My Lai Massacre Political Cartoon

Video Overview

Professor Meredith Lair examines a 1971 political cartoon and what it says about U.S. reaction to the My Lai Massacre and the trial of Lt. Willam Calley. She also looks at how important photographs were in proving that the Massacre happened, and at the conflicting information offered by primary sources.

Video Clip Name
Meredith1.mov
Meredith2.mov
Meredith3.mov
Meredith4.mov
Video Clip Title
Introducing the Cartoon
Introducing the Massacre
Word Spreads
Reacting to the Sources
Video Clip Duration
1:57
4:13
4:51
2:59
Transcript Text

This is an editorial cartoon by Paul Conrad that ran in the Los Angeles Times and was picked up by a lot of other newspapers. And the image itself was in reaction to a particular moment in history when Lieutenant William Calley—who was on trial for war crimes committed in March of 1968—was convicted and sentenced. There was a great deal of public reaction of varying kinds at the time and this cartoon was as much a reaction to the verdict as it was to the reaction to the verdict.

People sent hundreds of thousands of letters and telegrams to the White House, 99 percent of them demanding his release. What Paul Conrad is drawing here is that reaction: the cheering, the yelling, the flag waving. At the top of the ditch represents that swell of sentiment, that Calley was this hero and he was being scapegoated unfairly. You see mostly male figures and they seem to be wearing suits. And there are two signs evident. One says "We're With You, Lt. Calley." The other says, "Well done, Lt. Calley."

The caption is "The My Lai Ditch Claims Another Victim." It references the event of My Lai itself. And the ditch in My Lai was one of the most searing moments of the massacre. Conrad is clearly saying that the United States lost something very dear in that moment.

What appealed to me and caught my eye initially was that he was not just targeting some narrow facet of this story, but was literally attacking the American sense of conscience, and the American sense of what is right and what is wrong. Everything that American soldiers are supposed to be fighting and protecting is gone.

A turning point in the Vietnam War took place in January or February of 1968 with the Tet Offensive. Anti-war sentiment in the United States was swelling in late 1967 and to try and keep a lid on opposition sentiment, President Johnson and his administration embarked on a kind of pep talk campaign for the American people. The message to the American people was that we've almost got the communists licked and this war is almost over.

The enemy in fact was laying in wait and so January 31st, 1968, the North Vietnamese and their Vietcong allies launched a massive, country-wide assault on both American and South Vietnamese military and government installations. And the hope of the enemy with this offensive was that the people would join them and rise up, a mass uprising to evict what they saw as this American invader in their country.

So, the American people, having just been told that the war is almost over, are now treated on the nightly news to images of fighting in the American embassy compound in Saigon, to images of great carnage at the Marine Base at Queshan, at the imperial city of Hue. People are thinking, this war is not over. We've been lied to. We've been had. And public opinion started to tank.

In Vietnam, this really unnerved American soldiers. And the knowledge that the enemy had been able to orchestrate this offensive without any awareness on the part of the United States was deeply disturbing to soldiers who were trusting that the guys in charge know what they're doing.

They were enduring very harsh conditions in terms of rain and mud and sleeping outside and not eating hot meals. And they were experiencing casualties, but not casualties due to enemy engagement. They were getting picked off by snipers or by booby traps or by injuries. And there's a great sense of frustration that they can't find the enemy. They don't have anybody to blame.

The 1st Platoon, and perhaps the company as a whole, were not particularly well led. There's evidence from February 1968 of a breakdown in discipline. But what we see of Charlie Company in the month of February, in the early weeks of March 1968, is a group of soldiers starting to unravel. So when they were charged with this operation to go into My Lai, which the military referred to as "Pinkville," tensions were very, very high.

Vietnamese villages are complexes of little hamlets and this village was, to the Vietnamese, known as Song My. My Lai was just one of several hamlets in Song My village.

In fact, everyone agrees that the first shots fired at My Lai were against an old man who was farming when the helicopters came in. He waved at them and they shot him. The fog of war is often invoked for what came after that. Maybe some soldiers heard shots and interpreted that as enemy fire. But they basically moved the 150 meters from the landing zone into the village and continued firing at any Vietnamese person they saw.

At one point, a large group of civilians was gathered into the irrigation ditch, about 170 people. Calley told them, told some of his soldiers to "take care of them." So these guys are standing there watching these villagers, and Calley came back after a while and said, "I thought I told you to take care of them," and they said, "We're watching them, we're guarding them." And he said, "No, I meant kill them."

There was one instance where a helicopter landed and interceded. There was a helicopter piloted by a man named Hugh Thompson and he had a good view of what was going on underneath him. And he saw American soldiers shooting at women and children and he landed near the ditch and put his ship in between American guns and Vietnamese civilians. He managed to pick up around 20 people and loaded them on his helicopter and carried them to safety.

A turning point in the Vietnam War took place in January or February of 1968 with the Tet Offensive. Anti-war sentiment in the United States was swelling in late 1967 and to try and keep a lid on opposition sentiment, President Johnson and his administration embarked on a kind of pep talk campaign for the American people. The message to the American people was that we've almost got the communists licked and this war is almost over.

The enemy in fact was laying in wait and so January 31st, 1968, the North Vietnamese and their Vietcong allies launched a massive, country-wide assault on both American and South Vietnamese military and government installations. And the hope of the enemy with this offensive was that the people would join them and rise up, a mass uprising to evict what they saw as this American invader in their country.

So, the American people, having just been told that the war is almost over, are now treated on the nightly news to images of fighting in the American embassy compound in Saigon, to images of great carnage at the Marine Base at Queshan, at the imperial city of Hue. People are thinking, this war is not over. We've been lied to. We've been had. And public opinion started to tank.

In Vietnam, this really unnerved American soldiers. And the knowledge that the enemy had been able to orchestrate this offensive without any awareness on the part of the United States was deeply disturbing to soldiers who were trusting that the guys in charge know what they're doing.

They were enduring very harsh conditions in terms of rain and mud and sleeping outside and not eating hot meals. And they were experiencing casualties, but not casualties due to enemy engagement. They were getting picked off by snipers or by booby traps or by injuries. And there's a great sense of frustration that they can't find the enemy. They don't have anybody to blame.

The 1st Platoon, and perhaps the company as a whole, were not particularly well led. There's evidence from February 1968 of a breakdown in discipline. But what we see of Charlie Company in the month of February, in the early weeks of March 1968, is a group of soldiers starting to unravel. So when they were charged with this operation to go into My Lai, which the military referred to as "Pinkville," tensions were very, very high.

Vietnamese villages are complexes of little hamlets and this village was, to the Vietnamese, known as Song My. My Lai was just one of several hamlets in Song My village.

In fact, everyone agrees that the first shots fired at My Lai were against an old man who was farming when the helicopters came in. He waved at them and they shot him. The fog of war is often invoked for what came after that. Maybe some soldiers heard shots and interpreted that as enemy fire. But they basically moved the 150 meters from the landing zone into the village and continued firing at any Vietnamese person they saw.

At one point, a large group of civilians was gathered into the irrigation ditch, about 170 people. Calley told them, told some of his soldiers to "take care of them." So these guys are standing there watching these villagers, and Calley came back after a while and said, "I thought I told you to take care of them," and they said, "We're watching them, we're guarding them." And he said, "No, I meant kill them."

There was one instance where a helicopter landed and interceded. There was a helicopter piloted by a man named Hugh Thompson and he had a good view of what was going on underneath him. And he saw American soldiers shooting at women and children and he landed near the ditch and put his ship in between American guns and Vietnamese civilians. He managed to pick up around 20 people and loaded them on his helicopter and carried them to safety.

Any soldier who was there that day would have had the ability to write a complaint or to let someone in authority know what had happened. Hugh Thompson was the only one who did. He spoke with his chaplain with the understanding that the chaplain would follow this up the chain of command. The chaplain in this case dropped the ball and didn't pursue it.

Thompson also spoke with Colonel Henderson, Lieutenant Colonel Barker's superior officer, and nothing official was done about the accusations. In fact, there was a great deal of effort to cover up what had happened. The official report sent up the chain of command said that 128 enemy combatants had been killed in combat at My Lai and that three weapons had been captured.

The person who actually made the effort to tell the story wasn't even there. There was a soldier named Ron Ridenhour who was serving in Vietnam. He was not in Taskforce Barker. He had nothing to do with the incident at My Lai in March 1968.

Ridenhour was really troubled by it and so he started to seek out other men from the company to find out what happened. As a result of his own informal investigation, he starts to hear that the first guy's story is being corroborated down to the finest details.

And so in March of 1969, he writes a letter to his congressman who had just come out against the war. And he also sends copies of the letter to military and government officials, other congressmen, senators, the president, senior officials in the Pentagon. And so in April of 1969, the Army launches a preliminary inquiry.

Details about what Calley did started to come out in November of '69. The rumors were starting to emerge that a massacre had taken place, that perhaps hundreds of Vietnamese civilians had been killed by American soldiers. And I think people didn't want to believe that it was true.

Anything that makes it into Life Magazine is kind of a big deal. And so you're flipping through your Life Magazine, having heard these rumors or read a newspaper article or two about this Calley guy, and suddenly you turn the page and there, in Technicolor, is a pile of bodies. A pile of Vietnamese women and children. There's one photograph in particular that's become iconic of the My Lai massacre and it is of this pile of people in a road. On the top of the pile is a baby, a little, naked baby, with its bottom facing up. It's really hard to understand why the baby needed to be shot.

So the photographs pretty much silenced the naysayers who said this was a rumor. This was definitive proof, vindication for Vietnamese people who knew that this had happened. And it became the biggest story of the day, which is quite an amazing thing given that the war itself was incredibly controversial. Given that atrocities committed by the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese army had recently been unearthed in the city of Hue in Vietnam. It reignited anti-war sentiment. So what ensued then was the release of a lot of detail as the trials were underway and publicized with updates day in and day out. The people who cheered William Calley had seen those photographs and they had seen the interviews with the perpetrators and they had seen interviews with the victims in My Lai. And they had read the testimony in court. They knew what they were cheering.

Eventually, the charges that came down were charges of murder against William Calley. I think he was charged with over a hundred murders because of the incident at the ditch where he ordered his men to kill. And then there actually came a moment where his soldiers refused to continue because there were only children left and Calley took one of their rifles and "finished the job."

Calley's trial drew a tremendous focus and part of it was because of the defense that he used. He did not deny that he had done these things. In fact, he testified rather proudly about his conduct at My Lai. The Army law is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, says that soldiers have to follow orders and if in a combat or a wartime situation, they don't follow orders, that is a treasonable offense. So the defense went something like this: Calley was given these orders and under penalty of being shot or being prosecuted, he had to follow through. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice says that soldiers are not under any obligation to follow unlawful orders. So the question then becomes whether or not Calley and his men understood that the orders to kill unarmed civilians, women and children, were unlawful.

When I've used images like this or images of propaganda, I have them just work through the story. I think students sometimes are reluctant to just tell a narrative, where they think that somehow they're supposed to be offering some incredibly complicated insight. And, so, if you just have students answer the question, what is going on here, what do you see, they can collectively start to put it together. I see people about to fall off a cliff, or people celebrating.

He gives us this maw in the ground, this sense of divide, that there's one figure on one side and that there's another group of people on another side. They will, I think, arrive, at some sense of division, and that's a great starting point for understanding what happened to the American public during the Vietnam War.

There are clues that Conrad gives us. "The My Lai ditch claims another victim," so obviously this space that he's drawing represents the My Lai ditch. It's not any ordinary ditch. It's this iconic image of the 20th century, and Lt. Calley, his name as well is spelled out. He is not an anonymous person.

I would look at an image like this as a starting place and as a launching point to get students interested in a really complicated story. You can engage so many facets of the Vietnam War, you can talk about the actual incident at My Lai, you can talk about the trial, public reaction to the trial.

The image of the ditch and the incident at My Lai lends itself to a discussion of American strategy there, but I think what it ultimately arrives at is questions of the ethics, of who's responsible and which version of the story American wants to claim. And if students are conflicted I think that's okay. Anyone who has too definitive a perspective on My Lai isn't really paying attention.

I think Conrad would agree with me because he's targeting not the people who are confused, he's not criticizing the people who are sorting through, he's criticizing the people who are cheering and celebrating and are taking this singular one-sided view of the event.

Using Facebook to Engage with Historical Figures

Image
Article Body

Sara Romeyn, social studies department chair at Bullis School, MD, teaches AP U.S. History to high-school juniors. In this video (2 min. 47 sec. long), she describes a project in which her students used Facebook to report on early 19th-century reform and political figures. Instead of researching and using the collected information to write reports, students created Fan pages, hosting albums of images related to their figures, detailed biographies, and continual status updates written "in character." At the conclusion of the project, students gathered for a 45-minute "virtual salon," viewing and commenting on each other's pages.

Students involved in the project demonstrated continual engagement, updating their pages and interacting with others' pages over weekends and after school. Romeyn has since repeated and improved on the project, asking students to use Google Maps to pinpoint locations important to their historical figures and Survey Monkey to poll other students' historical figures on controversial issues important to their lives.

Check out an example of one student's project, on DeWitt Clinton.

NOTE: In order to view the video, you must be on a computer that has YouTube access.

Using Visuals to Build Interest and Understanding

Image
For more information

Kathryn Lindholm-Leavy and Graciela Borsato, “Academic Achievement,” in F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating English language learners (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 192.

Cruz & Thornton, "Social Studies for English Language Learners: Teaching Social Studies that Matters," Social Education, in press.

See Cruz & Thornton book, 2009; see also, Jennifer Truran Rothwell, History Making and the Plains Indians, Social Education, 61, no. 1, pp., 4-9, 1996.

Teaching history to English Language Learners poses special challenges owing to its conceptual density and assumed cultural knowledge. It seems obvious that ELLS need additional support and materials to understand content, yet many social studies classrooms are ill-stocked in this regard.

Here we outline how visuals can help ELLs build interest and understanding.

Rationale

Scaffolding with Graphic Organizers

Image

Graphic organizers can be effective scaffolds for all history students, but they can be especially helpful for students with limited English proficiency. They allow these students to engage with difficult historical concepts without depending completely upon academic language to convey information.

Graphic organizers are visual tools that allow students to clarify key concepts and understand the relationship between them.

Using Primary Sources with English Language Learners

Image

Finding creative ways to include English Language Learners in classroom activities can be challenging regardless of the teacher’s dedication. One activity that I have found to be successful with all of my students, including those with limited English proficiency, is a primary source analysis activity.

This activity can be used in relation to any topic of study. Follow these steps:

What Is an "Inquiry Lesson"?

Image
Article Body
What Is an "Inquiry Lesson"?

A lesson where students analyze historical evidence in order to form and test hypotheses about past events.

Rationale

Inquiry lessons introduce students to the "doing" of history. Through using evidence to investigate historical questions, students are given the opportunity to see that history is not just a collection of facts, but rather a rigorously constructed set of arguments. As students encounter new and in some cases contradictory evidence, they are asked to reconsider their initial views, learning that interpretations of the past can change based on the available historical evidence.

Description

Students review historical documents in order to answer a central inquiry question posed by the teacher. After each round of evidence students revisit hypotheses that answer the central question. At the end of the lesson students are asked to settle on a hypothesis and answer the question using evidence.

Teacher Preparation
  1. Choose an historical question that is relevant to the topic you are    teaching. For example, "Why did the boycott of Montgomery's buses    succeed?" or "Why did Teddy Roosevelt oppose the segregation of San    Francisco's public schools?"
  2. Find and select documents and other sources that offer different    perspectives and information regarding the inquiry question. The first    document, or set of documents, should confirm students' initial    hypotheses, which are often similar to ideas presented in the textbook's    narrative or media portrayals of the past. The second round of sources    should contradict or challenge the ideas from the documents that the    students previously encountered. The next set of sources should further    complicate the picture.
  3. Tip: Steps 1 and 2 are recursive. Choosing the inquiry question and the sources that students will investigate to answer that question requires close attention to whether the sources do indeed answer that question. You may need to revise your original question depending on the sources you find or choose different sources.
  4. Consider the timing and how long you have to spend on the activity in    class. You may want to assign a document for homework the prior night.    Make copies of the documents and all other relevant materials. We    strongly recommend making a graphic organizer for students to keep    track of how each piece of evidence informs their thinking about the    inquiry question. (See here for example.)
In the Classroom
  1. Engage students in the inquiry and provide background information that    enables them to form an initial hypothesis. For example, read a vivid    historical account or show a short video clip.
  2. Pose and explain the inquiry question. Write it on the board.
  3. Elicit students' initial ideas and ask them to share their first tentative    hypothesis that answers the inquiry question.
  4. Present students with historical evidence that addresses the question.    Evidence can include documents, images, and charts, as well as other    sources of information like a mini-lecture.
  5. Students analyze evidence and generate hypotheses.
  6. Each session of analyzing evidence is followed by a hypothesis-revision    session in which you help students examine their hypotheses, remove    those hypothesis that are no longer supported by the data, and add new    hypotheses as warranted.
  7. Repeat steps 4, 5, and 6 as much as needed based on the number of pieces    of evidence you want your students to consider.
  8. Closure and Assessment: Ask students to write down the hypothesis they    judge best supported by the data. Call it a tentative conclusion that can be    believed until new evidence overturns it. Assign a synthetic essay on the    topic where students answer the inquiry question using available    evidence.
Common Pitfalls
Be sure to ask a question that elicits historical debates, not moral judgments.

Be sure to ask a question that elicits historical debates, not moral judgments. For example, the question "Should the United States have used the atomic bomb?" could be argued without any reference to historical evidence and solely on moral grounds. You want to use a question that requires that students use historical evidence to answer it. Common formats for historical questions are:

  • causal questions: "What caused x?"
  • explanatory questions: "Why did x happen?"
  • evaluating questions: "Was x a success?"
  • Be sure to use documents and sources that your students can read and access. Consider using short excerpts or modifying difficult language in documents, especially if you are working with struggling readers. Checkout this guide for tips about making primary sources accessible for all students.
    Example

    Causality is at the center of many scholarly and public debates about the past. Often we are certain specific events occurred: America declared war on Japan after the Bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Constitution allowed slavery, the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. But the reasons why these events occurred shapes how they are understood. Textbooks and the media can present a singular cause behind an event. But there are multiple causes of any event, many of which are often overlooked. This example of an inquiry lesson takes up the following question: Why did Teddy Roosevelt oppose the segregation of San Francisco's public schools? This lesson plan includes the modified documents and some background information. There is also a graphic organizer that accompanies the lesson. The first document in this lesson, a speech by Roosevelt, provides an answer likely held by several students, "it is not fair to discriminate." However, as students read the next few documents, Roosevelt’s position becomes complicated as he endorses California's right to protest Japanese immigration and the idea that only upper class Japanese should be allowed to immigrate. As students sift through multiple documents describing Roosevelt's view, they see that there was not necessarily a singular reason why Roosevelt opposed segregation, but multiple reasons.

For more information

Wineburg, Sam and Daisy Martin. "Reading & Rewriting History." Educational Leadership, 61, no. 1 (September), https://purl.stanford.edu/qf824wk7672 (accessed 11 September 2018).

Places to Go for Document Sets

The SHEG Website has several sets of modified and original documents for almost every major period in American history. On this page you will also find a link to another model inquiry plan (Scroll down to see 2C.). See the Primary Source Sets at the Library of Congress' American Memory site. Also see the Clearinghouse's "Beyond the Textbook" feature for classroom materials that can work in inquiry lessons or our Lesson Plan Reviews for lesson plans that use multiple historical sources that could be used in inquiry lessons. For a comprehensive collection of primary sources related to topics in World History, check out this site from Fordham University.

Acknowledgments

The historical inquiry lesson format has been refined by the Stanford History Education Group. The example lesson presented here was created by Abby Reisman and Brad Fogo.