Does anyone under 35 care about Vietnam?

A little background: I primarily work as a staff member at a college here in California, but I also teach two classes in an adjunct role. One of the things I like to do in the classroom, even though it has nothing to so with my job or curriculum, is to try and encourage my students to participate in their world, their electoral processes, and to stand up for their beliefs. I rarely espouse my own personal views (unless a student asks directly) because I'm more interested in getting them INVOLVED than getting them to vote any particular way.

Well, this morning I had a student toss me a curveball that I simply wasn't expecting. I had given the students a 20 minute quiz that 90% of them finished in 10 minutes, and the topic of conversation in the room turned to politics and the presidential elections. Surprisingly, very few of the kids in the class hold any real interest in the election, and student after student told me that they saw little difference between Bush and Kerry(!), and that the discussions so far concentrated on issues that the kids really didn't care about...like Vietnam and Social Security. When I asked one of the kids why he didn't care about Bush skipping out on Vietnam, his response was blunt "Vietnam is about as relevant to me as the War of 1812. They are both just chapters in a history book".

That got me thinking: How important is the whole Kerry/Bush Vietnam discussion to me? I was in diapers when the war ended, and while I technically think it was unjust, I certainly don't have any real emotion or strong feelings toward it because I DIDN'T LIVE THROUGH IT. Whether or not he fought in Vietnam wont sway my vote one iota, so why is so much time spent debating this?

So what issues were the kids interested in? Outsourcing, the job market, when we'll get out of Iraq, infringements on civil liberties under Bush, and assistance for low income people...issues that Kerry hasn't pushed or taken firm stances on in this campaign. What issues didn't they care about? Vietnam, prescription drugs, and whether we should be in Iraq in the first place (one kids summed their feelings quite well: "We're there, so all that's important is getting out. If someone lied we can prosecute them later"). Terrorism itself barely blipped their radar (not one of them, even the liberal ones, really felt that Bush was at fault).

And yes, this post DOES have a point: If Kerry really wants to win, he needs to stop concentrating on the "hardcore vote" and the "old people vote", and spend some time addressing issues that matter to the younger half of our population. Right now, MANY college age kids are tuning out this election because it isn't confronting any of the issues that matter to THEM. We're going to need every vote this fall, and to marginalize or fail to address the concerns of such a potentially large coting block is absurd and could cost Kerry the win.

I'm 34 , and my uncle fought in Vietnam .
A lifelong friend of mine lost his dad there
before he met him . I know he cares a lot
about it .

I'm sure I have a different take on it since I was not alive during the war, but I do care about what we did and those who suffered because of it.

One difference that I might point out, it is not as big of a deal to me if someone did not serve provided they do not lie about either not wanting to serve or pulling strings so they did not have to serve. I'm sure that people who lived through the war have a different take on this.

That said, I do think Kerry needs to show college kids and young professionals why they need to vote. Clinton was able to do this, and it helped him win in '92.

i have always recognised the significance of vietnam. I have heard rush speak about how the younger generation doesn't care about vietnam, and i don't really buy into that.

on the flipside, maybe this is because i was growing up at the time it became more appropriate to tell vietnam stories in the movies and on TV. "Tour of Duty" and "Platoon" are some examples.

and of course as a previous poster mentioned, many of my freinds dad's growing up were inolved in vietnam. you quickly learn that there was nothing "cool" about going over there and that is not something that people like to talk about.

maybe these kids don't really have any connections to people who were actually involved in the war?

I too believe that Vietnam was significant, but so was WWII, the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War. Significance, however, doesn't exactly relate to relevance with the here and now.

These kids knew all about Vietnam, they understood why the war was fought and what was wrong with it, but they didn't see any relationship between a war that ended three decades ago and the problems they are seeing and facing every day. Vietnam, to them, is a distraction from the real issues.

agree with the kids that it's not really an important issue in this election. W may very well have gotten some special help in getting out of his duty which is despicable considring wht he's running around doing and saying. Yet there were thousands of other rich kids who got the same kind of aid. That's all in the past and George W has plenty of mistakes and lies for us to tear down without dredging up Vietnam.

On another similar note, comparing this administrations lack of preparedness to tht of the Johnson and Nixon admins of some thirty five years ago is more appropriate.

Vietnam was a sorrowful time in our country's history and we should not forget it. That being said, we should NOT use that as the charge into this campaign (just like Bush shouldn't use Anti-Gay Marriages or 9/11 and his father shouldn't have used anti-Flag Burning).

I think what the kids might have felt--or at least what I feel being early 30's, is that being a part of Vietnam should not be a requirement for being president, so bringing it up does not make anyone look any better. To me, bringing up Vietnam doesn't make me want Kerry anymore than Bush. I supported Clinton and he wasn't a part of Vietnam--so why should I worry about Kerry's history? The fact that we are in a war and need a "VETERAN" to help us out of the war is total BS and misleads the public into thinking only a soldier can be president.

Anyway, Kerry needs to focus on the last 4 years and how he is gonna fix the mess. Talk about the current war, the current economy, the current hate politics, anything but "I'm a war hero--I'll get you outta here!" I hate when America is led to believe that the Military is such a critical piece of the chess game when really the soldiers are pawns for the political establishment to move around.

(note: that reference should not be interpreted that I have no respect for the military; I feel as General Clark does, support the troops, despise the man who is killing them--GW Bush).

I'm 28 and Vietnam is not an election issue for me, per se -- I don't care if a candidate fought in it, went to Canada, whatever.

It's how they handle their past, and what they do for veterans now, that matters to me. Sen. Kerry served honorably and then later protested the war. Gen. Clark served honorably and then made a military career. Pres. Clinton didn't serve, and protested the war from England. My dad became a teacher specifically to avoid the draft. But none of these people hid from their history, or their reasons for doing so, or where they were when they weren't in Vietnam.

*, on the other hand, has at best avoided discussing and at worst lied about his whereabouts, has cut benefits for veterans, and so forth.

It's not a war issue; it's a character issue.

Senator Kerry isn't marginalizing anyone. Vietnam. Iraq. Young people dying due to the wishes of "old people." Future wars. Who will die? The children of those being marginalized today? Concerns of young people? How about Social Security and Medicare funding and putting them out of the hands of politicians. No republicans would ever support that notion. And the clock continues to tick. And the young continue to age. Regardless of a voters age, voting for george bush is absurd.

About a third of them indicated that they would probably vote for Kerry "just to get rid of Bush", but most of the class simply didn't care and said that they probably wouldn't bother voting.

Interestingly, two of the fundie kids in my class ALSO said they'd be staying home on election day. Why? "Because Bush isn't a real Christian, or a real Conservative. He worships oil and profit margins." Hearing that from these kids (one of whom is so conservative that he recently advocated carpet nuking the middle east) made me feel great :)

... that today's college freshman was born in 1986.

Most of the students I speak with felt the same about Vietnam as I did back when we learned about American history up to World War II. By the time we got to World War II in history, it was the end of the school year and our high school teachers told us that we could learn about that ourselves from our parents. Hmmm...

Seems that right now courses about the Middle East, Islamic studies, the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc. are popular among college students. But they are interested in what happened before "current events" and want to know why things happened and how it got to this point.

If they don't see the relevance of the Vietnam War, maybe you could tell them about the oil that the U.S. was interested in controlling way back then and how we wanted to control Vietnam as a way of controlling that oil.

Another instructor links the Vietnam War with the idea of Manifest Destiny and westward expansion. He sees it as Manifest Destiny that extends past our present boundaries and over to countries on the other side of the Pacific. Taking over land that belongs to another people has a long and sad history in this country.

Any country that develops enough wealth, it seems, becomes imperialistic. Since time immemorial.

it was all about, then we are doomed to repeat it. I, for one, will never forget nor would I want to. Lessons are learned from the past, invaluable lessons that cannot be ignored nor should not.

Those that died in that war paid a terrible price for what we didn't know. I don't want to see that again. Ever.

Unless people care, we will repeat it. And suddenly this ancient, irrelevant issue will become very relevant as you watch YOUR kids being sent away to suffer killing and maiming innocent people or being killed and maimed by them. I lived through it, protested it, and am now watching my son's friends head to Iraq.

The children of the rich seldom truly serve this nation.

Clinton didn't serve (not because he was rich, but because he thought he could outsmart it) and that fact bit him on the ass, just like silver-spoon shrubito.

It is a character issue. Someone who has been in the frying pan will be far less likely to cook up another war.

as relevant to this war as any. Plus history is very important, though written by the "winners"

but young enough to not have close friends or family who served in Viet Nam. I think the issue Kerry is emphasizing is not so much Viet Nam as that he's tough. Those who knew him under extreme circumstances respect him. He's using it to portray manliness and toughness. While Bush played at fighter pilot, Kerry went to Nam.

Viet Nam matters greatly to me. It shaped my politics and values.

What would you expect in a culture that makes recent history seem ancient?
Same phenomenon happens regarding civil rights and women's rights.

They'll sure care when it impacts them, which is sadly enough an argument for reinstituting the draft. I bet that's why Charles Rangel favors a draft or is part of why he does.

:evilgrin:

I didn't see any indication that people under 35 (or even 40) had all that much interest in Vietnam. And I've met many people in their 30's who resent "Boomers" anyway, and turn off when those 60's issues are rehashed. Although, they are usually Republicans, which seems like a backlash against Boomers in itself.

We could do worse than Kerry as a candidate, but most Americans have a short attention span and campaigning on his (admirable) Vietnam record is going to get old fast.

We should allow any history to become irrelevant.

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

College deferrments are not an option.

:headbang:
rocknation

and no longer trustworthy according to today's kids : )

I was a history major in college and got an A+ in History of American Wars (only A+ I got in college so I gotta brag) I'm not a an expert on the Vietnam War, but probably know more about than your average 30 year old. I was particularly interested in how Vietnam and the anti-proliferation movement converged...which is not discussed now nearly enough. I'm afraid this historical connection is lost, especially in today's "ride-em-cowboy" strike-first mentality.

maybe the kids need to see the Wall...I visited for the first time this year and it was so overwhelming, I cried. You don't need to know a lot of history to understand a list of 50,000 dead.

anyway, I think that none of the candidates are really addressing the kids. I live in a college town in a "battleground" state and I'm interested in whether Kerry will visit as the official candidate and what he will say to the kids. I may never have voted for Clinton if he had not spoken at my college during the 1992 election.

It was a few years ago during my senior year of high school...my government class went to Washington, and every year our teacher made sure his classes visited it because he was a Vietnam vet and it was important to him that we understood what that war was about. We were out there for over an hour in February listening to stories about men in his squad that were now on the wall. He only told his students his war stories (it was too difficult for him to speak about it with his family...he called it his group therapy)

As we were leaving nobody spoke, it was the most somber moment of our trip. It gave me a real understanding of the sacrifice of our teacher and the men he served with. That night gave me new perspective about the war and veterans in general.

Even though I am much too young to have experienced the war first hand and no, I don't care if someone ducked out of service...because I sure would have done the same, but what I don't like is when someone smears the name and tries to lessen the sacrifices made by the men who did serve...like what the Republicans did to Cleland and are trying to do to Kerry

Just my two cents

It has to do with saying we were un-American because we did not wish to go to war. Vice, Pres, and Kerry are three sides of the coin and what we did in that time. It is the label of saying Dem are not good Americans that is the rub and makes what the men did seem important. Hell no one cared with Clinton and he beat out two men who had been in the war for us in WW2 but they did not say we were un-am.It is war vs anti war and it has been transfered into what these men did in the last place we were at war. Or so I think.The meaning of all this is not up front. You as a teacher must know what I mean, I just can not put it in to the right words.Ask your students of they would give up school and go fight half way around the world for something they are not to sure about or that it means anything to our country and see what they say.If they say no tell them they are really not good Americans.

I am 16 -- I care about 'Nam more than any minor I know. And that's not much. It was a tragedy... but I don't care if you served, draft dodged, etc. I do care if you make YOUR service an issue like Bush did, and then it's exposed you lied about it. I don't like being lied to.

As far as the rest of my generation - not at all.

in that I care about the decision by our govt that the sacrificing of hundreds of thousands of our kid's lives and lives of innocent Vietnamese is acceptable as long as we can keep one of our stoolies in power. I don't want that to ever happen again.

My father did two tours and it seriously messed him up both physically and emotionally. He struggles with depression to this day. When I see how easy someone like Smirk got off it makes me fume. :grr:

JUST LIKE YOU NEED TO CARE ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST. Dear God, it's not all about YOU.

Look, people vote for their own self interests. Vietnam was extremely important to youth 30+ years ago because they were the ones being sent to die or burying their friends.

Vietnam is important, just like the Holocaust, but it's no longer a pressing issue and it doesn't register on the radar of todays youth. They can tell you why it was fought, why so many fought against it, and nearly all will tell you that it wasn't a just war, but they feel as emotionally attached to it as you do World War I.

As someone else posted, most of the kids in college today (and especially in my class) were born 1985 to 1986. Many of these kids PARENTS were still in junior high or early high school when the war ended, and all were in elementary school during the late 60's. Not only did these kids never know Vietnam, but in most cases their parents didn't either. Without that connection Vietnam is slowly being relegated to a "chapter in a history book" among todays youth. That doesn't make the lessons of Vietnam any less valid, but there is no longer that emotional attachment.

Making someones participation in that war a major election issue holds about the same relevance to them as arguing about who has a better looking suit. It's a turnoff and costs us votes.

lest they find themselves DRAFTED IN THE NEAR FUTURE. Sorry, Viet Nam IS RELEVANT TODAY.

Vietnam stands as a well known example of the damage that an unchecked, warmongering government can do. It stands as a great example when looking at our current unchecked, warmongering government (three invasions in four years!) But just because something is relevant doesn't make it an emotional issue. A couple of these kids, last week, were RAILING against Bush for his invasion of Haiti and several drew the parallel between the "CIA backed civil war in Haiti and the CIA backed civil war in Vietnam". The difference was that Haiti mattered to them because it was here and now, they could see it happening and wanted to do something about it. Vietnam was simply a reference, an example, something to keep from happening again.

I don't care WHAT YOUR AGE IS.

We are already repeating it, in Iraq. But, there is a difference: As bad as Vietnam was, it was not as amoral a war as the neocons have given us. A second Bush term? Complete rule of the Middle East; space-based weaponry to keep China and Russia in line, and the draft to make sure it all happens (Bush's twins exempted, of course).

SHOULD care about Vietnam; it's that most young people don't. And if we intend to get rid of Bushwad that is a reality that needs to be addressed.

to hang out with. Sorry, lil' hipster college kid, but only assholes purposefully ignore history. I'm gonna be 29 next week, and I am fucking GLAD I was told about the events of the last century by my father and my courses in school. It turned me into a history buff. If you don't care to know about it, tough shit, squirt.

Outsourcing, the Job market: yes, relevant, important shit. But if you go through life intentionally ignoring America's recent history, then you desrve whatever despotic leader you get.

Sorry, I'm ranting. But I just don't understand why young people HAVE to force themselves to be stupid these days.

What do people age 18-23 care about unless it's fully tangible to them. Viet Nam just isn't tangible to them for the most part. It was extremely important to me at that age (and younger) because my dad was a vet and it had a profound impact on him. However, the Gulf War was much more relevent to me at the time, because I experienced it.

and I've been wondering the same thing. What percentage of the voters give a crap about what a candidate did or did not do in Vietnam. It seems to me that the issue benefits Kerry, but does not hurt Bush.

I'm not surprised that your students don't care about the election, a lot don't seem to care about much. Many people, but especially young people, don't seem to get the connection between what happens in Washington and what they experience in their every day lives.

Personally? I was born in 1958, but am very conscious of the Holocaust and I vote strongly in favor of civil liberties because of it. I wasn't born then, I'm not Jewish, nobody in my family fought in that war. It has no direct connection to me. But I believe we should always keep our eyes on our history books. Many kids today don't know all that much histery, even the basics.

and while I think the war itself is history, the response of the men running for the presidency to the war do matter -- those of loyalty, honor, and a deep sense of serving one's nation -- whether through the military or otherwise.

George Bush sat out of Vietnam not to march for civil rights, but to get shit faced, then simply ride the rest of his life on his daddy's coat tales.

That's just ONE reason, I'd have no interest in voting for him -- ever!

As for the other college aged students that don't see the difference, it's because they're too stupid. While I love the occasional beer (ok maybe a little more than occassional ;-)), alchohol and getting into the pants of members of the opposite sex is most students greatest concern.

I didn't live through it but I lived close enough to that time period...Im 37 - my generation was close enough to the Viet Nam era that as we grew up many of us were able to sense that VietNam was something very big, and different from other wars...we could still sense the social turmoil.

That "temporal proximity effect" is gone. It has been reduced to chapter in a history book.

Kerry wins on the military issue anyway -for all generations-

...even though it may not matter to as many folks as the right hopes...

self-centeredness. All they want to know is, "How much money will I make," and "Do I personally risk getting shot in a war." Nothing else matters to them. This, by no accident at all, is the standard product of American education & cultural indoctrination. :puke: