“The Orange Stripe Across Vietnam”
By:
Allie King
Battle on the Environment
War and nature have existed side by side since the dawn of time. Wars have been fought for a variety of
reasons in the past, sometimes for the use of land, but rarely with the environment in mind. An early
form of environmental exploitation in the name of war can be traced back to General Robert E Lee’s
destruction of the environment during the American Civil War. Lee’s troops had needs from the
environment such as food, weaponry, materials and animals. The needs from the earth were so great it
was one of the reasons for the confederate advancement into the north during 1863.1 In the time of the
Civil War if a town was to be burned and crop fields trampled, a town would have been devastated.
Less then a hundred years later, a new definition of the environment and destruction was realized with
the use of Atomic Bombs. With just one bomb the town of Hiroshima was truly devastated: the city
burned to the ground and the radiation left deadly effects for those that were not killed by the initial
blast. A mere twenty years later the destruction the environment by humans was seen again during the
Vietnam conflict. Planes were sent in masses over the jungle with the intension of killing the jungle that
lay below, by spraying an herbicidal agent called Agent Orange.
The Orange Stripe Across Vietnam
Studying the effects of war on the environment during Vietnam War shows how devestation and lasting
the horror. When the United States slowly began sending troops to Vietnam in the 1960s, the years of
fighting and the decades of depression to both countries was unforeseeable. The United States Army
used Vietnam as a laboratory for testing new weapons, including Agent Orange. John Tully, associate
professor of chemistry at Yale, makes the terror clear by making the comparison with another war in
close a time frame. “Between early 1965 and mid-1968, over 2.5 million tons of bombs were dropped on
South Vietnam alone – more than were dropped in all theatres of World War II by all sides.” Knowing
the horrors of war and the problems caused to the environment, wars have become increasingly more
devastating.
The use of Herbicides in Vietnam began in 1962 and the immediate success led to an increase in their
use. The herbicides were used to clear away massive jungle areas where the Viet Cong were suspected
to be hiding. Of the four main herbicides, Agent Orange (named for the orange stripe around the barrel)
became the most known as well as most devastating. Agent Orange cleared away broadleaf plants
within seven to ten days of spraying. Many of these plants remained dead for approximately a year.
Chemical defoliants were first brought into the war with the aim of destroying the crops and waterways
of the area. This operation, called Operation Ranch Hand, was executed with the hope that continued
attacks on rural farmlands and other areas around Vietnam would break the morale of the Viet Cong, or
make it impossible from them to survive without the environment. The defoliants had impressive results
that could clear the forest below within a week. This made it harder for the Viet Cong to hide thus
easier, in theory, for the US troops to find the enemy. As the war progressed, the uses of the defoliants
expanded.
Realizing the Consequences
In 1969 the trees in the area of Da Nang were dying though no chemicals had sprayed them. This was
seen in other surrounding areas as well. The tree’s health was traced back to empty drums of Agent
Orange that were purchased by villagers. When pilots were finished with the drums they were not
resealed in most cases and as the chemicals were hard to drain out of the drums, most were left with
two to three gallons in them. This was the condition in which they were sold to villagers who would later
drain the deadly chemical and unknowingly pollute their land and themselves.
It was these events in that led to the initial testing of the harmful effects of the herbicides. Early warning
labels read, “Danger-vapor from contents of these drums can damage plants and trees.” Before tests
were conducted, Agent Orange was the most preferred weapon used in Vietnam as it performed the
best; this was later understood as a result of the unknown power and damage of the chemical. Once
tests were underway the harmful affects of Agent Orange were clear. After two short years the
herbicide was no longer used. The tests soon shifted to the lasting effects this chemical had on humans.
Current Problems
The mangroves in the forests of South Vietnam were a large target for Agent Orange. It is estimated that
300,000 acres of mangroves were killed during the US air raids, the majority traced back to Agent
Orange. Today, close to forty years after Agent Orange was last used in Vietnam the effects of the
chemical on the mangroves are still seen. It is reported that twenty to thirty percent of the mangroves
have not grown back. Mangroves, which are a slow growing plant, were not able to fight the quickgrowing bamboo in areas they had previously occupied. Animals, fish and crabs that use to live in the
mangroves are not able to survive in the much less protective bamboo
Livestock was also harmed by the use of Agent Orange. Livestock was never a target for American
bombers, but with the massive amount of barrels emptied over the country they inevitably were
harmed. It is estimated that 13,000 livestock animals were killed. In post studies, dioxins (traces of Agent
Orange) have been found in animal fat tissue, as well as, meats, milk, eggs and fish. For livestock,feeding
off of the land guaranteed consumption of Agent Orange.
Impact of Connections
Areas of Vietnam are still wastelands today, referred to by the Vietnamese as, “Agent Orange Museums”
or “American Grass.” The lasting impressions of Agent Orange still make it difficult for peasants to
survive. Arnold Sector, a health physician at the University of Texas, stated that, “In some cases dioxin
levels are just as high now as when the spray occurred.” Vietnamese who survive off of the
contaminated environment suffer many adverse affects, including deformities in children.
The relationship between war and nature is becoming a more pressing matter with the advancement of
new weapons. The advancement of different chemicals has changed the fate of how lasting the war can
truly be on the terrain of different countries. Without looking deeper than facts and figures it is hard to
see the real impact that humans, animals and nature as a whole have to deal with when war is waged.
By showing the magnitude of destruction scholars hope to change how much damage will be done in the
future.
Allie King
April 15, 2009
Seminar in Comparative History, Dieterich-Ward
Seminar Paper
Wars Battle on the Environment
War and nature have existed side by side since the dawn of time. Wars have been fought
for a variety of reasons in the past, sometimes for the use of land, but rarely with the
environment in mind. In the future wars will be fought for natural products of the environment,
such as, oil and water. In the early days of war fields where food was produced would be harmed
and minor damage done to the environment compared to destruction caused by modern warfare.
Over the past century and perhaps in the future, the destruction of war to the environment is
growing and the effects are becoming increasingly lasting and devastating. War and nature are
two constants that will exist throughout time, but changing state of the relationship needs to be
studied further, more in-depth then facts and figures.
In Mark Fiege, who is an associate professor of History at the Colorado State University,
discusses General Robert E Lee’s destruction of the environment in Natural Enemy, Natural
Ally. Lee’s troops had needs from the environment such as food, weaponry, materials and
animals. Fiege discusses how the needs from the earth were so great it was one of the largest
reasons for their advancement into the north during 1863.1 In the time of the Civil War if a town
was to be burned and crop fields trampled a town would have been devastated.
Less then a hundred years later a new definition of the environment and destruction was
viewed by just two words, Atomic Bombs. With just one bomb the town of Hiroshima was truly
devastated, not only was the city burned to the ground but the radiation left deadly effects for
years for the inhabitants of the town who were not killed immediately. A mere twenty years later
1
Mark Fiege, Natural Enemy, Natural Ally (Salem: Oregan State University Press, 2004), 93.
1
the destruction of humans to the environment were seen again in Vietnam. Planes in masses were
sent over the jungle with the intension of purposefully killing the jungle that lay below, by
spraying the herbicide Agent Orange.
Many of the reports that were put out shortly after these incidents were full of facts and
figures. For example The Manhattan Engineer District was sent into Hiroshima and Nagasaki
weeks after the bombs were dropped and report back information such as, the time the Enola
Gay took off, released the bomb, and later landed. The report later goes on to state how the bomb
in Hiroshima was more powerful then 20,000 tons of TNT, the total number of those who died
immediately and those who were injured. The report only has a small section in the end that talks
about the environment, how trees were uprooted immediately and killed by the heat, or that
others were swept away by the violent winds.2 These impacts to the environment were over
shadowed by other important events of the bombs, but still need to be made into more then just
data. My intention is to show the research that has been done and how the facts and figures of
harm done to the environment are present in current literature. Even though the information is
present the research needs to show the individual impact to the environment and how by showing
the devastating effects steps will be taken to stop the advanced chemical movement of war.
Current Works with the Environment and War
It is only recently that Environmental Historians began making serious efforts into the
study of war and nature. Studying the environment has become an increasingly larger focus as
weapons have become so much more violent and the toll advanced weapons are taking on the
environment has become increasingly larger. Some groups such as Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute have taken the approach of writing directly to groups such as the United
2
Manhattan Engineer District, The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
Government (Mimeo, n. d., 1945).
2
Nations about their concerns with the devastating effects new weapons have on the
environment.3 Other scholars such as Susan Lanier have taken similar approaches in pleading for
a stop to the free use of weapons, but Lanier is petitioning to the general public. Both scholars
back up their arguments by educating readers on wars over the past hundred years to show the
serious and lasting effects. One study that shows just how lasting and harmful modern war can
be is the issue of Soldiers magazine, addressed later in this paper. When modern weapons were
introduced to warfare many more environmental factors were brought to the already large
amounts of harm that are done to the environment in war zones. There are many studies taking
place to show how harmful war truly is, yet more work remains in understanding the relationship
between chemical weapons and other modern forms of warfare.
It goes without question, that when a battle of any form occurs the land on which the
battle takes place will come out much worse then when the fighting began. In Natural Enemy,
Natural Ally, Mark Fiege looks at the different ways the land had been harmed during the
American Civil War. His approach looks at how the land was weakened during the war with the
constant need to feed the soldiers and keep the troops in good health land was overworked and in
some cases ruined.4 Over time the strain on land has changed, over farming land in no longer an
issue but the aftermath of using harmful weapons has become an issue, weather it is addressed or
not. In the report, “Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Environment” put out by the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the argument is made that the
3
Arthur Westing, Weapons of Mass Destruction and The Environment (London: Taylor &
Francis Ltd, 1977), 12.
4
Fiege, 95.
3
outcome of chemical warfare needs to be examined closer before countries plan their military
strategies and enter into combat.5
Westing has taken the approach of braking his report into three sections, 1) Nuclear
Weapons, 2) Chemical and Biological Weapons and 3) Geophysical and Environmental
Weapons, and then further into the descriptions and ecological consequences of each. The first
two sections are new in that they are for the most part new technologies of modern warfare (this
is referring to the period starting around the first and second World Wars). The last section of
this report brings up harmful, yet unconventional forms of warfare.
“Geothermal warfare can involve hostile manipulations of the atmosphere, of the land
and its associated fresh waters, or of the ocean.”6 Fire for example has been seen throughout
history as a means of warfare that is still effective today; cities, towns, farmlands, forests or any
structure that is deemed valuable to the enemy can and will be burned in order to make ground.
During World War II the Germans flooded and destroyed seventeen percent of all of the
farmland in Holland.7 It took years for the Dutch to recover and restore the land from the salted
state. Although these appear to be primitive means of war, their results are devastating and have
massive impacts on the environment.
The SIPRI’s report on “Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Environment” proves to be
a complete report of the effects of modern warfare. Two examples are shown of the negative
impacts of modern warfare on the environment over the course of different wars across many
continents. It shows the impact of many weapons once in use, yet it fails to show all of the
problems that may arise before weapons make their way to the battlefield and the impact of what
5
Westing, 17.
Ibid. Westing 49.
7
Ibid. Westing 54.
6
4
can happen before some are even considered weapons. An example of what SIPRI’s report is
missing is the negative effects that testing weapons has on the environment, such as, polluting
land when the atomic bomb was first tested in Trinity, Los Alamos.8
Susan Lanier-Graham provides a more thorough report in her book, The Ecology of War.
Lanier also breaks her book into three main sections: 1) Environmental Damage During War, 2)
Environmental Impacts Following Warfare, and 3) Environmental Damage during war. Lanier
expands her research by extending the time period to show what impacts warfare had before
many of the technological advances had been made, such as the Atomic Bomb.
The main argument in of Lanier-Graham’s book is similar to that of the SIPRI yet goes
one step farther. Her thesis is that if people were educated more on the environmental effects of
war especially in regards to chemical warfare better choices as to means of fighting wars.9 More
specifically she argues that if the extent of how much the environment is destroyed by
increasingly sophisticated forms of weaponry were common knowledge to a greater percent of
the population that tests, disposal and most importantly used during war were known, there were
be a smaller number in action.
Lanier discusses issues of pollution after World War II. Many ships sank with weapons
still on board that greatly disturbed aquatic life, by polluting the water with oil and other
chemicals. Until recent years Danish Fishermen have reported that they come across mustard gas
while fishing, sometimes causing them to be poisoned. Both the Axis and Allied sides surveyed
8
Gene Dannen, Atomic Bomb Decision- The Trinity Test July 16, 1945 -Eye Witness
Accounts, http://www.dannen.com/decision/trin-eye.html (accessed March 18, 2009).
9
Susan D. Lanier-Graham. The Ecology of War: Environmental Impacts of Weaponry and
Warfare. (New York: Walker and Company, 1993) xxx.
5
Poland in the after math of the war and in the final report it was concluded that over eighty
percent of the land was mined,10
Lanier-Graham touches on a topic that is forgotten about by many within America, the
aftermath of the islands in the Pacific. Small islands in the Pacific played host to many large
Naval Ships during the air battles of World War II. When the ships came to the islands, many
coral reefs were destroyed and used as ramps for the weapons to be unloaded. Once the battles
were over the islands were left polluted.
Lanier leaves the story at this point but in the article, “Cleaning of up Mbanika,” of
Soldiers Magazine later fates of the islands can be discovered.11 In 1991 troops were called back
to an otherwise forgotten about military base when a small cluster of shells was discovered. After
a full search of the island it was discovered that 155 shells still remained. There were many
shells that were still full of mustard gas, a toxin that when released burns and blisters the skin
and eyes of anyone unlucky enough to be in its presence. When Lanier-Graham does a good job
of showing the overview of many of environmental problems related to war. The problems that
arise to the fact that they are overview and in order to understand the story that she is trying to
convey further investigation is deemed necessary.
When entering military conflicts, many countries are quick to see battles as easy solutions
to problems as well as ways to show their military superiority. The craters that are bombed, the
waters that are polluted and farmlands that are destroyed are never or rarely a consideration
when conflicts arise, the immediate reward is often all that is in sight. Scholars such as the ones
discussed above are working to make the environment more of a priority in terms of warfare. By
10
11
Ibid, 120-122.
Jim Nielsen, “Cleaning Up Mbanika.” Soldiers November 1991, 13-16.
6
studying past conflicts and the areas where they were fought scholars hope to provide solid
evidence of the true amount of damage that is done in the new modern age of war.
One example of how the relationship between war and nature can be looked at closer and
with more specific data is the US war with Vietnam. Hgo Van Long, who is professor with the
Australian National University, was quoted saying, “Not since the Romans salted the land after
destroying Carthage has a nation taken such pains to visit the war on future generations.”12 The
effects of Agent Orange were studied minimally before they were sprayed across the country and
more specifically when problems arose. When the harm was known the herbicide was stopped
immediately, just as the research to environment was stopped when the harm to humans was
known. My research takes a closer look at the still current problems that Vietnam faces.
The Orange Stripe Across Vietnam
Studying the effects of war on the environment the Vietnam War shows just how
devastating and lasting the horror can truly become. When the United States slowly began
sending troops to Vietnam in the 1960s, the years of fighting and the decades of depression to
both countries, was unknown and unpredictable. The United States Army used Vietnam as a
laboratory for testing new weapons, including Agent Orange. John Tully, associate professor of
chemistry at Yale, makes the terror clear by making the comparison with another war in close a
time frame, “Between early 1965 and mid-1968, over 2.5 million tons of bombs were dropped on
South Vietnam alone – more than were dropped in all theatres of World War II by all sides.”13
Knowing the horrors of war and the problems caused to the environment, wars are becoming
increasingly more devastating.
12
John Tully, "Vietnam: war and the environment," Green Leaf, July 14, 1993,
http://www.greenleaf.org.au/article.php?id=5903&__plain=1&__print=1 (accessed April 7,
2009), 1.
13
Ibid, 3.
7
The use of Herbicides in Vietnam began in 1962 and the immediate success led to an
increase in their use.14 Richard Steven’s, associate professor at Richmond University, describes
this change in warfare by stating; “the US wages increasingly a war against nature.”15 The
herbicides were being used to clear away massive jungle areas where the Viet Cong were
suspected to be hiding. Of the four main herbicides, Agent Orange (named for the orange stripe
around the barrel, not the actual color) became the most known as well as most devastating. The
effects of Agent Orange were clearing away broadleaf plants with seven to ten days of spraying
and then remaining dead for approximately a year.16 Agent Orange was spread across dense
jungle areas across much of South Vietnam.
Chemical defoliants were first brought into the war with the aim of destroying the crops
and certain waterways of areas. The specific operation that used Agent Orange was called,
Operation Ranch Hand. The main way the operation was executed was through sending three
plains together, but staggered across a specific designated area of the jungle. The hope of the US
Army was that with continued attacks on rural farmlands and other areas around Vietnam they
would break the morale of the Viet Cong, or make it impossible from them to survive without
these essentials.17 The defoliants had impressive results that, depending on which agent, could
clear the forest below within a week. This made it harder for the Viet Cong to hide thus easier, in
theory, for the US troops to find.
As the war progressed the uses of the defoliants expanded. After a series of tests were
conducted it was seen that forests that had been sprayed with these chemicals were much more
14
Richard L. Stevens, The Trail, A History of the Ho Chi Minh Trail and the Role of Nature in the
War in Viet Nam (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 2003) 143.
15
Ibid, 143.
16
Accidental Herbicide Damage, Vietnam: Lessons Learned No. 74, Government Report (Vietnam:
FWMAF and RVNAF, 1969) 1.
17
Lanier-Graham, 72.
8
flammable. Later in the war herbicides were the focal point of operations where areas of the
forest were to be later destroyed by setting fire. Some of these operations include, ‘Operations
Sherwood Forest,’ in 1965, ‘Operation Hot Tip,’ in 1966 and finally ‘Operation Pink Rose’ in
1967. These missions failed for the most part as a result of the high humidity in the jungle.18
One of the first ways that Agent Orange first appeared to be more harmful then first
thought was when the Army disposed of the empty drums. In 1969 in the area of Da Nang trees
were dying when any type of chemical had not sprayed them. This was seen in other surrounding
areas as well. The tree’s health was traced back to empty drums that were bought by villagers.
When pilots were finished with the drums they were not resealed in most cases and as the
chemicals were hard to drain out of the drums most were left with two to three gallons in them.
This was the way they were sold to villagers who would later drain the deadly chemical
unbeknown to them polluting their land and themselves.19
It was these events in that led to the initial testing of the harms herbicides that had now
been in use for seven years. Early warning labels read, “Danger-vapor from contents of these
drums can damage plants and trees.”20 Before tests were conducted, Agent Orange was the most
preferred weapon used in Vietnam as it preformed the best; this was later understood as a result
of the unknown power and damage of the chemical. This became to be known as the ‘empty
drum’ problem.21 Once tests went underway it was not long until the harm of Agent Orange was
18
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Weapons of Mass Destruction and the
Environment, (London: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 1977) 53.
19
Herbicide, 5.
20
Alvin Young, Paul Giesy, Paul Jones and Paul Newton, "Environmental Fate and Bioavailability
of Agent Orange and its Associated Dixon During Vietnam War," Agent Orange in VIetnam
(Environmental Science and Pollution Research International), 2004: 5.
21
Ibid, 5.
9
clear, after two short years from the initial tests the herbicide was no longer used and shortly
after the tests shifted from being based on plants to the danger it was causing on humans.
The mangroves in the forests of South Vietnam were a natural place for Viet Cong to
hide, as a result were also a large target for Agent Orange. It is estimated that 300,000 acres of
mangroves were killed during the US air raids, mostly traced back to Agent Orange.22 The trees
are grow deep into banks along rivers and provide a protected home for many fish and crabs in
the rivers. They have unique characterizes that let them turn saltwater into food that they can live
from ocean water. The way mangroves grow twisting their roots between the bank and the waters
create stable edges for waterways. When mangroves began to be targeted and killed the banks
suffered from massive erosion loss of riverbanks. 23
Today, close to forty years after Agent Orange was last used in Vietnam the effects of the
chemical on the mangroves are still seen. It is reported that twenty to thirty percent of the
mangroves have not grown back. The reason for this is a two-part problem. To start when the
mangroves were killed bamboo grew quickly in these areas. Bamboo grows much quicker then
mangroves and once they began taking over an area. Mangroves, which are a slow growing
plant, were not able to fight the bamboo for areas they previously occupied. The main problem
with bamboo taking over these areas is seen to the animals, fish and crabs that use to live in the
mangroves are not able to survive in the much less protected bamboo.24
Both sides of growing food to live off of were then attacking the Vietnamese people in
these areas. The fields were being bombed by a less severe herbicide Agent Blue, yet it was
22
Lanier-Graham, 87.
Ibid, 34.
24
Ibid, 35.
23
10
developed to go specifically after rice fields.25 When they could no longer live off their fields
many tried to turn to the water but fish and crabs were no longer able to live in the conditions. To
the South Vietnamese fury was building with the American troops as they were making their
lives so much more difficult, in fact when interviews were conducted in some areas, the
Vietnamese declared, “outright hatred” towards the US troops.26
Another section of nature that was harmed throughout the Agent Orange bomb raids was
livestock. Livestock was never a target for American bombers, but with the massive amount of
barrels emptied over the country they inevitably were harmed. It is estimated that 13,000
livestock animals were killed.27 In post studies, dioxins (traces of Agent Orange) have been
found in animal fat tissue, as well as, meats, milk, eggs and fish.28 For livestock even if they
were not directly sprayed by the deadly herbicides, feeding off of the land guaranteed
consumption of one form or another.
The jungles of Vietnam are a dense canopy system that has three main layers. When the
planes released the deadly herbicide over the jungles many layers were not reached immediately
and instead a trickle down effect was seen in practice. The tops of the trees normally would be
hit strait forward and absorb the largest amount of Agent Orange. The second layer would have
some of the chemicals reach it while the bottom layer would see only drops. The problem and
reason it took between seven to ten days for sprayed areas to die is photosynthesis. When the top
layers were no longer gaining nutrients from the sun the bottom layers of the trees were then
25
Herbicide, 6.
Stevens, 177.
27
The Environmental Impact of War, Lenntech, 2008, http://www.lenntech.com/environmentaleffects-war.htm (accessed March 23, 2009).
28
Andre Bouny, The Effects of Agent Orange and its Consequences, Global Research, January
16, 2007, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4490 (accessed March 29,
2009).
26
11
slowly affected. Reports conclude however that sixty-five percent of areas that were sprayed
were hit twice. The second time sped up the death of the trees and made the recovery process
even longer then the average of a year.29 Areas that were destroyed resemble forests that have
had fires wipe through. In an overhead photo taken in 1967 a region of the forest is shown with
three distinct lines where the plains had dropped chemicals and where the trees had died. It looks
like stripes with the green being the healthy areas and brown as the treated sections.30
The Ho Chi Minh Trail, which stretched from Hanoi in North Vietnam through
Cambodia and Laos then finally reaching Saigon and South Vietnam, was a constant area of
bombing. Agent Orange was used here in the hope of being able to see a clear trail then
destroying it. A common motto used by US soldiers in reference to the trail and the bombing
stated, “Only you can prevent Forests.”31 One heavily sprayed area of the trail was studied to see
the damage caused to the wildlife. In an area that was not harmed by the spray there are 145 to
170 birds and 30 to 55 mammals, in the sprayed areas the numbers are dramatically decreased to
house 24 bird and 5 mammal species.32 The trail itself was never bombed enough to slow the
infiltration of Viet Cong Troops into South Vietnam, yet the environment was harmed
immensely, by bombs creating craters, killing animals and of course Agent Orange polluting the
area.
In the nine years that Agent Orange was used in Vietnam damage was done to all aspects
of life. Over the course of its use twenty million gallons of Agent Orange were dropped over six
million acres. Seventy five percent of the forests that were bombed were in South Vietnam.33 An
29
Lanier-Graham, 35.
Herbicide, 7.
31
Stevens, 43.
32
Ibid, 218.
33
Lanier-Graham, 83.
30
12
American soldier who served in Vietnam stated, “In Vietnam I was spared my life just to be
stabbed with an Agent Orange knife.”34 This argument is shared by millions of people,
vegetation and animals that felt the after wave of the herbicide. Walking down the street in Ho
Chi Minh City effects can still be seen today, through the people of Vietnam. Wildlife is still
recovering from the tremendous amounts of damage that were inflicted on the country. Some
areas may never be the same. Agent Orange and the damage to the environment show how
harmful warfare can be especially in the day of modern technology and chemical weaponry.
Impact of Connections
Area of Vietnam are still wastelands today, Vietnamese refer to these areas as, “Agent
Orange Museums”35 or “American Grass.”36 The lasting impressions of Agent Orange are still
making it hard for peasants to get by Arnold Sector, a health physician at the University of
Texas, stated that, “In some cases dioxin levels are just as high now as when the spray
occurred.”37 Vietnamese who are eating contaminated fish and having children with birth defects
are still feeling the results of Agent Orange now. The results that were never studied further from
the environmental stand point past numbers of gallons dropped and areas marked on maps.
The relationship between war and nature is becoming more of a pressing matter with the
advancement of new weapons. The advancement of different chemicals has changed the fate of
how lasting the war can truly be on the terrain of different countries. Without looking deeper
then facts and figures it is hard to see the real impact that humans, animals and nature as a whole
have to deal with when war is waged. By showing the magnitude of destruction scholars hope to
34
The Environmental Impact of War, Lenntech, 2008, http://www.lenntech.com/environmentaleffects-war.htm (accessed March 23, 2009).
35
Tully, 6.
36
Andrew Metz, "Bridging the Chemical Divide," Baltimore Sun, 2009,
http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/ny-usviet01,5145091,print.story (accessed April 7, 2009).
37
Ibid, 2.
13
change how much damage will be done in the future. In order for this to become a reality more
work has to be conducted to give nature and vegetation a voice and to add first hand accounts
rather then the scientific data of reports conducted after wars have been fought and chemicals
released.
14
Allie King
April 23, 2009
Seminar in Comparative History, Dieterich-ward
Assessment of College Works
Personal Historiography
Over my four years of college I have studied many aspects of history through
using a variety of sources. I have done all of my history courses at Shippensburg
University with the exception of the semester that I studies abroad where I took two
courses. The four papers I chose to look at in closer detail include, the capstone
paper, theory and practice paper, The Meaning of Hitler and finally, a primary
source paper on My Lai. My progression over the past four years can be seen in the
maturing nature of my history papers.
The first paper I wrote of this group was one based on a book written by
Haffner, called, The Meaning of Hitler. The book was broken into different sections
such as, failures, achievements and personal life. My approach to talking about the
book was to find a quote that captured an important question of the book (how
would Hitler’s legacy be remembered if he had died in 1938 compared to 1945) and
discuses key points that I feel made this false. I used facts in order to show how
Hitler’s rise was not as strong as the world thought; in many cases it was more of
him appointing the correct people to positions who were the true geniuses. In this
paper I go against what the author is trying to say to show how even though one can
view Hitler in that view, there are more facts to show that he would have inevitably
be seen in a negative light regardless of when he had died.
The second paper is my Theory and Practice paper. The course was based on
the experience of African American Soldiers in the Civil War, our paper focused on
soldiers from Shippensburg. Through using pension files and service records I was
able to track down information the pieced small parts of his life together. My
research on George Landey was very limited as he only spent over a year in service
before becoming wounded. I switched my research at this point to discussing the
effort his troops made in helping the Confederate Troops in the war. By expanding
my research to include the 22nd regiment I was able to incorporate many more
aspects of the war and also able to relate events back to make the paper a full image
of the African American experience in the Civil War.
The third paper also focuses on primary sources to make an image of what
happened during a single event. This event was the My Lai massacre in the Viet Nam
War. Through using the documents I was able to display how the events that
happened in My Lai mirrored the war as a whole. I used many first hand accounts of
soldiers who had fought there as well as accounts from villagers who hid and
witnessed the attack. Through using secondary sources of the War in Viet Nam I was
able to compare both accounts to compile the accounts into one paper.
The last paper was my senior capstone paper. This paper was written over
the course of the semester and took into account all of the different research
methods. This paper was on war and the environment and the relationship that they
share. There were so many different wars that could have been studied. The first
part of the paper takes a look at the whole of the relationship of war and the
environment start during the American Civil War. This part of the paper used many
secondary sources to show how over time the relationship become much more
harmful with the introduction of modern weapons. Starting in World War I with the
beginning of chemical bombs and goes through wars ending with the American War
in Viet Nam. I used Viet Nam as a case study to show the truly devastating effects of
a herbicide known as, Agent Orange on the Vietnamese countryside. Many of these
effects are still present in Viet Nam today not just in people but also in the
environment. I used primary sources such as reports done by the government about
the effects of different herbicides when it became clear how damaging they were. I
also used newspaper articles to show the on-going problems of Agent Orange since
they were used.
Through looking at different papers that have been written it is clear that my
writing skills have improved as well as methods that I have used to research.
Comparing theory and practice class and seminar class, I have started doing more of
my own research and search through large piles of information to see what is
relevant to my research and what is not. Through studying many types of history I
have become more comfortable with incorporating ideas for other classes into
papers. Through many teaching styles I feel as though I have found my own take on
learning and writing about history.