---

Yes, I am a Deep Cover, and it does have an influence on my perception of history, but this inquiry is into the Deep Cover (ˈkʌvə(r)) of the 1968 My Lai massacre, and those involved.

---

When analyzing historical events, the only way people will take you seriously is if you look through the six key historical lenses:

Historical Significance
– Was the event notable at the time it was happening?
– Were there widespread and lasting consequences?
– Is it symbolic of any key historical trends or issues?

Evidence and Interpretation
– Can we trust the source of information?
– Do the sources provide evidence that is relevant to the questions we hope to answer?
– Does the evidence support the interpretation offered?

Continuity and Change
– How have things stayed the same/changed?
– Were the continuities and changes positive or negative?
– How rapid or slow were the changes?

Cause and Consequence
– What are the range of factors that have contributed to the event?
– Which cause are most influential?
– What are the intended and unintended consequences?

Historical Perspective
– Are the values and beliefs present at the time being used to interpret the past?
– Are the interpretations representative of the beliefs, values and practices at the time?

Ethical Judgement
Are any ethical judgements offered as :
– clear statements of praise or blame?
– suggestive of positive or negative opinions?

Do the judgments consider :
– the interests of all key groups?
– the beliefs at the time?
– all relevant evidence?

 

In my studying of the Vietnam War’s My Lai massacre, I have compiled a few things and posted them above and below this text. The first image you see is a document that I redacted that contains information about the attack as well as the photos of key players in the scandal. Below is the letter written by one of those crucial players: Ron Ridenhour, who sparked investigations into the matter and ultimately ignited the anti-war movement of 1969-1975.

I’m now going to break them down to illustrate how in these two figures lies the six key historical lenses we must use when analyzing a piece of history.

Evidence and Interpretation

We’re going to start with Evidence and Interpretation because without it, there would not have been any documented event for us to examine. Without Ronald Ridenhour, an American Infantryman stationed outside of My Lai in 1968, the massacre would be nothing but a bunch of black lines on a document forgotten at the bottom of a pentagon file cabinet. Though he did not partake in the execution of the order, her heard whispers of what happened throughout the camps he passed through. He knew “something dark and bloody had indeed occurred”. His concern led him to dive deeper, but when he asked the Captain, who supposedly gave the order, he was told “not to do anything stupid”. Ridenhour then proceeded to write a letter detailing the atrocities he heard of through first hand confessions. He included that an American attack was ordered, the attack resulted in the slaughter and maiming of 500 civilian men, women, and children, as well as the burning of all the homes, crops, and livestock of the area. He did not claim to know these events were factual, simply that there should be a federal investigation into the matter. Thinking the story would break as soon as he got it out of the camp, he sent his letter to President Richard Nixon, the Pentagon, State Department, Joint Chiefs of Staff and several congressmen. All of which did not reply. It was only when he went to a journalist months later that the story broke and the government was forced to commence an  “investigation”. The story would’ve likely had little impact given that it was only one testimony, but the events of the My Lai massacre where pieced together when the report of the Son My Village Chief that was also sent out. The reported civilian casualties along with the story of “barbarism” behind their deaths told by Ron Ridenhour, came together to finally spark a real investigation and put the spotlight on the military as well as the government.

Cause and Consequence

After the story of the My Lai massacre went public in The United States there was a new outrage towards the country’s governing bodies, which led to what remains the largest political rally in American history: The 1969 Moratorium Against the Vietnam War. After the My Lai case, the U.S. government and Military stayed on the Defense due to more and more similar cases coming to light. By the end of 1972 it was found that without including the 500 casualties in the My Lai Massacre there was still thousands more lives taken in previous and concurrent secret U.S.  attacks. The military had no choice but to start Court martialing those who were found out. Among the most important cases was that of Lieutenant William Calley.

He was the officer who ordered the seizing of My Lai, and the first officer to be court martialed for war crimes, inspiring a rain of others ranging from discharge to life sentences. The My Lai Massacre and the events that followed changed the way America felt about it’s involvement in the war and in many cases the way they felt about the governing American establishments in general. The My Lai attack and the Vietnam War as a whole, forced Americans to be more critical of their leaders and governing bodies. The critical eye of the American people was on Nixon and his government from 1968 to 1972 when the Watergate scandal occurred resulting in Nixon’s resignation in 1974. This was one of the most important moments in American political history and it likely would not have happened if it weren’t for the My Lai Massacre five years earlier.

Continuity and Change

In the late 60s  the morale of American GIs was dwindling, but when word got around of the awful nature of the My Lai attack, morale took a complete nosedive. While Americans back west rallied on home soil, American soldiers took their own stand in assorted ways. There were many cases of mutiny, and increasing numbers of soldiers who refused to fight. Those left willing to serve the military unflinchingly were not even able to do so due to the chaos that took place in the final years of the Vietnam War. The concept of an enemy was merely an idea as the line between ally and foe became even more blurred than before. More journalistic reports were published, many accompanied by photo collections detailing the graphic nature of the stories. These articles spread across American military camps across Vietnam, many U.S. soldiers refused to fight after seeing what was being done, and if they continued fighting, it was for themselves, not their country. In 1973, Nixon initiated operation homecoming, for no other reason than that he was stuck in a war with no remaining army. By 1975, America was officially out of Vietnam, with their first documented military loss and a new definition of what it meant to go to war.

Historical Perspective

Leading up to 1968, many of the American people were already against Amercia’s involvement in the Vietnam war, but that was just their involvement. Anti-War protesters didn’t know the extent of the heinous crimes that occurred over seas prior to 1968. In all previous wars the Americans had clear enemies, or at least the government did a good job of conveying that narrative. Vietnam however, changed all that. The American people got a glimpse at how messy and brutal war really is.

Ethical Judgment

When reading Ron Ridenhour’s letter he has a clear ethical judgment on the events that took place during the My Lai Massacre. It is obvious from his choice in language that he think of it as negative, words like “barbarism”, “dark”, and “terrible”. However, the reason his narrative is still valid is because he takes all people’s views into account when making his judgment. He talks about how shocked he is to see “young American men participating in these acts”, which tells us that his previous judgments of American soldiers were positive, and that it was strictly the events that were negative. Of course, most people agreed with Ridenhour in that the Massacre, and the war as a whole was “[barbaric]”, but there were still those who tried to convince them otherwise. The highest ranking being the President Of The United States, Richard Nixon. He is quoted after the war ended, saying “No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now”.

Historical Significance

The My Lai Massacre created an instant wave of anti-war movement during 1968. At the time it represented the brutality of America’s role in the Vietnam war, and it carried this symbolism when used by activists at the forefront of their campaigns. The My Lai Massacre carried lasting consequences, and continues to act as a symbol for the  Vietnam war, in it’s brutality, and social, political, agricultural, geographical, societal and cultural impact.