Wednesday, February 27, 2013

More Dewitt Roberts: Religion and Cannibalism in Vietnam

This next item is one of the stranger things I've come across while doing research on the war in Vietnam.  In relates to one of the justifications for mutilations of dead Vietnamese by soldiers who had served with CIDG - during his Winter Soldier testimony, SP4 Ronald Palosari (1/6, 198 LIB, Americal Division) had testified that:
And they had spotted (they were like our point men, more or less) an NVA, presumably carrying a weapon, I guess it must have been. And they had fired on him. They had blown off the top of his head. And then one of the CIDG had cut off one of his ears. And I understand, that according to Buddhism, unless your body is complete, you cannot go wherever it is that the Buddhists go to after they die. So, they had done this. And as we walked by, you know, everyone thought it was, you know, kind of cool, to see this head there that was, you know, half gone to begin with and have the ear sliced off and there it was just like a, you know, it was flat--with a small hole left in the side of the head. This feeling that we had that it was, you know, a rather humorous incident, or, you know, looked upon as being a good thing, and we were really men because, not that the CIDG had done this, but because, you know, it was an act that we would have liked to have perpetrated ourselves, I think. It's something, you know, it's, it's more or less condoned over there. And the feelings that you have are the policies of the military--that this is really, you know, a thing to be manly about. 
In his interview about the time he spent with CIDG, Dewitt Roberts discussed a different type of mutilation of the dead that he had witnessed that also had religious overtones:

We landed at a base camp A-Team called Treku. The person calling in the chopper that I came in on was my stick leader in special forces when I was a trainee and my squad leader. We ran missions with special forces. Every member of that special forces team died before leaving Vietnam and this probably could tell you the kind of action we received while we were with them and many of the team members on my team experienced this during the early periods and we became involved with certain aspects that was not experienced by any other military force in Vietnam, probably any other tracker team in Vietnam. We experienced ritualistic cannibalism by the CIDG forces which are volunteers in the green beret A teams. The A team members, the green berets, performed the duty of advisors. They appointed lieutenants for company commanders. They appointed platoon sergeants and they hired the regular soldiers. To my understanding, they were paid 6 dollars a month per soldier, 6 dollars per automatic weapon that they captured, and so much per kill. They wore tiger fatigues and they were organized in the south. They were made up of all types of outlaws that were given immunity for prosecution for their volunteered as CIDG force which stood to my understanding was Civilian Indigenous Defense Group forces, but local, and it was to their advantage to capture as many weapons and kill as many Viet Cong as possible. Many of these people were double agents. They were known to be double agents by the green berets. They were on whichever side was winning and they would switch sides depending on who was winning. 
RF: In the tracker teams, you worked with the CIDGs? 
DR: We worked with the CIDGs and the green berets. To my understanding my team was the only team that did this. I experienced, while out with the green berets, the CIDGs would take their kills and I’d seen this many times, I have photographs which I will show you in a couple of minutes, whereas the CIDGs would take the north Vietnamese kills, stab them in the stomach, rip them to the side, on the right side below the rib cage. They would pull out their livers and their hearts and they would take their machetes and they would cut the top of heads off and take the brains along with the livers and the hearts. They would take parachute silk that they could obtain from [?] that was kicked out of choppers during the night, we call them aerial flares which had a large parachute attached to it, and it was like a can of white phosphorous gas, like a gallon can, that was ignited and kicked out of a chopper and it would light the sky up like daylight and these buckets would fly over your head at night during battles and the Vietnamese CIDGs would run out of their fox holes and trenches and retrieve these parachutes. I’d seen the CIDGs run for the parachutes. Other CIDGs would point a carbine rifle at him and shoot over his head, yelling to him in Vietnamese, “Leave it alone! The lieutenant wants it!” and make him retrieve the parachute, bring it back, and give it to the lieutenant which was the company commander. The green berets were only advisors. They could not order these people to do anything; they could only advise them that the team commander was given the ultimate authority of taking his advice or refusing it, and it was usually his platoon support, radio operator or somebody close to him that enforced when he said, “I want that parachute,” and if the guy didn’t bring it back he would have shot him. The parachute was cut into little squares and used for various things but one purpose they used it for they would cut it in squares approximately a foot and a half square and they would take these brains and livers and hearts and lay them in it like a handkerchief and tie them into a pouch and they would tie it on their side. They would also use them for carrying ammunition, the little pouches, and once they returned back to the base camp, the A team, they would take rice wine which looked like vodka, it was clear in appearance, and they would dice the liver into little pieces and put it in the wine to pickle it and they would lie in hammocks and drink it. I have observed them with the hearts and the livers sticking on a sharp stick by their hooch being dried. I asked the green beret, “What is happening here?” He told me that this is a ritualistic way they have of obtaining control over their kill, the adversary; you eat his brain, you gain his conscious in the afterlife because the Vietnamese have various religions that is somewhat intact with Christianity, Buddhism, and their relatives. They believe they worship their relatives, their ancestors, and this is all tied together. I’ve observed in different ways in the past in my future experiences in Vietnam other things that fit into this type of ritualistic beliefs which I’ll explain later, but this eating the liver would give a person courage, stamina. The heart would give a [?] would perform a similar function as the heart and the liver and the brain and the person that had the brain would become the slave of this person in the afterlife. I observed outside each village, Vietnamese village, there will be a pagoda which is similar to an old fashioned bath tub sticking out of the ground with the round end pointed up with a picture of Mother Mary or a statue, only theirs it was a little box sitting on legs resembling some type of Buddhist temple with a Buddha sitting inside a little building maybe 3 or 4 feet square with Buddha in an open end in the front. In the back it closed, and a place to burn incense. This little pagoda would be on the outskirts of a village outside a cemetery. Almost every village had a cemetery on the outskirts of the pagoda and the Vietnamese worshiped their ancestors... 
Interview with Dewitt Roberts,  19 June 2000, Dewitt Roberts Collection, The Vietnam Center and Archive, Texas Tech University. Accessed 3 Jan. 2013. .

Dewitt Roberts on Abuse of Viet Cong Prisoners by CIDG

This item peripherally relates to my dissertation because it occurred before Dewitt Roberts served in the 173rd Airborne Brigade.  His portrayal of how the CIDG operated is both interesting and troubling.  I pulled this out because it illustrates his reaction to abuse of prisoners by allied forces, and because it also illustrates the attitude of another U.S. Army soldier who witnessed abuse.  The second soldier's reaction seems to confirm part of Joanna Bourke's assertion that soldiers who did not engage in atrocities didn't do so out of a sense of moral ambiguity rather than out of some greater philosophical or religious motivation.

This portion of the interview comes immediately after Roberts helped capture a suspected Viet Cong nurse while working as a combat tracker with CIDG.  His unit proceeded to a nearby village to search it for more guerillas.

We got them in the village, in the middle of the village, and another soldier came up and asked me, “Do you want a souvenir?” I said, “Souvenir?” He said, “Yeah, do you want the scalp of the nurse you just caught?” I said, “Scalp?” He said, “Well, we cut her hair off real close and she had a pony tail,” and he handed it to me and 2he said, “I had to leave because that scalp was bleeding so bad I couldn’t stand to watch it.” So I went up to see it myself because I felt bad because I had captured these two Viet Cong nurses; one that talked and the other one didn’t. The one that wouldn’t talk got 31 beaten severely. The Kit Carson scout had her off to the side, a little on the side of out commander, and he was beating her; doing side kicks to the boob, elbows to the boob, knees to the boob, the crotch, her face was swollen and bruised badly, her hair was cut off. She was laying against a hay stack around a telephone pole...not a telephone pole, but a hay pole and she had fallen into this stack so many times she kind of wore out a hole where he had beat her into this hole and she locked eyes with me, contact, like, “Are you happy? You caught me.” But, she wouldn’t take her eyes off of me while he was beating her. She had a large breast and he was hitting her in her boobs and in the face and all that. Then he drug her...I had to leave because I didn’t want to see it and I began to wonder if what I just did was the right thing even though they kill us and they were probably doing it and that’s the reason we caught them. This is not the way I’d intended for it to wind up. I walked away and I had to come back again later and I saw her standing in a little stream that ran through the village, its kind of...reeds growing out of the stream about 3 foot high above the water and he was holding her under the water with both hands between his legs and he’d hold her for a long period and pull her out and push her back down again. I told one of the soldiers, “Why don’t you stop him?” He said, “I don’t get involved.” So, I had to walk away. I stuck the hair in my sock and stuck it in my clothes as we returned to the United States when we came and I kept it for years because I wanted to remember the details of the actual facts and I knew a lot of stuff people wouldn’t believe if you told them...
Roberts follows this up later with these observations about American behavior toward Vietnamese civilians, and the possible effect it had...
I don’t think we understood that these people had no concept of politics; of a democrat or republican or what was going on here. They would see us as personalities and as individuals, of course, and then they saw us as a whole. But if they saw us do something that was offensive towards them, irregardless of which was they were leaning for, they could easily become a Viet Cong sympathizer which may mean the difference between telling you something with the promise of confidence, or not telling you or telling you the wrong thing and that’s why I did not like seeing GI’s do things - degrading people they were interrogating. If the village that they definitely saw these people being abused; beaten, hair cut off, and beaten in the boobs, held underwater, and if they weren’t a Viet Cong sympathizer, they would have been one when it was over and we didn’t place enough emphasis on that. I’ve seen them kill Viet Cong and ask the village if there was any more in the village, if there’s any there and they’d say, “No.” Then they would pull out the bodies and say, “Do you know these people, because they came from your village last night? We killed them here,” knowing that they’re probably the son of some of the villagers that grew up in the village and is known by all of them. “Well, if you don't know them then you shouldn’t mind,” and they would hang them over the side of the tank with the heads tied to one end and the feet tied to the other, hang it over the side and run through the villages and, “Well, it shouldn’t offend you because these are Viet Cong and we don’t like them, do we? One of those things.” This is an American thing; you don't hear about this. People don’t talk about it, they try to cover up for it, but this is stuff that was wrong. We did it. It was 3 bodies at a time being drug...hung over the side of the tank. Now I understand animosity for people who had 11 their buddies killed, like some things happened to them and we were told before we went over even in the regular Army, “Don’t get off into cutting X’s on the front of your bullets with a knife, putting an X on it, because if you do that’s called dumb-dumb. When that bullet hits a body it’ll split 4 different directions; it’ll tear them all up. Its like shooting a [?]. If they catch you with dumb-dumb bullets and stuff like that and your body is retrieved by them, they’ll mutilate you. They’ll cut your guts open and sit your head down inside your guts and they’ll leave you for the Americans; that’s one of the things they do. So, don’t get off into that.” Well, we did little things like that. We did little things; every unit did it, but nothing near as bad as special forces, you know. 

Interview with Dewitt Roberts,  19 June 2000, Dewitt Roberts Collection, The Vietnam Center and Archive, Texas Tech University. Accessed 3 Jan. 2013. .

Monday, February 25, 2013

Darkroom: A Memoir in Black and White," will present "South Americans in the American South: A Memoir

Mark your calendars! On March 14 at 5 pm in Room 110 of the AIME Building on the UA campus, Lila Quintero Weaver, author of the stunning "Darkroom: A Memoir in Black and White," will present "South Americans in the American South: A Memoir." Books will be available for purchase following the presentation.


Antoine Roy on ROE, Free Fire Zones

Just about done with the Antoine Roy oral history interview.  After the 173rd Airborne, he cycled through 1st Cavalry and 101st Airborne.  Here he's talking about his experiences as a door gunner on UH-1 Iroquois helicopters in Vietnam:


Okay. What kind of rules of engagement did you have as the door gunner? Did they vary from mission to mission or were you kind of given, here’s what you can and can’t do in general? 
AR: Well, you can’t kill civilians. Anybody carrying a weapon, even if they’re dressed as a civilian, but they’re carrying an AK-47, they’re fair game. There are areas that were free fire zones. Now a free fire zone, and you hear about this, doesn’t mean that you get to kill anything you want in that zone. If there’s an old lady and three or four kids in a free fire zone, you don’t get to—you are not are not required to gun them down. It just means that it’s an area where there are no civilians living. There aren’t supposed to be any and you don’t need to call in and get permission to fire at them. You can fire back at somebody that’s shooting at you no matter where, if you can identify the target. It just meant that there were supposed to be no civilians in the area. Well, there could also be your own troops in the area too. You always identified your target, but if it was an enemy soldier he was fair game. That’s basically the rules of engagement. I mean, if an enemy soldier, if you flew up on one suddenly and he turned around and threw his arms up in the air, you had the option. It could be an ambush. You want to take prisoners so you might just fly around him and if he tires to move left or right put some rounds in front of him to stop him, give him the message, stay where you are. Then maybe try and call in a couple of other ships, gunships or something to cover you while you’d land and take him prisoner. 
RV: Did you ever do that? 
AR: No, personally, myself no, others yes. But usually if they hear you’re coming or something they’re going to run. If they got a weapon then you just plain shoot them. If they don’t have a weapon and they’re dressed as a peasant and you know that you’re not too far from the edge of a free fire zone, you might want to hold your fire, but if they started running then that’s guilt right there. 
RV: Right. Did you witness or hear of any abuse of these rules of engagement? 
AR: Once. We had an avionics, which is your communication system within the helicopter, guy. I’d always liked him and they used to like to get some door gunner time in too. We went out to make an assault in a rice paddy area between two villages. It was not a free fire zone. We came in. I was about fifth ship back in a stick of six. You come in first wave and you’re really—I mean your fingers are really on the trigger, you’re always nervous, especially on the first one. The front of the stick had come in over this one village, where they were landing between these two villages and rice paddies. I’m in my seat looking around. I got my fingers around the triggers and all of a sudden I hear bap-bap-bap-bap-ba-ba-ba-bop. It’s like when everybody’s on edge and there’s something like that, one person fires, everybody just starts to fire. A whole bunch of us just pull the trigger for maybe ten, fifteen rounds before we realize, oh Jesus, we’re over a village. We don’t hear any incoming fire, just an M-60 that fired about ten, fifteen rounds. So I stop and I’m looking for targets and I’m looking for targets and I don’t see anything. As we come down and land I look forward just a little bit and here’s a dead Vietnamese man laying along the side of a rice paddy dyke. The grunts jump off the helicopter and we take off right away. The rice paddies are wet. They’re actively being grown. I had no idea what happened. I assumed he had a weapon or something and we just happened to land when he was crossing over the dykes between the two villages. Well, later on that night we had a get-together in one of the tents. This guy, and I won’t name names, this guy had been drinking a little bit and he’s laughing and boasting about this guy that he shot earlier in the day during that CA. I'm in the corner and I’m listening because I’m interested in what happened. Come to find out the guy did not have a weapon at all. He was walking along this dyke. All of a sudden here comes these six helicopters and they land just about right next to him, or they start landing. He’s just standing there totally surprised and this guy just gunned him down. I remember being just so totally shocked because I didn’t expect it from this person. Secondly I mean you had six, seven infantrymen on the helicopter you’re landing. They’re going to take the guy prisoner. They’re going to check his ID. If he doesn’t have any ID he’s going to be taken prisoner. For all that guy knows he could have been an ARVN soldier on leave. I remember from that day on I just did not like this guy. About half the guys there were drunk, at this little get together. They were laughing. The other half just didn’t express any emotion. I had heard a couple of comments after that, you know, “Shouldn’t have done that.” I was really disappointed because I had liked the guy a lot, earlier. Well, you know. You have cruel crime in civilian life and you have it in war time too and certainly read about it enough in other wars. We obviously didn’t make any friends in that incident, but generally I don’t think it left very much of an impression, good impression on people.
Interview with Antoine Roy,  No Date, Antoine Roy Collection, The Vietnam Center and Archive, Texas Tech University. Accessed 3 Jan. 2013. .

This is what Oral History is All About

This is from the fifth session of the oral history interview with Antoine Roy.  It probably won't help with my dissertation, but represents the interesting type of thing you can come across.  I've never hear any Vietnam veteran discuss finding enemy burial plots before this.

I remember one scene that’s really special from that day burned into my mind. We’re going along the ridge and the land went up a little bit to the right. Off to the left it went over maybe about thirty feet kind of flat and then dropped off steeply down towards the valley on that side. There was a little flat area. It was a graveyard and it had just been dug that morning. There were little—there were star— they’d take a strip of bamboo and at the top of the strip they’d fold it so it formed a star. In the bottom part of that long strip of bamboo they’d stick into the ground. There must have been, oh gee thirty graves at least there. It was very quiet, very peaceful. It was a very beautiful little area. I guess you know, if you have to be buried on a battlefield or near the battlefield, it was a nice place to be buried. I still see it so easily.
Interview with Antoine Roy,  No Date, Antoine Roy Collection, The Vietnam Center and Archive, Texas Tech University. Accessed 3 Jan. 2013. .

Christianity and the Roman Empire - The Student View

Last week I assigned a group of online students a discussion question that asked them to discuss the influence of Christianity from the point of view of an Emperor of their choice.  This is a new approach to this subject, and is based on a course redesign done by a different instructor.  My usual approach is to  ask them a straightforward question about Christianity in the Empire, or about the fall of the Empire in the West, but this time, I figured that I would just go with this new "standard" to see what happened.

It was... interesting.

Like in any class, whether face-to-face, hybrid, or online this class has a hierarchy of students.  Some of them always bring their "A" game.  These are the smart, motivated, prepared ones for whom anything less than a great grade and learning the material is not an option.  There's a tier of students that are satisfied with a "B" or "C" as long as they don't have to work too hard, and another layer that tries hard, but can only scrape a "B" or "C" from the class.  Then there are the folks that procrastinate, aren't prepared for college classes, or just have too much going on to focus on the class to do well.  Online classes are a real problem for this last group since they frequent slip through the cracks.

The hierarchy of students was really apparent in this week's discussion about how Roman Emperors might have viewed Christianity.  The top tier of students gave their normal performance - they engaged with the material, wrote a bit more than they strictly needed to, provided citations, and talked about Constantine, the cult of the Emperor, and stability in the Empire.  The lowest tier, the students that I worry about the most, really struggled with this Discussion, and it showed not only that they didn't read the text or listen to the course lectures (or read them, which is what I would do), but they have only the faintest conception of the timelines for the crucifixion or the rise of Imperial Rome.

This week I saw two big issues: chronology and a misunderstanding of the level of importance that Jesus had in the Empire during his lifetime. Several students seemed to think that Jesus was executed on the Emperor's order because Jesus gathered followers and took attention away from the cult of the Emperor and traditional Roman religion.  Others were convinced that Pontius Pilate had Jesus executed for heresy against Roman religion.  That last one is probably an issue of interpretation of the Gospels and the textbook, but the first part of that seems to be a result of not understanding the end of the Republic, when we believe Jesus lived, and the assumption that because Christianity is important in our culture now, then, of course, an obscure preacher in Judea was of such importance that Octavian/Augustus was worried about him as a threat to stability.

There's something clearly missing here in the students' preparation before college, in their willingness to  do the reading and sit through lectures on their own, but also in the course.  I feel as if by not leading them through the material by the nose, my students are missing critical information that they need in order to understand the material and do well on the assignments.  The issue for me, is how do I fix my part in this within the context of classes that have a shared design across several instructors?  Why do I feel like we're failing students with the current model we have for secondary and higher education?

I've Got the Magic Rubric!

Jonathan Rees has a longer post on the "magic rubric" the MOOC thinks is out there.  His final paragraph is great:
The longer we act as if the magic rubric actualy exists, the more damage MOOCs will inflict on the education of our most vulnerable college students and the livelihoods of our most vulnerable faculty colleagues. What I don’t understand is why more superprofessors can’t reach this conclusion before their MOOCs even gets off the ground. After all, the non-existence of the magic rubric, like so many other things about online education, is actually bloody obvious.
Go read the rest.

The magic rubric. | More or Less Bunk