For Poets who wish to meet Warriors
As I write this, around two million Americans have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan while serving in the military. Oddly for a time of war and certainly for one of this duration, nearly all of them are still alive. As of this month (April 2011), less than six thousand have been killed in action since the 9/11 attacks (icasualties.org). Add in noncombat deaths and those that have befallen veterans of these wars (homicides, suicides, and illnesses, along with a large number of vehicular accidents) and I would guess the total loss of these warriors at somewhere around ten thousand. Ten thousand out of two million is a drop in the bucket, only ½ of 1 percent.
But let's narrow the pool even further. Eliminate from our sample everyone who deployed but did not actually see combat. No fobbits, no REMFS, nothing of the sort. Ordinarily I'd use awards data, but as the current conflict is ongoing there doesn't appear to be a publicly available list of combat action badges, ribbons, or other awards. So to give us a number to plant our feet, let's be stingy and assume that only one out of every four service members who deployed actually were involved in the fighting. This is a very rough guess, and doesn't account for those who served multiple tours in either or both theaters, but it's as good a number as any to prove a point. ¼ of 2 million is 500,000. Remove the previously mentioned fallen and you're left with 490,000.
For those of us who create, study, and teach theatrical and cinematic violence, this number represents two things: it is a sizable pool of relatively young audience members with firsthand knowledge of battle, and it is a highly knowledgeable pool of primary sources concerning modern warfare.
In regards to audience members, I will not comment on how many of these veterans are currently serving versus those who have gained their discharge and returned to civilian life. Both groups include frequent and occasional audience members as do their civilian counterparts in similar demographics.
It's the pool of primary sources involving warfare, battle, modern combat techniques, and the effects of combat on the human condition that concerns me here. The reason being that many of those who have returned to their civilian lives are now in college.
And these student veterans are being actively and repeatedly discouraged from speaking of their experiences.
Academia and the military have rarely been comfortable bedfellows, and since Vietnam they have been regarded if not polar opposites then certainly antagonistic towards each other. Despite the long-running catchphrase of "Support the troops, not the war"� that has been used since at least the attack on Tora Bora, that antagonism is coming to bear all the harder as the War on Terror continues.
At Columbia, a Purple Heart winner is nearly booed off the stage for daring to support the return of ROTC to campus. An Army veteran speaking his mind at Texas Women's University is charged with terrorist threats after a 90-minute lockdown of the campus. A student veteran at a Baltimore community College writes the essay "Killing is a drug"� for an English class. Although he received an A for the piece and was encouraged to publish it, University administrators barred him from campus unless he underwent a psychiatric evaluation.
All of these incidents (and I have no doubt there will be more to follow) are telling that pool of primary sources I pointed out earlier that being open and forthright about their experience will only lead to social, academic, and even economic or legal punishments. In an academic environment terrified of becoming the next host for a campus shooting, openly admitting that they have borne weapons and even killed puts these student veterans under surveillance and at risk.
And they know it. The stories I mentioned above have circulated rapidly among the veteran population even with minimal attention from major media outlets. Veterans from the dawn of time have kept in touch with each other and gossiped like washerwomen, and the current generation is no different. This is especially true when such gossip affects their interests.
At the same time, those of us who work in theatrical violence consider the study of actual violence a valuable part of our stock and trade. While the psychology of killing in particular is a relatively new and rough field, it still stands to benefit by asking these new primary sources. The silencing of these sources from outside pressure is causing them to be lost, particularly now in the early years after wartime experience, when memories are more fresh and comrades much easier to track down and follow up on one story or another.
Given all of this, here are some things to keep in mind for you researchers out there looking for stories from returning veterans, particularly student veterans.
-Be scrupulously honest in your dealings
These veterans have absolutely no reason to trust you, and every reason to doubt you. This is especially true if they are a student at the same institution that you teach at. If you are not completely transparent about your objectives in speaking to them, it will be discovered and it will be that much harder for the next researcher.
-Protect your sources
Regardless of how your source may feel about their experiences, they rightly may have no desire for their words to be seen by the press, potential employers, or university administrators. Take what steps you can to ensure their privacy to their satisfaction, NOT your own. If you violate a source's trust, word will spread rapidly, to the detriment of you and those who come after you. If you are even suspected of doing so, a source can easily either walk away (and make it that much more difficult for you to find another source) or lie (making what data you gain useless).
-Look them in the eyes whenever possible.
Email, texts and phones are great for convenience and lousy at nuance. Speak with your sources face-to-face whenever possible. Take your time. Let them guide the conversation whenever possible. Keep your schedule loose, as if they do want to continue the conversation, it likely means you're doing something right. Let your source choose where interviews and similar sessions take place. A source in familiar territory is more likely to open up.
-Say please and thank you.
Assume nothing about what is permissible or welcome when speaking to a source. If you wish to talk about sensitive subjects, use a tape recorder, use a camera, be accompanied by a partner or assistant, or anything of that nature, ask FIRST. If told no, obey their wishes, thank them and move on.
-If you're going to ask them, act like you have something to learn from them.
Because you do. An old joke says "How many Vietnam vets does it take to change a light bulb?"�
The answer of course is "You don't know, man! You weren't there!"
An old English term for experiencing combat is "seeing the elephant."� That term was the easiest way available at the time to describe the mix of the awesome, the terrifying and the bizarre that entailed engaging in combat far from home and family. These veterans are trying to describe something that encompasses all of the senses and more. And all they have to describe it is mere words. Don't hold that against them.
-Never, ever let the gavel fall within their hearing.
The experiences of the veterans you speak to may rouse your distaste, dislike, or even disgust.
Tough shit.
If you have come to these veterans for their insight, it is both ungrateful and counterproductive to judge their actions based on your own moral compass. Do so only when you are well out of their earshot, because you can bet that Tommy still sees.
-Take the wise with the nonsensical.
Speaking to these veterans in search of whatever form of knowledge you pursue may lead to incredible insights to the human condition from people you may never have imagined held such wisdom. Then again, it could lead to an extended monologue about the sublime joy of dumping gold bond down the front of your skivvies because your nuts have itched for the entire patrol. Entire paragraphs dedicated to the powder of the immortals making you feel like your sack has been dipped in vanilla ice cream.
My advice has gone to the testicular for a reason. Dividing the insights from the anecdotes is not the job of these veterans. It's your job as a researcher to do so. Treat your talks with them as raw materials, not finished products.
As I write this, around two million Americans have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan while serving in the military. Oddly for a time of war and certainly for one of this duration, nearly all of them are still alive. As of this month (April 2011), less than six thousand have been killed in action since the 9/11 attacks (icasualties.org). Add in noncombat deaths and those that have befallen veterans of these wars (homicides, suicides, and illnesses, along with a large number of vehicular accidents) and I would guess the total loss of these warriors at somewhere around ten thousand. Ten thousand out of two million is a drop in the bucket, only ½ of 1 percent.
But let's narrow the pool even further. Eliminate from our sample everyone who deployed but did not actually see combat. No fobbits, no REMFS, nothing of the sort. Ordinarily I'd use awards data, but as the current conflict is ongoing there doesn't appear to be a publicly available list of combat action badges, ribbons, or other awards. So to give us a number to plant our feet, let's be stingy and assume that only one out of every four service members who deployed actually were involved in the fighting. This is a very rough guess, and doesn't account for those who served multiple tours in either or both theaters, but it's as good a number as any to prove a point. ¼ of 2 million is 500,000. Remove the previously mentioned fallen and you're left with 490,000.
For those of us who create, study, and teach theatrical and cinematic violence, this number represents two things: it is a sizable pool of relatively young audience members with firsthand knowledge of battle, and it is a highly knowledgeable pool of primary sources concerning modern warfare.
In regards to audience members, I will not comment on how many of these veterans are currently serving versus those who have gained their discharge and returned to civilian life. Both groups include frequent and occasional audience members as do their civilian counterparts in similar demographics.
It's the pool of primary sources involving warfare, battle, modern combat techniques, and the effects of combat on the human condition that concerns me here. The reason being that many of those who have returned to their civilian lives are now in college.
And these student veterans are being actively and repeatedly discouraged from speaking of their experiences.
Academia and the military have rarely been comfortable bedfellows, and since Vietnam they have been regarded if not polar opposites then certainly antagonistic towards each other. Despite the long-running catchphrase of "Support the troops, not the war"� that has been used since at least the attack on Tora Bora, that antagonism is coming to bear all the harder as the War on Terror continues.
At Columbia, a Purple Heart winner is nearly booed off the stage for daring to support the return of ROTC to campus. An Army veteran speaking his mind at Texas Women's University is charged with terrorist threats after a 90-minute lockdown of the campus. A student veteran at a Baltimore community College writes the essay "Killing is a drug"� for an English class. Although he received an A for the piece and was encouraged to publish it, University administrators barred him from campus unless he underwent a psychiatric evaluation.
All of these incidents (and I have no doubt there will be more to follow) are telling that pool of primary sources I pointed out earlier that being open and forthright about their experience will only lead to social, academic, and even economic or legal punishments. In an academic environment terrified of becoming the next host for a campus shooting, openly admitting that they have borne weapons and even killed puts these student veterans under surveillance and at risk.
And they know it. The stories I mentioned above have circulated rapidly among the veteran population even with minimal attention from major media outlets. Veterans from the dawn of time have kept in touch with each other and gossiped like washerwomen, and the current generation is no different. This is especially true when such gossip affects their interests.
At the same time, those of us who work in theatrical violence consider the study of actual violence a valuable part of our stock and trade. While the psychology of killing in particular is a relatively new and rough field, it still stands to benefit by asking these new primary sources. The silencing of these sources from outside pressure is causing them to be lost, particularly now in the early years after wartime experience, when memories are more fresh and comrades much easier to track down and follow up on one story or another.
Given all of this, here are some things to keep in mind for you researchers out there looking for stories from returning veterans, particularly student veterans.
-Be scrupulously honest in your dealings
These veterans have absolutely no reason to trust you, and every reason to doubt you. This is especially true if they are a student at the same institution that you teach at. If you are not completely transparent about your objectives in speaking to them, it will be discovered and it will be that much harder for the next researcher.
-Protect your sources
Regardless of how your source may feel about their experiences, they rightly may have no desire for their words to be seen by the press, potential employers, or university administrators. Take what steps you can to ensure their privacy to their satisfaction, NOT your own. If you violate a source's trust, word will spread rapidly, to the detriment of you and those who come after you. If you are even suspected of doing so, a source can easily either walk away (and make it that much more difficult for you to find another source) or lie (making what data you gain useless).
-Look them in the eyes whenever possible.
Email, texts and phones are great for convenience and lousy at nuance. Speak with your sources face-to-face whenever possible. Take your time. Let them guide the conversation whenever possible. Keep your schedule loose, as if they do want to continue the conversation, it likely means you're doing something right. Let your source choose where interviews and similar sessions take place. A source in familiar territory is more likely to open up.
-Say please and thank you.
Assume nothing about what is permissible or welcome when speaking to a source. If you wish to talk about sensitive subjects, use a tape recorder, use a camera, be accompanied by a partner or assistant, or anything of that nature, ask FIRST. If told no, obey their wishes, thank them and move on.
-If you're going to ask them, act like you have something to learn from them.
Because you do. An old joke says "How many Vietnam vets does it take to change a light bulb?"�
The answer of course is "You don't know, man! You weren't there!"
An old English term for experiencing combat is "seeing the elephant."� That term was the easiest way available at the time to describe the mix of the awesome, the terrifying and the bizarre that entailed engaging in combat far from home and family. These veterans are trying to describe something that encompasses all of the senses and more. And all they have to describe it is mere words. Don't hold that against them.
-Never, ever let the gavel fall within their hearing.
The experiences of the veterans you speak to may rouse your distaste, dislike, or even disgust.
Tough shit.
If you have come to these veterans for their insight, it is both ungrateful and counterproductive to judge their actions based on your own moral compass. Do so only when you are well out of their earshot, because you can bet that Tommy still sees.
-Take the wise with the nonsensical.
Speaking to these veterans in search of whatever form of knowledge you pursue may lead to incredible insights to the human condition from people you may never have imagined held such wisdom. Then again, it could lead to an extended monologue about the sublime joy of dumping gold bond down the front of your skivvies because your nuts have itched for the entire patrol. Entire paragraphs dedicated to the powder of the immortals making you feel like your sack has been dipped in vanilla ice cream.
My advice has gone to the testicular for a reason. Dividing the insights from the anecdotes is not the job of these veterans. It's your job as a researcher to do so. Treat your talks with them as raw materials, not finished products.
