Friday, May 27, 2005



From: History and Legacy of the 1960s on behalf of H-1960s, Edward J. Trout, Retired Pennsbury History Dept/Chair {34.91 years}retired Advanced Placement U.S. History, Modern U.S. History; 1960-2005 Adjunct Professor, History/Holocaust-Genocide/M/U.S.H.,1945-present [B.G.S.U., Ohio, Philadelphia University, Philly, Pa. Tiffin University,Tiffin, Ohio

Here are 3-4 messages from the 60's History list... sort of in the order they were posted. Hope this helps... it eventually lead into the "spitting" myth. - Peacevet

I certainly concur with Bob Buzzanco on the neo-traditionalists success at the "revision of the Americanized version of the Vietnam War". The "Stabbed-in-the-Back" myth is reflected in today's media. Today marks the 30th anniversary of the end of the III phase of the Indochina War. Little coverage in cable-T.V. The NYTimes ran a piece by Hugh Van Es on the real story and history of his famous photo "Fall of Saigon" (NOT the roof of the U.S.Embassy.

There appears little interest on the part of the media and academia to correct myths, or facts that may raise the public to a critical thinking level for the public on this day April 29th 2005. They may wonder why "media coverage" has become a causality then and now in Iraq. IMHO the best documentary for students learning to search for verifiable accuracy of the Vietnam War;1963-1975 was David Upshaw's _Vietnam: The Camera at War_, narrated by Jack Smith. Fifteen still photo's From "the Burning Monk" by Malcolm Brown,1963 to "Coming Home" by Sal Veder,1975.

Each photo's historical context explained by the photojournalists and if killed during the war, explained by Horst Faas or a surviving photojournalist -each with their own POV. A Great visual tool for a Document-Based Question analysis. Try to find or purchase it today? This war and this period of American History are for many on this list and H-War, an approach-avoidance conundrum. I have yet to see a consensus emerge from a thread after several thoughtful and verified posts- e.g. The anti-war movements non monolithic nature, the alleged 'generation gap. Yet we remain civil and positive. I am certain the "textbook-historians" of whom Bob cautions us-will have no problem reaching a zealous consensus and without civility and shove it forcefully down the throats, into the memory. The hearts and minds of Our's and future students.


Windbender said...


I still want to know who Dr. Trout refers to when he argues that "There appears little interest on the part of the media and academia to correct myths, or facts - that may raise the critical-thinking level ON THIS DAY APRIL 29th, 2005."

Not to speak for Dr. Trout, but I would suggest that there are a number of media outlets and supposed academic publications that I personally find of questionable veracity, full of half-truths taken out of context and out-and-out lies.

A few examples: Jerome Corsi has a PhD in political science from Harvard (1972); "Unfit for Command" by O'Neill, John; Corsi, Jerome Conservative Columnists Ann Coulter and Bradley Gitz, to name just two. And any public media owned by Rupert Murdoch such as FoxNews. All of these, in my opinion, are lacking in veracity and have a political agenda beyond academic history or news. To me it appears that they had enough of an effect in the last election to change the outcome.

Windbender said...

POSTED BY JILL SILOS (Ph.D. Assistant ProfessorColby-Sawyer College)VIA REBELNED

Can you clarify your comment that "There appears little interest on the part of the media and academia to correct myths" regarding Vietnam? I know that I and my colleagues in the history departments I've been in are very serious about our scholarship and our responsibilities as historians to pursue all new evidence in order to reach some sort of truth--or the many different truths--that are part of the human historical experience. I'm curious about
your comment and would like to know more about the academics you refer to.