things. It is a
technique or strategy for waging violent conflict. Hence, it would not
be something solely identifiable with a class or body of adherents,
such as the Party or the Church.
What a tragedy for America, Iraq and indeed the whole world, that
George, Sr. and Barbara had neither Gary Trudeau’s comic strip nor Noah
Webster’s opus in their home during little Georgie’s formative years.
From then on, I took more notice of the word “terrorism” whenever I
heard it. Yet, while I felt certain that I would experience Vietnam, I
believed that I would never really experience terrorism. How
very wrong I was, on both counts!
Honey and Duke’s conversations about terrorism, of course, were in relation to the Viet Cong, the insurgents of that day.
There were sharp conflicting views about Vietnam at that time, alongside the lies from Washington.
The motives were questioned and reasons were offered.
However, no one pretended that the United States was fighting a “War Against a Combat Strategy”.
Like the Iraq War, terrorism was a real phenomenon in the Vietnam War. However, it was never offered as its
raison d’etre.
The answer to the above question is an absolute “yes” and terrorism is yet another element common to both then and now.
The only variation, other that the location and people, is that we are so much more stupid this time around.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” ~ George Santayana.