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.

Politics of a Massacre: Discovering Wilmington 1898

Image
Annotation

On November 10, 1898, Wilmington, NC, experienced what has come to be known as the only coup d'etat in United States history, when white supremacist members of the Democratic Party overthrew the municipal government and killed anywhere between six and 100 African Americans in the city, which at that time had a large, thriving African American population supported by the biracial Republican Party.

This website narrates the history of this event, from the rising racial tensions surrounding the passing of the 14th and 15th Amendments and court disputes over miscegenation and interracial marriage, through the contentious election politics of 1898 that pitted the Democratic Party, supported by white supremacists, against the Republican and Populist Parties that represented African American interests at the local level, and the riot on November 10, through the legacy of the riot in the months and years to come, including the rise of segregationist Jim Crow laws.

Each section is illustrated with links to primary sources, including political cartoons, newspaper clippings, laws, court cases, and photographs of prominent Wilmington African Americans.

The website also includes the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Report published in 2006 by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources' Wilmington Race Riot Commission, which includes maps, photographs, and other primary source materials, and a link to an interactive map allowing visitors to visualize the events of November 10, 1898.

Watergate and the Constitution

Teaser

To indict or not to indict? Watergate raised complicated questions concerning Constitutional interpretation.

lesson_image
Description

Students analyze a primary source document which sets forth points both for and against the indictment of Richard Nixon, before considering Constitutional interpretations of Watergate.

Article Body

The strength of this lesson is that it is centered around a document which presents compelling arguments both for and against the indictment of former President Nixon for his role in the Watergate scandal. The featured document, a memo to the Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski, was written by Jaworski's staff as he was considering whether or not to indict Nixon.

The memorandum’s language should be accessible to most high school students. Both a copy of the original document and a transcribed version are available.

The question at the center of the lesson is, "Should the Watergate Special Prosecutor seek an indictment of the former President?" If teachers want to make this lesson more of an historical inquiry, we recommend modifying that question to read: "What were the main arguments for and against the indictment of former President Richard Nixon?"

An additional strength of this lesson is two activities that use the Constitution as a lens to understand the Watergate affair. One of the suggested activities asks students to identify the specific role each branch of government played in the Watergate affair. Another activity asks students to apply specific sections of the Constitution and determine the role particular constitutional powers and rights played in the Watergate affair.

This lesson would likely work best after an introductory lesson on Watergate. While there is no formal assessment included in this lesson, the questions presented by the document easily lend themselves to an essay or a discussion.

Topic
Watergate, the Constitution
Time Estimate
1 day
flexibility_scale
3
Rubric_Content_Accurate_Scholarship

Yes
Historical background is detailed and accurate. The document is from The National Archives.

Rubric_Content_Historical_Background

Yes
Th lesson includes background information for teachers and students, as well as a chronology of the Watergate affair.

Rubric_Content_Read_Write

Yes
The lesson is centered around a primary document from the Watergate scandal, and requires students to read the Constitution.

Rubric_Analytical_Construct_Interpretations

Yes
Students are asked to weigh the reasons for and against indicting Nixon.

Rubric_Analytical_Close_Reading_Sourcing

Yes

Rubric_Scaffolding_Appropriate

Yes
The main document is appropriate and accessible for most high school students, as are the teaching activities.

Rubric_Scaffolding_Supports_Historical_Thinking

Yes
The lesson includes the Archives' worksheet for analyzing primary source documents, asking students to consider source and contextual information when interpreting the document.

Rubric_Structure_Assessment

No

Rubric_Structure_Realistic

Yes
The lesson is clearly presented and is easily adapted to emphasize either History or Civic standards.

Rubric_Structure_Learning_Goals

Yes
Appropriate for one class period.

Woman Suffrage and the 19th Amendment

Teaser

Relive the dream of the women's vote through roleplay or interfacing with primary documents.

lesson_image
Description

Access primary sources and activities for a unit on the suffrage movement, from the Seneca Falls Convention to the passage of the 19th Amendment.

Article Body

This lesson is anchored by nine primary source documents related to the women's suffrage movement, from 1868 to 1920. Students and teachers alike will appreciate that the site includes images of the original documents—not simply transcriptions.

It also has six teaching activities that range from document analysis, to role-play, to student research. Activity three, which asks students to use textbooks, library resources, and documents to make a timeline, can be an effective way of helping younger students understand historical chronology. For older students, activity six, which asks students to write and stage a one-act play, presents an opportunity to interpret and synthesize primary sources. The script for a one-act play commissioned by the National Archives, "Failure Is Impossible," is available as a model.

This lesson also includes links to related websites, including those from the Library of Congress, the National Park Service, the National Register of Historic Places, and the National Women’s History Project.

Topic
Women's suffrage
Time Estimate
Varies
flexibility_scale
2
Rubric_Content_Accurate_Scholarship

Yes

Rubric_Content_Historical_Background

Minimal
Includes a one-act play based on archival sources.

Rubric_Content_Read_Write

Yes
Students are asked to read multiple documents, and there are opportunities for original student writing based on document analysis.

Rubric_Analytical_Construct_Interpretations

Yes
Activities two and six ask students to assess suffragist strategies and write an evidence-based play, respectively.

Rubric_Analytical_Close_Reading_Sourcing

Yes
Activity one focuses on these skills, and can be paired with a downloadable Document Analysis Worksheet.

Rubric_Scaffolding_Appropriate

Unclear
Audience is unstated.

Rubric_Scaffolding_Supports_Historical_Thinking

No
Teachers may need to supplement the provided materials.

Rubric_Structure_Assessment

No

Rubric_Structure_Realistic

Yes
The lesson is designed for easy adaptation by teachers.

Rubric_Structure_Learning_Goals

Yes

The Progressive Era

Teaser

Explore the ins and outs of turn-of-the-century labor law, business, housing, and immigration.

lesson_image
Description

Access primary sources, activities, instructional tips, and assessments for a unit on the Progressive Era.

Article Body

This unit on the Progressive Era consists of seven teaching activities, which build upon each other and culminate in an optional service learning project exploring modern day progressivism. Each part of the unit can be downloaded as an individual PDF, or the entirety can be downloaded at once. Overall, the complete package is age-appropriate, while also challenging students to develop historical thinking skills.

Activities 3, 4, and 5 utilize primary source documents and photographs, and ask students to analyze documents and draw conclusions from them. Activity 3, for instance, prompts students to examine child labor and its impact by looking at two collections of photographs—Kids at Work and Kids on Strike. It then asks students to consider questions such as "How did the people that wrote these books put their stories together?" and "What sources did they use to be successful history detectives?"

While each part of this lesson builds on the last, teachers can pick and choose among the seven activities. For teachers looking for more direction, the lesson includes a narrative script that can be used to frame each activity. It also includes a vocabulary list, a student learning chart/grading rubric, and a collection of links to selected websites.

Topic
The Progressive Era, immigration, industrialization, capitalism
Time Estimate
1-7 days
flexibility_scale
4
Rubric_Content_Accurate_Scholarship

Yes

Rubric_Content_Historical_Background

Yes
A brief overview of historical background for each activity is included in the "Narrative Flow, Teachers' Background."

Rubric_Content_Read_Write

Yes
Students are asked to read primary documents, and there are opportunities for original student writing based on document analysis.

Rubric_Analytical_Construct_Interpretations

Yes

Rubric_Analytical_Close_Reading_Sourcing

Yes
The unit includes close analysis of both text and photographic primary sources.

Rubric_Scaffolding_Appropriate

Yes
The scaffolding is very well-done, including student-friendly language and examples.

Rubric_Scaffolding_Supports_Historical_Thinking

Yes
The process for each activity is clear.

Rubric_Structure_Assessment

Yes
A rubric is included that focuses on both content goals and process goals.

Rubric_Structure_Realistic

Yes
The rubrics are divided into content and process goals.

Rubric_Structure_Learning_Goals

Yes
Lesson is also open to teacher adaptation.

Massive Resistance through Political Cartoons

Image
Article Body

This website features 4th graders analyzing two political cartoons from the Richmond Times-Dispatch about Virginia's reaction to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. This standards-based lesson guides students in exploring the Virginia state policy of massive resistance to school desegregation. This video provides examples of two promising practices:

  • Modeling careful analysis of a primary source while practicing historical thinking with young students;
  • Using scaffolding and concrete instructional strategies to guide students in shaping meaning out of multiple primary sources.
The Lesson in Action

Video of the lesson shows the teacher modeling primary source analysis with the first cartoon and students working in pairs to interpret a second on their own. Both cartoons—one published in 1954 and the other in 1958—are drawn by Fred O. Siebel. They use similar imagery and symbolism, helping students analyze the second cartoon and compare the two. Through effective scaffolding and modeling of historical thinking skills, the teacher engages students in thinking about complex historical questions of equality, fairness, and the power of federal and state governments. The lesson concludes with a class discussion of each group's findings and what their analysis means in relation to Virginia and public school desegregation.

Through effective scaffolding and modeling of historical thinking skills, the teacher engages students in thinking about complex historical questions of equality, fairness, and the power of federal and state governments.

This lesson comes at the end of a unit on civil rights, segregation, desegregation, and massive resistance in Virginia. Students at this point have an understanding of segregation, Jim Crow laws, and the individuals Thurgood Marshal and former Virginia Governor Harry F. Bird, Sr. The teacher uses primary sources in this lesson to assess and review students' understandings of school desegregation and Byrd's Massive Resistance response to the Supreme Court order to integrate schools. At the same time, she engages students in thinking about historical questions of fairness, equality, and reactions to change. You can find a comprehensive lesson plan, complete with primary sources, background information, and classroom worksheets, on the website.