The Sympathizers VS. The Colonizers
Imagine that you are one of the many politicians who have a voice for or against the Vietnam War. What would your opinion be? Presenting a special perspective on the Vietnam war, In the Year of the Pig, is a documentary film that encourages me to contemplate America’s involvement in the Vietnam War and the emergence and significance of anti-war movements. I wonder what and who helped majority of Americans realize the futility of this “immoral” war, illustrating the irrationality of America’s interference with Vietnam’s political conflict. After re-watching In the Year of the Pig and reading articles about anti-war movements, I noticed that people who were anti-war aren’t aimed at countering mainstream opinions that advocate the Vietnam War. Nonetheless, their actions are driven by sympathy instead of anger, logic instead of hatred.
Combining historical footage and interviews, Emile de Antonio, director of In the Year of the Pig, presents us with a modern history of Vietnam. This film comprehensively describes Ho Chi Minh’s fight against Japanese occupation in World War II, the French defeat at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, and America’s direct involvement from 1961 until the Tet Offensive in early 1968 (“History in the Media: Film and Television”, Robert Niemi). Incorporating ample images and completely different comments from both the pro-interventionists and the anti-war figures, In the Year of the Pig challenges people’s long-standing impressions of the Vietnam War, and tries to uncover the truth.
In In the Year of the Pig, both the pro-interventionists and the anti-interventionists explain their logic to convince their listeners. Obviously, the pro-interventionists strive to glorify the war itself while the anti-interventionists strive to sympathize with every human being, no matter if he or she is American or Vietnamese. The pro-interventionists emphasize the political and military significance of preventing the spread of communism. Moreover, they unabashedly appeal to Americans by stressing the importance of saving American soldiers’ lives at the expense of the lives of any Vietnamese, including civilians like women, children, and even infants. Clearly, they purposefully claim that only Americans’ lives matter and everything that may threaten our country’s interests should be eliminated by all means.
Nonetheless, the anti-war interviewees, just like many other anti-war student activists, look at the Vietnam War with a sense of respect for Americans’ enemies, the North Vietnamese. They respect Vietnamese people as owners and rulers of their own nation. They believe that everyone should be treated as equal, regardless of their race, nationality, gender, and age. They are never willing to dehumanize their opponents to justify America’s interference with Southeast Asian politics, the bombing of innocent civilians, and the discrimination that most Americans held against Vietnamese people at that time. Although these anti-interventionists do not uphold the mainstream opinion toward America’s involvement in the Vietnam War, they reveal the fact that something is missing in America’s mainstream opinions; mainstream cultural value should be moral, respectful, and sympathizing instead of aggressive, discriminatory, and selfish. These anti-interventionists’ rebuttal against the pro-interventionists, although being interpreted as cowardice and passivity by the dissenters, proves to be correct. They are not crazy anarchists who merely want to counter mainstream opinions or disrupt social orders, but are the wiser and more compassionate group of people who envision the course of the history.
It turned out that the Vietnam War lasted for twenty years, cost more than one and a half million people’s lives, and was indeed unwinnable for the United States.
Noticeably, America’s involvement in the Vietnam War reveals the colonial nature of U.S. political goals in Southeast Asia. Similar to the European settlers who colonized the land in North America in the seventeenth century, the U.S. played the role of a superior colonizer that is capable of controlling Vietnamese people. Both North and South Vietnamese were dehumanized and racialized as backward and lawless savages. In the Year of the Pig, one scene shows how American soldiers are having a good time by the beach in Vietnam. There are Vietnamese children who massage the soldiers’ back, polish their shoes and are ordered to do things as if they are servants. When the American soldiers are asked why they do not like Vietnamese girls, they reply, “they are gooks. You know, slant eyes. They’re no good”. By using derogatory words to denigrate Vietnamese people and ordering Vietnamese people like commanding slaves, these American soldiers act like rulers instead of guests in this country. Their disrespectful and condescending attitude reveals how the United States, as a superior colonizer, uses racialization as a mechanism to separate themselves from Vietnamese people.
The U.S. wanted to help South Vietnam’s puppet government win the Vietnam war so that it could gain control of Vietnam, forcing political influence and economic decisions upon the Vietnamese. This is a form of colonization that imposes indirect control on the colonies, contributing to the prosperity of colonists’ home country at the expense of the colonies. To achieve the further exploitation of colonies, U.S. colonizers created discriminatory stereotypes of Asians and categorized Vietnamese people as lesser beings at the bottom of the hierarchy of humankind. Simultaneously, they viewed themselves as more advanced beings who are righteous to conquer and exploit the unworthy Vietnamese people.
Ironically, instead of admitting their guilt for bombing civilians and defenseless innocents, Americans praise themselves as honorable saviors who bring enlightenment, civilization, law, and order to Vietnam. Americans used racialization and hyper-separation to justify their unjustifiable interference with the Vietnam War, aestheticizing their purpose and presenting themselves as heroes who would rescue Vietnamese people from hell. The misleading propaganda the Lyndon Johnson’s government spread domestically and internationally was aimed at glorifying the war, making its pro-interventionist idea the mainstream idea in both the U.S. and global society. All of these “effort” failed to be effective. With the gradual withdrawal of U.S. ground forces starting from 1971, the U.S. military transferred the task of fighting the communists to the South Vietnamese themselves. It turned out that American people’s words instead of politicians’ words mattered more. The countercultural idea mattered.
Undoubtedly, at the time that the Vietnam War was raging, the voice of anti-war figures was not regarded as important, let alone accepted. People viewed their anti-war comments as gibberish, their anti-war movements as violent riots, and anti-war activism as counterculture. However, it is this countercultural view held by anti-war pacifists and institutions like SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) that helped Americans realize the great casualties of American soldiers and the immoral bombing of Vietnamese villages and civilians. In In the Year of the Pig, a North Vietnamese says, “we are not under bombing. We are facing the bombs”. The courage, patriotism, and passion that North Vietnamese hold for their country proved to be the greatest weapon for the North Vietnamese and the biggest obstacle for the United States. In the Year of the Pig shows that countercultural sympathizers contribute to the ending of the Vietnam War, a war that is sustained by the mainstream ideology of colonialism and racism. America’s failure in Vietnam proves that the voice of counterculture can never be ignored due to their significant relevance, distinct perspective and genuine sympathy for the oppressed, the mistreated, and the disadvantaged that are ostracized and despised by the mainstream society.
