On 16 March 1968, two US infantry companies entered a Vietnamese village and in the course of a single morning killed over 400 of its unarmed, unresisting inhabitants . . . This is the first book to examine the response of American society to the My Lai massacre and its ambiguous place in American national memory. Kendrick Oliver argues that the massacre revelations left many Americans untroubled. It was only when the soldiers most immediately responsible came to be tried that opposition to the conflict grew, for these prosecutions were regarded by supporters of the war as evidence that the national leaders no longer had the will to do what was necessary to win. Oliver goes on to show that, contrary to interpretations of the Vietnam conflict as an unhealed national trauma or wound, many Americans have assimilated the war and its violence rather too well, and they were able to do so even when that violence was most conspicuous and current. US soldiers have been presented as the conflict's principal victims, and this was true even in the case of My Lai. It was the American perpetrators of the massacre and not the Vietnamese they brutalized who became the central object of popular concern. Both the massacre and its reception reveal the problem of human empathy in conditions of a counter-revolutionary war - a war, moreover, that had always been fought for geopolitical credibility, not for the sake of the Vietnamese. This incisive enquiry into the moral history of the Vietnam war should be essential reading for all students of the conflict, as well as others interested in the war and its cultural legacies. -- .

Memories of catastrophes - those which occur naturally and those which are consequences of human actions - loom large in the modern consciousness. This volume draws on the latest scholarship to investigate this phenomenon in both contemporary and historical contexts. collective memory and the relationships between them. Arguing that a pervasive catastrophic memory may be as disabling as it is instructive, Gray and Oliver stress the necessity of rendering the phenomenon subject to secular critical inquiry. The value of such an approach is then demonstrated in a series of case studies. These range across period, place and methodological approach, from longitudinal studies of the memory of the English Civil War and Irish Famine, to oral-history analysis of the legacy of Indian partition, and participant-observation of more recent events in Croatia. Several studies concentrate on the moulding of memories by hegemonic or demotic languages and institutions; others focus on the mutability and ambiguities of memory as expressed in a variety of forms. They exemplify the diversity of memorial languages and responses to catastrophic events. Yet they also speak to each other in their central concerns: the dynamics of memory and erasure, rupture and recovery, uniqueness and universality, exploitation and authenticity, power and resistance, the personal and the social. the field. It should be of value to all with an interest in the subject of memory and its relationship with the cataclysms of the past.