Vietnam War in the Academia (I). Introduction. “The US lost the shooting war, but, so far, it is winning the meta-war.” Renny Christopher, Professor of English, Carolina State University Gone are the days when canons spoke and muses fell silent. Correspondents and writers, film makers and academics, historians and Generals, veterans and victims wasted no time in conveying all the facets of the Vietnam War. The unique wartime conditions created limitless opportunities and possibilities for the best writing, the best producing, the best acting, the best shooting and hence the best criticism. In universities in the US, works about the war in Vietnam are taught most commonly in history and political science courses but also in special topic courses in English departments and sometimes as part of programmes that address conflict resolution and issues related to war and peace. Rarely are works by Vietnamese assigned in these courses. History text books on the war present American perspectives, often suggesting, as David Hunt (Professor at the University of Massachusetts, Bioston) points out, that the Vietnamese victory was a result of American mistakes and had nothing, or at least precious little, to do with actions by Vietnamese. In courses on Vietnam War literature, courses proposed in many instances as alternatives to the traditional canon of US literature, a new canon has developed of personal memoirs and fiction by privileged Americans. Philip Caputo's Rumor of War, Michael Herr's Dispatches, and a work by Tim O'Brien (Going After Cacciato or The Things They Carried) are usually present. The absence of Vietnamese voices in courses on the war has, as Renny Christopher points out, produced the reverse of the adage "Winners write history; losers live with it." Euro-Americans are winning the meta-war that will determine how people (Americans, at least) will remember the war. Why have Vietnamese works been ignored? Based on her reading of Vietnamese exile narratives, Christopher suggests one reason: Euro-American ethnocentrism. She approvingly quotes Timothy Lomperis (Professor of political science at Saint Louis University): "Most of the literature of the Vietnam War is an exercise in American cultural narcissism". According to Christopher, most Euro-American narratives about the war are de-politicised stories characterized by a "mythologizing and valorizing of personal experience". Vietnamese exile narratives, with their emphasis on communality and bi-culturalism (loyalty to both Vietnam and the US, for example), challenge this dominant discourse. They force American readers to look at an exotic "other" as they look at themselves, a double perspective that makes them feel uncomfortable. Although I think there is some truth in Christopher's explanation, she is talking only about works by Vietnamese living abroad, and even in regard to these my own view for their being neglected is somewhat less accusatory. Some teachers of courses on the war have been eager to assign works by Vietnamese but haven't known how to locate suitable texts. Until recently not many works by Vietnamese were available in English. Euro-American ethnocentrism may in part explain the scarcity, but it is certainly not the only cause. Dear Egyptian Mail readers, Your comments and/or contributions are welcome. We promise to publish whatever is deemed publishable at the end of each series of articles. [email protected]
