Roanoke, VA • November 12-14, 2015 VT Veterans Studies Group Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA 24061 http://veteransinsociety.wordpress.com/ Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society First published 2016 Edited by Heidi Nobles and Marcia Davitt Conference hosted by the Center for the Study of Rhetoric in Society, Department of English http://www.rhetoric.english.vt.edu/ Conference Committee: Chair—Dr. James M. Dubinsky, Director, Center for the Study of Rhetoric in Society Co-Chair—Dr. Bruce Pencek, College Librarian, Social Sciences and History Co-Chair—Dr. Marcia Davitt, Post-Doctoral Research Assistant Conference Team: Mr. Jon Catherwood- Ginn, Partnerships and Engagement Manager, Center for the Arts Dr. James Hawdon, Director, Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention Dr. Paul Quigley, Director, Virginia Center for Civil War Studies Dr. Wornie Reed, Director, Race and Social Policy Research Center Additional Support Provided By: Dr. Cynthia Fields, Colgate University Ms. Judy Grady, VT English Department Ms. Cheryl Jones, VT Continuing and Professional Education LTC Daniel Karnes, Salem Veterans Affairs Medical Center Ms. Tammy Stevers, VT Continuing and Professional Education COL John Miller, Association of the University States Army, Stonewall Jackson chapter Ms. Patricia Morse, VT English Department Ms. Elizabeth Sandoz, Hotel Roanoke Dr. Ruth Waalkes, VT Center for the Arts Front cover photo of African American and Caucasian soldiers together during World World II. Image from the United States Army and courtesy of the Harry S. Truman Library & Museum. Public domain. Available online at http://www.trumanlibrary.org/photographs/view.php?id=303. Back cover photo by Master Sgt. A.J. Coyne, Virginia National Guard Public Affairs. Airmen of the 203rd RED HORSE Squadron (August 8, 2015). Public domain. Available online from Virginia National Guard at http://vaguard.dodlive.mil/2015/08/28/7984/. The CSRS is a proud Commemorative Partner of the Vietnam War Commemoration. To learn more about the Commemoration, please visit www.vietnamwar50th.com. Our partners for this event include: The Center for the Arts at VT The Virginia Center for Civil War Studies The University Libraries, VT The VT Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention The Race and Social Policy Research Center, College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences (CLAHS), VT Virginia Veteran and Family Support (formerly Virginia Wounded Warrior Program) The Stonewall Jackson chapter of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) SponSorShiip We are pleased to thank the many sponsors of this event. Without them our work could not continue. Chief of Staff Sponsors ($5000 or more) • Distinguished Alumni Board, Department of English, Virginia Tech • Department of English, Virginia Tech • Mr. Myles Taylor, Washington, DC • Virginia Tech Center for the Arts Four Star Sponsors ($2500 to $4999) • VT University Libraries Three Star Sponsors ($1000 to $2499) • College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences, Virginia Tech • Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs and Vets@VT, Virginia Tech • Office of Associate Vice President for Human Resources, Virginia Tech • Office of the Provost, Virginia Tech • Radford University, McConnell Library • The Student Success Center, Virginia Tech • Virginia Center for Civil War Studies • Virginia Tech Veterans Caucus (VTVC) Two Star Sponsors ($500 to $999) • Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention, Virginia Tech • College of Architecture and Urban Studies, Virginia Tech • College of Natural Resources and Environment, Virginia Tech • Department of History, Virginia Tech • Department of Sociology, Concord University • Institute of Policy and Governance, Virginia Tech • Master of Fine Arts (MFA) Program, Department of English, Virginia Tech • National Security Thrust, ICTAS, Virginia Tech • Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Virginia Tech • Office of the Vice President for Graduate Education, Virginia Tech • Office of the Vice President for Undergraduate Education, Virginia Tech • Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech • Race and Social Policy Research Center, Virginia Tech • Social Work Program, MSW & BSW, Concord University, Athens, WV One Star Sponsors ($100 to $499): • Association of the United States Army (AUSA), Stonewall Jackson Chapter • Ms. Ali Haskins Lisle, Blacksburg, VA • Women’s and Gender Studies Program, College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences, Virginia Tech In Memoriam Many of the donations that funded this conference were made with specific individuals in mind. Three donors made specific bequests, which we want to honor. In memory of Staff Sgt. James Will In memory of Captain Douglas Taylor Gray, III In memory of 1Lt Al Giddings, VTCC, Class of 1966 Table of ConTenTS *Items marked by an asterisk are listed here for documentation purposes but do not appear full-text in the proceedings. For more information, please contact the authors directly via their universities Preface ix Panel 1—Negotiating Identities Post American Civil War 1 “Veterans of American’s Civil War, Battle Trauma and Resiliency: A Word of Caution” * Paul Cimbala, Fordham University “Outsiders of Battlefield Experience: The Journey Home for the Civil War Soldier” 3 Kate Dahlstrand, University of Georgia “Bennett H. Young and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation” 11 Joy Giguere, Penn State University “Some were free born. Some were fugitives. Some were slaves. Now they were all veterans” 21 Sharon A. Roger Hepburn, Radford University Panel 2—Veterans in Society: Encounters and Expectations 41 “Disabled Veterans in the Eyes of American Society: An Analysis of Changing Social Perspective on Disabled Men and Women Veterans” * Joanna Dziura, Gallaudet University “War Trauma in the Construction of American Lost-war Culture: From WWI to Vietnam and the Present” 43 Jerry Lembcke, College of the Holy Cross “‘Thank You for Your Service’ and All Those Other Polite Civilities” * Marcia Davitt, Virginia Tech “Reading as Rehabilitation: Bibliotherapy in U.S. Veteran Hospitals, 1930–1960” * Monique Dufour, Virginia Tech Panel 3—Veterans in Society: In the First Person 55 “HEAL: An Experience Report” 57 Richard Williamson, University of Iowa “Intersectioned. Identity.” * Rashaad Thomas, Arizona State University “The Church: One of the First Military Veterans Organizations” 77 Stuart Price, Richard, VA “Last Night I Dreamed of Peace: The Diary of Dang Thuy Tram: War, Writing, Reconciliation” 85 Suellynn Duffey, University of Missouri, St. Louis Panel 4—What Is Veterans Studies? 99 “The Arts and Architecture of the After War: The Aesthetics of Healing” * Paul Alt, Alt Architecture +Research Associates LLC, Chicago, IL “Bounding Veterans Studies: A Review of the Field” 101 James Craig, University of Missouri, St. Louis “Pedagogy and Practice for Foundational Veterans Studies” * Ernest L. McClees, Eastern Kentucky University “MILITARY BRATS: A Living Study in Race Relations” 119 Donna Musil, Brats Without Borders, Denver, CO Panel 5—Raising Public Awareness: Populations and Evidence 143 “The Effect of Military Service on Education: An Examination of Mexican-American Veterans” * Robert Cancio, University of Miami “Veteran Status and Work in Deadly Civilian Jobs: Are Veterans More Likely to Be Employed in High-Risk Occupations than Nonveterans?” 145 April Gunsallus, The Pennsylvania State University “Student? Veteran? Both? Conflicting Veteran Identities in Higher Education Policy” * Lesley McBain, University of California, Los Angeles Panel 6—Rhetorics of Difference and Reconciliation 171 “Images of Reintegration: Alternative Visual Rhetorics of the Returning WWII Soldier” 173 Lenny Grant, Virginia Tech “Models of the Post-Racial World? Rhetorics of Race among U.S. Military Brats” 181 Heidi Nobles, Texas Christian University “Reconciliation as [Lofty] Aim: A Genre Analysis of Iraq War-Era Women Veterans’ Memoirs” 193 Mariana Grohowski, Massachusetts Maritime Academy “Race, Civil War Memory, and Sisterhood in the Woman’s Relief Corps” 207 John Kennedy, Purdue University Poster Session 219 “Local Military Matters: Bridging the Military-Civilian Gap through College-Community Interactions” 221 Alexis Hart, Allegheny College Summary of Featured Sessions 225 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 ix Preface The Veterans in Society (ViS) research group is proud to present the 2015 conference proceedings, with papers that represent a wide range of research and community engagement, and a focus that speaks to the growth of our work over the past several years. My intention is to provide a brief overview of that work to situate this year’s conference and the work that emerged from it. Our efforts began in 2012. In 2012, as is the case currently, the lowest percentage of the American population in our nation’s history served in the military: today, as then, less than one percent of the U.S. population serves in the military compared with 12 percent in World War II. Put in a broader perspective, fewer than seven percent of living Americans have served. This lack of personal connection to the military raised important concerns about public policy, from decisions of whether to engage in military action abroad to choices about funding medical care for veterans. By then, after nearly a decade of our country being at war, public discourse surrounding the aftermath of military service—what happens when men and women who have served finally return home and attempt to integrate back into “society”—proved challenging. As a result, many people found it easier to frame their explanations about veterans in binaries, relying primarily upon stories that tended to gain media attention. They either valorized veterans as heroes or categorized them as broken time bombs; these binaries were not new. As scholars and community members with long ties to the military—as service members, family members, administrators, and veterans ourselves—we recognized that the reality of “veteran-ness” was far more complex than the ways it was often being portrayed or discussed in the public sphere. Because the stakes involved were high—even though only 7 percent of our population has served, that 7 percent accounts for over 22 million individuals—we felt compelled to take some steps and attempt to use some of the resources of higher education to address the complex issues. Our 2013 research conference, “Veterans in Society: Changing the Discourse,” was our first attempt to insert ourselves into this public discussion and work to try to Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Societyx shape it. We began conservatively, recruiting voices primarily from Virginia Tech campus and the surrounding community to work on changing the conversation, although we did have colleagues come from the public sector and other land grant universities across the country. Papers included work on the arts as therapeutic and expressive acts for veterans, U.S. citizens’ right to lie about military service, discourse analysis of language affecting servicewomen, and more—all efforts to begin articulating the complicated realities of military participation. In 2014, we expanded our scope and reach. Scholars and practitioners from across the nation, and even the world, responded to our focus on the importance of the humanities and arts in studying and addressing these urgent issues. Our conference theme, “Humanizing the Discourse,” spoke to our faith in the individual humanity of each veteran and also to our emphasis on the arts and humanities as means of articulating, synthesizing, and preserving the thorny issues of war and its aftermath. Research panels on international veterans, veterans as intercultural educators, and the role of writing and film in expressing veterans’ experiences, were paired with a series of relevant special events including live theatre, film screenings, and a featured panel on military-civilian dialogue. Our intention was to demonstrate the reach and impact of these issues on veterans and their families, as well as the communities in which they live and in which they grew up. With 2015’s conference, we engaged an even wider range of scholars and practitioners, this time to gain a fuller picture of race in the military. We partnered with centers and scholars across Virginia Tech to bring as many disciplinary perspectives to bear on these issues as we could. Presentations from historical, sociological, literary, rhetorical, and artistic perspectives addressed Vietnamese and Mexican-American veteran experiences, as well as interracial dynamics among contemporary female service members, among now-adult military children, and in the military during and after the Civil War, through various forms memorialization including the Confederate flag. The material shed light on racial tensions that continue today across military and civilian society as well as opportunities presented by the military to work for racial reconciliation. Featured sessions from the program included our keynote speaker, James Marten, Civil War historian, professor, and department chair at Marquette University and author of books including Sing Not War: Civil War Veterans in Gilded Age America; our plenary speaker, Purple Heart recipient and author Tim O’Brien (The Things They Carried; If I Die Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 xi in a Combat Zone, Box Me Up and Ship Me Home); special guest speaker John C. Harvey Jr., Admiral, U.S. Navy (RET), current Secretary of Veterans and Defense Affairs for the Commonwealth of Virginia; a panel presentation on the Confederate Battle Flag from John Coski, author of The Confederate Battle Flag: America’s Most Embattled Emblem) and Wornie Reed, director of the Race and Social Research Policy Center at Virginia Tech; and Speed Killed My Cousin, a theatrical production from Carpetbag Theater, Inc. As I write this preface, our research group has just completed our largest-scale event to date, a 3-week research institute sponsored by the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities, bringing 24 scholars from 9 disciplines together to consider the identity and future of veterans studies and to work together on individual and collaborative research and teaching efforts in this area. The issues raised in all of these efforts have resonances and have intervened in issues that are both local and intimate, and global and large-scale. Whether service members and veteran numbers grow or shrink, veterans studies continues to be an urgent area of study for the long-term, given the inextricable role the military has played in our history. Military action has shaped human history dramatically and permanently, and thoughtful study of those who have served in the military in our past, present, and future is essential to an informed understanding of the world today and tomorrow. Jim Dubinsky Conference Chair Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Societyxii Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 1 Panel 1—Negotiating Identities Post American Civil War *Items marked by an asterisk are listed here for documentation purposes but do not appear full-text in the proceedings. For more information, please contact the authors directly via their universities. *“Veterans of American’s Civil War, Battle Trauma and Resiliency: A Word of Caution” Paul Cimbala, Fordham University “Outsiders of Battlefield Experience: The Journey Home for the Civil War Soldier” Kate Dahlstrand, University of Georgia “Bennett H. Young and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation” Joy Giguere, Penn State University “Some were free born. Some were fugitives. Some were slaves. Now they were all veterans.” Sharon A. Roger Hepburn, Radford University Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society2 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 3 Outsiders of Battlefield Experience The Journey Home for the Civil War Soldier Kate Dahlstrand (ksd60480@uga.edu) University of Georgia Abstract Present value is applied to the rapid nature of Civil War soldiers’ redeployment home. This paper explores the means by which Union and Confederate soldiers found their way home and the obstacles they encountered along the way. The expansion of federal bureaucracy in the post-war years still proved woefully underprepared to meet the needs of veterans, but the lasting relationships forged during combat created a social network that persisted for decades after the canons ceased fire. Keywords: Civil War veterans, journey home, social networks Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society4 Outsiders of Battlefield Experience The Journey Home for the Civil War Soldier When I began this project, remembering the rapid nature of my own redeployment home from Iraq inspired me. In less than two weeks, I went from sitting in the bright Iraqi sun waiting to board the first of four planes, to pulling up to my home in Richmond, Virginia. Those days were a blur of standing in lines, listening to debriefings, being diagnosed with PTSD, and sensing the anxious hum of folks eager to return to “normal” life. I had traveled halfway across the earth in a startling amount of time. I took my four sets of uniforms and packed them away, never to wear them again. It was startling to have choices again. Jarring to be clean, comfortable, and safe. Awkward and dangerous to be alone. Overwhelming to see long-missed faces and hold loved ones. Depressing to say goodbye to so many brothers and sisters in arms. I wondered, what were the experiences of earlier soldiers? Those who had, not an earth to travel, but at most a few state lines? How long did it take for them to get home? More importantly, how did they view their return to “normal” life? The Civil War veterans considered here come from the Appalachian eastern third of Tennessee. This region of the state held mixed feelings regarding both the war and their state’s decision to attempt secession. While Unionist sympathy has long been explored in the region’s Civil War scholarship, the opposing sides were more evenly matched and unevenly distributed; often based on population density and access to a marketplace and education. Tennessee only actually spent nine months as a U.S. state in open rebellion. A late attempt at secession followed by a United States occupation of the capital in short time, Tennessee’s experiment in leaving the federal government failed quickly. East Tennessee’s war, then, was a war of occupation, civilian participation, home guards, and tension. In their journeys home, the veterans of East Tennessee challenge historian Noel Fisher’s assertion that the region “was a backwater theater.” While under-developed Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 5 Appalachia might not have held many “major cities, ports, rivers, or industrial centers,” recovering from a war of occupation accompanied a direct impact on lasting loyalties, and veteran voices did shape the political landscape.1 The proximity of the homefront to acts of war ensured persisting grudges and enduring friendships that affected partisan agendas. It also led to unsafe harbor for returning soldiers on the losing side. James Carriger, upon being relieved from service in North Carolina in May of 1865, “footed it” back to Claiborne County, Tennessee, after “Federals robbed me of my horse on my way home.” John H. O’Neal returned from Confederate service to Polk County, Tennessee (just outside of Chattanooga). Years later he recalled how “the Confederate soldier had a hard time here during the Reconstruction period . . . East Tennessee was very nearly equally divided on the question of cecession (sic) and our chances among so many Union men were pretty bad it mattered not how honest or upright a Confrate (sic) was he had no favors from the other side.” Still, these were the lucky Confederate veterans who had made it home. Others would wait months or years upon hearing “it might not be right healthy up here in these mountains” for the losing side. John Moffett, a Confederate POW from New Market, Tennessee, found himself in legal limbo once transferred from his prison in Camp Douglas, Illinois, to Point Lookout, Maryland. As this initial release of prisoners took place, the Lincoln assassination stopped the pardoning process in its tracks. Even after taking the loyalty oath and being granted pardon, Moffett’s family and friends warned him against returning home. He stayed in Baltimore for months, slowly making his way back to Tennessee over the course of years spent in the vain pursuit of access to prosperity. Others, like Jonathon Coffey, encountered warnings on their journey home where citizens talked of the “ill treating” Confederates received. Coffey worked in Ohio for seventeen months before walking over two hundred miles home in relative safety.2 The concern for personal safety in East Tennessee immediately after the war illustrated the perils veterans faced and that welcome homecomings did not exist for Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society6 everyone. While seventeen months proved long enough for Coffey to return home, some Rebel veterans seeking a peaceful homecoming never found it. Confederate officer Albert M. Lea desired to come home one year after war’s end and hoped enough time had passed to ensure his safety. A Lieutenant Colonel in a Texas engineering battalion, Lea requested insight from a local politician regarding the possibility he and his family might be received without hostility. In February of 1866, he expressed his remorse in having served in the Confederate army and claimed his service represented his personal need to “mitigate the evils of the strife.” Lea assured the East Tennessean that, aside from his eldest son who also fought for secession, his family comprised “non-combatants” who desired nothing more than to “obey the law & live peaceably” within Grainger County’s borders. Without knowing the exact wording of the reply Lea received, or if he received one at all, Lea’s postwar career suggests East Tennessee proved inhospitable to his desires. The same year Lea asked if his home state might welcome him back, he applied for a job as city engineer of Galveston, Texas, and never returned to his hometown of Richland, Tennessee. He could not go home because he did not have the support of those he wanted to come home to.3 Union soldiers, in stark contrast, almost immediately returned home and began enacting their pre-war routines. Anything remotely similar to a demobilization effort was rapid, at best, or, more often than not, nonexistent. As they walked, rode horses, and hopped trains home, returning soldiers immediately faced their new place in society. New definitions of citizen and new interpretations of loyalty required experimentation, and veterans would test the limits of the new world in which they lived. The large numbers of survivors brought with them a requisite expansion of bureaucracy. A postbellum society that attempted any sort of reconciliation during Reconstruction would be a world the veterans made. Still, beyond the most diligent efforts in crafting a societal and governmental policy that recognized both the needs and power of a veteran collective, gaps existed, and the old soldiers turned toward themselves. Beyond the Southern Claims Commission and the Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 7 pension system, beyond the Soldier’s Homes and service related organizations, individual connections made on the battlefield persisted decades into peacetime. Informal social networks litter the Tennessee Civil War Veterans’ Questionnaire. Barely literate men who might not be able to spell the name of their hometown could, when asked, provide extensive lists of surviving veterans, local and long distant, more than sixty years after the end of the war. Similarly, the surviving letters of Civil War veterans point to enduring support despite long distances. In 1866, Chase Linde wrote a letter to his former comrade, John Moffett. His letter referenced eighteen men they had served with, either informing Moffett of their current situations or inquiring about them. “On Sunday last I met with Lt. Carmack . . . and where is Charlie & Will? . . . a few months ago Col. Jas Brazelton and family passed through . . . John writes me from Lexington . . . Butler has been in M(emphis) once or twice since I came here . . . What has become of Tip? . . . have not heard a word from John Alexander since the surrender . . . Do you know anything of the McCampbell Boys? . . . John and Tom Pryor I suppose are in V(irginia) . . .” In his postscript, he asked “Where is Sam Scott!”4 Once veterans develop themselves, formally and informally, into support systems that befit their past and present, the status of service transforms into something beyond condition. Veterans of war were not a population that required treatment for the ailment of having served. The title, instead, evolved into a lifelong descriptor that required systems and mechanisms be developed to facilitate and bring attention to political and social issues. The American veteran is a construct, and studying it as such yields a better understanding of their history and better questions being asked about their experience. So why does this matter? What does an investigation into the journey home and the development of social networks teach us about veteran studies beyond history? I’ll bring this back to myself here. Last month, I received a phone call from a friend and fellow veteran. She had had a really bad day and knew I would answer my phone to commiserate no matter how petty issues might seem. After speaking for a few minutes, she abruptly Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society8 interrupted herself and asked, “Kate, can I give you a phone number?” The number belonged to a man named Jason. No last name known, no location known. But my friend knew that Jason was a Marine, a combat veteran, and was contemplating killing himself that night. I called him, this random stranger living or possibly even dying somewhere in the United States, and he did not answer the phone. I tried to leave a message but his voicemail mailbox was full. I had no information on how to find him. Needless to say, it was a sleepless night that night. When the sun finally came up, I got a text message from Jason. He was alive and seeking help. He had been overwhelmed by anonymous veterans who called and texted him throughout the night. Instead of depending on letter writing, Jason experienced the anonymous social networking that can take place on a digital platform. These social networks evolve alongside technological developments and persist when the government structures that currently exist fail to catch those individuals in trouble. The informal networks of comrades work to fill in the gaps. They’ve done so for an incredibly long time now. Because once the moniker of veteran is ascribed, the journey home to a “normal” life never ends. About the Author Kate Dahlstrand is currently working on her PhD in History at the University of Georgia under Dr. John Inscoe. A Tennessee native and combat veteran, she studies Civil War veterans and their transition to civilian life in East Tennessee. She is also developing a history course that examines the American veteran throughout American history. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 9 Endnotes 1. Noel Fisher, War at Every Door: Partisan Politics and Guerilla Violence in East Tennessee, 1860-1870, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997, 21. 2. Gustavus W. Dyer and John T. Moore, compilers, The Tennessee Civil War Veterans Questionnaires, vol. 2, ed. Colleen M. Elliot and Louise A. Moxley (Easley, SC: Southern Historical Press, 1985), 461. (Hereafter this source will be referred to as the TCWVQ with the volume and page numbers provided.) Also TCWVQ, vol. 4, 1656; TCWVQ, vol. 1, 407; John Moffett to William Moffett, May 18, 1865, William H. Moffett Papers, McClung Historical Collection, Knoxville, Tennessee; TCWVQ, vol. 2, 531. 3. A.M. Lea to O.P. Temple, February 22, 1866, O.P. Temple Papers, University of Tennessee Special Collections Library, Knoxville, Tennessee; W.T. Block, “A Towering East Texas Pioneer: A Biographical Sketch of Colonel Albert Miller Lea,” East Texas Historical Journal 32, no. 2 (1993), 29–30. 4. Chase Lide to John Moffett, January 11, 1866, Sallie Moffett Papers, McClung Historical Collection, Knoxville, Tennessee. References Block, W.T. “A Towering East Texas Pioneer: A Biographical Sketch of Colonel Albert Miller Lea.” East Texas Historical Journal 32.2 (1993): 29–30. Dyer, Gustavus W., and John T. Moore, compilers. The Tennessee Civil War Veterans Questionnaires. Vols. 1–4. Colleen M. Elliot and Louise A. Moxley, eds. Easley, SC: Southern Historical Press, 1985. Fisher, Noel. War at Every Door: Partisan Politics and Guerilla Violence in East Tennessee, 1860-1870. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. O.P. Temple Papers. University of Tennessee Special Collections Library. Knoxville, Tennessee. Sallie Moffett Papers. McClung Historical Collection. Knoxville, Tennessee. William H. Moffett Papers. McClung Historical Collection. Knoxville, Tennessee. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society10 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 11 Bennett H. Young and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation Joy M. Giguere (jmg66@psu.edu) Penn State York Abstract Serving twice as Commander-in-Chief of the United Confederate Veterans, and then holding the title of Honorary Commander-in-Chief for Life until his death in 1919, Bennett H. Young was an instrumental figure in expanding the Lost Cause memorialization movement by actively supporting monument projects, attending dedication events, and giving countless orations. Throughout these activities, Young’s leadership and visibility vested him with a great deal of authority when it came to shaping the minds of ex-Confederates on issues related to the Lost Cause and white reconciliation. While these two ideals were, and remain today, fundamentally at odds with each other, Young often intertwined them in his speeches, at once exhorting his audiences to revere the cause of the South but to also put to rest old prejudices for the sake of working toward a modern era of peace and prosperity. This paper examines his position as a leader of the Lost Cause movement, with a particular focus on his address delivered at the unveiling of the Confederate Soldiers’ Monument at Arlington National Cemetery in 1914. Keywords: Bennett H. Young, United Confederate Veterans, United Daughters of the Confederacy, Arlington National Cemetery, Confederate Soldiers’ Monument, Lost Cause, reconciliation Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society12 Bennett H. Young and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation Bennett Henderson Young was a man of many talents, not least of which was his ability to stir up a crowd. As one newspaper described him following a speaking engagement in 1916 before the United Daughters of the Confederacy in Texas, “That he is one of the most eloquent living Confederates all will concede. He has the marvelous gift of ‘whooping up the boys.’ No living man knows better the tender and heroic spots in the Confederate heart and he knows just how and when to touch. Tall, graceful, with a full suit of gray hair and a complexion that meets all calls, and with a thorough knowledge of Confederate history, his comrades regard him as a regular oratorical crackerjack.”1 The purpose of his address was to appeal to the women of the UDC for their financial support as he and millionaire cattleman George Littlefield endeavored to erect a gigantic obelisk at the birthplace of Confederate President Jefferson Davis in Fairview, Kentucky. That project, which Young did not live to see to completion, capped a long post-Civil War career for the Louisville lawyer that involved extensive correspondence with former Confederates, serving twice as the Commander-in-Chief of the United Confederate Veterans, publishing books and articles that promoted the heroism of Confederate soldiers and the nobility of Lost Cause ideology, and delivering speeches around the country at memorialization events to encourage veterans and civilians alike to revere Confederate soldiers and their sacrifices but also move forward in the spirit of reconciliation. While not counted among the great heroes of the Confederacy like Lee or Jackson, Young earned wartime fame throughout the South for his exploits as the leader of the Confederate raid on St. Albans, Vermont, in 1864. Having retreated to Canada, when faced with possible extradition from Montreal and execution by the United States government, Young fled to Ireland, where he completed his law degree before returning to Kentucky in 1868.2 Once restored to his home state and city of Louisville, Young established a successful law practice and became active in a variety of local and statewide Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 13 organizations and activities. For example, he served as President of the Louisville Public Library; was a member of Louisville’s noted historical society, the Filson Club; served as one of Kentucky’s representatives to the Paris Exposition in 1878; was a member of the state Constitutional Convention in 1890; served as the major general in command of the Kentucky Division of the United Confederate Veterans (UCV); was President of the Kentucky Confederate Home; was President of the Kentucky Institute for the Blind; and was President of the Colored Orphan’s Home.3 Young became involved with the national UCV at the organization’s first reunion in 1889, where he proposed Louisville as the host city for the following year’s reunion.4 It was in 1912 that Young, who held the rank of colonel in the Confederate army, was elevated to the title of general when he was elected commander-in-chief of the UCV, a position he held until 1916, when he declined a third re-election to the post. At that point, the organization bestowed upon him the position of honorary commander-in-chief for life.5 It was during his service as UCV commander-in-chief that the South’s most important monument to date was sculpted and dedicated—the Confederate Soldiers’ Monument at Arlington National Cemetery. Until 1898, when President William McKinley proposed “in the spirit of fraternity we should share with you in the care of the graves of the Confederate soldiers,” the burial and commemoration of the Confederate dead was left in the hands of southerners themselves.6 Ladies’ Memorial Associations throughout the South took charge of this responsibility in the aftermath of the Civil War, directing the exhumation and reburial of soldiers in cemeteries, and raising funds for the erection of permanent headstones and memorials.7 Such graves were maintained by the women of the South, as no Confederates would be buried in any of the national cemeteries or their graves maintained with federal funds. Following McKinley’s words of conciliation, a widespread movement for the reinterment of Confederates began, first with the reinterment at Arlington National Cemetery from 1900 to 1901 of soldiers who had died in northern prisons or hospitals. As historian Michelle A. Krowl has observed, Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society14 “Though never expressing its approval of the existence of the Confederacy, by agreeing to mark the final resting places of Confederates in the North, the federal government rescued the dead from the dishonor that the neglect of their graves implied.”8 From 1912 to 1914, southern artist Moses Ezekiel labored on his sculptural masterpiece to be installed in the Confederate section of the cemetery, a monument he entitled “New South,” the funds for which had been raised in a nationwide campaign undertaken by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.9 As historian Karen L. Cox has described, Ezekiel’s monument “is no less than a pro-southern textbook illustrated in bronze,” including images of the sacrifices made by southern men and women, parents and children, and of the paternalistic and “benevolent” relationship between masters and slaves.10 At its unveiling on June 3rd, the anniversary of Jefferson Davis’s birthday, the speakers included President Woodrow Wilson; General Washington Gardner, the commander-in-chief of the Grand Army of the Republic; Colonel Robert E. Lee, the revered general’s grandson; and General Bennett Young. While the national press largely focused on the content of President Wilson’s address, which he had to cut short due to the onset of a severe thunderstorm, there were many who observed the symbolic importance of Gardner’s and Young’s addresses and of the mingling of veterans from both sides of the conflict in the assembled crowd, which numbered above four thousand.11 As the Macon Daily Telegraph observed of Gardner and Young, “These two men, spokesmen for the armies in that great fratricidal war, the most desperate the world has ever seen, told of a reunited brotherhood ready to fight shoulder to shoulder against all the world for country’s sake.”12 Indeed, both men spoke eloquently on the necessity for continued efforts to lay aside past prejudices and move forward as a truly united nation, but Young’s speech is in many ways representative of the greater complexity involved in speaking publicly of the Confederate dead and the Lost Cause. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 15 It is clear from addresses that Young delivered on various occasions prior to the Arlington monument’s unveiling that he was, undoubtedly, an unrepentant Confederate. His leadership roles in the Kentucky division of the UCV, and then of the national organization, thus vested him with an enormous amount of influence in articulating for Confederate veterans and civilians alike a vision of southern identity that involved ongoing devotion to the Confederacy itself as though the “Lost Cause” was not truly lost. For instance, in the eulogy he delivered following the death of Winnie Davis, the “Daughter of the Confederacy,” in 1899, Young noted that “she was the heroine of all those who loved the Confederate States or had part or parcel in their unparalleled sacrifices for the cause of truth and liberty.”13 In an address entitled “The South in History” delivered at the 1910 UCV reunion in Mobile, Young—speaking on behalf of the History Committee—denounced the “perversion of truth” in children’s schoolbooks about the South and the Civil War, and stated further, “we can say without fear of contradiction that the personnel of the armies of the Confederate States had never been and never will be equaled by any nation in any period of history, and that the 250,000 men who died for the Southland were taken all in all, the most magnificent sacrifice that liberty and patriotism have exacted from any people in any age.”14 Once elected commander-in-chief of the UCV, Young used his new leadership position to pen words of encouragement and laudation in the pages of the Confederate Veteran magazine, including this passage from the June 1912 issue: The patriotic spirit of the South is the outgrowth of the work and plans of the United Confederate Veteran Association. The twenty-two Reunions that have been held, the vast number of State and Brigade meetings have created not only the deepest and intensest love for the South and all its traditions and the achievements of its sons, but in its every part have kept at highest pitch the ardor of Confederate spirit and caused the sacrifices of the armies of the South to be told and recorded with such accuracy and such detail that no man or woman of the South can fail to find a life-long inspiration in the grandeur and courage of those who fought for the independence of their native land.15 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society16 That he came from Kentucky, a slave state that did not secede and fight for the South, made Bennett Young’s dedication to the Lost Cause all the more meaningful within Confederate circles. Indeed, not only did Young stridently defend the memory of the Confederacy, but in his efforts along with other Kentuckians to secure the Jefferson Davis Homestead in Fairview and erect the second tallest monument in the country in honor of the Confederate President, he sought further to place his home state squarely within the Confederate tradition. His advocacy on behalf of Confederate veterans was no less striking. Young aided in the establishment of a Kentucky Confederate veterans home, and his public positions within both the Kentucky and national UCV provided him with opportunities to speak openly on subjects that would bolster a sense of pride and validation for the men in gray.16 The importance of public orations on Confederate pride should not be diminished, for postwar, and especially post-Reconstruction, southern veterans found themselves in a strange liminal space where they existed somewhere between Confederate identity and American identity. Further, organizations like the UCV and publications like Confederate Veteran magazine helped to create a far-flung support system whereby veterans could gather, reminisce, and romanticize the war as the passage of time stripped away the immediacy of the pain and horrors of the battlefield. However, while many of his writings and speeches reveal an unabashed devotion to the South, when it came time to address an audience comprised of veterans, civilians, and statesmen from all around the country, Young was faced with having to find a balance between reverence for the past and ongoing devotion to the cause of the past—competing sentiments, indeed. In his closing remarks, Young praised the ability of American men “to blot out every trace of bitterness or of unjustness” and “to look forward with transcendent visions of the future splendor of our common country.” However, in considering the text of his speech as a whole, his sense of Confederate defiance and dedication to validating the actions of fellow aging Confederates ultimately prevailed. After explaining that only in a republic could the losing side of a great war be allowed to erect so many monuments Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 17 to commemorate the heroism of their dead, Young stated plainly for his audience, At this hour I represent the survivors of the Southern army. Though this Confederate monument is erected on Federal ground, which makes it unusual and remarkable, yet the men from whom I hold commission would only have me come without apologies or regrets for the past. [ . . . ] we still glory in the records of our beloved and immortal dead. The dead for whom this monument stands sponsor died for what they believed to be right. Their surviving comrades and their children still believe that that for which they suffered and laid down their lives was just. [ . . . ] The Confederates can never forswear their flag. It represents that which is most sacred to them.17 A number of recent historians of the post-Civil War era and of the Lost Cause have examined the ways in which the women of the South were instrumental in fashioning the idea of the Lost Cause and promoting what they saw as the ideals of the South through memorialization activities—Ladies’ Memorial Associations and the United Daughters of the Confederacy were especially influential in driving this process.18 However, while the women of these organizations raised funds for monument projects, directed Memorial Day activities, and promoted within their own organizations a finely tuned Lost Cause ideology, Confederate veterans like Bennett Young were often the ones to speak publicly on issues related to southern memory and identity. With his gift of eloquence and manifold roles within his community and in Confederate organizations, Young was ultimately an important figure within the Lost Cause movement due to his ability to articulate for his brethren how they should best see themselves and their place within the postwar nation. As the “thin gray line” grew ever thinner with each passing year, reconstructed (and unreconstructed) veterans relied upon organizations like the UCV to maintain connections within their brotherhood of aging soldiers, and upon leaders like Young to articulate that which they needed to hear—that they fought for liberty, not slavery, that their cause had been just, that they had been and remained heroes in the South, that their sacrifices, their suffering, their bloodshed, and their lives were meaningful. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society18 About the Author Joy M. Giguere, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of History at The Pennsylvania State University in York, Pennsylvania. Her research interests mainly focus on topics related to commemorative culture – cemeteries, gravestones, public monuments and memorials, the politics of memory (both public and private), and the customs and material culture associated with mourning. Giguere’s research has been published in The Journal of the Civil War Era, Markers: The Annual Journal of the Association for Gravestone Studies, and a forthcoming article on the Jefferson Davis Monument in Fairview, Kentucky will appear in The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society. Her book is entitled Characteristically American: Memorial Architecture, National Identity, and the Egyptian Revival (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2014). Endnotes 1. “Austin Banker Called Richest Ex-Confederate,” The Statesman [Austin, TX] (undated clipping, though probably November 1916), George Washington Littlefield Papers, 1860-1942, Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin. 2. Oscar Kinchen, General Bennett H. Young: Confederate Raider and a Man of Many Adventures (West Hanover, MA: The Christopher Publishing House, 1981), 41–80. 3. Bennett H. Young, ed. Kentucky Eloquence, Past and Present (Louisville: B. LaBree, 1907), 411; Kinchen, 119. 4. Kinchen, 103. 5. Ibid., 111–112. 6. William McKinley, “Speech before the Legislature in Joint Assembly at the State Capitol, Atlanta, Georgia, December 14, 1898,” in Speeches and Addresses of William McKinley, from March 1, 1897 to May 30, 1900 (New York: Doubleday, 1900), 159. 7. See Caroline Janney, Burying the Dead But Not the Past: Ladies’ Memorial Associations & the Lost Cause (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2008). 8. Michelle A. Krowl, “In the Spirit of Fraternity: The United States Government and the Burial of Confederate Dead at Arlington National Cemetery, 1864-1914,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 111:2 (2003), 154. 9. Karen L. Cox, “The Confederate Monument at Arlington: A Token of Reconciliation,” in Monuments to the Lost Cause: Women, Art, and the Landscapes of Southern Memory, Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 19 Cynthia Mills and Pamela H. Simpson, eds. (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2003), 149–162. 10. Ibid., 158. 11. Ibid., 157. 12. “Monument to Confederate Dead the Culmination of Many Years of Effort,” The Macon Daily Telegraph (June 13, 1914), 9. 13. Bennett H. Young, ed. Kentucky Eloquence, 421. 14. Bennett H. Young, “The South in History,” Confederate Veteran (1910), 6, 18. 15. Bennett H. Young, “Work of United Confederate Veterans,” Confederate Veteran 20:6 (June 1912), 259. 16. Regarding the Kentucky Confederate veterans home, see Rusty Williams, My Old Confederate Home: A Respectable Place for Civil War Veterans (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2010), 47. 17. “Address by Gen. Bennett H. Young at Unveiling of the Monument at Arlington,” Confederate Veteran 22:7 (July 1914), 297–299. 18. For see Janney; Karen L. Cox, Dixie’s Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2003). References “Address by Gen. Bennett H. Young at Unveiling of the Monument at Arlington,” Confederate Veteran 22:7 (July 1914): 297–299. “Austin Banker Called Richest Ex-Confederate.” The Statesman [Austin, TX] (undated clipping, though probably November 1916). George Washington Littlefield Papers, 1860-1942. Dolph Briscoe Center for American History. The University of Texas at Austin. Cox, Karen L. “The Confederate Monument at Arlington: A Token of Reconciliation.” Monuments to the Lost Cause: Women, Art, and the Landscapes of Southern Memory. Cynthia Mills and Pamela H. Simpson, eds. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2003: 149–162. ---. Dixie’s Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2003. Janney, Caroline. Burying the Dead But Not the Past: Ladies’ Memorial Associations & the Lost Cause. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2008. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society20 Kinchen, Oscar. General Bennett H. Young: Confederate Raider and a Man of Many Adventures West. Hanover, MA: The Christopher Publishing House, 1981. Krowl, Michelle A. “In the Spirit of Fraternity: The United States Government and the Burial of Confederate Dead at Arlington National Cemetery, 1864-1914.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 111:2 (2003): 151–186. McKinley, William. “Speech before the Legislature in Joint Assembly at the State Capitol, Atlanta, Georgia, December 14, 1898.” Speeches and Addresses of William McKinley, from March 1, 1897 to May 30, 1900. New York: Doubleday, 1900. “Monument to Confederate Dead the Culmination of Many Years of Effort.” The Macon Daily Telegraph (June 13, 1914). Williams, Rusty. My Old Confederate Home: A Respectable Place for Civil War Veterans. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2010. Young, Bennett H., ed. Kentucky Eloquence, Past and Present. Louisville: B. LaBree, 1907. ---. “The South in History.” Confederate Veteran (1910): 267–272. ---. “Work of United Confederate Veterans.” Confederate Veteran 20:6 (June 1912). Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 21 Some were free born. Some were fugitives. Some were slaves. Now they were all veterans. Sharon A. Roger Hepburn (shepburn@radford.edu) Radford University Abstract This essay centers on the soldiers of the 102nd United States Colored Infantry (USCI), originally organized in August 1863 as the First Michigan Colored Infantry, the only all-black regiment organized in the state and one of only a handful of state raised northern black regiments. Building on the scholarship of Theda Skocpol, Donald Shaffer, Barbara Gannon, and others, an investigation into the lives and activities of this regiment’s veterans offers a useful case study in race and reconciliation in the aftermath of the Civil War. African American veterans, because of their status as veterans, were able to combat racism in some aspects of their lives. Utilizing pension claims, GAR records, Soldiers Home files, and other sources, the experiences of veterans from the 102nd USCI reveals much about the typical African American soldier after their service for the Union. Keywords: African American Civil War veterans; 102nd USCI; GAR; National Soldiers Homes; pensions Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society22 Some were free born. Some were fugitives. Some were slaves. Now they were all veterans. When the victorious Union Armies proudly marched down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. at the end of May 1865, black soldiers were largely excluded, a reflection of their segregated service during the war. Almost thirty years later, when the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) reenacted this parade in September 1892, black veterans marched alongside their white comrades, a telling symbol of race reconciliation among veterans in the years following the war. Despite substantial setbacks in the postwar struggle for equality, black veterans achieved some measure of inclusion within the GAR and other areas of veteran services including pensions and admission to Soldiers Homes. It was their shared experiences fighting for a common cause that permitted a truce of sorts amidst a racially divided nation. African American veterans, because of their status as veterans, were able to combat racism in some aspects of their lives. An investigation into the lives and activities of the 102nd United States Colored Infantry (USCI) veterans offers a useful case study in race and reconciliation in the aftermath of the Civil War. The 102nd USCI, originally organized in August 1863 as the First Michigan Colored Infantry, was the only all-black regiment organized in that state and one of only a handful of state raised northern black regiments. After a winter of recruiting and training at Camp Ward, the regiment left Detroit at the end of March 1864, arriving in Annapolis a few days later to start its service in the field. The unit participated in two major engagements in South Carolina; Honey Hill, November 30, 1864 and Deveaux Neck, December 9, 1864, but other than that saw little action beyond skirmishing. Most of their wartime experience consisted of drilling, marching, engaging in picket, garrison, and fatigue duty, destroying railroads, and building fortifications. With the exception of a month long expedition in Florida in August 1864 and occupation duty in Charleston, Orangeburg, and Winnsboro, most of the service of the 102nd was in the environs of Beaufort and Hilton Head. The Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 23 102nd was mustered out of service on September 30, 1865 and the men headed back to Detroit to resume their civilian lives, veterans of the U.S. Army. During their service four enlisted men and one officer were killed in action; sixty five soldiers were wounded, six of whom subsequently died and twenty two of whom were discharged as a result of their wounds An additional 157 were discharged on account of various disabilities.1 The Grand Army of the Republic was the first national veterans organization. Membership was limited to veterans of the American Civil War and those seeking membership were accepted based on the validity of their application and military service. Whereas most fraternal organizations of the time excluded African Americans, the GAR “officially followed a color-blind membership policy” and there was a considerable number of interracial posts throughout the nation.2 Inclusion of black veterans in the GAR ranks, of course, did not mean equality. Many veterans of USCI units were members of separate African American posts and other than representing their Post at state and national encampments, black veterans did not achieve leadership positions within the GAR organization. Nonetheless, their inclusion in the GAR itself shows some measure of race reconciliation, acknowledging respect for sacrifice to the Union cause. Veterans of the 102nd USCI joined both African American and interracial GAR posts. Evidence indicates that Barbara Gannon’s list of integrated GAR posts is, as she readily acknowledges, not complete. In her research for The Cause Won, Gannon uncovered five interracial GAR Posts in Michigan (Posts 38, 45, 137, 157, and 351). Pension records and GAR reports associated with the 102nd USCI indicate that the list of interracial posts in Michigan include at least eight additional posts (21, 31, 32, 38, 42, 45, 67, and 76).3 102nd USCI members of interracial Michigan GAR posts include Gustave Bannister, George Henderson, Turner Byrd, and John Hall, all members of the Charles T. Foster Post 42 in Lansing. Welch Post 137 was an interracial GAR post in which at least three veterans of the 102nd USCI were members: Jerome Freeman, George Butler, and Aaron Burnett. Joining St. Joseph residents Needham Miller, Louis Bell, and Ezekiel Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society24 Howard as comrades in Post 21, another interracial post, were Willis Littleton, of Lincoln, John Huston of Lake, and Hezekiah Madry of Benton Harbor, all of which are in Berrien County, Michigan. Former comrades Henry Clark, Henry Clay, Amos Swanigan, and Alexander (Duncan) Cook joined GAR Post 32 in Battle Creek. Meanwhile, at least four veterans of the 102nd USCI were comrades in Post 351 in Covert, Michigan: John Connor, W. Conner, William Gibbon, and H.B. Tyler. Both Posts 32 and 351 welcomed members from both races.4 Besides separate African American Posts such as the Matthew Artis Post in Cass County, evidence suggests that there were also segregated posts within posts in Michigan. Post 1, the John A. Logan Soldiers Home Post, was organized at the Michigan Soldiers Home located in Grand Rapids. According to a list of GAR Posts in Michigan, this was the only official GAR Post at the Soldiers Home. However, William Davis, James Ester, Othello Crosby, Henry Lee, and James Ross, all black veterans, were residents of this Soldiers Home, and were members of GAR Post 1(B). It seems likely then, that Post 1(B) was a subset of the Logan Soldiers Home Post, and that African American veterans were thus segregated. A similar situation may have been the case with George Thorton who was a member of the RH Rutter Post 47(B) in Dowagiac, Michigan. Meanwhile, Post 64(A) in Niles accepted black veterans J. Battles, Benjamin Cosins (Cousins), and George Winborn into its ranks. Posts 64(A) and 47(B) were further examples of segregation despite a color- blind membership policy.5 GAR members often put race aside in their commitment to aid Union veterans. Post Adjutant Hi A. Sweet, of the interracial Welch Post No. 137 in Ann Arbor, Michigan, wrote numerous letters trying to assist Aaron Burnett of the 102nd USCI, and then his widow Addie, successfully maneuver the intricacies of the pension process. George Alexander’s widow Ellen was almost solely reliant on support provided by GAR relief funds, without which she surely would have gone to the poorhouse. George died in 1901 and Ellen, who was then over sixty and in poor health, was living off the charitable aid provided by the Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 25 local GAR Post in Buffalo when she applied for a widow’s pension.6 When John Devlin, secretary of the Michigan GAR in Detroit, visited with William DeValt in 1915, he became concerned with DeValt’s situation. The GAR had been assisting DeValt and his wife for some time. Devlin took a particular interest in “this poor old colored soldier because after examining his papers, I believed he was intitled to more pension. There appeared to be no one to pay any attention to him, his poor old wife was ill and they were without food.” Believing that DeValt was mentally unstable and worried that his pension might be taken from him by unscrupulous neighbors, who “if it were known that he had any money [they] would very quickly relieve him of it,” Devlin petitioned to get Thomas Davey, Secretary of the Soldiers’ Relief Commission in Detroit, appointed his guardian. Devlin further worked, successfully, to get DeValt’s monthly pension increased from $17 per month to $30. Unfortunately, DeValt died within a year of receiving his increased pension.7 Jerome Freeman was a member of the Welch Post. He had served in Company E of the 102nd USCI from September 1864 to September 1865. When Freeman died in November 1894, his comrades expressed their esteem for him, publishing a notification of his death in which post members conveyed their “respect for the departed. . . . [I]n him this community lost one of its best and most worthy citizens, and Welch Post, No. 137 G.A.R., a good member and beloved comrade, who was ever ready to join hands in works of charity, fraternity, and loyalty.” The post hung an insignia of mourning on its flag for thirty days to honor him.8 Noel Cox joined the Joseph R. Smith #76 Post headquartered in Monroe, Michigan a few years after it was established. Cox was a veteran of the 102nd USCI. When Cox died in 1891 his fellow GAR comrades took care of his remains, buried his body, and took charge of his effects. George DeLong, then serving as Quartermaster of Post 76, Constant Luce, a former Post Commander, and other white post members attended the funeral. Although certainly not free from racism and discrimination, particularly in its more Southern Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society26 branches where segregated posts were the norm, the GAR recognized the sacrifices made by black soldiers and accorded them some measure of acceptance as veterans.9 African American veterans were beneficiaries of various financial assistance from the federal government. Most important for the black community was their access to military pensions. The 102nd USCI serves as an example of the relative success black veterans experienced in their endeavors to share access with white veterans. Of the 695 102nd veterans to apply for invalid pensions, 607 were successful in their claims (87.3%). 324 of the 437 widows who claimed a pension received one (74.1%) as did 36 of the 68 minors who submitted claims (53%). Thirty one of fifty one parents who claimed a pension received one (61%).10 As other scholars have shown, white veterans and their dependents were more likely to receive pensions than black veterans and their dependents, and the amount of pensions awarded to black claimants was often less than that for whites.11 Nevertheless, their military service did provide black veterans and their families with opportunities for financial assistance that were not available to African Americans who had not served in the war. Numerous obstacles hampered African American claims for the pensions due them. Many of these can be attributed to race or, perhaps more appropriately, racial conditions and circumstances. Black veterans and their widows often had difficulty establishing their ages, legality of their marriages or proof of death of prior spouses, and the birth dates of their children. Such issues did not necessarily prevent pensions from being awarded, but they certainly made the process more complicated and lengthier. White veterans and their dependents also confronted such impediments but they were not as prevalent as they were among the black community. Gertie Hollen, widow of John Hollen (Holden), encountered complications in obtaining a widow’s pension after Hollen died in 1895. The issue was that she could not provide adequate proof of the death of her first husband, William Arkyle, who died in a railroad accident near Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. Gertie could not produce any witnesses Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 27 to his death but only to his remains being returned to Phoenixville (in a small soap box) for burial. She filed for a widow’s claim within a month of her second husband’s death in February 1895 but was not awarded her pension until August 1898 when the Pension Bureau agreed to accept the death of Arkyle. Later, Gertie had difficulty proving her age which subsequently delayed an increase in her pension. Elizabeth Cox, widow of Noel Cox, was repeatedly rejected by the Pension Office in her claim for a widow’s pension as she could not provide, and the special examiners could not uncover, satisfactory evidence as to the dissolution of her prior marriage to Lucien Brown.12 Several obstacles stood in the way of Sarah Hopkins’ claim for a widow’s pension. Sarah, James Hopkins’ widow, was first married to John Ball in Lexington, Kentucky prior to the Civil War. Sarah testified that she married John Ball “in slave times and lived with him until he died,” but that she had no proof of his death and could supply no witnesses who knew of his death. After the war Sarah went to Cincinnati where she later met and married James Hopkins, who had served in the 102nd USCI. Although a death certificate proved the death of Hopkins’ first wife, Sarah was unable to find any witnesses who knew James prior to his coming to Cincinnati so she was unable to prove that he had only been married once prior to his marriage to Sarah. After several rejections, Sarah was finally successful, albeit after she had been declared “a lunatic” and sent to Longview Hospital for the Insane. Meanwhile, Nancy Busby could provide no recorded evidence of her marriage to Stephen Busby, the soldier whose pension she was claiming as a legal widow, “for the reason that I was married in West Virginia while in slavery and no record was kept of such marriages when my marriage occurred.” Fortunately for Nancy, the pension bureau examiners accepted her explanation and she was awarded an eight dollar pension within a year of filing her claim.13 Age often proved difficult for black veterans to establish to the Pension Office’s satisfaction. Many former slaves were in the same predicament as was William Givens, who, in his pension claim, stated that the evidence required to prove his birth date “is beyond my power to produce . . . there are no public records of my birth, baptismal or Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society28 family bible records . . . I have always understood that I was born on Christmas 1833. My reason for thinking so is that my old master’s son was born on the same day that I was and my mother, master, and mistress were in the habit of making us both presents.”14 In February 1908, George Jones, already receiving an invalid pension of $12 per month, gave a statement trying to prove his age in order to claim an increased pension based on his age. He stated that there was no public or baptismal record of his birth and that the family bible, originally kept by his mother, had burned in a house fire years prior so that no record of his birth existed. Encountering a similar problem, Wesley Sasser simply said “as I was born in slavery it is impossible to get any record of my birth.”15 By 1890 Anthony Henry was receiving a pension of $12 but when he later applied for an increase based on his age (the pension law of May 1912 provided for an increase upon reaching 70), he encountered difficulties. Lacking a precise birth date as did so many African American veterans, Anthony had given several different dates of birth in various documents over the years. The Pension Office understandably needed this cleared up and proof that he was 70 before approving his claim. When requested to provide such evidence, Henry stated that he “was borne in the south and that my parents died while I was young . . . therefore I state under oath that I am unable to furnish such public record of my birth.” Henry tried to prove his age by acquiring affidavits from those who knew him during the war. These affidavits were deemed insufficient in various ways. Dr. Milton Chase, for one, could only testify that Henry came to work for him as a servant “as a boy looking to be about 16 or 18 years old.” The Honorable JMC Smith, of Michigan’s House of Representatives, appealed to the Pension Office on Henry’s behalf; “you will see by his application that he was born in slavery and I take it from that he will be unable to give his exact age.” Smith went on to inquire as to whether discharge or enrollment papers would furnish sufficient evidence of age. Ultimately, his appeal was granted and Henry received the increase based on his age. As can be seen with Henry’s case, certain allowances were sometimes necessary to accommodate the weaknesses of African American veterans Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 29 claims. Philander Hood was not as fortunate. He too was born in slavery and had no proof of his actual birth date so when a discrepancy arose over his age he was unable to provide sufficient proof to the Pension Bureau and his repeated attempts for an increase in his pension were denied.16 Sometimes the difficulty was simply proving who they were. In determining whether she was his legal widow, pension examiners had Milton Murdock’s widow Louisa explain why two different names for her husband appeared in various records. “He claimed his slave name was Willis Wisher and that he took the name of Milton Murdock when he ran away to keep from being caught up with.” Fortunately, Louisa was able to obtain numerous witnesses from Louisiana and Mississippi who knew Wisher/Murdock and who testified that they were one and the same. Murdock was certainly not the only fugitive slave to enter the ranks of the USCI under an assumed name. This need for protection from their slave status could later prove detrimental in their pension claims. Jeremiah Swift, who enlisted as Jerry Swift, was sometimes known as Jeremiah Ward. His various names caused some difficulty for both he and his widow in their pursuit of pensions based on his service. Ultimately, both Jeremiah and his widow were successful in their endeavors. In many cases it seems as if the various obstacles to their pensions based on their race or slavery were overcome in one way or another. The issue was the time it often took to conduct their investigations, time that black veterans could ill afford in their often impoverished state.17 Pension examiners’ predisposed attitudes could affect their judgment as to the credibility of the claimants and witnesses, and their findings could determine the ultimate acceptance or rejection of a pension claim. The examiner in John Brown’s pension case broadcasted his racial typecasts even as he complimented Brown when he noted that the claimant was “much above the average colored man in intelligence.” The special examiner in Charles Chandler’s case referred to Chandler and his witnesses as “ignorant colored men” and declared them all unreliable and their testimony “entirely worthless.” The special examiner had a low opinion of Chandler as well, saying that “had he been a man of more Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society30 intelligence” he would have accused him of “manufacturing evidence,” essentially saying he thought Chandler was too unintelligent to cheat. Another investigator in Chandler’s case noted in his report that one of the witnesses undoubtedly “perjured himself…but he is so extremely ignorant that it is doubtful if he has any idea of the nature of an oath.” Chandler first filed his claim in 1884. Several years of examination followed to determine the merits of his case. Chandler died in 1890 without receiving a pension.18 Pension examiners themselves, intentionally or not, further hindered processing of black veterans’ claims by establishing greater scrutiny for their applications, often designating them “special” and thereby delaying the adjudication of their claim, sometimes for years. Edward Haynes of Company A, 102nd USCI first filed his pension claim in 1870. It was classified “special” to determine the origin in the service of lame ankles and lung disease, the disabilities upon which Edward based his claim for an invalid pension. The special examination continued until 1885, fifteen years later. Haynes’ claim was ultimately approved, but he had already died by then leaving his wife to file for his accrued pension and for a widow’s pension of her own. In 1890 the Pension office issued an accrued pension at $2 per month from October 1865 (date of his muster out) to December 18, 1885, when Edward died. She was also granted a widow’s pension. In the end, a needy widow received financial assistance from the federal government but the process was an extremely long and complicated one, whether specifically or exclusively due to race or not. When Mary Grundy reopened her widow’s pension claim in 1900 she noted that her husband had been dead for over fourteen years and that she had first filed a pension claim twelve years prior but “got no satisfaction” and had given up. In 1903 she was still attempting to complete her claim and there is no indication in the file that she ever received a pension.19 Sometimes there is no clear indication as to why pension claims were delayed. Thomas Johnson, Company A, 102nd USCI, filed for a pension in 1883. When he died in 1885 his claim had not yet been completed. Shortly after his death, Thomas’s widow Margaret filed for a widow’s claim. She finally received a $8 pension, in 1897, twelve Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 31 years after first filing. From the file itself, there does not appear to be much in the way of problematic issues to warrant the delay in her claim. She had never been married prior to her marriage to Johnson and although he had, there was adequate evidence as to his first wife’s death three years prior to Margaret and Thomas’s marriage. He died unexpectedly while out of town, but again, there adequate evidence to prove his death had been submitted. Margaret herself questioned the Pension Bureau as to “what is being done to my claim . . . I have furnished all the evidence called for by the department and have not received any reply.” This query was dated May 21, 1893, a full four years before her claim was approved.20 Whether or not such delays were due specifically and solely to racial discrimination, they nonetheless posed a hardship to veterans and their families. Pension records thus show a mixed record for African American veterans. The federal government certainly recognized their status as veterans and rewarded their service with access to military pensions. Oftentimes, however, black veterans encountered difficulties that were somewhat unique to their race or prewar conditions. The pension system was not a colorblind one. While race increasingly separated American society, Civil War veterans were brought together in Soldiers Homes and relief agencies for veterans and widows. The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers (NHDVS), built and maintained by the federal government, was initially a place of refuge for disabled soldiers but evolved into retirement-like facilities as the veteran population aged. African American veterans of the Civil War were extended the same privileges of admission to Soldiers Homes as were white veterans.21 Although many black veterans took advantage of such services, particularly after 1890, they were not represented proportionally in Soldiers Homes. African American soldiers made up close to 10 percent of the Union army but were only about 2.5 percent of the residents of the various NHDVS by 1899.22 A snapshot of the NHDVS central branch in Ohio in 1880 shows 1030 white residents of the home and only 33 black residents. Twenty years later, the federal census denotes 4449 white residents of Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society32 the Central branch and 152 black residents (3.3 percent). According to the 1900 census returns, the black veteran population of the various Soldiers Homes were: 3.9 percent of the Leavenworth branch, 2.5 percent of the Milwaukee branch, 3 percent of the Indiana branch and 1.5 percent of the Illinois branch.23 This underrepresentation is further underscored in view of the often impoverished economic status of black veterans and their families. Donald Shaffer points out, however, that there are some circumstances that contributed to this underrepresentation that do not directly point to racial inequality. Early residents of the NHDVS tended to be those who were seriously disabled or maimed during the war and, since fewer black soldiers received such injuries due to their shorter lengths of service and less sustained combat experience, it should be expected that there be significantly fewer black residents of the Homes. Additionally, the life expectancy of African Americans was about ten years less than whites so fewer black veterans lived long enough to enter the Soldiers Homes in their old age. In 1890 only 27 percent of the 196,795 black men who had served in the Union army were alive as compared to 54 percent of the 1,811,429 white Unions soldiers.24 Of the sixty-five enlisted men of the 102nd USCI wounded in the line of duty, twenty two were subsequently discharged from the service and only four are known to have been admitted to NHDVS branch homes.25 Most did not receive such devastating wounds as to necessitate care in a veterans facility. An exception was Wilson Battles, the earliest known 102nd veteran to reside in a NHDVS, who was admitted to the Dayton home October 19, 1869 at the age of 38.26 Battles had received a gunshot wound at the Battle of Deveaux Neck in December 1864. According to his discharge papers Wilson’s “left hand and arm was destroyed,” the result of a “gunshot wound of left forearm, fracturing ulna.”27 He was a resident of the Dayton home until the end of June 1872 when he left on his own request but was readmitted in December 1873 and remained there until he died in early July 1874. Of the forty one NHDVS residents from the 102nd USCI researched thus far only four were first admitted prior to 1890, eleven entered soldiers homes in the 1890s, Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 33 nineteen were admitted between 1900 and 1910, and another seven entered the system after 1910. Most of these men entered the NHDVS during their 50s and 60s.28 For these black veterans the NHDVS was more of an old age home.29 Even absent an official policy to restrict admittance to the Soldiers Homes to whites it seems likely that racial issues played some role in the underrepresentation of black veterans in the homes. Throughout the NHDVS system black members lived in segregated barracks and ate at segregated tables. In the Dayton, Ohio branch for example, almost all of the black residents in 1900 were listed on the census in a cluster on New Jersey Avenue, presumably in separate barracks. And, as previously mentioned there seems to have been separate GAR Posts in at least some of the homes. Black veterans may have been less inclined to enter Soldiers Homes knowing of such discriminatory practices.30 Black veterans of the 102nd USCI resided in soldiers homes throughout the nation. Thomas Dudley, of Company B, was admitted to the Hampton, Virginia branch of the NHDVS in December 1892 and remained there until his death only six months later.31 John E. Taylor spent almost a year at the Togus, Maine branch during 1917-1918. Charles Carter was first admitted to the Central Branch Soldiers Home in Ohio in 1908. From then until 1921 when he was discharged for the last time, Carter was in and out of various Soldiers Homes, rarely staying for a year or more before being discharged at his own request. Although Carter was primarily a resident of the Central (Ohio) and Marion (Indiana) branches he did spend a couple of stints at the Danville Branch and resided at the Southern Branch in Hampton for a short period of time in 1920.Unfortunately, the records do not show why he requested discharges, but since he did apply for readmission regularly after spending time on his own it seems unlikely that there were serious racial issues, tensions, or discrimination that precipitated his leaving the homes. Or at the least, such issues were not severe enough to overcome his need to seek care at the facilities. At least one 102nd veteran resided in the Sawtelle, California Soldiers Home. Joseph West, of company K, was admitted to the California branch of the NHDVS in 1911 at the age of Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society34 72 and remained there until his death in 1914. Wounded in the right leg at Deveaux Neck on December 9, 1864, West had part of his leg amputated sometime after his service.33 When he entered the soldiers home his disability was recorded as the loss of his right leg.34 Franklin Gibbs, James Knox, and Vance Cammel resided at the Western Branch at Leavenworth, Kansas. Among those admitted to the Northwestern Branch in Milwaukee were James Hopkins, James Ross, Joseph O’Neail, and William Strange (alias Harrison Small). Bryant Roberts entered the Dayton soldiers home in 1902, later transferring to the Milwaukee branch, then to the Marion branch, and finally back to Milwaukee. He died in 1912 in Indianapolis while on furlough from the Milwaukee branch home.35 Joseph O’Neail was first admitted to the Milwaukee branch, NHDVS in July 1908. From that first admission until his death in 1919 he was discharged and re-admitted five times. Each of his discharges were upon his own request.36 William Ford was admitted to the National Soldiers Home in Dayton, Ohio, in 1892. When he died in 1901, Ford was buried in the Dayton National Cemetery as are over 650 African Americans who served in the Union Army. In the immediate vicinity of Ford’s final resting place lies white veterans. Likewise, Joshua Dunbar of the 55th Massachusetts lies in the Dayton National Cemetery surrounded by the graves of white soldiers. A preliminary plotting of gravesites shows that gravesite locations, at least at the Dayton National Cemetery, were not segregated. Rather, veterans were buried according to their dates of death, signifying that perhaps in death race and reconciliation was complete.37 Unfortunately, it is difficult to ascertain black veterans thoughts of, and treatment at, the Soldiers Homes, but the reasons why more African American veterans, whether of the 102nd USCI or other units, chose not to enter Soldiers Homes may have had less to do with race and more to do with the character of the black family and community. Simply put, many black veterans preferred, whenever possible, to be supported by a pension and cared for by family and friends rather than to live in a government sponsored, military regimented, impersonal institution. They relied more on kin networks than on government Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 35 care and housing if such an alternative was available to them. For those marginalized veterans unable to support themselves or with impoverished families unable to do so, the Soldiers Homes may have been the viable, though perhaps not preferred, option. After all, they were segregated and were likely ostracized from white residents just as African Americans in the US generally were, a reflection of their status in society by the late nineteenth century. Albeit a small sample, thirty six veterans (of forty one studied thus far) in National Homes with contact names on their NHDVS registration included sixteen who were married, and one who was estranged. The rest listed children (11), siblings (4), or friends (5) as their person of contact, most of whom lived in different areas than the Soldiers Homes and may not have been able to provide for the veterans. James Hopkins’s daughter lived in Detroit while he resided in the Milwaukee branch of the NHDVS. Likewise, Joseph O’Neil was in the Milwaukee branch when his nearest relative, his sister Minnie Farrio, lived in Chicago. Perhaps it is enough said that what is remarkable given American society at the time is that black veterans were accepted into the same homes as white veterans.38 Like all African Americans in the post-Civil War Era black veterans struggled to preserve the opportunities opened to them with the war and Emancipation. Black veterans were more effective in some areas than were nonveterans but their efforts were far from an unqualified success. It was the legacy of their service that allowed them to maintain at least some semblance of equality, at least when it came to the assistance befitting veterans. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society36 About the Author Sharon Roger Hepburn received her PhD from the University of Buffalo (1995). Her specialties include African American History and 19th America. Currently she is a full professor and chair of the department of history at Radford University in Virginia. Her first book, Crossing the Border: A Free Black Community in Canada (University of Illinois Press, 2007), received the 2008 Albert B. Corey award jointly sponsored by the American Historical Association and the Canadian Historical Association. She has had articles published in the Michigan Historical Review and American Nineteenth Century History. Her current research project is a full regimental history of the 102ndUnited States Colored Infantry and its service during the Civil War. Dr. Roger Hepburn is the recipient of the 2010 College of Humanities and Behavioral Sciences Distinguished Scholarship Award at Radford University. Endnotes 1. One officer was killed in action; two men were shot and killed accidentally while another was shot and killed while running the guard; one died while he was on picket duty after being shot; another one drowned; and two are listed as died from poisoning. 102nd United States Colored Infantry, Regimental Books, Record Group 94, National Archives and Records Administration (Hereafter cited as NARA). 2. Donald Shaffer, After the Glory: The Struggles of Black Civil War Veterans (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 7. 3. The research thus far conducted for this study centers primarily on membership in GAR Posts within Michigan where a significant number of 102nd USCI veterans resided during the postwar years. 102nd veterans were member of both separate and interracial GAR Posts in other states as well. Barbara A. Gannon, The Won Cause: Black and White Comradeship in the Grand Army of the Republic (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2011); Civil War Pension Files (hereafter cited as CWPF), RG 15, NARA; Grand Army of the Republic Records Project, Department of Michigan, available at http://www.suvcwmi.org/gar/. 4. CWPF; GAR Records Project, Department of Michigan, http://www.suvcwmi.org/gar/. 5. Ibid. 6. Aaron Burnett, CWPF; George Alexander, CWPF; Ellen Alexander’s claim for pension was rejected when the Pension Office ruled that, due to a technicality, George had not served for the requisite 90 days. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 37 7. William DeValt, CWPF. 8. Ann Arbor Argus, November 13, 1894; Gannon, The Won Cause, 109. 9. Noel Cox, CWPF. 10. Organization Index to Pension Files of Veterans who served between 1861 and 1900, T289, NARA. Donald Shaffer’s random sample of 545 black veterans shows a slightly different success rate than that of the 102nd USCT. 75.4 percent of black veterans in his sample who applied for pension received one while 60.7 percent of widows claiming a pension were successful in their efforts. 50 percent of children claiming a pension received one and 35.5 percent of parents did so. Shaffer, After the Glory, 209. 11. Larry M. Logue and Peter Blanck, “’Benefit of Doubt’: African-American Civil War Veterans and Pensions,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 38:3 (Winter 2008), 377-399; Sven E. Wilson, “Prejudice and Policy: Racial Discrimination in the Union Army Disability Pension System, 1865-1906,” American Journal of Public Health 100: S56-S65 (April 2010). Shaffer’s random sample of an equal number of white pension applicants shows 92.6 percent of white veterans who applied for a pension received one while 83.7 percent of widows of white soldiers received a pension when they claimed one. Meanwhile, 50 percent of children and 69.4 percent of parents who applied for a pension were successful. 12. John Holden (Hollen), CWPF; Noel Cox, CWPF. 13. Sarah Hopkins, CWPF; Stephen Busby, CWPF. 14. William Givens, CWPF. 15. George Jones, CWPF; Wesley Sasser, CWPF. 16. Anthony Henry, CWPF; Philander Hood, CWPF. 17. Milton Murdock, CWPF; Jeremiah Swift, CWPF. Louisa Mudock’s claim to pension was further complicated by the fact that Murdock had left a wife and children in Michigan before returning to the south, after which he married her in Mississippi. 18. John Brown, CWPF; Charles Chandler, CWPF. Chandler’s claim was approved in early September 1890 but the file was returned with a death notification. Chandler had died on August 29, 1890. 19. Edward Haynes, CWPF; Felix Grundy, CWPF. 20. Thomas Johnson, CWPF. 21. The Indexes to NHDVS are not segregated in that the names of white and black veterans in the index are listed together in alphabetical listing. The same is also the case with the NHDVS registers, they are not segregated records but veterans were entered into the register according to their admission to the facility. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society38 22. Trevor K. Plante, “The National Home for Disabled Veteran Soldiers,” Prologue 36 (Spring 2004). Shaffer sets the number at 1% between 1876 and 1905. 23. 1880 and 1900 Census, FamilySearch, http://FamilySearch.org; Note: The census only enumerates those veterans in the Soldiers Home at the time of the actual enumeration. 24. Shaffer, After the Glory, 138, 206. 25. Thomas Gaines, Joseph West, James Hopkins, and James Ross. 26. Battles’s medical records and discharge papers note that he was 39 in 1865. His enlistment papers of 1863 say age 37. Wilson Battles, Carded Medical Records; CMSR. 27. Wilson Battles, Carded Medical Records; CMSR. 28. Only two soldiers were in their late 30s when they were first admitted to a soldiers home; four were in their 40s; six in their 50s; thirteen in their 60s; six in their 70s; one in his 80s; and one in his 90s. 29. United States National Homes for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, 1866-1938 (hereafter cited as NHDVS), FamilySearch, http://FamilySearch.org. There were undoubtedly more 102nd veterans who entered NHDVS as this investigation is only in the early stages and the records have to be accessed individually from the NHDVS register. 30. 1900 Census, FamilySearch, http://FamilySearch.org. 31. NHDVS, FamilySearch, http://FamilySearch.org. 32. Ibid. 33. There is no indication from the carded medical file for West that his leg was amputated during his service. In fact, he was returned to duty at the end of January 1865. Perhaps complications later led to an amputation. 34. CMSR, Joseph West; Casualty Lists for 102nd USCI; Carded Medical Records, Joseph West; NHDVS, FamilySearch, http://FamilySearch.org. 35. NHDVS, FamilySearch, http://FamilySearch.org. 36. Ibid. 37. Ibid. 38. Ibid. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 39 References Ann Arbor Argus, November 13, 1894 Brimmer, Brandi C., “’Her Claim for Pension is Lawful and Just’”: Representing Black Union Widows in Late-Nineteenth Century North Carolina,” The Journal of the Civil War Era 1:2 (2011): 207-236. Civil War Pension Files, Record Group 15, National Archive and Records Administration. FamilySearch, https://familysearch.org/ Fleche, Andre M. “Shoulder to Shoulder as Comrades Tried: Black and White Union Veterans and Civil War Memory.” Civil War History 51:2 (2005), 175-201.Gannon, Barbara A. The Won Cause: Black and White Comradeship in the Grand Army of the Republic. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2011. Grand Army of the Republic Records Project, Department of Michigan, available at http://www.suvcwmi.org/gar/. Kelly, Patrick J. Creating a National Home: Building the Veterans’ Welfare State: 1860- 1900. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997. Logue, Larry M., and Peter Blanck, “‘Benefit of Doubt’: African-American Civil War Veterans and Pensions.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 38.3 (2008): 377- 399. Organization Index to Pension Files of Veterans who served between 1861 and 1900. T289. National Archives and Records Administration. Plante, Trevor K. “The National Home for Disabled Veteran Soldiers,” Prologue 36.1 (2004). http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/spring/soldiers- home.html Skocpol, Theda. “America’s First Social Security System: The Expansion of Benefits for Civil War Veterans.” Political Science Quarterly 108:1 (1993), 85-116. Shaffer, Donald. After the Glory: The Struggles of Black Civil War Veterans. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2004. Wilson, Sven E. “Prejudice and Policy: Racial Discrimination in the Union Army Disability Pension System, 1865-1906.” American Journal of Public Health 100 (2010): S56-S65. 102nd United States Colored Infantry. Regimental Books. Record Group 94. National Archives and Records Administration. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society40 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 41 Panel 2—Veterans in Society: Encounters and Expectations *Items marked by an asterisk are listed here for documentation purposes but do not appear full-text in the proceedings. For more information, please contact the authors directly via their universities. *“Disabled Veterans in the Eyes of American Society: An Analysis of Changing Social Perspective on Disabled Men and Women Veterans” Joanna Dziura, Gallaudet University “War Culture: From WWI to Vietnam and the Present” Jerry Lembke, College of the Holy Cross *“‘Thank You for Your Service’ and All Those Other Polite Civilities” Marcia Davitt, Virginia Tech *“Reading as Rehabilitation: Bibliotherapy in U.S. Veteran Hospitals, 1930–1960” Monique Dufour, Virginia Tech Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society42 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 43 War Trauma in the Construction of American Lost-war Culture From WWI to Vietnam and the Present Jerry Lembcke (jlembcke@holycross.edu) Holy Cross College Abstract The war veteran suffering Shell Shock is one of the most enduring images of twentieth century war. Among 21st century media pundits and even some medical professionals, however, few are aware that Shell Shock was largely discredited after WWI, its diagnostic significance overshadowed by its cultural and political meanings. Even fewer observers are aware that Shell Shock played out in inter-war Germany as a metaphor for a nation traumatized by war whose defeat and hurt could only be avenged through more war. This paper will reprise in greater detail this biography of war trauma with attention to: a) The way art, news media, and other cultural forms played into the construction of Shell Shock; b) The Freudian intervention in the matter of traumatized WWI veterans; c) the way filmic representations of veterans intensified the political sentiments of inter-war Germany. The paper will then extend the trajectory of war trauma biography into and beyond the Vietnam War era to show its agency in the construction of a victim-veteran imagery via PTSD and TBI that abets an American lost-war narrative eerily similar to that which remilitarized Germany after the First World War. Keywords: War-trauma; shell shock; betrayal in war; German revanchism; victim- veteran imagery; PTSD; post-traumatic stress disorder. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society44 War Trauma in the Construction of American Lost-war Culture From WWI to Vietnam and the Present In his Washington Post story “A Shock Wave of Brain Injuries” on April 8, 2007, reporter Ronald Glasser declared that improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq had “brought back one of the worst afflictions of World War I: shell shock. The brain of the soldiers is shocked, truly.” As far back as the 1970s, efforts to formulate new diagnostic terminology for war veterans gained traction through analogies to shell shock: Post Vietnam Syndrome was said to be “like shell shock”; later on, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was like Shell Shock; and now: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is like Shell Shock. The discourse of trauma has displaced all most all else from the coming-home news coverage of our current generation of veterans. In their 2013 book Beyond PTSD, the anthropologists Sarah Hautzinger and Jean Scandlyn write, “In most any conversation where the topic of returning soldiers came up, PTSD was mentioned in the first few minutes.”1 The centrality of Shell Shock to that discourse make its legacy a deserving topic for study. As it turns out, the more we know about Shell Shock the more problematic PTSD and TBI become. Indeed, the most instructive analogy between PTSD-TBI and Shell Shock of the World War I era might be in the respective narrative value of each, rather than their diagnostic value.2 Let’s work through the sticky-thicket of political history, cultural imagery, and medical science connecting the post-war culture of The Great War and our situation today. During and after World War I, doctors see soldiers with unexplained tremors, some gone blind or deaf, others mute, paralyzed. Charles Meyers, a British doctor, speculates that their behaviors are due to exploding shells on the front. So he calls it “shell shock.” But then soldiers who have yet to see combat appear with similar symptoms. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 45 German soldiers who had never been under fire were more likely to present symptoms that those who had. The Freiburg physician Alfred Hauptmann reasoned that soldiers with actual physical wounds should exhibit shell-shock symptoms—but they seldom did. Moreover, he thought, if shell explosions did directly cause neuroses, then soldiers would surely suffer these symptoms from firing their own weapons, a phenomenon that he had never observed.”3 To cite a relevant personal experience, I was a Chaplain’s Assistant assigned to an artillery unit in Vietnam. On occasion I was around the big guns when they fired—and I can tell you they rattled the bones and split the eardrums, if not literally. More importantly I was around the men who worked the guns and were, day after day, much closer to them than I was. And yet I never saw or heard of anything even suggesting a resemblance to Shell Shock. A hundred years ago, Hauptmann was on to something. Dr. Joseph Babinski reasoned the symptoms may be “brought about not by the war itself but either by unintentional suggestion from doctors or by the patient’s auto- suggestion and imitation.”4 I emphasize those words—“suggestion from doctors” “auto-suggestion” and “imitation”—because they cue for us that emotions, culture, and perhaps psychology, may be factors in the symptomology of Shell Shock. Historian Michael Roth says shell shock in many ways resembled hysteria, a kind of “body speak,”— the bodily reappearance of ideas, fears, memories banished from consciousness.5 Freudians suggested that Shell Shock patients had repressed the conflict between fear and duty. What the patient was really afraid of was his own failure. The repressed memories of failure later reemerged as fantasies—false memories replete with the physical symptoms attributable to combat—that conjured exploding shells.6 But hysteria was a female disorder. Doctors were, said historian Elaine Showalter, “so prejudiced against a psychological cause that they just kept looking and looking”—some kind of wound on the body, evidence of a bomb blast, something physical. Anything but psychological.7 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society46 Those doctors were men schooled in the tradition of the French neurologist Jean- Martin Charcot. At Salpertriere in Paris in the late 1800s, Charcot thought hysteria was caused by “brain lesions.” Charcot’s lesions theory was largely discredited when autopsies failed to reveal the lesions. But the brain-lesions theory was resurrected for medical approaches to WWI casualties. Herman Oppenheim in Germany believed that exploding shells created microscopic lesions in the brain causing paralysis. Conceivably, this model fit the anything-but-psychological imperative: the cause was external to the patient; exploding shells conjured the combat bona fides of the victim; the damage was physical—a very manly model.8 Unfortunately for Oppenheim, even he had to admit that the sought-for lesions were “too small to be detectable.” Historian Ben Shepard in his book War of Nerves noted that Oppenheim’s lesions-model was “comprehensively routed” even before the end of the war Shell-Shock, said Shepard, was “a common modern phenomenon: a medical debate, hedged with scientific qualifications, taken up by public opinion and the media.”9 In the words of Doctor William Johnson who had studied as a neurologist, won commendation for bravery at the battle of the Somme, and later treated war casualties, “Young soldiers prepare to become a case of shell-shock almost before the first shell drops near them.”10 The doctors themselves were not impervious to the influence of popular culture. In his 1985 essay “Shellshock and the Psychologists,” Martin Stone wrote of the early war period that, “Shellshock had, it seemed, caught both the sympathy and imagination of the public who [in turn] `raised psychoneuroses to the dignity of a new disease before which doctors seemed well-nigh helpless.’” In short form, Stone is suggesting that cultural forms beyond the boundary of science itself led the way to the diagnostic category known as Shell Shock.11 One of those “cultural forms” was the technology of culture-production. Historians of psychiatry are in wide agreement that camera photography influenced Charcot’s analyses of women hysterics. Anton Kaes in his 2010 book Shell Shock Cinema: Weimar Culture and the Wounds of War says moving-picture cameras, deployed by then for mental health diagnoses, played the same role in the making of Shell Shock. There was Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 47 a synergy, he suggests, between early film itself—jumpy, with abrupt juxtapositions, and silent—and the symptoms it purported to capture—spastic movements, contortions, and muteness. Nearly a century later, we’re struck by the oddness of body-images appearing in these rough-hewn films. As seen for the first time by young men, perhaps even before the war years, it is easy to imagine that certain positions and postures carried mental health implications when viewed by the public—“Look how crazy the guy in the film looks!”12 Kaes, also sees the filmic image of World War I veterans as essential in the political culture of inter-war Germany. In the 1920 film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari— some of you might know it as a Halloween horror film—the zomboid character Cesare steps from a coffin under the influence of the mysterious Doctor. Cesare begins to move in a stiff and jump-cut motion that resembles the movement later associated with shell- shock victims. Indeed, says Kaes, Cesare “might have been case number 365, as recorded in a 1919 medical collection called Shell-Shock and Other Neuropsychiatric Problems.”13 The political effect of shell-shock imagery in German culture was studied by Siegfried Kracauer for his 1947 book From Caligari to Hitler. Films like Caligari, he said, used the medical imagery of shell shock to suggest to Germans that the loss of the war had also been a social and cultural shock to their pride and national identity. Metaphorically, shell shock was the unseen wound carried by veterans, and as well, the body politic, as the silent disease of national trauma demanding vengeance through more war.14 In the United States, losses in World War I worked similarly to galvanize a stronger sense of national identity. In her 2010 book Bodies of War, Lisa Budreau refers to the American “cult of the fallen soldier” produced by the war, that she said provided “justification for the nation in whose name the war had been fought.” “The notion of heroic death was readily invoked,” she wrote, “to assuage the grief of the living while furthering the interests of the nation.”15 The American institution of “Gold Star Mothers” was born in this Post WWI social climate. The traditional black adornments signifying grief and mourning were Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society48 supplemented by gold stars that counterbalanced funereal symbolism—a gold star for accomplishment, writes Budreau sardonically. A New York Times editorial on the gold- star concept claimed that, “There is no better death than this.” ”16 As the “cult of the fallen soldier” was forming in the United States, its more virulent strain was growing in Germany. The wounded Germany symbolized by the Shell Shocked Cesare in Caligari had also been betrayed on the home front by pacifists, Communists, women, and Jews. The grounding-image of the sell-out was the stabbed-in-the-back German veteran, spat on when he returned home, his uniform shed in shame at the rail station lest it be ripped from him by the traitors. Those twin images—of soldiers bringing the war home with them as “hidden injuries” of trauma, and soldiers disparaged by liberals and radicals as villains in an unpopular war—were revivified in American imagination in the years after the U.S. defeat in Vietnam.17 The task of debunking those images is assisted by what we now know about Shell Shock and, in the case of veterans defiled on the home front, the mythical character of the German stab-in-the-back legend made evident by Klaus Theweleit in his book Male Fantasies, a study of German literature in the inter-war period.18 The “unseen wound” of trauma gained legitimacy with the inclusion of PTSD in the 1980 DSM, but the same sort of empirical issues that challenged the veracity of Shell Shock—recall those Shell Shock patients never exposed to exploding shells—dogged the validity of PTSD. In 1970, psychiatrist Peter Bourne wrote that the psychiatric casualty rate in Vietnam was greater among non-combat troops than combat.19 A 1983 article in the American Journal of Psychiatry reported five cases whereupon men had presented PTSD symptoms. Three of the men said they were former prisoners of war. “In fact,” the authors found, “none had been prisoners of war, four [of the five] had never been in Vietnam, and two had never even been in the military.”20 Right into the present, it is nevertheless, common for the press to report that 30 to 50 percent of Vietnam veterans suffer from PTSD—despite the fact that only about 15 percent of U.S. soldiers there saw Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 49 combat. Similar data disparities trouble the PTSD claims related to Iraq. The British report a PTSD rate about one-fourth that of the Americans—a gap one British scholar attributes to the American expectation that its troops will return traumatized.21 It is clear to me that stories of spat-on veterans worked the same way in the United States after the war in Vietnam, as did the stab-in-back-legend in Germany, to form a betrayal narrative for the loss of the war. The image of trauma-stricken veterans enhances that narrative, adding to the recognition of combat-related emotional damage, the culturally constructed traumas of diminished manhood, hostile homecomings, and the neglect of an ungrateful public. Brought to life for Americans in Hollywood films like Hamburger Hill and Coming Home, the real war seemed to have been at home—and, as Rambo had it, it was on the home front that the war was lost. It was a loss to be avenged through attacks on individual and groups deemed to have sapped our manliness: liberals in Congress, radicals on campus, and . . . Jane Fonda the personification of the seditious femininity that erodes our will-to-war.22 Lost in the fog of victim-veteran constructions is the real story that thousands of active-duty personnel and veterans turned against the war. With the defeat in Vietnam we lost confidence in our place as “city on the hill.” We’ve become a nation of hurt, not hope; an avenging victim-nation. Having suffered the shock and trauma of defeat, we now inflict “shock and awe” on others. Like inter-war Germany, we are steeping in a revanchist political culture that longs for a restoration of a mythical America, an America that never was. Myths are group stories, as real as the group, the nation, that the stories create. We know that Anton Kaes is right—the “invisible wound,” enlivened by images of shell- shocked WWI veterans, led Germany back into war and its destruction in WWII; enlivened by its images of defiled and PTSD-stricken veterans, the U.S. sought collective remedy for its “Vietnam syndrome” in its Gulf War slaughter of retreating Iraqis—a remedy that leads, still, to more and more suffering. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society50 Shell Shock, PTSD, and now TBI are socially constructed diagnostic categories that ply the mythologies of national identity and gendered sensitivities; their use in the manufacture of domestic scapegoats for losses abroad, and the incentive to remilitarize is a demonstrable danger. A nation bonded by its commitments to avenge its hurts and unable to distinguished hurts inflicted by Self and Other—is a danger to all. About the Author Jerry Lembcke is associate professor of sociology (emeritus) at Holy Cross College in Worcester, MA. He is the author of The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam (NYU Press, 1998), CNN’s Tailwind Tale: Inside Vietnam’s Last Great Myth (Roman and Littlefield, 2005), Hanoi Jane: War, Sex, and Fantasies of Betrayal (UMass Press, 2010), and PTSD: Diagnosis and Identity in Post-empire America (Lexington Books, 2013). Jerry was in Vietnam as an army chaplain’s assistant in 1969. Endnotes 1. Sarah Hautzinger and Jean Scandlyn, Beyond Post-Traumatic Stress: Homefront Struggles with the War on Terror (Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2014), 16. 2. I wrote critically about the antiwar movement’s “cost of war” rhetoric in Jerry Lembcke. “The Horror of War Can Be Catnip for Young Men,” National Catholic Reporter 43.28 (2007). 3. Ben Shephard, A War of Nerves: Soldiers and Psychiatrists in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 106, 112. Given the uncritical acceptance in popular culture decades later that shell shock was a valid diagnostic category for World War I soldiers—and thus a base-line from which inquires into PTSD can meaningfully begin decades later—it is surprising to look back and see that, at the time, some doctors rejected it. The official inquiry into “shell-shock” by the British War Office Committee in 1922 (their quotation marks on the term) summarized its findings with the following words: On all the main issues there is unanimity of opinion. ‘It is demonstrated that “shell-shock” has been a gross and costly misnomer and that the term should be eliminated from our nomenclature. . . . The war produced no new Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 51 nervous disorders, and those which occurred had previously been recognized in civil medical practice.’ 4. Shephard, A War of Nerves, 11-12, 98. 5. Roth’s words are quoted from the 1998 PBS documentary Odyssey of the Mind which featured Freudian orientations toward Shell Shock in the years after WWI. 6. As I’ve also noted in my 2013 book, PTSD: Diagnosis and Identity in Post-empire America (Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books), Anne Harrington’s account of Freud’s breakthrough is accessible (see The Cure Within: A History of Mind-Body Medicine, New York: W.W. Norton, 2008, 75–76), and W.H. Rivers provided a worthwhile reworking of Freud’s insights (as discussed in Martin Stone’s “Shellshock and the Psychologists,” The Anatomy of Madness, William F. Bynum, Roy Porter, and Michael Shepherd, eds, New York; London: Tavistock Publications, 1985, 255). In their 1990 study, published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology, Lee Hyer, et al, reprised Rivers’ insight, finding that “low self-esteem rooted in parental practices was a better predictor of suicide among Vietnam veterans than was military experience” (see “Suicidal Behavior among Chronic Vietname Theatre Veterans with PTSD,” 46.6, 713–721; quoted material here from PTSD: Diagnosis and Identity, 93). Furthermore, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd “made clever use of Freud’s insight in writing about Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s false claim to being a Vietnam veteran” (“Lies as Wishes,” May 22, 2010, available online at http://nyti.ms/25EmzvZ; quoted material here from PTDS: Diagnosis and Identity, 93). 7. Elaine Showalter in the 1998 PBS Documentary, A Science Odyssey: In Search of Ourselves. 8. Shephard, A War of Nerves, 98. The histories of war-trauma diagnoses are laced with issues of masculinity. J.V. Dipple, War and Sex: A Brief History of Men’s Urge for Battle, explores those issues as a prelude to World War I itself (New York: Prometheus, 2010). 9. Shephard, A War of Nerves, 99, 28. 10. J.C. Dunn, The War the Infantry Knew, 1914-1919 (London: James Publishing, 1987), 250; Johnson is quoted by Shephard, A War of Nerves, 58-59. 11. Janet Browne. “Darwin and the Face of Madness,” in The Anatomy of Madness, ed. William F. Bynum, Roy Porter and Michael Shepherd (New York; London: Tavistock Publications, 1985), 158; Stone, “Shellshock,” 254. 12. Tellingly, the soundless property of early film correlated with muteness (and deafness), and complimentarily, with the absence of the startle-response presented by veterans of later wars who claimed that a sharp and unexpected noise like a firecracker caused them Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society52 to relive wartime experience. In “Flashbacks—Fireworks, and Cars that Backfire?” I wrote about the properties of those stories as legends (Counter Punch, July 11, 2013, available online at http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/11/flashbacks-fireworks-and-cars-that- backfire/ ). It was a symptom that would be closely associated with PTSD after the war in Vietnam—and well after sound was married to motion pictures in the 1930s. Hillary L. Chute, Disaster Drawn: Visual Witness, Comics, and Documentary Form, 86-89, suggests the relationship between film and representations of trauma (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard, 2016). 13. Elmer Ernest Southhard, Shell-Shock and other neuropsychiatric problems presented in five hundred and eighty-nine case histories from the War literature, 1914-1918 (Amazon Digital Services LLC, 2015), Kindle edition. 14. Seigfried Kracauer, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947) goes even more deeply into the political subtexts of the Caligari the film. 15. Lisa M. Budreau, Bodies of War: World War I and the Politics of Commemoration in America 1919-1933 (New York: New York University Press, 2010), 4, 44. 16. Budreau, Bodies of War, 95-97. 17. I wrote about the myth of spat-upon veterans in Jerry Lembcke, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam (New York: New York University Press, 1998), and the political implications of PTSD-TBI in PTSD. 18. Klaus Theweleit, Male Fantasies, Volume One: Women, Floods, Bodies, History (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987). 19. Peter Bourne, Men, Stress, and Vietnam (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970), 40-43, 76. 20. Landy Sparr and Loren D. Pankratz. “Factitious Posttraumatic Stress Disorder,” American Journal of Psychiatry 140.8 (1983), 1016. For more on “Factitious PTSD,” see Edward J. Lynn and Mark Belza, “Factitious Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: The Veteran Who Never Got to Vietnam,” Hospital and Community Psychiatry 35 (1984): 697-701. Patrick Hagopian, The Vietnam War in American Memory: Veterans, Memorials, and the Politics of Healing (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2009), 73, writes that Jack McCloskey, team leader of the San Francisco Waller Street vet center, funded by the Veterans Administration outreach program, refused to check the DD-214 discharge papers of new clients before counseling them. As a result, says Hagopian, “some of the clients his staff saw turned out not to have been Vietnam veterans at all.” 21. Whitney, Diane, MD, “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” (Discussion Paper for The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, Toronto, Ontario, February, 2010), revised September 2015, http://www.wsiat.on.ca/english/mlo/post_traumatic.htm. 22. For the villainizing of Jane Fonda as “Hanoi Jane,” see Jerry Lembcke, Hanoi Jane: War, Sex, and Fantasies of Betrayal (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2010). Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 53 References Bourne, Peter. Men, Stress, and Vietnam. Boston: Little, Brown, 1970. Brown, Janet. “Darwin and the Face of Madness.” In The Anatomy of Madness, William F. Bynum and Roy Porter, vol. 1, 151-165, New York; London: 1985. Budreau, Lisa M. Bodies of War: World War I and the Politics of Commemoration in America 1919-1933. New York: New York University Press, 2010. Carabatsos, James, Jerry Offsay, and Marcia Nasatir. Hamburger Hill. Directed by John Irvin. 1987. RKO Pictures, 2001. DVD. Chute, Hillary L. Disaster Drawn: Visual Witness, Comics, and Documentary Form. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard, 2016. Dipple, John V. H. War and Sex: A Brief History of Men’s Urge for Battle. New York: Prometheus, 2010. Dunn, J.C. The War the Infantry Knew, 1914-1919. London: James Publishing, 1987. Hagopian, Patrick. The Vietnam War in American Memory: Veterans, Memorials, and the Politics of Healing. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2009. Harrington, Anne. The Cure Within: A History of Mind-Body Medicine. New York: W.W. Norton, 2008. Hautzinger, Sarah, and Jean Scandlyn. Beyond Post-Traumatic Stress: Homefront Struggles with the War on Terror. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2014. Hellman, Jerome. Coming Home. Directed by Hal Ashby. 1978. Culver City, CA: MGM/ UA, 2002. Home Video. Hyer, Lee, Edward W. McCranie, Marilyn G. Woods, and Patrick A Boudewyns. “Suicidal Behavior among Chronic Vietnam Theatre Veterans with PTSD.” Journal of Clinical Psychology (1990): 713-721. Kaes, Anton. Shell Shock Cinema: Weimar Culture and the Wounds of War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011. Kracauer, Siegfried. From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947. Lembcke, Jerry. The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam. New York: New York University Press, 1998. ---. “The Facts about Soldiers’ Ages.” National Catholic Reporter. May 25. 2007. ---. “The Horror of War Can Be Catnip for Young Men.” National Catholic Reporter. March 25, 2007. ---. Hanoi Jane: War, Sex, and Fantasies of Betrayal. Amherst: UMass Press, 2010. ---. PTSD: Diagnosis and Identity in Post-empire America. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2013. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society54 ---. “Flashbacks, Fireworks—and Cars that Backfire?” Counter Punch (July 11, 2013): http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/11/flashbacks-fireworks-and-cars-that- backfire/ Lynn, Edward J., and Mark Belza. “Factitious Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: The Veteran Who Never Got to Vietnam.” Hospital and Community Psychiatry 35 (1984): 697- 701. Mayer, Carl, and Hans Janowitz. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. DVD. Directed by Robert Wiene. 1921. Berlin, Germany: Decla-Biascop AG, 2015. Digitally restored version. Morell, David and Michael Kozall. First Blood. Directed by Ted Kotcheff. 1982. Golden Ears Provincial Park, British Columbia, 2002. DVD. A Science Odyssey: In Search of Ourselves. Directed by Carl Charlson and David Espar. 1998. WGBH Boston, MA, 2005. DVD. Shephard, Ben. A War of Nerves: Soldiers and Psychiatrists in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. Showalter, Elaine. Hystories: Hysterical Epidemics and Modern Media. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. Southhard, Elmer Ernest. Shell-Shock and Other Neuropsychiatric Problems. Amazon, 2015. Sparr, Landy and Loren D. Pankratz. “Factitious Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.” American Journal of Psychiatry 140.8 (1983): 697-701. Stone, Martin “Shellshock and the Psychologists.” In The Anatomy of Madness, ed. William F. Bynum and Roy Porter, vol. 1, 242-271, New York; London: 1985. Theweleit, Klaus. Women, Floods, Bodies, History. Vol. 1 of Male Fantasies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. War Office Great Britain. Report of the War Office Committee of Enquiry into “Shell- Shock.” London: His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1922. Whitney, Diane, MD., “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.” Discussion Paper for The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, Toronto, Ontario, February, 2010, revised September 2015, http://www.wsiat.on.ca/english/mlo/post_ traumatic.htm. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 55 Panel 3—Veterans in Society: In the First Person *Items marked by an asterisk are listed here for documentation purposes but do not appear full-text in the proceedings. For more information, please contact the authors directly via their universities. “HEAL: An Experience Report” Richard Williamson, University of Iowa *“Intersectioned Identity” Rashaad Thomas, Arizona State University “The Church: One of the First Military Veterans Organizations” Stuart Price, Richard, VA “Last Night I Dreamed of Peace: The Diary of Dang Thuy Tram: War, Writing, Reconciliation” Suellynn Duffey, University of Missouri, St. Louis Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society56 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 57 Heal An Experience Report Richard A. Williamson (richard-williamson@uiowa.edu) University of Iowa Abstract For over ten years I have been learning about life with a son who experiences Post- Traumatic Stress. My experiences with both the roadblocks and the resources from my adventure into this realm of the unknown have led me down multiple and conflicting pathways. I have narrowed my energies and focus into an attempt to create a space for healing for our Veterans and their families. Through vast amounts of networking, I have realized the multitude of opportunities available for our Veterans. My goal is to share my experiences with others who may be attempting similar feats to my own and perhaps my history will help others to achieve their goals. Keywords: transition, recognition, returning veteran university resources Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society58 Heal An Experience Report There is a quote by Theodore Roosevelt that I love, which I will slightly modify to be all inclusive. He said: “A man or woman who is good enough to shed their blood for the country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards”. As humans, we have the ability to comfort, hope, to dream and believe that we have the power to affect a positive impact on our society. We will never all be on the same page, with the same values, share the exact same experiences, yet in spite of these differences, humans can cooperate in a flexible manner in very large numbers without having intimate knowledge of all others in that population. This enables humans to develop sophisticated networks of communication, global exchange of ideas and systems of cooperation leading to the achievement of shared goals. I am encouraged by the progress and cooperative culture I have seen across the country with respect to our Veterans. My Mission is for all returning Veterans to be honored and receive guidance through their transition back into civilian society, funding for vocational or college education while securing a career in an environment that is safe and healing for them and their families. In order for you to identify with my vision, I will open my heart, expose my vulnerabilities and share my journey with you on this mission. I am the son of a World War II Tail-Gunner, in the Army Air Corps. I am the father of a combat-infantry Marine of the 2004 war for Fallujah. I did not serve in the military. I am a past prosthodontist academician at the University of Iowa College of Dentistry and now Staff Prosthodontist at the Iowa City VA Dental Clinic. When my son was deployed to Fallujah, I became obsessed with searching all forms of media for information on 1/3 Charlie Company. If I was not actively engaged with a task that required my focus, I was mentally connected with my son. I would go to spinning class each morning at 5 AM, in a dark, damp, stinky basement at Gold’s Gym. For sixty Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 59 minutes, I pushed myself to feel pain in an attempt to connect with my son. My wife and I handled his deployment quite differently. She avoided the news and trusted her instinct that he would return home alive. Her strong belief was a great comfort to me, although it was years later before I told her this. We regularly sent letters and care packages and anxiously checked our mailbox each day and hoped beyond hope for a satellite phone call, as there was no email from Fallujah in 2004. What really brought my wife and I together in managing our son’s deployment was the Stallion helicopter crash on January 26, 2005. It was my son’s unit, 1/3 Charlie Company. For 24 hours, all we knew was 33 Marines were killed. This is the window when my wife lost faith. I don’t know why, but I believed he was alive….and he was. One afternoon while treating a patient, my cell phone rang. I missed the call. When I saw an unfamiliar number, I was sick to my stomach with grief. I may have missed a call from my son. I returned to my patient, set my phone on the counter and advised everyone that if the phone rings again, I will answer. A second call shortly followed and for the one minute that I listened to his voice, I was at peace. So now, I was not only a news junkie, but was obsessed with having my phone with me 24/7. After 12 years, I still carry a bit of this obsession; feeling the need to be there should my son call. We were blessed that he did return home with no visible injuries, but I was ill prepared with what was to follow. I did not educate myself with post-deployment issues. In fact, I did possibly the worst thing, a big welcome-home party. He took it in stride, but I could tell he was not himself. He immediately enrolled at FSU, paid out of state tuition using the GI bill and worked 40+ hours/week as a bartender while taking a heavy load of classes. At that time there were no programs to assist Veterans with their transition into civilian life or into college as non-traditional students. University faculties were not educated on PTSD, TBI, Moral Injury or how to be Veteran-Sensitive. The VA was there, but it took over a year before my son would make an appointment. It was not a positive experience. I was Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society60 fortunate that my son would talk to me occasionally about his thoughts. I’m not a Veteran and I don’t speak the language of a warrior. I felt helpless and scared. He completed a B.A. in International Relations and a Masters in Human Resources. He is now a Manager of a Talent Recruitment Team that seeks Veterans to work for Amazon and his focus is connecting Veterans, especially the Enlisted Veterans, with a good job that utilizes their skills. My mission started with raising the awareness of Veterans’ Day in the University of Iowa College of Dentistry. I was disappointed, angry and ashamed when the recognition to Veterans the first year was printed on an 8 ½ by 11” piece of paper, far removed from the view of patients, students, faculty and staff. I soon discovered that Veteran’s Day was not even listed on the official University Calendar. I met with the university Registrar, a Vietnam Veteran, and he immediately corrected the oversight. We became good friends with the same mission. This was the birth of my team. We are now improving the visibility of recognition, education and engagement of the College community every year. Our New Mission was to: 1. Create a Veterans Memorial in a prominent site on the UI campus for students and members of the community. 2. Raise funds for Veterans’ Scholarships 3. Build an Independent Veterans Center We met with the Chief Diversity Officer with the idea of a Veteran’s Memorial. Following the advice given, I put together a diverse team of individuals from numerous areas campus-wide to work on this mission. Over the next four years, I met with the President of the University of Iowa, the Provost, the President of the UI Foundation, the President of the UI Alumni Association, the Director of Planning, Design and Construction, and the Chief Diversity Officer multiple times. Always following and adhering to their suggestions, the site I proposed for the Memorial was approved, funds were committed for the initial architectural study, but somehow they disappeared. I networked with local and national business leaders, student Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 61 Veterans, non-profit organizations and with each new connection, I gained at least one additional new contact. What occurred was the building of many new relationships, friends and involvement in the mission of others. One day it hit me that my mission is a journey with a path of many pavers, roadblocks, hills and obstacles. I started to enjoy the journey and realized there were many small achievements along the way to be celebrated and set-backs that provided opportunities to learn. Strong relationships were developed with the UI Student Veteran’s Association, the College of Education, and many other organizations that shared my passion. I longed to better understand what my son had survived in Fallujah. A couple years ago my son’s Squad Leader self-published on Amazon, his chronicles of their experiences in Fallujah. Lava Dawgs: a fight for Fallujah helped me get a sense of the intensity of house- to-house close-quarters’ combat, and finally my family and I could better understand the trauma and difficulty with societal reintegration. After reading Lava Dawgs, my wife said “Thank God I didn’t have that book in my hands when our son was over there”. After working with a University Administrator for 4 years and multiple meetings, I was asked: 1. What is your goal? 2. What are you getting out of this personally for yourself? This was an epiphany for me. I realized that when we believe in something strongly enough, and it is close to our hearts and souls, we believe it should be obvious and everyone should share our vision. But if two people have different agendas, sharing a vision will not happen. Sharing a vision begins with education and that can begin from the words of just one passionate person. It requires coordination of effort and persistence. Passion is the driving force for change. I met Paul Alt, a Chicago Architect who shares my passion for Veterans and who devotes his work to using spaces to promote healing. I redefined Memorial as “Honor, Healing and Resiliency Space.” The University President was stepping down/retiring and Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society62 our mission seemed in jeopardy. I decided to begin educating the community on these Veterans’ issues. I met with the Superintendent of our local community school district to plan the development of a Leadership Summit for area high school student leaders. This involved a venue large enough to seat 450 educators, students, Veteran families and citizens who care. I assembled a team of many individuals and organizations. I secured speakers and my team helped raise donations for honoraria and food. Our first Leadership Summit took place on April 15, 2015 after seven months of planning and partnering with the Colleges of Education and Dentistry, UI Student Veterans’ Association, and the Veterans’ Memorial Commission. It was held at the Veterans’ Memorial—designed by Paul Alt—in Cedar Rapids Iowa. Taylor Morris (Afghanistan Ordnance Specialist) with his then fiancé, Danielle Kelley, and Bobby Henline (Veteran of both Afghanistan and Iraq) were secured as speakers. Additional participants included the “Remembering Our Fallen from Iowa”, the Independence Fund ‘Photos from Fallujah’, the Marine Corps Honor Guard, and area high school students singing the National Anthem a cappella. Also included were Gold Star Moms. Instructional materials developed by the College of Education were made available to high school teachers to help develop awareness and teaching strategies. On October 29th, Nick Misiano (the author’s real name of Lava Dawgs: a fight for Fallujah) and I met with the new University of Iowa President Bruce Harreld and outlined our Mission. Two weeks after our meeting, phase one of building a place of honor was announced and we now have a flagpole and the beginning of our healing space. President Harreld is from the corporate sector but has a strong military connection and passion for Veterans. I know we will fulfill our total Mission because we have what it takes for Success: A Combined, Shared Vision, Passion and Persistence for Healing: H—Helping Veterans and civilians to Heal E—Every single person counts A—All of us together make a difference L—Leaders. It’s you and it’s me. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 63 About the Author Richard A. Williamson is both the son of a World War II Army Air Corps Tail-Gunner and the father of a combat-infantry Marine of the 2004 war for Fallujah. A prosthodontist at the Iowa City VA Dental Clinic, Dr. Williamson’s primary research focuses on the development of clinical diagnostic systems and correlating diagnoses to treatment and outcomes. He lectures on prosthodontic topics by invitation, nationally and internationally to doctors, dental associations, societies and laboratory technicians on fixed, removable, and implant prosthodontics. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society64 H E A L A n E xpe r ie n ce R e po r t 3 rdA nnual  Veterans  in  Society  Conference R ichard  A .  W illiam son,  D D S,  M S,  FA CP U niversity  of  Iow a  College  of  D entistry  and  D ental  Clinics N ovem ber  13,  2015 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 65 R ichard  A .  W illiam son,  D D S,  M S,  FA CP U niversity  of  Iow a  College  of  D entistry  and  D ental  Clinics has  no  conflict  w ith  any  organization  and  this  presentation   represents  the  view s  of  the  presenter  and  not  necessarily  that   of  the  institution Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society66 A m an (or w om an) w ho is good enough to shed their blood for the country is good enough to be given a square deal afterw ards. Theodore  Roosevelt Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 67 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society68 N orth G ibson Square W est R ec C tr Library Lindquist X Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 69 Photo from “X ” tow ard SW B urlington Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society70 Lava  D aw gs A  Fight  for  Fallujah B y   Charlie  M oose Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 71 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society72 V iew  this  video  online  at  https://youtu.be/1vKRw Lym lN 0.   Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 73 https://w w w .youtube.com /w atch?v=JhtiVXa3gBE N ew s Coverage of Leadership Sum m it Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society74 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 75 C om bined, Shared V ision, Passion, and Persistence for H ealing • H — H elping  Veterans  and  civilians  to  heal. • E— Every  single  person  counts. • A — A ll  of  us  together  m ake  a  difference. • L— Leaders.  It’s  you  and  it’s  m e. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society76 T h e  U n iversity  of  Iow a Veteran s  D ay . Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 77 The Church One of the First Military Veterans Organizations Stuart V. Price (stuartvprice@tds.net) Richmond, VA Abstract Today, the Federal Department of Veterans Affairs recognizes well over 100 military veteran organizations including the American Legion, American Veterans (AMVETS), Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. But these assets, these associations, and these contact resources were not always available. I want to show you how the church—in this case the Baptist church—helped two veterans relocate from the battle trenches of the Civil War to the civilian world following General Robert E. Lee’s infamous surrender at Appomattox. The reintegration challenges faced by these two veterans and the assistance they received in addressing them demonstrates how, 150 years ago, the church served as one of our first military veterans organizations. Keywords: Civil War diary, Ryland, Confederate states, 34th Virginia Infantry, Company K, Baptist Church, University of Richmond, Virginia Baptist Historical Society Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society78 The Church One of the First Military Veterans Organizations I want to share with you stories of my relatives—two military veterans—and how they were steered back into society 150 years ago. You can refer to the primary work—the transcript of the Civil War diary of J. W. Rylandnoted at the top of the veterans in society webpage—https://veteransinsociety.wordpress.com/ Today, of course, we have the Federal Department of Veterans Affairs and a wealth of military veteran organizations. The VA offers its prime shareholders—the veterans themselves—education and employment opportunities. For example, to encourage employment prospects, the VA encourages job seekers to prepare individual performance based interview profiles. Job candidates are encouraged to explain how the experiences they gained in the military will help them meet challenges in the civilian world. As the VA says, studies have shown that “the way people behave in the past is probably the way they will behave in the future.” Today, the VA recognizes well over 100 military veteran organizations including the American legion, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. But these assets, these associations, and these contact resources were not always available. In this presentation, we will see how, 150 years ago, the church served as one of our first military veterans’ organizations by assisting veterans to reintegrate into civil society. I want to show you how the church, in this case the Baptist church, helped two veterans relocate from the battle trenches of the civil war to the civilian world after general Robert E. Lee’s infamous surrender at Appomattox. * * * A graduate of Richmond College, a Baptist ministry school located in the capital of Virginia, my maternal great great grandfather John Ryland, a 24-year old farmer, had just met with his friends and neighbors at the community house. They had engaged in a rousing talk of Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 79 local pride, local governance, and how the homeland should always be defended against outside forces. Pivoting off of a firmament of strong community support, he and many of his relatives decided to join the cause. They enlisted in the newly established army of the Confederate States of America and Ryland received a pair of shoes and socks at this first muster. The year was 1861. For the next four years, John Ryland used the lessons learned in college to support the spiritual needs of his company, part of General Robert E. Lee’s army of Northern Virgina. This fresh recruit also kept that diary during his years of service. In June 1862, Ryland suffered severe injury at the battle of seven pines just along the outskirts of Richmond. Union bullets and exploding shells had levied significant casualties to the confederate forces. He convalesced at a hospital (this unit was located at his alma mater, Richmond College) in today’s downtown Richmond. Following his recovery, his situation took him from Richmond by rail to Charleston, South Carolina, in 1863. In his diary, Ryland notes his train trip to Charleston was “delayed by the cars running off the tracks in North Carolina.” But despite such mechanical difficulties, Ryland’s company continued onward. When he reached Charleston, Ryland assumed the duty as spiritual leader of building classrooms and leading Bible study and Sunday School classes for the troops. This was a means to provide solace to his fellow soldiers engaged in the prolonged Charleston siege. In his writings, Ryland also emphasized that hunger was a mean enemy for the men in South Carolina. Throughout his diary, in fact, he details the value of nourishment and cherishes those opportunities when he did enjoy good foodstuffs. Yes, today’s military grub would have been welcomed. From Charleston, he returned to Virginia by rail and marched to Petersburg. Ryland wrote that during his trip into Petersburg, “Never in my life have I witnessed such confusion.” In fact, his leaders had the company march back and forth through the town of Petersburg four times before camping. The confederate army and its mission were starting to crumble. In this place just south of Richmond, Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society80 however, Ryland again took the reins to provide religious comfort to the men – this time during the prolonged Petersburg siege, one of the most definitive struggles during the final months of war. Siege warfare, of course, was a favorite and successful strategy for the Northern forces during the civil war. And siege warfare magnified the need for John Ryland’s expertise especially during those final days. From Petersburg, Ryland traveled onward with his company to Sailors Creek in Amelia county where they suffered extreme casualties and logistics losses. Continuing to obey their orders, the men marched onward again to the South’s final stand in Appomattox, Virginia. At the Appomattox courthouse, of course, came surrender and the confederate army was dismantled. The troops received their hard copy prisoner-of-war paroles – confederate walking papers. The confederate leaders, including General Lee himself, told the dedicated soldiers to give up their weapons and go home. Ryland and his fellows then began the long trek back home. For most in the company, this was a 140-mile walk from Appomattox to King and Queen County. After all, most horses had either been eaten by hungry troops or confiscated by Union forces. The defeated soldiers trudged past Richmond and on to King and Queen near the Chesapeake Bay. John Ryland and his fellows, just from the trenches of Petersburg, must now face their next challenge. How can they re-enter civilian society on their own after surrendering their rifles? After all, Ryland thinks, my officers have been issuing step-by-step orders and directions for me to follow since I joined up. Where do I go from here? * * * During his four years of service, Ryland had learned how to reach out to the troops and provide spiritual comfort during especially stressful days. But had had just fully realized that the Southern cause involved more than just a brief military encounter as had been spelled out during those first days of recruitment. During his years of service, Ryland learned that he did have the capacity to speak the voice of leadership before an audience of young men eagerly looking for direction. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 81 After spending years standing picket in the rain, building Bible-study classrooms, and introducing his fellows to the Lord, he himself now needed to be re-introduced to his community. What skills would society expect to see from this veteran? What talents would he bring back? Who could help him find his way back? Yes, there were so many questions. He could return to his former occupation – that of a farmer. Or he could become a local builder and help reconstruct infrastructure lost during the war between the states. But John Ryland reached out to the local church and the neighbors back home. The advice he received told him to reemploy those specialized skills he had practiced as soldier. With the help of his local parish, he re-entered society as a Baptist preacher. He would use the talents he honed in Charlestown and Petersburg as his vehicle. And yes, those abilities in the military did help him build a highly respected place at several Baptist churches in Virginia. He served as the man his community could rely on and consult with during those tumultuous days of reconstruction. Just as he had served with the confederate army from its inception up until its demise at Appomattox, Ryland served as a dedicated, reliable preacher in his community until his very last day on earth in 1905. He and his wife, Lucy, are buried in a family section at the hermitage Baptist church cemetery in Virginia just outside the place of his birth. * * * In his diary, John Ryland pointed out that, during his long walk back home he passed by the property of one family member near Richmond, Charles Hill Ryland. Charles and John were first cousins. Like John, Charles also served with the Confederate army, primarily as treasurer with the Colportage Board – division charged with distributing Bibles to the troops. Following the South’s surrender, Charles decided he could best support Virginia’s society by helping rebuild the institute of higher education. Reflecting back to 1830, Robert Ryland, Doctor of Divinity and uncle of both Charles and John, had initiated Richmond college, a ministry school, in cooperation with the Baptist Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society82 church. Based in downtown Richmond, this college, like most of the South’s capital city, had been decimated during the war. As another veteran returning to society, Charles assumed the task of breathing life back into this college–that institution known today as the University of Richmond. Charles had attended Richmond College in the 1850s and had studies Latin, Greek, French, and Mathematics along with a faculty of five professors. When federal troops occupied Richmond in 1865, they commandeered the college grounds. The main building became a living quarters. Despite the material losses, Richmond College officially re-opened in October 1866 even though it had neither a library nor an endowment. From 1874 – 1914, Charles most notably served as college treasurer. And as treasurer, Charles saw to it that the college endowment grew to $640,000 – today’s money, $15 million. The college awarded him an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree in 1882. Charles passed away in 1914. He and Uncle Robert Ryland are both buried in Richmond’s Hollywood cemetery. Today, the images of Charles and Robert Ryland both rest on the wall of the Virginia Baptist Historical Society, an institute seated on the University of Richmond’s Westhampton campus. Today, the department of English and the department of History are housed in UOFR’S Ryland Hall. * * * The journeys of John and Charles Ryland provide us with case histories of how the church served the function of a military veteran organization 150 years ago and how the church helped two confederate army veterans re-enter society following our nation’s costliest war. The church – a central social meeting venue – helped both of these men directly apply lessons learned during military service to the civilian world. John took lessons learned being a spiritual advisor to the troops and applied them to become a community Baptist preacher. While Ryland reached out to a single primary resource (the church) for help re-entering civilian society, today’s veterans–facing increasingly complex challenges–can reach out to a far greater number of support resources. Reflecting on the case histories of these two military veterans and their past struggles, today’s veterans may learn lessons directly applicable to their own challenges. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 83 About the Author Stuart V. Price is an industry writer who graduated from Virginia Tech. After kicking off his career as a technical writer at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant, he moved on to design environmental and energy outreach programs in New Mexico, New York City, and Washington, DC. After working in the corporate, government, and association sectors, Price currently uses lessons taken from his career as a private investor. He also sits on Virginia Tech’s English Department’s Distinguished Alumni Board, and in this role, he helps students kick off their own careers and advocates for the cooperative education/ internship program. Price lives with his wife, Melissa, on a wildlife refuge in Amelia, Virginia, just outside Richmond. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society84 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 85 Last Night I Dreamed of Peace: The Diary of Dang Thuy Tram War, Writing, Reconciliation Suellynn Duffey (duffeys@umsl.edu) University of Missouri-St. Louis Abstract Last Night I Dreamed of Peace: The Diary of Dang Thuy Tram is a diary written by a North Vietnamese field physician serving in South Vietnam during the war we fought there who treated Vietnamese communists and nationalists whom American GIs had wounded. The diary was captured by an American GI, Fred Whitehurst, kept against military regulations, and held for thirty-five years because of the deep affection Whitehurst had developed for the diarist and his desire to return it to her family. After the family was finally found, the diary was published, first in Vietnam and subsequently in our country and eventually in many others. The stories of its finding, its long life in Whitehurst’s possession, its return, and publication globally are significant stories of reconciliations across tense, conflictual boundaries. Keywords: Vietnam, reconciliation, diary, Whitehurst Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society86 Last Night I Dreamed of Peace: The Diary of Dang Thuy Tram War, Writing, Reconciliation I have a quiet story to tell. I call this a story about a book—which can sound lifeless in comparison to some of the other speakers’ stories at this conference. I hope it isn’t to you. It isn’t to me and to the many people whose lives have intersected with the book, as important for this presentation as the book itself. Last Night I Dreamed of Peace: The Diary of Dang Thuy Tram is a book perhaps some of you have heard of or even read. It is a diary written by a North Vietnamese field physician serving in South Vietnam during the war we fought there. She treated men and women whom American GIs had wounded. She served the Vietnamese communists and nationalists who fought against our soldiers. The diary was captured by an American GI, held for thirty-five years, then published first in Vietnam and subsequently in our country and eventually translated into many different languages, thus reaching wide audiences. It is a book I teach in literacy and culture classes at my university in Missouri. I speak about it today as someone whose connections with the military, with veterans, and with veterans in society is so sketchy I’m surprised I was invited to this conference. For example, since I teach few undergraduate classes now and since almost no graduate students in English, rhetoric, and composition at our school are veterans, I have little campus contact with veterans of recent military service. I am no authority on veterans’ issues other than what my lived experience has taught me as someone who came of age during the Vietnam War and whose inheritance included many movies and mass media publications about World War II. What I know better than veterans, however, are students since I’ve taught them for decades. Let me tell you about this book first through them. Books, it’s no surprise to hear, often invoke significant emotional, intellectual, and aesthetic experiences in readers. This book often evokes all three. The reasons are many— Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 87 and varied. Some students respond to the beauty and lyricism of the diary’s language. Students who have Vietnam veterans in their families sometimes have difficulty reading strongly emotive descriptions of GIs as killers. Most of the students who read this book in my classes have virtually no knowledge of the Vietnam War, and so their reactions to it are admissions of ignorance, a fact they regret but are happy to have experienced some degree of a corrective to via Dang’s book. Here is one student speaking, Laura Hastings, who introduces us to the diary’s power through her reading experience. I use her and the next student’s words with permission. There are many reasons to read a diary. A reader can be searching for historical knowledge, biographical context on a specific person, or a better understanding of a particular event. . . . [W]hen I began reading the diary of Dr. Dang Thuy Tram . . . , I suspected I would be most interested in Thuy’s experiences because they are so different from my own. I thought I would be pulled in by her accounts of surgeries with insufficient supplies or brisk retreats through the mountains of South Vietnam. However, as I read, I realized that I was actually far more interested in what Thuy and I had in common rather than what set us apart. I was reading for shared emotions rather than contrasting experiences. In many ways, Thuy’s diary is full of concerns common to all people: love, friendship, loneliness, sadness, fear, and uncertainty. While she occasionally mentions medical treatments or battles, she writes more about her relationships to other people and her personal concerns about her own beliefs, competence, and abilities. . . . [She shows] compassion for other people and deep reverence for human relationships. . . . She worries if a loved one is in danger or is making poor decisions, and she rejoices when she connects with someone after a long separation.1 Laura alludes to an ineffable quality of the writing that we might say springs from the author’s humanity and her grace with language (and the talent of and assiduous care given by the translators who shaped the book into its English version). She lets us glimpse why Fred Whitehurst did not burn the diary when military protocol dictated that it should have been burned. Here is another student, Kelly Sutton, who gives a different view of the book: Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society88 The Diary of Dang Thuy Tram stands as a singular testament to a North Vietnamese perspective of the Vietnam War. Its impressive success in Vietnam and realistic portrayal of the war secures both its prominence and literary value. . . . The [diary] form . . . elevates the authenticity of Dang Thuy Tram’s reactions and involvement in the horror surrounding her. While the publication of Thuy’s diary in Vietnam was met with acclaim and praise, its publication in English held the potential for an icy reception in America. The Americans are clearly the villains of Thuy’s world. The Vietnam or American War caused unfathomable pain for [both men and women], and . . . [the] families involved. . . . Though Thuy’s diary reopens some of these scabbed wounds, the diary’s power is in its ability to provide an opportunity for understanding and discussion,2 outcomes that my students attest to, even the ones whose families’ Vietnam War experiences make the reading sometimes difficult. My students’ reactions—ones of passion and learning, cross-national, cross- historical, and cross-political interactions—are valuable to know, but for us at this conference, stories about how this book has been kept alive since the diary was written are even more pertinent. The diary ends in 1970, shortly before the writer, Dang Thuy Tram, was killed by American soldiers and the diary found and examined, as were all confiscated items, for their value to military intelligence. Because it was deemed to have none, it should have been burned, as Elliott Blackburn explains: “Documents with military value were sent to Saigon . . . , [but] there was no place to store the captured poetry, letters from home and personal documents written by North Vietnamese soldiers or sympathizers.”3 Those who examined it, Fred Whitehurst and his interpreter, a South Vietnamese soldier, kept it from the fire. Why wasn’t this diary burned? I am not alone in thinking it was because these two men, like my students, felt its power. Their keeping it is a notable act for many reasons, but especially because of the risk involved. As Whitehurst tells it, his interpreter’s recommendation that this artifact should not be burned “because it has fire in it [already] could [have been] viewed as treason” and thus the interpreter’s advice to keep it was a Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 89 “very brave thing” because of the risk. The act also showed “respect for an enemy” and so was driven by somewhat complex motives, many of which we probably do not know.4 Whitehurst honored the significance of his interpreter’s move by following the instructive, and he did so even before he had “heard any of the words,”5 an act that shows how much he relied on and trusted his interpreter’s judgment. But Whitehurst’s personal response deepened as the diary emerged in rough translation in the field and he himself read it. As Whitehurst typed his interpreter’s translation, he says he came to love Dang Thuy Tram, with what he calls a brotherly love. “Even the early rough translation of the books was captivating and poignant,” he said. “‘It struck me that [she] . . . was a very beautiful person, and that this diary should go back to the family, should go back to the country.’ . . . ‘Her family deserved to have the diaries.’”6 At this point, it seems Whitehurst’s motives grew out of his respect for the text’s power and the writer’s ethos, and out of his sense that these treasures would hold even greater significance for the family than they did for him. Significant to know about Whitehurst at the time he found the diary is that he had dropped out of school and volunteered to serve in the army.7 He was not one who went to Vietnam against his will via the draft, nor was he predisposed by his training, as many young Americans at that time were, to believe North Vietnamese fighters and their support staff anything but savage and inhuman.8 And yet Whitehurst “mailed the diaries and a series of photographs he recovered to a friend in California to ensure they weren’t confiscated as war trophies. [It is important to point out that in doing so], [h]is actions violated the Uniform Military Code.”9 The fact of Whitehurst’s saving the diary from fire, valuing it once he read it, and keeping it afterwards all mark points at which it would have been easy to succumb to established practice for handling such materials. Whitehurst continued to resist what it would have been easy to do. Whitehurst’s next act, keeping the diary then for thirty-five years and making what efforts he could to find Dang Thuy Tram’s family, is perhaps even more significant because as time passes, one can easily discard the remnants of one’s past. Whitehurst didn’t, and Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society90 the fact that his search was constrained by many forces, intensifies the significance of his acts. In 1972 when he came home, he says it “would have been treason”10 to make contact with North Vietnamese citizens. A decade later in 1982, he became an FBI agent, furthering the restraints on his search: “FBI agents ‘do not speak to foreign nationals and do not speak to people from socialist countries,’”11 he explains. He could have been immediately fired or put in jail. He was also prohibited from making inquiries at the Vietnamese consulate because he could have been detained there. Yet he treasured the diaries and what he felt was his duty to return them to the family. Whitehurst left the FBI 1998 and thus some constraints against uniting the diary and its writer’s family were lifted. He “held on to the diary for more than 30 years, hoping to return the book to Thuy’s family. ‘It was one of those unfinished things; it was like a sore that continued to bother and bother him,’ Robert Whitehurst said. ‘We talked about it on and on for 30 years.’”12 Thus Fred Whitehurst’s brother, Robert, was always involved in Fred’s search, shared his desires, and eventually took the lead. His doing so actually enabled the search to proceed more deeply because of Fred’s and Robert’s differing experiences of the war. Robert, though in Vietnam during the war, had not been in combat. As Fred explains, “His memories don’t overwhelm him,”13 and so he could more easily delve deeply and persistently in the search than Fred himself could. “Memories of the war,” Fred says, “still cause me a problem”; they can “crowd my mind,” disabling him in the search and presumably in his daily life; Robert can get “closer” to the work.14 Thus, Robert played a significant role in bringing the diary to public notice and ultimately returning it to the family. With his knowledge of the Vietnamese language, he created another somewhat less rough translation. As importantly, he pursued leads and constructed lines of inquiry that Fred wasn’t able to allow himself to do. But ultimately, his efforts of reunification seemed shut off. “After [reaching] many dead ends [in their search for the writer’s family], the brothers sought an alternate life for the diary and began to consider how the books could Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 91 be preserved perhaps in an archive, if not sent back to the family.”15 But because of Fred’s love for the diary and the diarist, any future home would have to be one in which both would be respected as he had respected them. “Robert discovered the Texas Tech Vietnam Center through an Internet search in late 2004, and began talking with archivists. . . . He convinced his brother that Lubbock was a good place” for them, a decision not made lightly.16 Fred, who obviously didn’t regret “taking the documents [and] keeping them[,] . . . was glad that they now were in the care of Texas Tech archivists who could preserve them authentically forever.”17 Once the decision was made, both brothers attended a conference at the Center in Lubbock and in “an emotional presentation,”18 Fred gave the diaries to the Center. We can imagine Fred Whitehurst’s feelings parting with the diary he had kept for so long, the love he held for the writer, his then-fruitless search to reunite it with Thuy Tram’s family, and all the connections it represented for him. Turning over the diary must have represented at the time a goal unreached and abandoned. Obviously, the story doesn’t end when the Whitehursts give up ownership of the diary. In fact, what are to me the most interesting stories of reconciliation occur afterwards. The story continues because the Whitehursts had copied the diary onto “compact disc[s] that contained digitally scanned images of the pages of the diary to interested members of [the] small audience [at the Texas Tech presentation].”19 In doing so, they unknowingly ensured the reunification they had hoped for over those long years. Their purposes for making and distributing the discs are not articulated, but I can imagine several: To share the diary’s beauty and power with those who might be interested in reading it, to distribute it widely enough that it might have a wider audience than just conference-goers, and to find a link, in a dispersed and wider audience of readers, to someone who might have insights about locating the family. Such a link was sitting in the audience that day. Ted Engelmann, a photojournalist, social science teacher, and Vietnam veteran, took one of the discs and, as fate would have it, left for Vietnam a few days later on a previously scheduled trip. His reason for going Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society92 was to complete a thirty-seven year-long book project for which he needed to do the final photo shoot. Englemann’s career as a photographer had taken him to many places around the world and to Vietnam often. Thus, he “had developed contacts”20 there who were able quickly to fan out into a network of resources to continue the Whiterhursts’ search. The brothers note a shared perception in Lubbock that maybe, indeed, Englemann would follow through on the search plan he promised and find some success—a forecast that hindsight shows us was accurate. One of Englemann’s contacts was especially valuable because of her long history in Vietnam and the particular nature of her contacts. Lady Borten had served there during the war as Assistant Director of the American Friends Service Committee’s Vietnam Program, a peace organization with no connection to the military, and as such “help[ed] war-wounded on all sides”21 which went some distance toward helping her to establish useful contacts. Evidence of her contact network, for example, is that because of her deep embeddedness in Vietnamese society, she had been able to help lead American military investigators to the My Lai massacre site during the war. Borton describes her role in the Friends’ program, which allows us to understand part of the ways she had established her usefulness: [I]n truth, I was merely a glorified errand-runner. While my western medical colleagues fit war-wounded Vietnamese with artificial limbs, I made runs to the American base to pick up mail, fetched supplies, and transported patients, stopping along dusty village paths to chat, listen, and watch. In this way, I saw crucial details that American military leaders, G.I.s, and journalists failed to grasp. I [also] became aware of hidden roles Vietnamese women played in the war.22 Borton’s books (After Sorrow and Sensing the Enemy), which recount her time among the Vietnamese refugees (“boat people”) and her frequent residence in and/or visits to Vietnam after the war, help complete the picture of her complex network of connections with the Vietnamese people and their trust of her.23 Using clues from the diaries— clues such as hospital and street names in Hanoi—Borton and her assistants perhaps Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 93 miraculously located the family within a few days, and Engelmann soon met them. Once in the family’s home, He turned on his laptop, loaded the CD, and showed the family the two folders of images of the diaries. “After that, I moved out of the way,” Engelmann said. “Tears welled in the eyes of Thuy’s mother, a gentle but strong 81-year-old matriarch,” he said. He learned that earlier that year, in three major Vietnamese newspapers, the family had participated in news articles asking if anyone had any information about their fallen daughter. For months there had been no response. Now an American veteran, an enemy soldier, had appeared unannounced to hand them their daughter’s most intimate thoughts and memories on a disk.24 Englemann’s visit with the family presaged what a public sensation the diaries would become in Vietnam. The tiny room he entered to meet Thuy Tram’s mother and sisters, no bigger than the living room in a typical house in the States, was crammed with media people as well as family, as many as fifteen or twenty total.25 In addition, a “vase of white flowers—Thuy’s favorite, . . . stood next to one couch. Beyond was a small kitchen with a large table set for a great meal. . . . where “the place of honor” was reserved for him.26 The flowers and place of honor for Englemann indicate the family’s personal gratitude; the crowd indicate what would become the public’s response. The diary was soon a “publishing sensation,”27 selling 200,000 copies in its first summer when a “normal press run for books in Vietnam is 1,000—maybe 5,000 for very popular novels.”28 The book’s reception in Vietnam is perhaps more easily understandable than what happened in the United States. As Kelly Sutton’s words earlier said, the book’s reception in America could have been “icy.” Yet even before the book was published in English, the Vietnamese reception of the Americans associated with it was far from hostile, as we see from Englemann’s reception and further, from the Whitehursts’. Further, Fred Whitehurst said he had “worried for years that the family would simply accept the diaries and then close the door” on his link to “the author who had haunted him.” Instead, he quickly “traveled with his brother to Vietnam” where they were received into the family as adopted brothers and sons. “‘They really adopted us,’ Fred said. ‘How crazy is that?’”29 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society94 Here begins what I think is the most powerful part of a reconciliation story. It is not, of course, unheard of for former enemies to become friends. But each time I learn of such reconciliation, I am moved. In this instance, perhaps more than usual because of my lived experience of the antipathy between Americans and Vietnamese during the war. These “diaries . . . joined two families [that had been] separated by war.”30 After the Vietnam meeting, Thuy Tram’s family traveled to this country, first to The Vietnam Center and Archives and then to visit the Whitehursts’ extended family in North Carolina. Accounts of the visits are online; the video and still images are very moving and easily available at the Archives and through easy searches with the terms “Whitehurst, diary, Dang Thuy Tram,” and so forth. Among my favorite images are the ones of Dang Thuy Tram’s mother holding the diaries for the first time and of the whole family on horseback in Texas wearing cowboy hats. Interviews with Whitehurst are also available, in which he speaks powerfully about the reconciliations engendered by the diaries and their history. The reconciliation fostered by the diary is not only familial; it is global because of the public availability of the diary and the stories surrounding them. Let me end with glimpses of just a few other of the effects of these diaries on lives they’ve touched. Says Robert Whitehurst, “‘I understand a lot more about the whole thing I was involved in as a young man’” because of working with the diaries and engaging with Vietnam differently. “‘I don’t think I’ll ever completely let go of it.’”31 Another powerful reconciliation occurred between the man who translated the published English version and his father who helped him, both of whom were refugees from Vietnam. Their relationship had been strained in the period before they collaborated on the translation: A book the son, Andrew X. Pham, had published earlier “brought my parents considerable pain and created a silence between us that lasted four years.”32 Pham’s description of the laborious process shows us the complexity of the translation process and its involvement of Kim Tram, Thuy’s younger sister. For the job, Pham says he Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 95 recruited my father’s help. Tram was from my father’s era. In fact, her family home in Hanoi was located a few city blocks from his. He understood her frame of reference and her usage of colloquial northern Viet. . . . For each diary entry, I made my own translation. My father made two translations: a verbatim version and an improved version, which was cleaner and more readable. I reviewed all three, mine and two of his. From this, I composed a poetic entry in the spirit of the author’s prose, taking liberal literary license where appropriate. That is, I gave her the prose which she would have written had she had the time and a little more training. After all, I felt that it was the least we could do for an unauthorized diary destined for posthumous publication. In fact, I felt absolutely that it was the decent and honorable thing to do. My father read my composite version and gave feedback. I re-wrote the translation and resent it to him for another reading. Both of us were perfectionists so sometimes we went through several iterations for each diary entry. . . . During the project, we had the assistance of Kim Tram, the author’s younger sister. She reviewed every sentence and scrutinized every word choice we made, on each draft. We were very grateful for her help. Certainly, with her explicit approval on every entry we translated and on the book as a whole, we felt we had fulfilled our task to the best of our abilities.33 The story of the father and son collaboration is powerful one of love and intricate interrelationships between the two of them and, further, among them, the text, and Kim Tram. This collaboration, then, was cross-generational and cross-national. It also was cross-authorial, if such a word may be coined. Surely every translation is a collaboration between author and translator, some more intimate than others. This one seems deeply so. A 2013 television interview in Hanoi shows the continuing impact of this book among people and across nations. In it, the young Vietnamese interviewer speaks also across generations and nations. She says “On behalf of our [current] generation, we can say thank you for this gift.”34 I will end with that remark and suggest that these glimpses I’ve provided into the diaries’ stories touch only the surface of its impact. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society96 About the Author Suellynn Duffey is an associate professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis where she directs the first- and junior-year writing programs. She has had a long career in rhetoric and composition, has taught at a number of different institutions, and has published on administrative, pedagogical, and ethical issues in writing programs. Her recent scholarship concerns place and literacies, the geographical locations ranging from the Old South to the Midwest and the socio-cultural ones ranging from English departments to her family. This is her first step into veterans’ affairs. Endnotes 1. Laura Hastings, “Connecting Across Time and Space: An Attempt to Read the Diary as a Unique Genre,” essay written for a graduate seminar taught by the author at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, April 12, 2015, typescript. 2. Kelly Sutton, “Response # 7: Last Night I Dreamed of Peace,” essay written for a graduate seminar taught by the author at the University of Missouri- St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, April 11, 2015, typescript. 3. Elliott Blackburn, “Vietnamese Family Reunites with Fallen Daughter through Diaries Found by U. S. Soldiers,” Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, October 6, 2005, available online at http://lubbockonline.com/stories/100605/loc_100605025.shtml#.Vj0- 9SuRbIR. 4. “Talk VietNam with Fred Whitehurst,” interview by Ngo Phuong Lan, Vietnam Television International, available online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AA1m1bS0OQ. 5. Ibid. 6. Blackburn, “Vietnamese Family.” 7. “Talk Vietnam with Fred Whitehurst.” 8. Ibid. 9. Blackburn,” “Vietnamese Family.” 10. “Talk Vietnam with Fred Whitehurst.” 11. Ibid. 12. Blackburn, “Vietnamese Family.” 13. “Talk Vietnam with Fred Whitehurst.” 14. Ibid 15. Blackburn, “Vietnamese Family” 16. Ibid. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 97 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Lady Borton, “Reflections on a War: Still in Hiding,” American Experience: Vietnam Online, March 29, 2005, available online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/ reflect/borton.html. 22. Lady Borton, “Reflections.” 23. Borton “has worked as a Vietnam consultant for ‘60 Minutes,’ written for the New York Times, and been a commentator on National Public Radio” (Borton). 24. Blackburn, “Vietnamese Family” 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. Diary flyleaf 28. Blackburn, “Vietnamese Family” 29. Ibid. 30. Ibid. 31. Ibid. 32. Andrew X. Pham. “Work.” Available online at http://andrewxpham.com/work/. 33. Ibid. 34. “Talk Vietnam with Fred Whitehurst.” References Blackburn, Elliott. “Vietnamese Family Reunites with Fallen Daughter through Diaries Found by U. S. Soldiers.” Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. October 6, 2005. Available online at http://lubbockonline.com/stories/100605/loc_100605025.shtml#.Vj0- 9SuRbIR. Borton, Lady. “Reflections on a War: Still in Hiding.” American Experience: Vietnam Online. Available online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/reflect/ borton.html. Dang, Thuy Tram. Last Night I Dreamed of Peace: The Diary of Dang Thuy Tram. Translated by Andrew X. Pham. New York: Harmony Books, 2007. Hastings, Laura. “Connecting Across Time and Space: An Attempt to Read the Diary as a Unique Genre.” Essay written for a graduate seminar taught by the author at the Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society98 University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. April 12, 2015. Typescript. “Talk VietNam with Fred Whitehurst.” Interview by Ngo Phuong Lan. Vietnam Television International. Available online at https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=4AA1m1bS0OQ. The Vietnam Center and Archives: Texas Tech University. Available online at http:// www.vietnam.ttu.edu/. Pham, Andrew X. “Work.” Available online at http://andrewxpham.com/work/. Sutton, Kelly. “Response # 7: Last Night I Dreamed of Peace.” Essay written for a graduate seminar taught by the author at the University of Missouri- St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, April 11, 2015. Typescript. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 99 Panel 4—What Is Veterans Studies? *Items marked by an asterisk are listed here for documentation purposes but do not appear full-text in the proceedings. For more information, please contact the authors directly via their universities. *“The Arts and Architecture of the After War: The Aesthetics of Healing” Paul Alt, Alt Architecture +Research Associates LLC, Chicago, IL “Bounding Veterans Studies: A Review of the Field” James Craig, University of Missouri, St. Louis *“Pedagogy and Practice for Foundational Veterans Studies” Ernest L. McClees, Eastern Kentucky University “MILITARY BRATS: A Living Study in Race Relations” Donna Musil, Executive Director, Brats Without Borders, Denver, CO Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society100 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 101 Bounding Veterans Studies A Review of the Field Jim Craig (craigjr@umsl.edu) University of Missouri-St. Louis Abstract Over the past decade, the amount of research and teaching concerning veterans has proliferated to a point where some believe there is an academic discipline of Veterans Studies. Assuming this is correct, what is Veterans Studies? Is it a social science, a humanities subject, a business discipline, or a subset of education research? Alternatively, is Veterans Studies, like veterans themselves, intrinsically multifaceted? Finally, what existing academic disciplines could be instructive for current academics in defining the limits of Veteran Studies? This paper examines the current state of Veterans Studies through a literature review. Following this review, it briefly explores the history and structure of various “______ Studies” fields to determine if these established disciplines could be instructive for Veterans Studies practitioners. Keywords: trauma studies, higher education, academic disciplines Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society102 Bounding Veterans Studies A Review of the Field Introduction Less than five years ago, scholars at Eastern Kentucky University established the first known academic program in “Veterans Studies.” Travis L. Martin, the early champion of the idea, defined the Veterans Studies Program as “an academic minor/certificate program that prepares students to identify and understand the often unique experiences and challenges faced by veterans of military service.”1 In a later interview, he further described the field of Veterans Studies as “exploring the cultural, institutional, and relational dimensions of the military/veteran culture through the study of war literature, history and psycho/social experiences.”2 Since that time, at least two more Veterans Studies programs have been established, and this author has participated in scores of conversations with scholars and teachers around the country who are considering establishing such programs. Assuming that the proliferation of research and the growth of academic programs is indicative that Veterans Studies is worthy of serious academic effort, we as a discipline should establish an agreed-upon definition. What is Veterans Studies? Is it a social science, a humanities subject, a business discipline, or a subset of education research? Alternatively, is Veterans Studies, like veterans themselves, intrinsically multi-faceted? Finally, what existing academic disciplines could be instructive for current academics in defining the scope of Veteran Studies? Although this paper will propose a definition of Veterans Studies, it is not intended to end the conversation. On the contrary, it should be considered the start of the discussion about the size and range of topics in the discipline. This paper will explore several aspects of academic research to determine how each field is related to veterans. In the end, it will confirm that Martin’s original definition was a great starting point, and it will recommend that definition be altered so it is faithful to the wide range of academic approaches while Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 103 remaining coherent and helpful for those outside of the field or those scholars considering joining our ranks. Veterans in Transition One of the more active areas of veteran research is the area of veterans in transition. Because our colleges are often competing for limited tuition dollars and the GI Bill pays “sticker price,” the field of veteran transitions (often termed veteran success) on university campuses has opened fruitful discussion. This conversation includes articles, books, monographs, and entire conferences focusing on the goal of improving veteran success in higher education. One of the most important voices in the field of veteran success on campus is LTC Dr. David Vacchi, USA, Retired. As the chair of the Veterans Knowledge Community for Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA), Vacchi has been prolific in his presentations, and he has found himself at the center of a growing cohort of student affairs professionals who focus their attention solely on student veterans. His focus has been to decrease the hyperbole around the challenges of a student veteran experience and increase the quality of research and data collection. Such efforts allow colleges and universities to act effectively, not knee-jerk, to remove the correct barriers to success for student veterans. Vacchi’s article on Considering Student Veterans on the Twenty-First-Century College Campus highlights some of his best ideas. In it, he emphasizes military socialization as the single common experience that all veterans share. Understanding this reality helps institutions plan more effectively for the veteran transitions that are occurring on their campuses.3 Also, in several presentations, Vacchi has attempted to improve existing learning models applied to veterans. In his 2014 presentation Considering A New Framework for Understanding Student Veterans: Research and Implications, Vacchi presented a new learning model specifically designed to work with veteran adult learners. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society104 He discards the accepted Tinto and Schlossberg models in favor of modified versions of older frameworks by Weidman (1989) and Bean and Metzger (1985). The Vacchi model focuses on the veteran student as an individual adult- learner undergoing a transition of identity as much as a transition of educational experience.4 Vacchi’s model identifies a person-centric framework for supporting student veterans There are others writing and researching in this field. Of note, Robert Ackerman and David DiRamio have been publishing for nearly a decade. Their most comprehensive work is a special report produced by the Association for the Study of Higher Education entitled Veterans in Higher Education: When Johnny and Jane Come Marching to Campus.5 Among the most interesting researchers working on veterans in transition is Dr. Glenn Phillips. Phillips’s monograph, Peering through the Fog, proposes using critical theories to help understand veterans as they navigate the non-veteran world. His “Veteran Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 105 Critical Theory” uses tenets of five different critical theories (feminist theory, critical race theory, queer theory, disability theory, and border theory) and evaluates how they interact with the current literature on student veterans.6 It is an important and insightful addition to the field. Finally, it is worth mentioning the growing list of college transition “self-help” books and resources. Student veteran versions include Nicholas Osborne’s Life During College: The Veteran’s Guide to Success; David Cass’s The Strategic Student Veteran; Kenneth Bracewell’s self-published A Veteran’s Road to College Success; and more. There are many college and university-centric incarnations of the self-help genre. The most recent and most comprehensive work is Hamrick and Rumann’s Called to Serve: A Handbook on Student Veterans and Higher Education. Trauma Studies Maybe one of the clearest examples of a field that is well developed and has great overlaps with the study of veterans is trauma studies. Clearly, the combat experiences of our veterans and the growing acceptance of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in both clinical and non-clinical settings has helped to advance trauma studies and improved the discourse around veterans. There is no way that this short paper can do justice to the wide variety and sheer volume of literature on the topic. The following paragraphs are designed to simply highlight some of the most important, most widely read, or most cited authors and organizations. No discussion of the primary researchers into PTSD is complete without a mention of the National Center for PTSD (NCPTSD). The NCPTSD was established in 1989 inside the Department of Veterans Affairs with the mission of advancing “the clinical care and social welfare of America’s Veterans and others who have experienced trauma, or who suffer from PTSD, through research, education, and training in the science, diagnosis, and treatment of PTSD and stress-related disorders.”7 Not only does it fund and publicize Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society106 important research, it strives to make the results of that research accessible to the lay population. The website of the NCPTSD is a repository of white papers, pamphlets, videos and more. The NCPTSD should not be overlooked as one of the best sources for the study of trauma in our veteran population. A university-related organization that is doing similar work but on a smaller scale is the National Center for Veterans Studies (NCVS) at the University of Utah. Led by Dr. Craig Bryan, a clinical psychologist and assistant professor, NCVS research and programs have focused on studying the psychological effects on our veterans of service and the various treatment protocols that could help those who suffer psychological injuries.8 With the acknowledgement that any attempt to create a short list of important research on veterans and trauma is a fool’s errand, in the interest of brevity I am going do just that. Three of the most important authors I read for this literature review were Erin Finley, Katherine Boone, and Jonathan Shay. Finley’s 2011 book, Fields of Combat: Understanding PTSD among Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, is a humanistic take on the challenges facing our veterans. An anthropologist by training, Finley interviews scores of veterans and produces a narrative that highlights PTSD as a human experience, not a medical condition. That experience, she argues, can best be understood through the cultural contexts from which it emerges.9 Kathrine Boone has written widely on the subject, but her most accessible work is her 2011 article for Wilson Quarterly, The Paradox of PTSD. In this article, Boone argues that the predilection to diagnose PTSD as the primary mental injury to our veterans may actually be doing them a disservice. The mechanistic nature of a PTSD diagnosis (from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM), and the human tendency to process traumas with stress, hyper-alertness, depression, or a myriad of other techniques, lead to the paradox, “If you react normally to trauma, you have a disorder; if you react abnormally, you don’t.”10 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 107 Finally, no conversation about veterans and trauma can be complete without mention the important work by Jonathan Shay. Shay is a psychiatrist who has been treating Vietnam veterans for over twenty years. His greatest contribution to the field has been the concept of “moral Injury.” This idea has evolved over time, but a generally accepted definition of moral injury is this: “moral injury occurs when there has been a betrayal of what is morally correct, by someone who holds legitimate authority, in a high- stakes situation.”11 Shay furthers his arguments with two different books that examine the psychological devastation of war by comparing the soldiers of Homer’s Iliad with experiences and psychological suffering of Vietnam veterans. Shay’s writings should not be missed.12 The Humanities Humanities can be defined as the academic discipline that seeks to learn how people process and document the human experience. Clearly wars and militaries are a substantial part of the human experience, so veterans (or those who have served in militaries) find a comfortable home in the humanities. The humanities covers a wide variety of disciplines including Anthropology, History, Literature, Languages, Philosophy, Ethics, Art, and more. For the purposes of this paper, I will focus my study on new ideas or projects in literature and history. One of the most important new academic projects attempting to process and document the veteran experience is the Military Experience and the Arts (MEA) project. This project, originally organized by Travis L. Martin at Eastern Kentucky University, seeks to work with veterans and their families to publish creative prose, poetry, and artwork.13 It is clear that the underlying purpose of this entire program is to create space for people (military, veteran, family, friend, and even the nonmilitary connected) to process their experiences and share their insight with others. MEA publishes several journals, maintains a substantial online web presence, and hosts regular symposia. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society108 MEA accomplishes its goal well, and they are not alone. The English Department at the United States Air Force Academy has published the journal War, Literature and the Arts for over twenty-five years.14 In addition, newer national programs include the Standing Together project of the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Combat Paper Project, The Telling Project, The Veterans Writing Project, and scores more.15 Maybe because the sub-discipline of Military History often includes description and experiences of the servicemen and women who made history, veterans as a specific study in the discipline of history is a new (or more accurately, newly rediscovered) field. One of the scholars leading this new conversation is Dr. Steven Ortiz. His edited work Veteran Policies, Veteran Politics lays out a new understanding of the way veterans have shaped American history. The first sentence of this book clearly lays out his argument: “American political and social history cannot be understood apart from the role, place and significance of veterans and policies created for them.”16 Although Ortiz appears to be the leading scholar on American veteran policies of the early twentieth century, there are many others who have studies and written about veterans, including about the GI Bill and the generation that benefited from it. Notable among these works are Hume’s Over Here, Altschuler’s The GI Bill, and Gambone’s The Greatest Generation Comes Home. This discussion is purposefully short. A more thorough literature review of veterans in the humanities would be exceedingly long and still inevitably incomplete. It is clear though, even after a short review, that the study of veteran experiences has a home in the discipline of humanities. Entrepreneurship and Business Helping veterans in transition has not been restricted to education or social transitions. There is a robust set of research and programs about veterans in the workforce and veteran entrepreneurship. Many, if not most, of these programs and publication are led Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 109 or financed by the Office of Veteran Business Development, in the U.S. Small Business Administration. This office lists its mission as being “to maximize the availability, applicability and usability of all administration small business programs for Veterans, Service-Disabled Veterans, Reserve Component Members, and their Dependents or Survivors.”17 There is a clear, policy-driven advocacy component to their initiatives. Among the influential papers written (or funded) by the SBA and its researchers was the white paper Factors Affecting Entrepreneurship among Veterans. This report outlined the veteran-entrepreneur connection. It determined that “veterans are more likely than otherwise similar individuals to be self-employed” and that there are “significant positive effects for military service on the probability of self-employment . . . as high as 88 percent.”18 This study has been cited regularly to justify additional research and additional expenditure in the field of veterans and small business development. Among the new leaders in this field is Syracuse University’s Institute for Veterans and Military Families (IVMF). IVMF has been developing and propagating business “boot camps” for nearly four years. Their four major programs in this field are (1) Operation Boots to Business, (2) The Entrepreneurship Bootcamp for Veterans with Disabilities, (3) Veteran Women Igniting the Spirit of Entrepreneurship, and (4) Operation Endure & Grow. Each of these programs was created for a subset of the military of veteran population, and each is supported by external grant resources as well as by the U.S. Small Business Administration.19 Unfortunately, we cannot label all research into veterans and business as scholarly; there is a strong component of marketing, brand positioning, and “corporate- responsibility” in talking about and creating programs, as well as in actually hiring veterans. Corporations that have stepped to the forefront of these conversations include JPMorgan Chase (the primary sponsor of IVMF), Starbucks, Home Depot, and many smaller franchise operations.20 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society110 Review of “_____Studies” American Studies, Ethnic Studies, Urban Studies, Gender Studies Comparative Studies, and many more. What are these “____ Studies” disciplines, and can Veterans Studies use their experiences to shape its own development? Rather than seek out the multitude of academic departments and programs on our college campuses, this paper will briefly review three “_____ Studies” associations for clues about the development, structure, and definition of their chosen fields. Those associations are (1) The National Association for Ethnic Studies, (2) The National Women’s Studies Association, and (3) The American Studies Association. Similar to the inception of Veterans Studies, Ethnic Studies grew from demands of the community and the academy to address the concerns of minority students on college campuses. The National Association for Ethnic Studies defines its practitioners as scholars who “examine the interlocking forces of domination that are rooted in socially constructed categories of gender, sexuality, class, and race and are committed to challenging paradigms that systematically marginalize the experiences of diverse national and international populations.”21 Also similar to the current state of Veterans Studies, Ethnic Studies programs tend to incorporate research and scholarship from across disciplines. Ethnic Studies departments include programs designed to study specific races (e.g., Black Studies), cultures (e.g., Asian Studies), geographies (e.g. Rural Studies), and more. Like Ethnic Studies, Women’s Studies (and more recently Gender Studies) was born from a need not met in the academy that has evolved into its own discipline. The National Women’s Studies Association identifies Women Studies as having roots in the women’s rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s. In its current form, the discipline is described as an “interrogation of identity, power, and privilege go[ing] far beyond the category ‘woman.’ Drawing on the feminist scholarship of U.S. and Third World women of color, women’s studies has made the conceptual claims and theoretical practices of intersectionality. . . and transnationalism . . . foundations of the discipline.”22 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 111 Among the _____Studies disciplines, American Studies might be the most helpful for Veterans Studies. The American Studies Association defines the discipline as follows: “American Studies identifies and interprets themes, patterns, trends, behaviors, traditions, and ideas that characterize the United States as a nation, an experience, a rhetoric, and peoples-past, present, and future; at home and abroad; and in thought and action.”23 The ASA is also clear in identifying the roots of American studies and the idea that it began as a multidisciplinary or even nondisciplinary idea. The ASA describes a “matrix” concept wherein American studies is a “location for progressive research, a form of area studies, allowing in its flexible domain multiple ways of viewing the same subject—the United States or the Americas—and forging integrated approaches that could be called inter- or transdisciplinary.”24 Over time, the discipline has evolved. In its current form, most would consider American Studies to be an established discipline, distinct from other units in the academy. It has its own “theories, methods, practices and pedagogies that set it apart from other units with disciplinary claims in the university curriculum.”25 Maybe most importantly, it has established programs and degrees and a cadre of professional scholars trained and certified by American Studies departments. This evolution did not happen quickly. It took time to establish accepted theories and practices. It took time to develop high-quality scholars, and it took time to build the structures on campuses to support these endeavors. It may be instructive for Veterans Studies practitioners to start codifying our own methods, practices, and pedagogies as well. Conclusions and Recommendations So, what is Veterans Studies? Even after this review of overlapping areas of scholarship, the question remains difficult to answer, and that is okay. Veterans Studies overlaps with many fields, and it attempts to address issues from a variety of perspectives and contexts. Veterans Studies is obviously multidisciplinary. Moreover, this aspect of the discipline is Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society112 a strength, not a weakness. Veterans Studies scholars operate under a big tent. As is true of veterans themselves, scholars work out of a large variety of perspectives, experiences, contexts, research protocols, and academic training. Broad perspectives are core to the academic identity of Veterans Studies. It is inherently multidisciplinary. The established academic disciplines can be helpful in further developing our concept of Veterans Studies. The social sciences are important conduits to the study of veterans. The social sciences can help us better understand veteran experiences, evaluate programs, challenge conventional wisdoms, and establish effective policies. By including the social scientist’s ability to use data and quantitative rigor in research, we provide an additional level of legitimacy to our field. Additionally, veteran experiences clearly fall into the humanities also. Any research into veteran experiences that focuses solely on surveys, data, regressions, and correlations are incomplete. Veterans are people, and people are different. Veterans’ stories are powerful. Telling those stories, through history, literature, art, or music clearly enhances our understanding of veterans and their experiences; as such, those stories advance our discipline. In many ways, it is the qualitative that makes Veterans Studies rich, not the quantitative. This literature review also found several areas where caution should be taken, even under the “big tent.” Programs that are based on public policy agendas (which could change with a change of administration) can be problematic. For example, the Small Business Administration’s advancement of veterans in entrepreneurship is a program of research based on a public policy that has predetermined conclusions. The academic underpinnings of these arguments are suspect because the outcome is already known. While I agree with the policy, I am skeptical that this type of research adds legitimacy to the field of Veterans Studies. The experiences of _______Studies programs can be instructive, but scholarship based solely on advocacy is an area where it is important to tread lightly. * * * Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 113 Travis Martin and his fellow scholars at Eastern Kentucky University were prescient in their description of Veterans Studies back in 2010. With only a few small clarifications or simplifications, I believe that we can create a definition for Veterans Studies that will serve the discipline and its growth for the next decade. That proposed definition is below: Veterans Studies is an emerging, inherently multidisciplinary academic field devoted to developing a clearer understanding of veterans and the veteran experience in the past, the present, and the future. Areas for Future Research This literature review, like all of them, is incomplete. Among the many areas where research could be expanded or enhanced, the following three areas seem most ripe for additional study. First, the field of Veterans Studies as we practice it currently is an American incarnation. While that focus is understandable, it is clearly myopic. Since Homer and maybe before, cultures have been attempting to understand and describe their veterans and veteran experiences. It would be a worthy exercise to describe, catalog, compare, and contrast veteran studies across countries and cultures. Second, although this review did discuss trauma studies, it did so from an academic, psychological perspective. It did not review any literature directly from the clinical medical fields. A review of medical literature related to veterans would be an important addition to our discipline. Finally, this paper only partially covered the structure or framework that disciplines use to advance themselves. Are academic departments important? What about majors, minors, degrees, certificates, and faculty appointment titles? It would be helpful for a scholar to research how academic disciplines are established and advanced from a structural (or administrative) perspective. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society114 About the Author Jim Craig is an associate teaching professor and the chair of the Department of Military and Veterans Studies in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Missouri–St. Louis. Prior to his academic career, Jim served for over twenty years in the U.S. Army, retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel. His operational army assignments included command positions in Light, Airborne, and Stryker Infantry units. In combat, he served as the chief operations officer of a 4500-person infantry brigade in Baghdad Province, Iraq. He has a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Mechanical Engineering from the United States Military Academy (West Point), a Master of Military Arts and Sciences (MMAS) focused in History from the Army’s Command and General Staff College, and a Master in Public Administration (MPA) focused in Security Studies from Harvard University. Endnotes 1. “EKU—Curriculum Change Form: Veterans Studies Minor,” Eastern Kentucky University. University Programs: Veterans Studies, February 1, 2011, available online at http://www.eku.edu/academics/facultysenate/minutes/2010-11/04-04/CAA_Vet- Studies_minor.pdf. 2. Mariana Grohowski, “Veterans Studies.” Professional home page, available online at http://marianagrohowski.com/resources/veterans-studies. 3. David Vacchi, “Considering Student Veterans on the Twenty-First-Century College Campus,” About Campus 17.2 (May 1, 2012): 17. 4. ---, “Considering a Unique Framework for Understanding Student Veterans,” University of Massachusettts-Amherst, 2012, available online at http://varc.sdes.ucf.edu/docs/ considering_a_unique_framework_for_understanding_student_veterans_ucf_2012. pdf. 5. Robert Ackerman and David DiRamio, “Special Issue: Veterans in Higher Education: When Johnny and Jane Come Marching to Campus,” ASHE Higher Education Report 37.3 (January 1, 2011), doi: 10.1002/aehe.3703. 6. Glenn Phillips, “Peering through the Fog: A Proposal for Veteran Critical Theory,” 2014, Available online at http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/153645. 7. “Mission and Overview—PTSD: National Center for PTSD.” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, available online at http://www.ptsd.va.gov/about/mission/mission- and-overview.asp. 8. National Center for Veterans Studies, College of Social & Behavioral Science, University of Utah, available online at http://veterans.utah.edu/. 9. Erin P. Finley, Fields of Combat: Understanding PTSD among Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 2011. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 115 10. Katherine Boone, “The Paradox of PTSD,” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-) 35.4 (October 1, 2011): 18–22. 11. Jonathan Shay, “Moral Injury,” Intertexts 16.1 (2012), doi:10.1353/itx.2012.0000. 12. See Jonathan Shay, Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010, and Jonathan Shay, Odysseus in America: Combat Trauma and the Trials of Homecoming, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003. 13. Military Experience & the Arts, 2015, available online at http://militaryexperience. org/. 14. “About Us,” War, Literature and the Arts, English department, U.S. Air Force Academy, available online at http://www.usafa.edu/df/dfeng/wla.cfm; see also http:// wlajournal.com/about%20us/aboutus.html. 15. “Standing Together: The Humanities and the Experience of War,” National Endowment for the Humanities, available online at http://www.neh.gov/veterans/standing- together; Combat Paper Project, San Francisco: Combat Paper Project, 2007–Present, available online at http://www.combatpaper.org/; The Telling Project home page, available online at http://thetellingproject.org/; and “What We Do,” Veterans Writing Project, available online at http://veteranswriting.org/. 16. Stephen R. Ortiz, ed., Veterans’ Policies, Veterans’ Politics: New Perspectives on Veterans in the Modern United States, Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2015. 17. Office of Veterans Business Development home page, U.S. Small Business Administration, available online at https://www.sba.gov/offices/headquarters/ovbd. 18. John B. Hope, Brian Oh, and Patrick C. Mackin, “Factors Affecting Entrepreneurship among Veterans,” Small Business Research Summary, 2011, available online at http://63.150.153.100/sites/default/files/files/rs384tot.pdf. 19. “Programs for You: Veterans,” Institute for Veterans and Military Families, Syracuse University, available online at http://vets.syr.edu/programs-for-you/veterans/. 20. “Honoring the Military, Veterans and Their Families—Military and Veterans,” JPMorgan Chase & Co, available online at http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/ Corporate-Responsibility/military-veterans.htm; “Veterans and Military Support,” Starbucks, available online at http://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/community/ veterans; “Top Franchises for Veterans,” Franchise Business Review, available online at http://topfranchises.franchisebusinessreview.com/top-franchises-veterans/; and “Home Depot and the Military,” Home Depot corporate website, available online at https://corporate.homedepot.com/CorporateResponsibility/Partnerships/Pages/ TheMilitary.aspx. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society116 21. “NAES History—NAES,” National Association of Ethnic Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, 2015, available online at http://ethnicstudies.org/about/ naes-history/. 22. “What is Women’s Studies?” National Women’s Studies Association, available online at http://www.nwsa.org/womensstudies. 23. Encyclopedia of American Studies, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014, available online at http://eas-ref.press.jhu.edu/. 24. “American Studies: The Discipline,” Encyclopedia of American Studies, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014, available online at http://eas-ref.press.jhu.edu/ view?aid=524. 25. Ibid. References “About Us.” War, Literature and the Arts. English department. U.S. Air Force Academy. Available online at http://wlajournal.com/about%20us/aboutus.html and http:// www.usafa.edu/df/dfeng/wla.cfm. Ackerman, Robert, and David DiRamio. “Special Issue: Veterans in Higher Education: When Johnny and Jane Come Marching to Campus.” ASHE Higher Education Report 37.3 (January 1, 2011). doi: 10.1002/aehe.3703. “American Studies: The Discipline.” Encyclopedia of American Studies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014. Available online at http://eas-ref.press.jhu.edu/ view?aid=524. Boone, Katherine. “The Paradox of PTSD.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-) 35.4 (October 1, 2011): 18–22. “EKU—Curriculum Change Form: Veterans Studies Minor.” Eastern Kentucky University. University Programs: Veterans Studies. February 1, 2011. Available online at http://www.eku.edu/academics/facultysenate/minutes/2010-11/04-04/CAA_ Vet-Studies_minor.pdf. Combat Paper Project. San Francisco: Combat Paper Project. 2007–Present. Available online at http://www.combatpaper.org/. Encyclopedia of American Studies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014. Available online at http://eas-ref.press.jhu.edu/. Finley, Erin P. Fields of Combat: Understanding PTSD among Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 2011. Grohowski, Mariana. “Veterans Studies.” Professional home page. Available online at http://marianagrohowski.com/resources/veterans-studies. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 117 “Home Depot and the Military.” Home Depot corporate website. Available online at https://corporate.homedepot.com/CorporateResponsibility/Partnerships/ Pages/TheMilitary.aspx. “Honoring the Military, Veterans and Their Families—Military and Veterans.” JPMorgan Chase & Co. Available online at http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/ Corporate-Responsibility/military-veterans.htm. Hope, John B., Brian Oh, and Patrick C. Mackin. “Factors Affecting Entrepreneurship among Veterans.” Small Business Research Summary, 2011. Available online at http://63.150.153.100/sites/default/files/files/rs384tot.pdf. Military Experience & the Arts. 2015. Available online at http://militaryexperience.org/. “Mission and Overview—PTSD: National Center for PTSD.” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Available online at http://www.ptsd.va.gov/about/mission/mission-and- overview.asp. “NAES History—NAES.” National Association of Ethnic Studies. Virginia Commonwealth University. 2015. Available online at http://ethnicstudies.org/about/naes-history/. National Center for Veterans Studies. College of Social & Behavioral Science. University of Utah. Available online at http://veterans.utah.edu/. Office of Veterans Business Development home page. U.S. Small Business Administration. Available online at https://www.sba.gov/offices/headquarters/ovbd. Ortiz, Stephen R., ed. Veterans’ Policies, Veterans’ Politics: New Perspectives on Veterans in the Modern United States. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2015. Phillips, Glenn. “Peering through the Fog: A Proposal for Veteran Critical Theory.” 2014. Available online at http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/153645. “Programs for You: Veterans.” Institute for Veterans and Military Families. Syracuse University. Available online at http://vets.syr.edu/programs-for-you/veterans/. Shay, Jonathan. Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010. ---. “Moral Injury.” Intertexts 16.1 (2012): 57–66. doi:10.1353/itx.2012.0000. ---. Odysseus in America: Combat Trauma and the Trials of Homecoming. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003. “Standing Together: The Humanities and the Experience of War.” National Endowment for the Humanities. Available online at http://www.neh.gov/veterans/standing- together. The Telling Project home page. Available online at http://thetellingproject.org/. “Top Franchises for Veterans.” Franchise Business Review. Available online at http:// topfranchises.franchisebusinessreview.com/top-franchises-veterans/. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society118 Vacchi, David T. “Considering Student Veterans on the Twenty-First-Century College Campus.” About Campus 17.2 (May 1, 2012): 15–21. doi:10.1002/abc.21075. Vacchi, David. “Considering a Unique Framework for Understanding Student Veterans: Research and Implications.” University of Massachusettts-Amherst, 2012. Available online at http://varc.sdes.ucf.edu/docs/considering_a_unique_framework_for_ understanding_student_veterans_ucf_2012.pdf. “Veterans and Military Support.” Starbucks. Available online at http://www.starbucks. com/responsibility/community/veterans. “What is Women’s Studies?” National Women’s Studies Association. Available online at http://www.nwsa.org/womensstudies. “What We Do.” Veterans Writing Project. Available online at http://veteranswriting. org/. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 119 MILITARY BRATS: A Living Study in Race Relations Donna Musil (info@bratsourjourneyhome.com) Brats Without Borders Abstract In 1948, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981, desegregating the United States military. Much has been written about the Order’s effect on soldiers; almost none about the powerful effect it has had on generations of military children, who began living in the same neighborhoods and attending the same schools, churches, and playgrounds – twenty years before the Civil Rights Movement exploded. Racist speech was also prohibited and defiant children were immediately reported to their parent’s commanding officer, who could reprimand or demote their parent. How did this shape the racial attitudes and identity of military children? How have they benefitted and what have been the biggest challenges transitioning out of the military? How might their experiences provide a window into possible solutions for other areas torn by racial strife? These are just a few of the questions “Military Brats: A Living Study in Race Relations” will discuss. Keywords: military brats, integration, experiment, generational Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society120 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 121 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society122 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 123 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society124 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 125 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society126 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 127 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society128 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 129 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society130 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 131 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society132 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 133 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society134 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 135 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society136 © 2015 Donna Musil/Brats Without Borders, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Military Brats: A Living Study in Race Relations_VA Tech_111315 - 1 MILITARY BRATS: A Living Study in Race Relations Presented by Donna Musil, ED, BWB For the 3rd Annual Veterans in Society Conference - VA Tech (11/12-14/15) Fri, 11/13, Panel 4: What is Veterans Studies? (1:40-3:10 pm, 15 minutes) #1 – Intro Thanks • Thank you – Jim Dubinsky, Marcia Davitt, Heidi Nobles, everyone at VA Tech – for inviting me to participate in another Veterans in Society Conference. It’s an honor to be here again. • I will be talking today about a group of people who have been ignored in most discussions about race/diversity: Military Brats. They shouldn’t be. I believe they are a “Grand Experiment” in race relations. An experiment in which they inadvertently participated, and a beacon of hope for us all … if we’d just pay attention. #2 – Just Another Army Brat • I’m one of those brats. I spent the first sixteen years of my life moving twelve times across three continents. In 1976, when I was sixteen, my father died of service-related illnesses. Two weeks later, we moved to Columbus, Georgia, where I spent my senior year in a public school which had only been integrated for five years. You could feel the tension in the halls. • Twenty years later, I reunited with classmates from a Department of Defense school in Taegu, Korea. Although we physically looked like Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, I noticed that our experiences, insecurities, even our accents were like the cookie-cutter houses in which grew up. That’s when it occurred to me that Military Brats were a living study in race relations, but no one seemed to notice. #3 – Executive Order 9981 • On July 26, 1948, President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9981, abolishing segregation in the Armed Forces. This was essentially eighty years after the Civil War, three years after World War II, and twenty years before the Civil Rights Movement. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 137 © 2015 Donna Musil/Brats Without Borders, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Military Brats: A Living Study in Race Relations_VA Tech_111315 - 2 #4 – DoD Schools Act Quickly • As expected, there was a lot of resistance – from Congress, the country, even the military. But in less than three years, all on-base DoD schools were integrated. Military children began living in the same neighborhoods, and going to the same schools, churches, and playgrounds. Here are few clips regarding race relations from the first feature-length documentary about growing up military, BRATS: Our Journey Home. • Video Transcript, excerpts from BRATS: Our Journey Home, written & directed by Donna Musil, narrated by Kris Kristofferson: o Morten Ender, Professor of Sociology, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership, the United States Military Academy at West Point: The military is the only place in American society where black people and Hispanic people routinely boss around white people. o Valerie Anderson, Army Brat: You were blue or you were green or you were khaki and you were American. o General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Army Brat: I never looked at somebody as a black officer. I looked at them as an officer. I never looked at someone as a black soldier. I looked at them as a member of the Army, uh, and we were a team. o Olga Ramos, Air Force Brat: The other thing that is very unique, I think, to, to growing up on a military base is the fact that you don’t have control over who your neighbors are. And it forced an integration in neighborhoods that really, even in the United States today, you don’t see. o George Junne, Chair, Africana Studies, University of Northern Colorado: In the military, on those bases, when I was there, zero tolerance for race and racism. It didn’t matter what you thought, you could not act on it. The soldiers could go out and have their little riots and do everything like that, but it better not be in the school system. o Kris Kristofferson, Narrator: This may be one of the reasons brats – forty percent of whom are minorities – routinely outscore their public school peers. Why three times as many of us get college degrees. o George Junne: I scored in the 97th percentile of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. It means only three percent of people in the United States did better than me that particular year. o Kris Kristofferson, Narrator: But only his military teacher in Germany told George’s parents he was college material. His civilian teachers in New Jersey didn’t seem to notice. o George Junne: They said I was a good student. I dressed well. You know, that’s one of these kinds of things. You know, he might be black but he dresses real nice. o Peter Grammer, Army Brat: I’m sure on an individual basis there is prejudice, but on the whole there isn’t. And I feel like when people from different backgrounds and races have to live together and work together on a daily basis to where they really get to know each other, they really understand that one group is not any less capable than another group and some of those prejudices start to, start to disappear. #5 – Off-Base Was A Different Story • Off-base was a different story. And it still is, in many respects. But Truman’s Executive Order only applied to federal schools. At the time, there were approximately thirty thousand military brats going to segregated off-base schools. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society138 © 2015 Donna Musil/Brats Without Borders, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Military Brats: A Living Study in Race Relations_VA Tech_111315 - 3 • In 1954, of course, the Supreme Court ruled school segregation was unconstitutional in Brown v. Bd of Education of Topeka. But like my senior high school in Columbus, Georgia, many cities refused to comply. Michelle Green, the daughter of a Tuskegee Airman, was living on an Air Force base in Biloxi, Mississippi, in the mid-sixties. She and her sisters were the only African-American kids going to an off-base Catholic school. She had to ride a military school bus through poverty-stricken neighborhoods. As you can imagine, it was quite confusing. In fact, many brats have had difficulty interacting with civilian America about racial issues – as children and as adults. Here are some more clips from the BRATS film. • Video Transcript, excerpts from BRATS: Our Journey Home, written & directed by Donna Musil, narrated by Kris Kristofferson: o General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Army Brat: Well, you know, I’d have some people come in sometimes over in the Gulf War and say oh gosh, we got to solve this cultural problem. See, the Arabs think this way and we think that way and we’ve got to prove to them that we’re right. And I thought, that was kind of cheeky when you consider that our culture at that time was 214 years old and theirs was 5000 years old, and we’re going to tell them we’re right and they’re wrong? o Laird Knight, Army Brat: I pledge allegiance to every human being I ever run into anymore. I support everybody’s rights, not just America’s rights. o George Junne, Army Brat, Chair, Department of Africana Studies, University of Northern Colorado: One of the difficulties is that, not only is stereotyping coming from non-blacks, but also it’s coming from blacks. o Kris Kristofferson, Narrator: When Michelle was in college, she was asked to give a speech at an important event. o Michelle Green, Air Force Brat: This was to be a big deal – to have a student deliver the keynote. And so I was a bit concerned about what do I talk about. What experiences would you like me to share? I’m kind of new to this. And she said, well, you know, tell them a little bit about your background, your growing up in a broken family and the inner city and the struggle you had to overcome, and academically what it took for you to achieve, and the hardship. And this is the kind of story she was looking for. And obviously this was not my story. o Kris Kristofferson, Narrator: This does not mean we’re not proud of our cultural heritage or don’t want to explore it. o George Junne: I’m not trying to avoid race. I’m a black male. And so I’m not trying to say it’s not important, because there’s a lot of history and culture that’s very important, … at least for me and my family. But that’s not the primary thing of who George Junne is. It’s who am I? Am I a good person? Do I treat people well? o Olga Ramos, Air Force Brat: I’ve absolutely been accused of acting white by different individuals that are part of different Hispanic communities. And I consider that an enormous insult to my character simply because you shouldn’t have to act any way just because of your culture or your ethnicity or your race or any of that. You should just be exactly who it is that you are. #6 – Racist Speech Criminalized • One of main challenges replicating this Grand Experiment is the First Amendment – freedom of speech – which military families don’t really have. On base, racist speech is criminalized. If a military teen is heard using racial epithets, it’s reported both to his parents and their commanding officer. So most brats, including myself, grew up rarely hearing racist speech or experiencing racial divisions. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 139 © 2015 Donna Musil/Brats Without Borders, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Military Brats: A Living Study in Race Relations_VA Tech_111315 - 4 • This is a tough one. It goes to the heart of our democracy. But this experiment – and in other place like Germany after World War II – has shown that improving race relations may require some kind of speech restrictions. #7 – Decrease Intergenerational Racism • In my opinion, the most significant outcomes of this Grand Experiment is that, with the right combination of the carrot and the stick – it looks like we may be able to decrease intergenerational racism in one generation. • Why do I say that? Because this open view about race among military children has persisted, even while new families come into the system and bring their prejudices right along with them. • Most presume that if a child is born with racist parents, the odds that that child will also become racist are high. But because on-base military families can’t choose where they live or voice their bigotries in public, our research shows that it doesn’t take long before the children begin siding more with their peers than their parents – even when their parents are privately racist. This extends to interracial dating, as well. #8 – Brats of Color Outperform • The second most significant outcome of this Grand Experiment, in my opinion, is how well military brats of color have been succeeding, educationally. For years, military kids have been outperforming their civilian peers. Regardless of their parents’ educational and financial background. Regardless of being raised by single parents. And seemingly in spite of multiple moves, deployments, and combat-related trauma. • Some believe this is due to the military’s emphasis on education. Others think DoD teachers are superior. I think Truman’s Executive Order leveled the playing field and lifted the yoke of racism as much as any piece of legislation can. I think these children truly feel judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, and perform accordingly. Hopefully, one day Brats Without Borders can get the support we need to scientifically test this theory. #9 – Other Benefits • All this living together… not constantly hearing racist speech… moving internationally… seems to have changed the way military brats look at the world. They don’t presume racism as quickly, even when people are being racist! They appreciate the bigger picture, especially if they’ve lived overseas. They’ve seen all kinds of people living in poverty. They’ve been outsiders for reasons other than race. They feel less limited by racial expectations and stereotypes. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society140 © 2015 Donna Musil/Brats Without Borders, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Military Brats: A Living Study in Race Relations_VA Tech_111315 - 5 • As one non-brat said in Mary Edwards Wertsch’s book, Military Brats: Legacies of Childhood Inside the Fortress, minority brats seem to have a “different tape playing” in their heads; a tape full of positive feelings and self-esteem that is less daunted by racism. #10 – Belonging Issues • Of course, it’s not all happy and rosy. There are bigoted brats, but they do seem to be the minority. The biggest challenge – for all brats – seems to be “fitting in” racially if and when they leave the military. Often, they don’t – with their civilian friends, their extended family, sometimes even their own parents (especially if those parents didn’t grow up military themselves). • This can make a brat feel very alone – and for good reason. According to Abraham Maslow, “belonging” is the third most important human need. Only food and safety are more important. A human being actually needs belonging more than they need self-esteem. And lack of belonging can lead to depression, drugs, even suicide. • What’s frustrating is that brats in power don’t raise awareness of these issues. I’m not sure why. Perhaps, because of all the moves, we don’t know how to build community. Perhaps some don’t know the Military Brat Culture exists. The military doesn’t teach it. Non-military-brat parents don’t teach it. Some groups purporting to support military children actually seem to advocate against it. Maybe some of these powerful brats feel their success is due more to their specialness than their military brat background. Who knows? Whatever the reason, we don’t support each other in the way I wish we would. Maybe in time, that will change. I hope so. #11 – It Matters • Why does all this matter? It’s obvious. Racism, xenophobia, fear of the unknown… is killing people. Another reality we might want to heed is this: demographics are shifting and people have long memories. But most of all, I think it matters because racism is a huge waste of human potential. We need all children to be the best they can be, regardless of their race, creed, or color. #12 – A New Framework • We need a new framework for fighting racism. It’s ironic, an institution formed to kill is also teaching people how to get along. I think Truman’s Executive Order 9981 is teaching lessons we’re not hearing. I remember listening to a French minister on Charlie Rose discussing the Muslim teenagers who set fires across Paris a few years ago. The more he talked, the more I realized they were TCKs, Third Culture Kids. Like brats, they didn’t fit. They were caught between worlds. They were trying to find a place to belong. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 141 © 2015 Donna Musil/Brats Without Borders, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Military Brats: A Living Study in Race Relations_VA Tech_111315 - 6 • What if we took this military model and transferred it to Jerusalem? Built a neighborhood and filled it with half Palestinians and half Israelis. Gave every family a house and a job. And like military bases, had one school, one playground, and one church, where different services were held at different times. Impose two conditions. One, no racist speech. Two, they’re assigned a house. If they break the rules, they lose that house. How long do you think it would take for those children in those families to start thinking differently than their parents? • Perhaps I’m being idealistic. Perhaps I’m being naïve. Perhaps. But considering the state this world is in – isn’t it worth a shot? #13 – Major General Oliver Dillard • I’d like to dedicate this presentation to the late Major General Oliver W. Dillard, who died last earlier this year in June at eighty-eight years old. Major Dillard was the fifth African-American general in the United States Army, where he served for thirty-four years. General Dillard was a combat veteran in both Korea and Vietnam, and served in both the segregated and integrated armies. He had a lot to say about this topic. He and family will be featured in my new documentary, Truman’s Kids. • I wish he could be here with us today. His daughter, Diane, is here, along with Lora Beldon, Director of the Military Kid Art Project. We’re all working together on the first Military BRAT Art Camp, with Virginia Tech’s Jim Dubinsky and Heidi Nobles. #14 – Thank You • Thank you for listening. I’m in the early stages of making a documentary about this subject, Truman’s Kids. If like to help or join our efforts, please let me know. Thank you! Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society142 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 143 Panel 5—Raising Public Awareness: Populations and Evidence *Items marked by an asterisk are listed here for documentation purposes but do not appear full-text in the proceedings. For more information, please contact the authors directly via their universities. *“The Effect of Military Service on Education: An Examination of Mexican-American Veterans” Robert Cancio, University of Miami Veteran Status and Work in Deadly Civilian Jobs: Are Veterans More Likely to Be Employed in High-Risk Occupations than Nonveterans? April Gunsallus, The Pennsylvania State University *“Student? Veteran? Both? Conflicting Veteran Identities in Higher Education Policy” Lesley McBain, University of California, Los Angeles Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society144 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 145 Veteran Status and Work in Deadly Civilian Jobs Are Veterans More Likely to Be Employed in High-Risk Occupations than Nonveterans? April L. Gunsallus (alg978@psu.edu) The Pennsylvania State University Abstract The demand for workers in high-risk occupations is growing, as is the number of service members transitioning from military to civilian jobs. This paper will address whether veterans are more likely to hold physically hazardous occupations than nonveterans. While military jobs vary in the degree to which physical injury or death is likely, even basic entry into the military requires recruits to be mindful of risks at all times and routinely follow safety protocols. In comparison to the nonveteran workforce, veterans may experience a greater risk of holding physically hazardous jobs as a result of the jobs and skills for which they were trained in the military. This paper is part of a dissertation project which addresses fatal occupational injury. While much of the work literature on veterans has been descriptive, this study uses logistic regression to address the following questions: Are veterans overall more likely than nonveterans to hold high-risk occupations? The data come from recent pooled Veterans Supplements of the Current Population Survey. The trend toward increasing high-risk employment opportunity is substantiated by the latest employment projections from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The occupations with the highest projected number of new jobs, in 2022, are concentrated in health care, retail service, and construction industries. The type and number of construction jobs vary among the highest growth occupations. Most in demand in 2022 will be construction laborers (259,800); laborers and freight stock, and material movers (241,900); carpenters (218,200), and heavy and tractor- trailer truck drivers (192,600). Many of these jobs are nested within industries that are well-known as dangerous—industries such as agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting, mining, construction, and manufacturing. None of these industries is evenly distributed across metropolitan (metro) and nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) places, with each having greater shares of total employment in nonmetro places compared to metro areas. This dissertation will explore whether nonmetro veterans are more at risk of high-risk job holding than metro or suburban veterans. One factor possibly contributing to nonmetro veterans being in high-risk work is that they have fewer alternative employment options, suggesting an increased likelihood that nonmetro veterans would be more willing to take higher-risk jobs than their nonmetropolitan counterparts. Keywords: workforce, rural veterans, fatal occupations, gendered occupations, employment opportunities, high-risk industries Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society146 Veteran status and work in deadly civilian jobs: A re veteran s m o re likely to b e em p lo yed in h igh -risk o ccu p atio n s th an n o n veteran s? A p ril G u n sallu s, P h .D . C an d id ate Th e Pen n sylvan ia State U n iversity R u ral So cio lo g y 3 rd A n n u al V eteran s in S o ciety C o n feren ce V irg in ia Tech N o v 13, 2015 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 147 BACKGROUND – Veterans and High-Risk Occupations A re veteran s m o re likely to b e em p lo yed in h igh -risk o ccu p ation s th an n on veteran s? A h ig h -risk o ccu p atio n is o n e in w h ich in ju ries th at o ccu r are likely to b e u n exp ected , su d d en , an d fatal. N o n -fatal o r ch ro n ic in ju ries asso ciated w ith rep etitive m o vem en ts o r p ro lo n g ed exp o su res n o t ad d ressed h ere. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society148 ★ Gulf W ar era (1990-ongoing) ↑ Vietnam era (1964-1975) ↑ Korean conflict (1950-1955) ↑ W orld W ar II (1941-1946) ↑ W orld W ar I (1917-1918) W artim e Periods G u lf I (P re 9 /11) O peration D esert Shield O peration D esert Storm G u lf II (O E F /O IF ) O peration E nduring Freedom O peration Iraqi Freedom Source: N ational Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics G ulf Era Vets = 89.6% Labor Force Participation Rate Vietnam Vets = 64.3% Labor Force Participation Rate Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 149 Today 22 m illion veterans live am ong the civilian population age 18 and older. G ulf Era veterans represent alm ost 1 in 4 of all veterans. G ulf Era Vets = 6.1 m illion Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society150 CFOI – The Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries by BLS O EF to tal d e ath s: 2 ,2 2 0 O IF to tal d e ath s: 4 ,5 0 0 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 151 CFOI – Men’s & W om en’s Fatality M en an d w o m en so rt in to d ifferen t typ es o f o ccu p atio n s. • d ifferen ces in m en’s an d w o m en’s ab ilities • th eir risk/safety p referen ces • em p lo yer d iscrim in atio n • d ifferin g eco n o m ic circu m stan ces Fatal w ork injuries & hours w orked, by gender of w orker, by year. Source: CFO I 2012, 2013, 2014 A disproportionate share of fatal w ork injuries involve m en relative to their w ork hours. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society152 M ajo r O ccu p atio n al C ateg o ry 2 0 1 4 * 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 2 C o u n t R ate C o u n t R ate C o u n t R ate Tran sp o rtatio n an d m o vin g 1289 1 4 .7 1184 1 4 .1 1150 1 4 .0 C o n stru ctio n an d extractio n 885 1 1 .8 818 1 1 .8 838 1 2 .4 Service 584 2.6 624 2.7 596 2.7 M an ag em en t, b u sin ess, an d fin an ce 452 1.9 410 1.7 451 1.9 In stallatio n , m ain ten an ce,an d rep air 391 7 .8 356 7 .0 326 6 .7 Pro fessio n al an d related 253 1.6 228 0.8 245 0.7 Farm in g , fish in g , an d fo restry 234 2 4 .1 225 2 3 .1 222 2 3 .3 Sales an d related 232 0.7 211 1.5 216 0.7 Pro d u ctio n 206 2.4 210 2.6 211 1.5 O ffice an d ad m in istrative su p p o rt 98 0.6 70 0.4 82 2.5 To tal W o rker Fatalities/A ll-W o rker R ate 4 6 7 9 3 .3 4 4 0 5 3 .2 4 3 8 3 3 .2 CFOI – Fatality Count and Rate by Occupation by Year * D ata are p re lim in ary fo r 2 0 1 4 . R ate s are p e r 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 fu ll-tim e e q u ivale n t w o rke rs Farm in g , fish in g , an d fo restry 2 3 4 2 4 .1 2 2 5 2 3 .1 2 2 2 2 3 .3 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 153 h ttp ://w w w .startrib u n e.co m /d ead liest-w o rkp lace-th e-fam ily-farm /33 0 40 3 81 1 / O cto b er 7 , 2 0 1 5 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society154 “Farm in g fits veteran s, an d veteran s fit farm in g . M an y veteran s w an t to retu rn to sm all to w n A m erica to raise th eir fam ilies. A n d w e w elco m e th em h o m e.” W ORKFORCE OPPORTUNITY – Veterans Returning Hom e h ttp ://w w w .cfra .o rg /fa rm in g -fits-ve te ra n s-a n d -ve te ra n s-fit-fa rm in g h ttp ://w w w .g ijo b s.co m /5 -d iffe re n t-typ e s-o f-jo b s- in -a g ricu ltu re / Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 155 W ORKFORCE OPPORTUNITY– Skilled workers in dem and Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society156 DATA – Current Population Survey, Veteran Supplem ents CPS is the only m onthly estim ate of the labor force (D oes not include active duty service m em bers) Certain m onths have a “focus” (a.k.a. supplem ents) I com bined data from 2012 & 2013 Starting N ≈ 300,000 (rem oved those N ot in the Labor Force) N = 124,117 (ages 18-65) (rem oved w om en) Final N = 64,753 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 157 DATA – Dependent Variable –Binary “In a Deadly Job or Not” To tal N = 6 4 ,7 5 3 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society158 DATA – Independent Variable –Binary “Nonm etroor Not” To tal N = 6 4 ,7 5 3 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 159 DATA – All W orkers & Veteran W orkers Characteristics V ariab les 2 0 1 2 & 2 0 1 3 A ll ♂ & ♀ A ll Vets W o rk in g in a D ead ly Jo b 2 1 .7 3 3 .3 A g e (18-65) x̄ = 41.4 x̄ = 48.7 R aceWh ite 82.4 84.3 B lack 9.5 10.2 O th er 8.0 5.5 H isp an ic (an y race) 12.7 5.7 Ed u catio n Less th an H S/H S d ip lo m a 35.4 30.7 So m e co lleg e 30.4 39.7 C o lleg e d eg ree (B S/h ig h er) 34.3 29.5 Fem ale 47.9 10.4 Everserved in th e m ilitary 5.8 100 N o n m etro p o litan statu s 1 8 .8 2 1 .7 To tal W o rker 1 2 4 ,1 1 7 7 ,1 5 0 V ariab les 2 0 1 2 & 2 0 1 3 A ll ♂ ♂ Vets W o rk in g in a D ead ly Jo b 3 5 .4 3 6 .4 A g e (18-65) x̄ = 41.4 x̄ = 49.1 R aceWh ite 83.8 84.8 B lack 8.3 9.5 O th er 8.0 5.7 H isp an ic (an y race) 13.7 5.7 Ed u catio n Less th an H S/H S d ip lo m a 39.6 32.4 So m e co lleg e 28.0 39.3 C o lleg e d eg ree (B S/h ig h er) 32.4 28.4 Fem ale --- --- Everserved in th e m ilitary 9.9 100 N o n m etro p o litan statu s 1 8 .9 2 1 .9 To tal W o rker 6 4 ,7 5 3 6 ,4 0 8 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society160 H igher risk of holding a deadly job for m en. M en in deadly jobs 35% com pared to 7% w om en. M EN VETERAN w orkers are m ore likely to be in deadly jobs than w om en veterans. The proportions are 36% m en and 7% w om en of veteran w orkers in deadly jobs. Results – Bivariate relationships –Sex Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 161 Results – Bivariate relationships –Metropolitan Status H igher risk of holding a deadly job in N O N M ETRO areas for m en. N onm etro w orkers in deadly jobs 47% com pared to 33% m etro. N O N M ETRO VETERAN m en w orkers are m ore likely to be in deadly jobs than m etro veterans. The proportions are 34% m etro and 46% nonm etro of veteran w orkers in deadly jobs. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society162 Results – Logistic Regression Modeling –Key IV’s Veteran status is m arginally significant. Veterans m ore likely than nonvetsto be in a deadly job. N onm etro status is significant. N onm etro m en are m ore likely than m etros to be in a deadly job. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 163 Results – Key IV’s –Veteran & Metropolitan Status Controlling for nonm etro status drops veteran status out of statistical significance. An interaction effect betw een veterans and nonm etro status is not significant in this m odel. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society164 Results – Interaction Effect? –Veteran x Nonm et An interaction effect betw een veterans and nonm etro status is not significant in this m odel. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 165 Controls – Education Controlling for education brings veteran status back into statistical significance. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society166 Controls – Race Controlling for race does N O T brings veteran status back into statistical significance. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 167 Controls – Education & Race Adding controls for education & race brings veteran status back into statistical significance. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society168 Controls – Educ& Race & Hisp Adding H ispanic ethnicity strengthens the effect and statistical significance of veteran. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 169 CONCLUSION – Questions A pril G unsallus alg978@ psu.edu 814.360.9618 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society170 About the Author April Gunsallus, M.S., is a Graduate Research Assistant for the Clearinghouse for Military Family Readiness at The Pennsylvania State University. After earning a bachelor’s degree in Economics at Lebanon Valley College of Pennsylvania, April commissioned as a U.S. Navy officer at Pensacola, Florida, and worked for three years in naval aviation. April received her M.S. in Rural Sociology from Penn State and will receive her Ph.D. in 2016. The arc of her research explores how risk and resilience interact among the individual, family, and community levels. She is particularly fascinated by the domain of work and occupations. At the Clearinghouse, she contributes to The Veteran Metrics Initiative which seeks to better understand Service member transition from Military to civilian life. As a doctoral student, she serves on the executive board of a student Veteran fraternity and is actively engaged in philanthropic and social Veteran activities. References Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2014.” Chart Package. United States Department of Labor. 2015. http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0013. pdf. ___“Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2013.” Chart Package. United States Department of Labor, 2014. http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0012.pdf. ___“Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2012.” Chart Package. United States Department of Labor, 2013. http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0011.pdf. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics. “Profile o Veterans: 2012,” Data from the American Community Survey, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 2014, http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/SpecialReports/Profile_of_ Veterans_2014.pdf. ___“Characteristics of Rural Veterans: 2010,” Data from the American Community Survey. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 2012. http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/SpecialReports/Rural_Veterans_ACS2010_FINAL. pdf. ___“Labor Force Participation of Veterans: 2000 to 2009 Data from the American Community Survey.” United States Department of Veterans Affairs. 2010, http:// www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/SpecialReports/LFPR_FINAL_March2.pdf. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 171 Panel 6—Rhetorics of Difference and Reconciliation *Items marked by an asterisk are listed here for documentation purposes but do not appear full-text in the proceedings. For more information, please contact the authors directly via their universities. “Images of Reintegration: Alternative Visual Rhetorics of the Returning WWII Soldier” Lenny Grant, Virginia Tech “Models of the Post-Racial World? Rhetorics of Race among U.S. Military Brats” Heidi Nobles, Texas Christian University “Reconciliation as [Lofty] Aim: A Genre Analysis of Iraq War-Era Women Veterans’ Memoirs” Mariana Grohowski, Massachusetts Maritime Academy “Race, Civil War Memory, and Sisterhood in the Woman’s Relief Corps” John Kennedy, Purdue University Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society172 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 173 Images of Reintegration: Alternative Visual Rhetorics of the Returning World War II Soldier Lenny Grant (lenny@vt.edu) Virginia Tech Abstract During World War II, comic books and movies buoyed the public’s spirits and offered hope to combat the uncertainty of a world at war. However, these visual media often did so at the expense of portraying authentic military veterans and the struggles they faced repatriating after WWII. This presentation examines two cases, the comics of Bill Mauldin and John Huston’s Let There Be Light, that slipped the boundaries of their genres to portray the unglamorous lives soldiers returned home to. By defying viewers’ expectations, these images created powerful visual arguments for greater social opportunities for returning warriors. This presentation offers a rhetorical analysis of the visuals these artists created and reviews how their legacy is being continued today with comics and movies that are designed to help warriors repatriate and the public to understand their needs. Keywords: World War II, rhetoric, repatriation, comics, film Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society174 Images of Reintegration: Alternative Visual Rhetorics of the Returning World War II Soldier The narrative of the greatest generation has become the ideal against which all subsequent American war veterans have been judged. It’s the story of men and women who got going when the going got tough and saved the world from tyranny. The story of their return home after the long fight is equally streamlined: ticker tape parades, the construction of suburbia, the baby boom, middle class prosperity. This story is told in the iconic photographs, artworks, and moving pictures that have shaped our cultural perceptions of WWII. I hope to expand that perception to include two artists whose work focuses on the psychological wounds that soldiers brought home — a subject matter that doesn’t comfortably fit the narrative of the repatriating WWII soldier. World War II occupies a special moment in the history of war images, thanks in part to advances in media technology and the contributions to the war effort made by the comic book industry and Hollywood filmmakers. Superman debuted in 1938 and went on to fight shoulder to shoulder with American GIs in the 1940s. In the pages of 10¢ comic books, he attacked pillboxes, sank U-boats, and delivered supplies to the Allies. Legions of characters followed in The Man of Steel’s footsteps. The new medium of the comic book coupled with the new archetype of the superhero simultaneously provided children and adults alike a way to escape the lackluster reality of war rationing and be involved in a glamorized version of the fight against the Axis. Comic books were cheap and easy to physically circulate among peers, making them the perfect medium for spreading the values Superman embodied. Needless to say, the superhero has become a mainstay of the American War imaginary, as is evident in the recent Captain America movies and DC Comics’ reboot of the SGT Rock series. Hollywood initially took a less fantastic approach to the war. As WWI drew to a close, the War Department made a handful of films to help reintegrate soldiers back into Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 175 civilian life. One of the best preserved of these films is The Reawakening, which was produced as part of Ford Motor Company’s weekly education serial presented in theaters. The 10-minute film showcases the Army’s efforts to provide occupational therapy for nearly 20,000 veterans. A quarter century later, the government made a full-fledged effort in the cinemas. On Hollywood movie lots, actors ranging from Errol Flynn to the Three Stooges played out the drama of a world at war and attempted to lighten the mood on the home front. It’s commonly understood that Hollywood was an integral part of the US war machine, and WWII itself has remained a blockbuster topic for movies since 1941. During the war, some of Tinsel Town’s most accomplished filmmakers were activated by the Army to document nearly every aspect of war to end all wars. Comics and movies buoyed spirits and offered hope during an uncertain time. However, they often did so at the expense of portraying authentic military veterans and the struggles they faced repatriating after WWII. Now, I would like to share the work of two visual artists with you, one in comics and the other in film, that slipped the boundaries of their genres to portray the unglamorous lives soldiers returned home to. By defying viewers’ expectations, these images created powerful visual arguments for greater social opportunities for returning warriors. Cartoonist Bill Mauldin. Mauldin documented his WWII experience in comics for Stars & Stripes beginning when he landed in Italy in 1945. Using black ink and paper, he translated the diurnal hardships of American infantrymen into single pane comics. His main characters, Willie and Joe, chronicled the exhaustion and uncertainty soldiers faced in Europe with levity. Mauldin’s characters and edgy take on military life made him a celebrity both in theatre and on the homefront. In fact, there was such a demand for Mauldin’s art work that his publisher prevented him from killing off Willie and Joe and contracted him to produce four cartoons a week until 1948.1 After separating from the Army, Mauldin brought Willie and Joe home with him Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society176 to illustrate the difficulties servicemen faced repatriating. On the domestic front, Mauldin recast Willie and Joe as husbands relearning how to live in a family situation. Mauldin also tackled the housing crisis that faced veterans and their families. And he breached the familiar but still uncomfortable subject of psychological trauma. What made Mauldin’s comics rhetorically effective is that they functioned in the same way as the iconic images that shaped the narrative of WWII homecoming. They were single images with captions that circulated widely in newspapers. They even took pot shots at the iconic images of homecoming like Alfred Eisenstaedt’s photo of a sailor kissing a nurse in Times Square on VJ Day. (Mauldin, like many other veterans, was chagrinned that the VJ Day kiss became such an iconic image because any sailor in Times Square on VJ Day wasn’t fighting in the war.)2 Mauldin’s stateside comics were pointed visual commentaries on politicians’ ambivalence toward post-service soldiers. They also indexed the changing perceptions of the American public toward its fighting men. In uniform, the soldier was heralded for his bravery; out of uniform, he was considered a threat to the society he defended overseas. Mauldin’s comics depicted the domestic troubles, racism, post-traumatic symptoms, and unemployment that veterans faced. His radical politics eventually cost him his livelihood, but not before he used the comics genre to show how American soldiers, who were heralded as superheroes in their own right, were treated when they returned home. Next, I’d like to introduce you to John Huston’s 1946 Let There Be Light, the third movie the award winning director produced as a captain in the US Army Signal Corps. Huston had unfettered access to a US War Department psychiatric hospital where he followed 75 traumatized soldiers through their treatment at the facility. As the film’s introduction states, never before had movie cameras captured the mental suffering of soldiers or the therapies they endured to be permitted to return to civilian life. Let There Be Light’s unvarnished storytelling and innovative cinematography were not seen by the public until December 1980 because the Army embargoed the film, claiming that it Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 177 violated the privacy of the men it depicts. Other commentators alleged that the film was banned out of fear that it would hurt military recruiting efforts.3 Huston put a human face on the abstract nature of psychoneurosis by telling stories that were often omitted from the chronicles of war. At the same time, he shattered cultural myths about mental illness in hopes of helping to create social opportunities for psychologically traumatized soldiers. Ultimately. Huston’s film champions the Army’s ability to rehabilitate the psychological casualties of war, thus reassuring viewers that returning warriors are not a threat to society. The film literally shows a rag tag group of men who were too traumatized to walk or talk, being healed — so much so that the film concludes by showing a vigorous game of baseball, that most symbolic of American past times. Like the WWI film, The Reawakening, Let There Be Light was created as an argument to both employers and to average Americans that soldiers returning with psychiatric disorders were capable of being rehabilitated. More importantly, it also served to show they were not dangerous to the society they were returning to. Although they used different media to communicate their messages, Mauldin and Huston achieved the same rhetorical effects with powerful visual images of homecoming WWII soldiers. Namely, they used images to expand the discourse surrounding veterans by providing intimate portraits of warriors at their most vulnerable, thus changing the rhetoric of what constitutes a victorious soldier at homecoming. Their art deviated from the norm of WWII art because it forced viewers to identify with soldiers rather than merely observe them from a far. Typically, the iconic images of WWII show soldiers in their most victorious moments, like Alfred Eisenstaedt’s photo of a sailor kissing a nurse in Times Square on VJ Day or Joe Rosenthal’s photo of Marines raising the American flag over Iwo Jima. However, the viewer is removed from the action in both of these images and rendered an admirer who cannot partake in the events they depict. Mauldin and Huston place their viewers in the action of their art, forcing them to identify with repatriated soldiers in ways that are immediate and uncomfortable. The Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society178 immediacy of their depictions underscored that repatriated war veterans deserved better than many received when they returned home. By expanding notions of who veterans are and forcing the public to identify with their challenges, Mauldin and Huston contributed convincing arguments to the conversation about veterans benefits. Even if in Huston’s case, his movie was used some 35 years later as powerful evidence of the need for mental health resources for veterans of Vietnam. So what can we learn from this visual history of WWII soldiers that could help us to make sense of the homecoming narratives of the post 9/11 wars? First of all, they help us to understand that we should have services in place to help veterans transition — large scale transitions hardly ever go as planned. Secondly, we should also be wary of essentializing contemporary veterans’ homecoming experiences. For example, viewers of the World Series may have noticed the ad behind home plate for the Major League Baseball’s veteran’s charity WelcomeBackVeterans.org.4 Those of us who visited the website not only found that it was out of date, but that it was entirely devoted to Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), now so much in vogue. Equating Welcome Back with “You’re Mentally Ill” is a radical oversimplification of military mental illness and PTSD. Especially, because it denies and overshadows the experiences of those who are not traumatized, and undercuts the resiliency of soldiers, and perpetuates the misconception that psychological trauma is a lifelong affliction. In many respects, what we are doing to pathologize our veterans now is the mirror image of normalization of traumatized WWII veterans. We’re choosing one narrative over another to suit our own cultural fantasies. And lastly, entertainment technology will continue to help us re-imagine and distribute homecoming images. Ticker tape parades and large scale celebrations of returning warriors are all but a thing of the past, but if we count the tens of thousands of homecoming videos on YoutTube along with the billions of combined views, then we see that the image of the returning veteran still occupies an important place in our society, and it’s a narrative that we as a nation will have to continue to negotiate whenever we bring men and woman home from war. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 179 About the Author Lenny Grant holds a BA in philosophy and English from Drew University, as well as an MAT in English and an MA in English with a concentration in writing studies from Montclair State University. His background as a writer, educator, locksmith, and medical communications consultant has guided his research to the places where health, labor, ethics, and social discourses meet. His current interests vector through this space in several ways. He is interested in how the work of college writing centers can make higher education more inclusive through partnerships with senior citizens and other underrepresented local groups to show that they are welcome participants in college life. Similarly, he is exploring the role that literacy instruction has and can play in helping workers in vanishing industries to transition into new livelihoods. Foremost, he is interested in medical rhetoric and the discourses of mental illness. In particular, he is exploring the multiple ontologies of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the ways that it materializes and medicalizes memory and emotion, as well as how the social discourses surrounding the diagnosis shape popular conceptions of veterans and military personnel. Endnotes 1. Mauldin, Bill. Back Home: Willie & Joe. Edited by Todd DePastino. (Seattle: Fantagraphics, 2011). 2. Mauldin, Back Home: Willie & Joe. 3. Simmon, Scott. Let There Be Light and Its Restoration. (filmpreservation.org, 2012). 4. “Welcome Back Veterans,” October 28, 2015, http://web.welcomebackveterans.org/ index. References Let There Be Light. Film. Directed by John Huston. 1946; Department of the Army. National Archives and Records Administration, https://archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.35924.b Mauldin, Bill. Back Home: Willie & Joe. Edited by Todd DePastino. Seattle: Fantagraphics, 2011. ---. Up Front. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1945. Simmons, Scott. Let There Be Light (1946) and Its Restoration. . http://www.filmpreservation.org/userfiles/image/PDFs/ LetThereBeLight_ProgramNote.pdf. filmpreservation.org, 2012. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society180 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 181 Models of the Post-Racial World? Rhetorics of Race among U.S. Military Brats Heidi Nobles (heidi.nobles@tcu.edu) Texas Christian University Abstract The U.S. military has long been claimed as a model for racial integration, having been integrated by executive order before the general population; significantly, too, the military is constantly shuffling but organized by service branch and rank, and so installation neighborhoods are more prone to organized diversity than their civilian counterparts, which tend toward homogeneity based on race and class. For the estimated two million children growing up in this system,1 such experiences of diversity provoke worthwhile questions of what influence those military children will have upon leaving the military system for the civilian world. Many have speculated that military children are more comfortable with constructive racial integration than their civilian peers; as third culture kids, they have been referred to as prototypes for the future due to their blended identities and global backgrounds.2 Yet as sociologist Dr. Morton Ender noted back in 2006, no one has yet done a study specifically looking at race among military kids; as of 2015, as far as I can tell, this claim remains true.3 In this paper, I look at the content and quality of what now-adult military kids say about race to explore the constructive elements of their rhetoric about race in and after the system, as well as to consider the unique challenges and anxieties involved in living out racial experiences in unusual and shifting environments. Keywords: military children, third culture kids, racial conflict, racial integration, dialogue, nostalgia Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society182 Models of the Post-Racial World? Rhetorics of Race among U.S. Military Brats I was sixteen and waitressing in Maryland, just outside DC. I had a cold and I’d lost my voice, so Barry—the other waiter on the floor that night—was trying to take on more of the tables. A father came in with his two daughters, and Barry asked if I wanted the table; I shook my head no, would he mind? Barry sat the family in his section. A few minutes later, the father was back up at the front of the restaurant, angry and asking me why I didn’t want to wait on them. I was confused, and I tried to whisper as loudly as I could, “I can’t talk.” He couldn’t hear me, and I didn’t understand why he was angry—until we both realized what was happening and were mildly horrified. We both backed away; he sat back down, and I spent the next hour with my face bright red, feeling embarrassed and guilty that he thought I wouldn’t want to serve him and his beautiful little girls because I was white and they were black. I remember respecting him for letting me have it, even as I felt so misunderstood. Maryland was the first time I remember overt racism. I remember another time there when another white waitress told me that I had to watch out for “black people around here; they’re all mad and uppity and think they have things to prove.” I didn’t agree, but I watched, and I saw. Saw how white people looked at me as if I was automatically on their side; how black people looked at me guardedly. The other racial groups—mostly Hispanic, Vietnamese, and Korean people—seemed to move a little more easily among everyone else. But for the first time, I felt the gulf of distrust between black and white. I’d grown up grateful for my interracial military experience. While both of my parents had grown up in rural, segregated areas, with few or no non-white friends and racist ideologies inherent enough to be invisible, my sister and I grew up in a world where our neighbors and our prejudices were determined by military rank, not ethnicity. And while the power dynamics wrapped up with the rank structure are problematic in Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 183 themselves, they allowed us kids to come together over shared identities that transcended racial distinctions. I think I’d assumed I was inoculated against racism, that having belonged to an interracial community during my formative years, I would always be able to move in that kind of world. But in the civilian world, I wasn’t one of an interracial collective, I was just me—and I was white, with all the associated privilege and stigma. * * * While I was waitressing in Maryland, some friends of mine were having a counterpart experience a few states south of me. My family had been stationed with the Uyenos in Germany; Kevin and Kelley (then about 15 and 13, respectively) had spent most of their young lives abroad, moving back and forth between Germany and England, always living with military communities. We all moved back to the States around the same time, and the Uyenos moved to Clarksville, TN. In preparing for this veterans conference, I emailed Kelley and Keven. Kelley noted that Clarksville was the first time she was aware of race as an issue, though looking back she can see that her mom had a harder time with it (“she never fit the mold of what people envisioned as an officer’s wife . . . I do recall several times mom was mistaken as the hired help”).4 Kevin, who I remember having an especially difficult time with the military-to-civilian transition, was more forthcoming: For the first time ever, we lived in an almost all-white neighborhood, and stood out quite a bit as one of two mixed race families in the subdivision. . . . [The schools were systematically segregated into racial groups, too.] . . . Becoming a teenager when the way people viewed me (through the lens of my race or races) was changing so drastically was especially tough—I’d never considered what the implications might be of asking a Caucasian girl to a school dance versus asking an African American girl; but suddenly it mattered in a way that had not been as visible before. . . . Whenever I went on-post for school, church, or work events, people were more likely to engage in conversation with me around shared interests [and] where I had lived previously . . . . Off-post, those initial conversations were more likely to be concerned with my family’s racial makeup. No one ever asked where I had lived before because everyone had always lived in Clarksville—no need to ask. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society184 People wanted to know what my parents did for a living and what rank my dad held. (Surprisingly, I got asked this more by civilians in Clarksville than by any military dependents in my entire life.)5 I remember talking to Kevin a fair amount on the phone that year, as the two of us struggled through adolescence; Kelley and I flew together back to Europe for a vacation; our families visited each other. It was a gift that we could talk easily about race together—I credit this ease mostly to their mom, who got a lot of practice over her years in a biracial marriage (her Japanese mother-in-law was not pleased for the first several years of her son’s marriage to a black woman) and who as a person is just wonderfully brash and breaks down discomfort among friends. She is a second mom to me still today. * * * This paper is less formal than I intended it to be. When I first heard the theme of this year’s conference, I wasn’t sure what I could contribute. The military part of my research focuses on the kids—and really, former kids, those who have aged out of the system—and we don’t have enough accurate data on military kids and race. Sociologist Dr. Morton Ender noted back in 2006 that no one has yet done a study specifically looking at race among military kids; as of 2015, as far as I can tell, this claim remains true.6 For example, in 2013, Molly Clever and David R. Segal wrote an article on “The Demographics of Military Children and Families” for The Future of Children in which they drew on the most recent statistical data available on military service members, spouses, and children. They had access to racial demographic information on the service members, but not on the children; despite the title of this report, the authors’ analyses of racial data focuses on the service members and not on spouses or children.7 I have found these walls consistently as I’ve tried to seek out demographic data on military kids, both racial and otherwise—the systems in place tend to track the parents, but not the kids. So I believe what we actually need on this topic is studies to capture accurate data, and I am not a sociologist. But what I am is a rhetorician—I study how people use Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 185 language to enact practical action—so I thought, okay, I’ll look at how former military kids talk about race and what their language choices might mean. After all, the U.S. military has long been claimed as a model for racial integration, having been integrated by executive order before the general population. Though today the overall racial demographics among service members mirrors the general U.S. population, the difference lies in how the people are organized. The military is constantly shuffling but ordered by service branch and rank, so installation neighborhoods are more prone to organized diversity than their civilian counterparts, which tend toward homogeneity based on race. The kids, if they are segregated from each other, are separated based on parental rank, not on skin color. So if Kevin had gone to his senior prom in Germany, the skin color of his prom date would likely not have mattered, but it might have made a difference if she had an enlisted parent. As another former brat put it, Growing up on military bases as an Army brat with an officer father I can honestly say that I was not aware of “race tensions”, but I was acutely aware of “rank tensions.” . . . I had friends of many racial backgrounds and that never seemed to be an issue, but all of us knew where our parents fell in the hierarchy of rank. Even the physical design of the base presents clear social boundaries. Enlisted families lived in apartments or duplex houses on one side of base, officers in another section with bigger houses for higher ranks. The generals had the largest homes. I think it is wonderful, especially in light of recent race fueled tragedies, that race is not as defining a topic on military bases. But assigning another person’s worth based on their rank is really not any better. It is just another version of the same flaw in humanity: a desire to look down upon someone else who is different.8 Still, that rank difference disrupts class hierarchies that are so often tied to race in the civilian world. A colleague of mine who currently teaches at Tuskegee grew up in England— in a black officer family with white, British servants—told me about black NCO kids who told her she “thought she was white” because of her sense of privilege (a note that gave me a rare glimpse into intra-racial tensions inside the military system), but she said she took pride in her parents’ accomplishments. Upon entering the civilian world, she resented that Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society186 no one cared about her family’s background—which included her father’s being trained by Tuskegee Airmen. “I resented losing my ‘black privilege’ in the military to white privilege [outside],” she said.9 This woman isn’t alone in her sense of racial heritage—Kevin, for example, told me his parents instilled a strong sense of both their black and Japanese histories; living abroad, though, their racial identity was subordinate to their identity as Americans. In considering the rhetoric of these brat accounts, what I hear most is nostalgia, pride, and loss. Exiled from homes that no longer exist even if these now-adults were legally allowed to go back to the geographic locations associated with their pasts; separated from each other by time and transience—I don’t know if things were really as nice as we remember. I’m tempted to believe it because we do have negative memories of class and rank. These speakers may be idealizing, but how can anyone tell? Regardless, maybe we can learn even from the worlds they remember into existence. The chance to enjoy each other across racial distinctions is precious in a world where we are so often separated. Given the estimated two million children growing up in this system (and thirteen million more who are currently adults),10 this experience of recognizing identity beyond race provokes worthwhile questions of what influence former military children can have upon leaving the military system for the civilian world. Military kids belong to the broader subculture of “third culture kids” (TCKs), people who have grown up in two or more cultures and end up forging their own original, third or blended culture. Other TCKs include missionary kids and corporate kids who grow up abroad. As TCKs, military kids have been referred to as prototypes for the future due to their blended identities and global backgrounds.11 Many have speculated that since military children are more comfortable with constructive racial integration than their civilian peers, they could be an important force in advancing civilian race relations. I don’t want to pretend that brats are post-racial; if that’s even an ideal to pursue, our world is certainly not in a place to allow for a post-racial reality. But having glimpsed Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 187 a contrast—relationships less defined and far less bounded by race—I would like to see military brats work together to name and navigate racial issues that the civilian world often seems to struggle in discussing. In order to do that, we’ll have to try to remember what we’ve lost, to be brave about facing the ugliness so many of us found distressing when we first left our more integrated childhoods. We may need to reconnect with childhood friends with whom we have pre-established trust, and with whom we have common histories to build upon. But if we’re going to live up to the hopes others have for us in terms of forging more positive relations across racial differences, I believe we will need to use our rhetorics of nostalgia to give us starting places for new rhetorics,12 those that recognize our advantageous position and take on leadership roles that forge collaborative futures. I think one thing we brats learned, especially, was the power of living alongside each other, sharing common activities and goals. Racial reconciliation efforts in the civilian world are so often overt, and that can be urgent work. Consider for example the language bound up with critical race theory, a model that addresses racial injustice by “understanding, challenging, and dismantling systems of racism.”13 The rhetorical approaches necessary to this kind of work—calling out systemic racism that many want to remain invisible, refusing to allow racism to parade as “color blindness,” and instead insisting that the conversation acknowledge and directly address racial issues—are crucial when racism persists through its own invisibility. In other projects, leaders facilitate explicit dialogues about racial issues, which may involve heated arguments, with the goal of promoting not interpersonal warmth but greater understanding and mutual respect.14 Again, such projects are invaluable. These approaches seem at odds, though, with the rhetoric I see brats using, both because they focus on differences and because they speak so directly to race. The force involved in such work feels best suited for addressing immediate and pressing problems; that level of intensity seems unsustainable in the long-term. In contrast, brats tend Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society188 toward more indirect and diplomatic rhetorical approaches, building relationships based on commonalities—shared interests, backgrounds, or aims—and sidling up to racial conversations as they arise once social trust is in place. In their book on Transcending Racial Barriers, Michael O. Emerson and George Yancey describe this as a “mutual obligations approach,” noting the military as a primary location for such integration: The goal of racial integration is generally not enough to foster positive interracial contact; it must additionally help such contact become productive—that is, give it a purpose. . . . There are clear common goals in the (multiracial) military . . . positive race relations are not the military’s ultimate goal but rather a means to the ultimate goal of combat readiness. . . . Sharing an ideological core is quite important for shaping productive interracial contact.15 Brats learn this approach too, whether explicitly or implicitly, and are therefore in a particularly strong position to take the lead on projects like building interracial relationships focused on shared aims. Taking this indirect approach can also allow for attention to racial complexity. As Kevin notes, Racial identity is something that I wrestle with to this day. It’s something that I often think about how to tackle with my daughter, who has black, white and Asian heritage (we call her our little panda). What I am thoroughly convinced of is that, had I not had the insular, American identity-focused upbringing that living on a military installation afforded me, I would have felt compelled to identify more strongly with one of my races over the other, and I would certainly have categorized others by my perception of their racial makeup much more consciously than I do now. Of the many things that I am indebted to my upbringing for giving me, this more post-racial and open viewpoint has been one of the primary factors that I attribute to success in personal and professional relationships throughout my adult life, and I am very thankful for that.16 I share Kevin’s gratitude. Integrated relationships, where our racial differences were valuable but always subordinate to the things we had in common, ultimately gave me the opportunity to know diverse people and to build the kind of trust that allows for honest and open discussion of difficult racial issues. I’ve carried that approach on after the military, Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 189 and though I often still feel racial divides, I also find myself having richer interracial and intercultural friendships than many of my peers. Whether we call it an “indirect,” “mutual obligation,” or “common goals” approach, this rhetorical practice is one brats can take pride in as part of their shared cultural heritage, and maybe one that can help us all in the post-military world. About the Author Heidi Nobles is a writer, editor, and scholar specializing in editorial history, theory, and praxis. She holds an MA in English Literature from Baylor University and an MFA in Creative Writing from the University of South Carolina; she is currently completing her PhD in Rhet/Comp at Texas Christian University. Her forthcoming book, currently titled Stories We Didn’t Know to Tell: A Collective Memoir from a Lost Tribe, explores key moments in world history from the perspective of adults who grew up around the globe as military children. Her creative and scholarly work appears or is forthcoming in journals including Scholarly Editing, the South Atlantic Review, Computers and Composition Online, WLN Journal, Welter, and Relief, and she serves as an active member of the Veterans Studies Group housed at Virginia Tech. Endnotes 1. See “Who Are Our Military-Connected Children?” Military Child Education Coalition website, 2012, available online at http://www.militarychild.org/student-identifier. 2. See David C. Pollock and Ruth E. Van Reken, Third Culture Kids: Growing Up Among Worlds, Boston: Nicholas Brealey, 2009. 3. For example, in 2013, Molly Clever and David R. Segal wrote an article on “The Demographics of Military Children and Families” for The Future of Children, in which they drew on the most recent statistical data available on military service members, spouses, and children. They had access to racial demographic information on the service members, but not on the children; despite the title of this report, the authors’ analyses of racial data focuses on the service members and not on spouses or children. Molly Clever and David R. Segal, “The Demographics of Military Children and Families,” The Future of Children 23.2 (2013), 13–39. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society190 4. Kelley Uyeno, email interview with author, November 9, 2015. 5. Kevin Uyeno, email interview with author, November 12, 2015. 6. In BRATS: Our Journey Home, Donna Musil, writer and director, Eatonten, GA: Brats without Borders, 2006. 7. See Molly Clever and David R. Segal, “The Demographics of Military Children and Families.” 8. Rebecca Crinean, email interview with author, November 10, 2015. 9. Rhonda [last name redacted upon request], email interview with author, November 11, 2015. 10. See “Who Are Our Military-Connected Children?” Military Child Education Coalition website, 2012, available online at http://www.militarychild.org/student-identifier. 11. See David C. Pollock and Ruth E. Van Reken, Third Culture Kids: Growing Up Among Worlds, Boston: Nicholas Brealey, 2009. 12. See for example Michalinos Zembylas, “Reclaiming Nostalgia in Educational Politics and Practice: Counter-memory, Aporetic Mourning, and Critical Pedagogy,” Discourse 32.5 (2011), 641–655. 13. Aja Martinez, “Critical Race Theory: Its Origins, History, and Importance to the Discourses and Rhetorics of Race,” Frame 27.2 (2014), 9–27. 14. See for example Katherine Cramer Walsh, Talking about Race: Community Dialogues and the Politics of Difference, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007; also see the NewGround project, NewGround: A Muslim-Christian Partnership for Change, Los Angeles, CA, online at http://mjnewground.org/, and the Interfaith Encounter Association, Jerusalem, Israel, online at https://interfaithencounter.wordpress. com/, and the Dialogues on Race and Ethnicity at the Boston YWCA, Boston, MA, online at http://www.ywboston.org/our-work/our-programs/dialogues-on-race-and- ethnicity/, among others. 15. Michael O. Emerson and George Yancey, Transcending Racial Barriers, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, 86. 16. Kevin Uyeno, email interview with author. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 191 References BRATS: Our Journey Home. Donna Musil, writer and director. Eatonten, GA: Brats without Borders, 2006. Clever, Molly, and David R. Segal. “The Demographics of Military Children and Families.” The Future of Children 23.2 (2013): 13–39. Crinean, Rebecca. Email interview with author. November 10, 2015. Dialogues on Race and Ethnicity. YWCA Boston. Boston, MA. Online at http://www. ywboston.org/our-work/our-programs/dialogues-on-race-and-ethnicity/http:// www.ywboston.org/our-work/our-programs/dialogues-on-race-and-ethnicity/ Email interview with author. November 9, 2015. Emerson, Michael O., and George Yancey. Transcending Racial Barriers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. The Interfaith Encounter Association. Jerusalem, Israel. Online at https:// interfaithencounter.wordpress.com/. Martinez, Aja. “Critical Race Theory: Its Origins, History, and Importance to the Discourses and Rhetorics of Race.” Frame 27.2 (2014): 9–27. NewGround: A Muslim-Christian Partnership for Change. Los Angeles, CA. Online at http://mjnewground.org/. Pollock, David C., and Ruth E. Van Reken. Third Culture Kids: Growing Up Among Worlds. Boston: Nicholas Brealey, 2009. Rhonda. Email interview with author. November 11, 2015. Uyeno, Kevin. Email interview with author. November 12, 2015. Walsh, Katherine Cramer. Talking about Race: Community Dialogues and the Politics of Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. “Who Are Our Military-Connected Children?” Military Child Education Coalition website. 2012. Available online at http://www.militarychild.org/student-identifier. Zembylas, Michalinos. “Reclaiming Nostalgia in Educational Politics and Practice: Counter-memory, Aporetic Mourning, and Critical Pedagogy.” Discourse 32.5 (2011): 641–655. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society192 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 193 Reconciliation as [Lofty] Aim A Genre Analysis of Iraq War-Era Women Veterans’ Memoirs Mariana Grohowski (mgrohow@gmail.com) Massachusetts Maritime Academy Abstract Using the framework of rhetorical genre studies,1 this paper presents findings from an analysis of fifteen memoirs written by Iraq War-era women veterans. This work seeks to elucidate how the genre of “the war memoir” both permits and constrains women veterans’ abilities to reconcile their identities post-military service. Studying the memoirs of Iraq War-era women veterans’ of various races and sexualities, who served in a variety of Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs) and branches, reveals the heavy-handed influence of sex and gender on women’s identities and their sense of agency within and beyond the U.S. military. Keywords: women veterans; rhetorical genre studies; memoir; war literature; gender studies; Iraq Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society194 Reconciliation as [Lofty] Aim A Genre Analysis of Iraq War-Era Women Veterans’ Memoirs Reintegration Repatriation Rehabilitation Reconciliation . . . We use these words to describe processes of change—psychological, emotional, social, cultural, and material change. These terms attempt to categorize the cultural crossing of military personnel. I do not need to tell you, an audience of experts on the U.S. military and the men and women who serve, that the military is a distinct culture—a culture in many ways, at odds with U.S. civilian culture.2 Reconciling the differences between these two cultures, as U.S. military personnel (current and former) must face, can be a long and complex process. The processes of reintegration, repatriation, and sometimes rehabilitation must include, in one way or another, a means of reconciliation—of making sense of one’s past while negotiating and navigating one’s present. As Vietnam veteran and author Karl Marlantes has argued: unless the veteran undergoes a process of reconciliation, the individual faces difficulty establishing and maintaining a “new mission” in his/her life.3 For a number of men and women who have served in the U.S. armed forces, Marlantes included, the processes of repatriation or reconciliation are facilitated through a rhetorical or meaning-making practice of memoir writing. Consideration of the genre of the “war memoir” might bring to mind: ● specific book titles and/or authors; ● typical conventions, like a section in the book’s center comprised of images, printed on glossy paper that includes the obligatory picture of the author in army fatigues, holding a rifle; ● and I venture to guess that on first thought of “war memoir,” most of us think of works by male authors. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 195 American women have been writing and fighting alongside men since the Revolutionary War.4 However, female U.S. service-personnel and veterans’ literary merits have been under-read and under-appreciated in U.S. culture5; as Iraq-era Army Veteran and best- selling author Kayla Williams put it, “Public recognition of our honorable wartime service has not grown as swiftly as our numbers and opportunities.”6 According to 2011 data “more than 1.5 million” American troops served in Iraq.7 Of the troops deployed to Iraq, women comprised a significant percent. More women served in Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003–2010) and Operation New Dawn (2010–2011) than in the first Gulf War (1990–1991), or in any other U.S. military conflict in which women’s involvement was recorded. While the U.S. public has been slow in recognizing women’s contributions to U.S. military and literary history, a number of the women who served in Iraq have written and published memoirs about their deployments. Notwithstanding, many of these female veterans and war memoirists write with the expressed purpose of reconciling their military deployments and service. Indeed, as I have found in my analysis of fifteen “war memoirs” written by U.S. servicewomen who deployed to Iraq between 2003–2010 and subsequently penned and published their war memoirs between 2005–2014: the majority of authors admit (within the pages of their books) to writing their “war memoir” for the expressed purpose of expediting the processes of reconciliation. However, these writers also conclude their works by admitting that their processes will continue well beyond the pages of their manuscript. Indeed, the war memoirist finds herself falling short of attaining the lofty aim of reconciliation. All fifteen of the writers whose work informs my discussion—Blair, Coggins, Doyne, Goodell, Hikiji, Johnson, Karpinski, Kraft, Minks, Olson, Scott, Spencer, Williams, Works- Dennis, and Zaremba—face/(d) a variety of challenges: in the military; in civilian society; in reconciling their place betwixt and between both cultures; within the “war memoir—a Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society196 genre shaped and dominated by men; and in the publishing industry, compelling six of fifteen authors to self-publish—an enterprise that is in and of itself challenged. These writers and military personnel, ● six of whom are/were enlisted; ● seven of whom are/were officers; ● one of whom is a Chaplain; ● two of whom are/were medical professionals; ● five of whom still serve, centered their memoirs on wrestling with and reconciling these challenges—many of which are further complicated because of their sex as women; and subscribing to feminine gender norms—while the Iraq War rages on in the background. I venture it is not surprising to you that these women discuss their challenges, given recent statistics of female military service personnel and veterans’ experiences, only some of which include: ● One in three military women of all generations, as compared to one in six civilian women, has been sexually assaulted or raped while enlisted.8 ● More than 70 percent experience sexual harassment while serving.9 ● Female troops doubt their own opportunities for career advancement within the military.10 ● Marriages of female troops fail at almost three times the rate of male servicemembers.11 ● The rate of homelessness among former female military service- personnel exceeds their male counterparts, which doubled between 2006–2010.12 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 197 As a scholar of rhetoric—that is, how people make and share meaning—I approached the reading of these “war memoirs” in an effort to understand how genre conventions, inherent to the memoir broadly, and the war memoir more specifically, foster agency for these women. I wanted to know how writing and sharing their stories might challenge these disparaging statistics and illustrate a less victimized understanding of servicewomen and female veterans’ experiences. And in theory, these works written by women who deployed to Iraq in their impressive roles, from all five branches of the military, do challenge stereotypes while establishing a historical record of women’s sacrifices and contributions to military history. But because these women chose the genre of the “war memoir” to share their stories, these women establish little movement and change in reconciling limited understandings of women’s involvements in the military during the Iraq war. Genre theorists in rhetoric elucidate how the conventions of a given genre assist “the writer as agent.”13 For example, in teaching writing from a genre approach, we identify the conventions or moves a writer makes—and the audience expects—within a particular genre (the conference paper, for example) in order to enter those spaces. Adhering to the norms of a particular genre or rhetorical situation not only allows the writer to enter particular spaces but, more importantly, it increases the likelihood that the writer’s voice will be considered—and hopefully, that her experiences and sacrifices will be legitimized by the U.S. military and her male counterparts. A significant majority of female veterans’, within their memoirs and elsewhere, maintain that there are relatively few spaces and conditions where their voices, perceptions, and contributions are considered, let alone recognized or appreciated. Janet Karpinksi, commanding general of Abu Ghraib, faced a twenty-five-year struggle to be heard in the Army that climaxed in her assertion that she was “set up” for the events at Abu Ghraib. She explains that she “remained an outsider [in the army] fascinated by the power of shifting sands that could so swiftly become biting storms.”14 Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society198 Within the institution of the U.S. military, women’s bodies, voices, contributions, and sacrifices are by default devalued and marginalized because the ideals, values, and norms of the U.S. military were created by and for men. Amidst increasing opportunities for women in the military, and as women become the fastest-growing segment of active duty forces and American veterans, women’s efforts rarely measure up. Jess Goodell explains that she wrote Shade it Black for the expressed purpose of reconciling “the trauma [she faced] from being female in an environment that was systematically hostile of females.”15 Though Goodell faced considerable trauma serving in a Marine Corps Mortuary Affairs unit in Iraq, she explains: It’s as though the Corps, deep in its soul, believes that . . . females . . . fail because they are female. Females aren’t held back by a single shortcoming that can be remedied. They are held back by what they are, and that cannot be overcome. They are the embodiment of flaws.16 Further, servicewomen and female veterans who want to share the story of their Iraq deployment also face challenges when they seek to enter another historically male- dominated space: the war memoir. Analyses of the war memoir as a genre are cast without considering those penned by women. Conventions were established by men, some of which women authors have appropriated, some of which women authors ignore. As I have found in my analysis, writers are duly permitted and constrained by their individual war-time experiences, and by genre conventions inherent to the “war memoir.” What are these conventions that constrain and permit? To address that question I begin with its affordances, according to two experts on the memoir as a genre, not limited in its focus on the war or the military. In The Art of Memoir, Mary Karr maintains: “Memoirists’ methods . . . differ . . . as widely as their lives do.”17 Even though genres consist of “regularized practices,”18 memoir as a genre is as dynamic as the demographic Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 199 of people who write them. The late William Zinsser, author of On Writing Well, provides helpful insight into the form and function of memoir as a genre, noting that memoirs are “window[s] into a life, very much like a photograph in its selective composition.”19 And, “The crucial ingredient in memoir is . . . people . . . the most important character the person who wrote it.”20 According to the expertise of Karr and Zinsser, memoir as a genre shares three characteristics with the military veterans (male and female included) as a demographic: 1. Both are heterogeneous. 2. Both are stereotyped by limited understandings, token examples, and spokespersons. 3. Both are centered on relationships. As we know “selfless service” and the camaraderie that it facilitates is a value instilled in every branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. *In the war memoir, specifically those that inform this presentation, the memoirist recounts prominent relationships: • with other service-members. • with friends, family members, and civilian society on the home-front. • with the institution of the U.S. military and/or the specific branch in which she serves. • with her location in Iraq, including her romanticism and repulsion for the desert, Iraqi customs, and its people. • with herself as she combats barriers related to her gender and sex as a female and minority in a country and an institution unwelcome to women. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society200 Though genre conventions foster agency and a certain degree of freedom for the writer, there are certain expectations inherent in the genre of the war memoir. According to George Packer (whose analysis does not include works by women) the Iraq war memoir as an emerging genre has its own set of conventions: ● It is “interested in the return home”; ● it distinctly contains a “lack of politics” as compared to works from previous military-eras; ● writers typically use “fragments” and “deal in particulars”; ● and as a corpus, writers of the Iraq war often “romanticize” the extreme environment of Iraq.21 Though Packer’s analysis was contrived only by acknowledging the work of male writers, these conventions can also be found in Iraq war memoirs written by women. For example, Works-Dennis’ book, Home through Baghdad, the shortest of the fifteen books I read (at just forty-eight pages), consists entirely of fragmented experiences from her Iraq deployment in 2004–2005, which she describes as “a series of images” and “snapshot[s].”22 She organizes her fragments in a chronological order and bookends them, writing from the home-front—reconciling life after her deployment. Spencer’s Baghdad Yoga also uses fragments to discuss her 2006–2007 Iraq deployment; perhaps as a means of overcompensating for her use of fragments, Spencer uses a variety of organizing lenses in her book. The book is organized by the seven chakras; by the seven letters of Baghdad (which she’s fashioned into an acronym that accounts for her life philosophy developed as a result of her military deployment); by seven yoga poses; “the army’s seven core values”; and “the seven principles of Kwanzaa.”23 I mention Spencer’s work and her unique, though excessive, approach to organizing her war memoir as example of how the war memoir can be remediated to be more inclusive to women’s unique experiences and perceptions, through individual, self-published efforts. Some of these works, like Spencer’s, are more promising than Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 201 others; others are problematic for the reader because they ignore Zinsser’s expert insight regarding the memoir: “A thin line separates ego from egotism. Ego is healthy; no writer can go far without it. Egotism, however, is a drag [and memoir writing] is not intended as a license to prattle just for therapy.”24 For example, Doyle’s Kuwait Diary—all 525 pages—and Scott’s To Iraq and Back are plagued by their egotism, and their choice to forgo editing. These self-published works are actually the email and blog-diaries the women kept during their year-long Iraq deployments. The authors acknowledge this in their prefaces and don’t apologize for it. Though it makes for very a less-than-enjoyable experience for the reader, it does suggest that for some, daily life on a military deployment can be monotonous. Not unlike the practice of writing—it is work, after all. Taken as a corpus, these women’s Iraq War memoirs suggest a tremendous sense of agency for female veterans and servicewomen. Collectively, these works challenge limited stereotypes of the “war memoir” as a genre, and of “military experience” during the Iraq war. In sharing their experiences, specifically through the genre of the war memoir, women’s contributions and sacrifices in the Iraq war are elucidated and recorded. As I’ve tried to argue: it is no coincidence that these women chose the war memoir to share their stories. They did so precisely because a genre frames one’s experiences and perceptions in ways that legitimize and amplify their voices. However, the genre of the war memoir can also constrain, given that its conventions were established by men. Women’s works unsettle these standards, as they should, and hopefully, in the coming years, we’ll see more works by women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan that push against the genre’s norms—foregoing the urge to share details chronologically or include posed photos. Additionally, I hope that my presentation has ignited a curiosity about these women and their books. Indeed, real change—genuine reconciliation—for servicewomen and female veterans of the Iraq-era will only come from more people reading their books and recognizing their sacrifices on a playing-field that is (finally) equal to that of their male counterparts. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society202 http://tiny.cc/V IS M ariana  G rohow ski Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 203 About the Author Mariana Grohowski is an Assistant Professor of Humanities at Massachusetts Maritime Academy. Her research explores the rhetorical practices of under- and mis-represented populations. She is founder and editor of the Journal of Veterans Studies. Endnotes 1. See Anis Bawarshi, Genre and the Invention of the Writer: Reconsidering the Place of Invention in Composition, Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 2003; Amy J. Devitt, Writing Genres, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2008; and Anis Bawarshi and Mary Jo Rieff, Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy, Anderson, SC: Parlor Press, 2010. 2. Pew Research Center Social & Demographic Trends, The Military-Civilian Gap: War and Sacrifice in the Post-9/11 Era, PDF File, 2011. 3. Karl Marlantes, What it is Like to Go to War, New York, NY: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2011. 4. See Evelyn. M. Monahan and Rosemary Neidel-Greenlee, A Few Good Women: America’s Military Women from World War I to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010; Rosalind Miles and Robin Cross, Hell Hath No Fury: True Stories of Women at War From Antiquity to Iraq, New York, NY: Three Rivers Press, 2008; Janet Holm, Women in the Military: An Unfinished Revolution, 2nd ed., Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1992; and Kayla M. Williams, “Women Writing War: A list of Essential Contemporary War Literature By Women,” LA Review of Books, May 27, 2014. 5. Cara Hoffman, “The Things She Carried,” The New York Times, March 31, 2014. 6. Kayla M. Williams, “Women Writing War.” 7. Democratic Policy and Communications Center. Iraq by the Numbers. U.S. Senate. PDF File, 2011, 1. 8. Erin Mulhall, “Women Warriors: Supporting She ‘Who Has Borne The Battle,’” Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, PDF File, 2009, 7. 9. Ibid., 7. 10. Ibid., 3. 11 . Ibid., 4–5. 12. Ibid., 11–12. 13. See Anis Bawarshi, Genre and the Invention of the Writer. 14. Janis Karpinksi and Steven Strasser, One Woman’s Army: The Commanding General of Abu Ghraib Tells Her Story, New York, NY: Hyperion, 2005. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society204 15. Jess Goodell and John Heran, Shade it Black: Death and After in Iraq, Philadelphia, PA: Casemate, 2011, 190. 16. Ibid., 46. 17. Mary Karr, The Art of Memoir, New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2015, xi. 18. Charles Bazerman, “Series Editor’s Preface,” in Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy, Anis Bawarshi & Mary Jo Reiff, eds.. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press, 2010, xi. 19. William Zinsser, On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction, 30th Anniversary ed., New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2006, 135. 20. Ibid., 143–144. 21. George Packer, “Home Fires: How Soldiers Write Their Wars,” The New Yorker, April 7, 2014. 22. Dawn M. Works-Dennis, Home Through Baghdad, Denver, CO: Outskirts Press, 2010, 39, 43. 23. Michele Spencer, Baghdad Yoga: A Shift in Consciousness: Fear to Love, War to Peace, Rancho Murieta, CA: Live4Love, LLC, 2013, 5, 7. 24. William Zinsser, On Writing Well, 134. References Blair, Jane. Hesitation Kills: A Female Marine Officers’ Combat Experience in Iraq. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011. Bawarshi, Anis. Genre and the Invention of the Writer: Reconsidering the Place of Invention in Composition. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 2003. Bawarshi, Anis, and Mary Jo Rieff. Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press, 2010. Bazerman, Charles. “Series Editor’s Preface.” In Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy, Anis Bawarshi & Mary Jo Reiff, eds. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press, 2010, xi-xii. Coggins, Rachel. Gateway to Iraq: A Chaplain’s Story. Maitland, FL: Xulon Press, 2009. Democratic Policy and Communications Center. Iraq by the Numbers. U.S. Senate. PDF File, 2011. Doyne, Holly. Kuwait Diary: Email from the Desert Camps. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, Incorporated, 2006. Goodell, Jess, and John Heran. Shade it Black: Death and After in Iraq. Philadelphia, PA: Casemate, 2011. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 205 Hoffman, Cara. “The Things She Carried.” The New York Times. March 31, 2014. Holm, Janet. Women in the Military: An Unfinished Revolution. 2nd ed. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1992. Hikiji, Miyoko. All I Could Be: The Story of a Woman Warrior in Iraq. Palisades, NY: Chronology Books, 2013. Johnson, Shoshana, and Mary L. Doyle. I’m Still Standing: From Captive U.S. Soldier to Free Citizen—My Journey Home. New York, NY: Touchstone, 2011. Karpinksi, Janis, and Steven Strasser. One Woman’s Army: The Commanding General of Abu Ghraib Tells Her Story. New York, NY: Hyperion, 2005. Karr, Mary. The Art of Memoir. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2015. Kraft, Heidi S. Rule Number Two: Lessons I Learned in a Combat Hospital. New York, NY: Back Bay Books/ Little, Brown and Company, 2012. Marlantes, Karl. What it is Like to Go to War. New York, NY: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2011. Miles, Rosalind, and Robin Cross. Hell Hath No Fury: True Stories of Women at War From Antiquity to Iraq. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press, 2008. Minks, Sara H. In Iraq They Say It’s Safe Inside the Wire: That’s a Lie. Durham, CT: Eloquent Books, 2010. Monahan, Evelyn. M., and Rosemary Neidel-Greenlee. A Few Good Women: America’s Military Women from World War I to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010. Mulhall, Erin. “Women Warriors: Supporting She ‘Who Has Borne The Battle.’” Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. PDF File, 2009. Olson, Kim. Iraq and Back: Inside The War to Win The Peace. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2011. Packer, George. “Home Fires: How Soldiers Write Their Wars.” The New Yorker. April 7, 2014. Pew Research Center Social & Demographic Trends. The Military-Civilian Gap: War and Sacrifice in the Post-9/11 Era. PDF File, 2011. Scott, Jessica. To Iraq & Back: On War and Writing. Jessica Scott, 2014. Spencer, Michele. Baghdad Yoga: A Shift in Consciousness: Fear to Love, War to Peace. Rancho Murieta, CA: Live4Love, LLC, 2013. Williams, Kayla, and Michael Staub. 2006. Love My Rifle More Than You: Young and Female in the US Army. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Williams, Kayla M. “Women Writing War: A list of Essential Contemporary War Literature By Women.” LA Review of Books. May 27, 2014. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society206 Works-Dennis, Dawn M. Home Through Baghdad. Denver, CO: Outskirts Press, 2010. Zaremba, Michelle, and Christine Sima. Wheels on Fire: My Year of Driving (And Surviving) In Iraq. Ashland, OR: Hellgate Press, 2008. Zinsser, William. On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction. 30th Anniversary Ed. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2006. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 207 Race, Civil War Memory, and Sisterhood in the Woman’s Relief Corps John C. Kennedy (kenned15@purdue.edu) Purdue University Abstract: This paper explores the intersections of race and the public remembrances of the American Civil War in the Woman’s Relief Corps (WRC), auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR). It specifically examines the role of slavery, emancipation, and sectional reconciliation in the WRC’s discourse about the meaning of the conflict, and how Jim Crow-era racial ideology influenced the scope and effectiveness of African American members within the organization. The extent to which the model of black and white comradeship in the GAR affected the WRC’s racial and commemorative policies and objectives will also be considered. Finally, the paper draws lessons from the WRC’s experience grappling with issues of race, memory, reconciliation, and the role of veterans and women in memorialization with our own experience in observing the Civil War’s sesquicentennial. Keywords: race, Woman’s Relief Corps, Grand Army of the Republic, Civil War memory, Union, emancipation, reconciliation Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society208 Race, Civil War Memory, and Sisterhood in the Woman’s Relief Corps Woman’s Relief Corps president Annie Wittenmyer stood before the assembled delegates of the organization’s eighth annual national convention to deliver her presidential address. In her speech, Wittenmyer recounted the heroic legacy of African Americans during the Civil War. “I cannot forget that our white soldiers, flying for their lives, were often glad to sleep in the beds, and share the coarse food of the loyal colored people. And I never knew or heard during all those terrible years of strife and blood, of a colored man, woman or child proving a traitor to the Union cause, or to the men who upheld it.” Using the memory of their wartime service, Wittenmyer urged that the WRC should be an organization that welcomes and values the involvement of African Americans in the group. “It seems to me,” she exclaimed, “that the question in the Woman’s Relief Corps should not be: whether a woman’s face is white or black, but whether her heart is white and loyal, and her life pure and generous.”1 In 1883, representatives from the local and state-wide Woman’s Relief Corps and Soldiers’ Aid Societies gathered and created a national Woman’s Relief Corps (WRC), auxiliary to the national Grand Army of the Republic (GAR). The Relief Corps was comprised of local chapters called “corps” and state associations called “departments.” Every corps and department was auxiliary to a GAR corps or department. The WRC had three main goals: provide relief, commemorate the Union war, and instill patriotism in young Americans. Specifically, the WRC commemorated the Union victory and the fallen Union soldiers while providing relief to destitute Union veterans and their dependents, war widows, and former Union army nurses.2 Race has always been part of how Americans collectively remembered the Civil War. It framed the meanings of the conflict, the common perceptions about the war’s winners and losers, and the roles of individuals in commemorating America’s most consequential war. Historians examining Civil War memory, issues of race, and Union Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 209 veteran’s organizations have scrutinized how veterans and veteran affiliated women’s organizations collectively recollected the war and promoted their Union Cause and memory of the war. Both the Grand Army of the Republic and Woman’s Relief Corps contested other competing public memories and narratives about the conflict. Scholars argue that race significantly shaped the Civil War memory held by these two groups and the country at large but the racial dynamic within the WRC and GAR worked differently. Unlike in the Grand Army, the Relief Corps succumbed to pressure to segregate their white and black members in the South implying that its black members held a subordinated status inside the association.3 This paper situates itself within this historiography by suggesting that the relationship between racial ideology and Civil War memory within the WRC was more nuanced and complicated. It argues that white members recognized and valued the place of Africa Americans in Union Civil War memory and the work of African American members in commemorating the Union Cause in the South. However, those same white members who celebrated the twin victories of reunion and emancipation displayed a paternalist attitude toward their black sisters and allowed a form of decentralized segregation to exist within the organization. Slavery, emancipation, and African American wartime sacrifice were important components to the WRC’s commemoration of the Union Cause. This meant the four- year struggle to save the Union and destroy slavery, which for loyal Americans was a crucial tool to defeat the southern rebellion. When the WRC or GAR espoused their Union memory of the war they were collectively and publicly remembering the legacy of the cause loyalists fought for: national reunification and liberty. White WRC members also recognized the crucial role their black sisters performed in defending and promoting the Union Cause in Dixie. The South was, by the late nineteenth century, an increasingly hostile environment for promoting the Union Cause. In southern states with a weak GAR presence, the WRC department and their local corps were the primary actors in Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society210 combating the Lost Cause and assisting destitute veterans and their families. Recruiting white southern women into a group that actively opposed the Lost Cause proved to be a major challenge in the 1890s and early decades of the twentieth century. White Relief Corps officers often praised the energy, determination, and commitment of their black members in the South in providing charity to needy veterans and observing Memorial Day. The GAR actively encouraged the formation of local WRC groups to help them in their work. Virginia’s Grand Army Senior Vice Commander, for example, reported to the WRC convention in 1891 that “there are many Posts in Virginia that could not retain their organization were it not for their auxiliaries.” African American corps in the South were often the only ones who maintained Union cemeteries and displayed the American flag.4 In 1893, the national convention went further to assist their southern Africa American members. Prominent black voices inside the organization like Julia Mason Layton of Washington D.C. argued forcibly that the national body should focus on providing instructional and logistical support for the southern black corps. A motion was presented asking that several hundred dollars be used to pay for instructing the WRC’s black corps in southern states and give them the tools necessary to help promote the Union Cause and assist the local GAR African American posts in their areas. After some debate, the convention decided to appropriate $200 dollars which was renewed during the decade. The money was used to pay an African American member to travel to the southern black corps and, as best they could, provide training and guidance regarding fund raising and organization so that the corps could promote patriotism and loyalty in their local communities and have funds to aid poor veterans and their dependents.5 While slavery and emancipation occupied prominent places within the WRC’s Union memory, civil rights and racial equality did not. White members applauded the commemorative role black members played in the South but allowed segregation to exist inside the organization for several reasons. Among them was a white paternalism rooted in the belief that black women had come a long way since 1865 but their level of education Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 211 and access to resources made them incapable of running their corps and departments independently. National inspectors (all of them white) from the WRC, who travelled to observe different corps, complained about the inability of black members to compete paperwork and conduct the organizations complicated ritual work.6 In part, the belief that allowing black corps to unite in a southern state to form a black run department would result in inefficiency and poor management motivated white national officers to keep black corps separate. Perceptions of ineffectiveness caused the national convention to dissolve the black majority provisional department of Virginia in 1892 after only one year in existence and remand the corps to their previous status as detached and separate. A more powerful force shaped what would become the WRC’s nuanced policy of decentralized segregation inside the organization. White southern Relief Corps members would not work alongside their black counterparts. The blue grass state is a good case in point. Kentucky, while loyal to the Union during the Civil War, was also a slave state that refused to voluntarily and gradually abolish slavery despite repeated appeals from President Lincoln to do so in 1861-1862. The state reacted negatively when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued and rejected the Thirteenth Amendment (not ratifying it until 1976). It quickly adopted a Lost Cause, pro-Confederate spirit after the war and white supremacy was firmly entrenched in the state when the WRC Department of Kentucky was organized in 1886. Black Kentuckians joined the new order in large numbers, which immediately caused white hostility within the department. As one white member phrased it, “white women of the Southland do not associate so closely with the colored race.” White WRC women claimed they would not tolerate the idea of participating closely in charitable, commemorative, and patriotic activities with African American women.7 I describe this policy of racial separation as decentralized segregation because it was implemented in the southerner states only and not in the other regions of the country or at the national level. Black and white corps were segregated because of racial animosity Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society212 from southern white women but also because northern and western white members wanted to grow the association in the former Confederacy. The WRC already had a strike against it in the eyes of southerners from the moment of its founding and that was its firm defense of the Union Cause which denounced secession as treason and spurned the hero worship of prominent Confederates like Robert E. Lee. Allowing white southern women to identity the WRC as an Abraham-Lincoln-loving-Jefferson-Davis-hating association with an interracial membership doomed the organization in the eyes of the northerners in being able to expand far beyond its African American base in Dixie. Though the WRC did allow segregation in its southern departments, it rejected efforts to make it harder for African Americans to join the organization and departments outside of the South were integrated. Issues of race, membership, and memory reached a crescendo in 1906 when the national president Abbie Addams proposed two resolution recommending that there would be no more black corps created in the South and for any black corps that did not have a permanent hall or building in which to hold their monthly meetings to be disbanded. The president argued in favor of the first resolution because of reports describing a waning enthusiasm for commemorating Memorial Day and decorating the graves of the Union dead in southern cemeteries among African American youth. She asserted that it did not make sense for those individuals to be allowed to form new corps in the future. In defending the second resolution, Addams contended that it violated WRC rules for a corps regardless of race to not have a regular location in which to hold meetings.8 White and black delegates opposed both resolutions. Sarah H. Gates, a member of the black department of Louisiana, declared that her fellow Louisianans took active part every year in Memorial Day exercises and commemorative activities. Former national president, Lizabeth A. Turner noted that black corps often did not have the financial resources to conduct both monthly memorial events and provide needy charity to poor Union veterans and widows in their communities. Financial constraints also did not Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 213 allow many black corps to rent out a hall every month for their meetings. These corps chose to spend their limited resources on relief and Memorial Day observances. Every member who opposed the efforts to curtail black membership also stressed the vital role that African American women played in commemorating Union Victory and honoring the American flag. As former national president Isabel Worrell Ball succinctly concluded in opposition to the resolution, “I know for a fact that if it were not for the colored members of our organization there are sections of the South where the flag would be unknown, absolutely unknown.” The convention rejected President Addams’ recommendations.9 In addition to the national body, northern state departments and corps did not restrict the membership or involvement of African Americans. Northern departments and corps were integrated in-part because the black population was far smaller than in the South, though some were all black. Black members held lesser national offices like Assistant National Inspector. African American WRC women held prominent local and state officer positions like president in their all-black corps and departments. Despite segregation and white paternalism, the WRC provided an environment where black women could hold leadership positions and contribute to the social uplift within their communities in part by reminding the nation of the heroic legacy of African Americans during the Civil War.10 Southern white hostility and northern paternalism does not entirely account for decentralized segregation in the southern WRC. In The Won Cause, Barbara A. Gannon argues that what previous scholars took to be segregation in the GAR was actually black comrades creating their own all-black local posts. African Americans in the Grand Army voluntarily belonged to all-black posts particularly in the South because it gave them opportunities to exert leadership in the organization and African Americans considered black posts important pillars in their communities. The black post challenged the Lost Cause memory of the war which asserted that slavery had been good for the slaves. It makes sense that southern African American women would also decide to create all-black corps. After all, national WRC by-laws stated that every corps, regardless of the make-up Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society214 of its membership’s race, had to be affiliated with a local GAR post as its auxiliary. African American women wanted and did assist the black Grand Army veterans in their localities by forming their own WRC corps. Therefore, the existence of separate black corps and departments most likely had as much to do with African American women’s own agency and desiring to work closely with the black comrades as it had to do with the insistence from southern white women that they would not belong to corps and departments with black members.11 Racial attitudes have always structured how Americans remember their Civil War. There were many white women in the WRC who praised the historical memorial of African Americans during that bloody conflict and both white and black members celebrated the twin victories of the war: Union and emancipation. White members extolled the work their black sisters in Dixie performed in observing and honoring the legacies of Union victory and trying to instill to the best of their ability patriotism and national loyalty in the hearts of all southerners. But white WRC members were not racial liberals. The Relief Corps did not take a public stand against Jim Crow. Even the most egalitarian, like Annie Wittenmyer, displayed a white paternalism that depicted and treated African American women inside the organization as not quite the equal of whites. For several reasons, national leaders, many of them northerners, approved and enforced the separation of white and black southern members. The interplay of race and memory shaped for both good and ill the black-white bonds of the sisterhood of the Woman’s Relief Corps. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 215 About the Author John C. Kennedy is a doctoral candidate in history at Purdue University. He received his Bachelor’s degree in history and political science from Indiana University and a Master’s degree in history from Purdue University. His research interests focus on Civil War Union veterans and associations, Civil War memory, and women’s organizational activism during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. He is currently working on a dissertation on the Woman’s Relief Corps, auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic from 1861- 1930. Endnotes 1. Journal of the Eighth Annual Convention of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, Boston, Massachusetts, August 13-14, 1890, 25-26. 2. Annie Wittenmyer, The Woman’s Relief Corps Red Book: A Manuel, Containing the Rules and Regulations of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, and Official Decisions of the Several National Conventions (Boston: E. B. Stillings & Co., 1897), 16-20. 3. For Historians who have focused on race, Civil War memory and Union veterans’ organizations see Cecilia Elizabeth O’Leary, To Die For: The Paradox of American Patriotism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999); Francesca Morgan, Women and Patriotism in Jim Crow America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2005); Barbara A. Gannon, The Won Cause: Black and White Comradeship in the Grand Army of the Republic (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011); Caroline E. Janney, Remembering the Civil War: Reunion and the Limits of Reconciliation (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2013). 4. For analysis on the Union Cause, see John H. Neff, Honoring the Civil War Dead: Commemoration and the Problem of Reconciliation (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005), 8-9; Gary W. Gallagher, Causes Won, Lost, and Forgotten: How Hollywood and Popular Art Shape What We Know about the Civil War (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2008), 2-3; Gannon, The Won Cause, 7; Janney, Remembering the Civil War, 9-10, 51-53, 113, 153, 234-236; Gary W. Gallagher, The Union War (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011), 1-2, 6. For analysis of the Lost Cause, see Gary W Gallagher and Alan T. Nolan, eds, The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000), 1, 4, 12-18; Gaines M. Foster, Ghosts of the Confederacy: Defeat, the Lost Cause and the Emergence of Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society216 the New South, 1865-1913 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 8; Caroline E. Janney, Burying the Dead but Not the Past: Ladies’ Memorial Associations and the Lost Cause (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2008), 3; Karen L. Cox, Dixie Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2003), 4; David W. Blight, Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 258-259, 261, 266; Janney, Remembering the Civil War, 43, 86-87, 134, 147, 154, 159; Journal of the Ninth Annual Convention of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, Detroit, Michigan, August 5-8, 1891, 35; Journal of the Tenth Annual Convention of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, Washington D.C., September 21-24, 1892, 35-36. 5. Journal of the Twelfth Annual Convention of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, September 12-14, 1894, 41. 6. Journal of the Eleventh Annual Convention of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, Indianapolis, Indiana, Sept 6-8, 1893; Janney, Remembering the Civil War, 8, 125, 252; O’Leary, To Die For, 81-90; Morgan, Women and Patriotism in Jim Crow America, 12. 7. Services and Activities of the Department of the Woman’s Relief Corps Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic 1883-1933, Department of Kentucky, 131. Grand Army of the Republic and Woman’s Relief Corps National Museum, Springfield, IL; Journal of the Tenth Annual Convention of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, Washington D.C., September 21-24, 1892, 35, 492-493; Anne E. Marshall, Creating a Confederate Kentucky: The Lost Cause and Civil War Memory in a Border State (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2013), 1-6. 8. Journal of the Twenty-fourth Annual Convention of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, Minneapolis, Minnesota August 16-17, 1906, 80-81, 289-300. 9. Ibid., 292, 298-300. 10. Morgan, Women and Patriotism in Jim Crow America, 37-39. 11. Gannon, The Won Cause, 47-48, 53, 56 ; Wittenmyer, The Woman’s Relief Corps Red Book, 18-20. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 217 References Blight, David W. Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. Cox, Karen L. Dixie Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2003. Foster, Gaines M. Ghosts of the Confederacy: Defeat, the Lost Cause and the Emergence of the New South, 1865-1913. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Gallagher, Gary W. The Union War. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011. ---. Causes Won, Lost, and Forgotten: How Hollywood and Popular Art Shape What We Know about the Civil War. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2008. Gallagher, Gary W. and Alan T. Nolan, eds. The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000). Gannon, Barbara A. The Won Cause: Black and White Comradeship in the Grand Army of the Republic. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011. Grand Army of the Republic and Woman’s Relief Corps National Museum, Springfield, IL. Janney, Caroline E. Remembering the Civil War: Reunion and the Limits of Reconciliation. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2013. ---. Burying the Dead but Not the Past: Ladies’ Memorial Associations and the Lost Cause. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2008. Journal of the Eighth Annual Convention of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, Boston, Massachusetts, August 13-14, 1890. Journal of the Ninth Annual Convention of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, Detroit, Michigan, August 5-8, 1891 Journal of the Tenth Annual Convention of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, Washington D.C., September 21-24, 1892. Journal of the Eleventh Annual Convention of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, Indianapolis, Indiana, Sept 6-8, 1893; Journal of the Twelfth Annual Convention of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, September 12-14, 1894, 41. Journal of the Twenty-fourth Annual Convention of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, Minneapolis, Minnesota August 16-17, 1906. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society218 Marshall, Anne E. Creating a Confederate Kentucky: The Lost Cause and Civil War Memory in a Border State. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2013. Morgan, Francesca. Women and Patriotism in Jim Crow America. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2005. Neff, John H. Honoring the Civil War Dead: Commemoration and the Problem of Reconciliation. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005. O’Leary, Cecilia Elizabeth. To Die For: The Paradox of American Patriotism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Services and Activities of the Department of the Woman’s Relief Corps Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic 1883-1933, Department of Kentucky. Wittenmyer, Annie. The Woman’s Relief Corps Red Book: A Manuel, Containing the Rules and Regulations of the Woman’s Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic, and Official Decisions of the Several National Conventions. Boston: E. B. Stillings & Co., 1897. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 219 Poster Session “Local Military Matters: Bridging the Military-Civilian Gap through College-Community Interactions” Alexis Hart, Allegheny College Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society220 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 221 Local Military Matters Bridging the Military-Civilian Gap through College-Community Interactions D. Alexis Hart (ahart@allegheny.edu) Allegheny College Abstract The call for papers for the 3rd annual Veterans in Society Conference included a statement made by President Ruscio of Washington & Lee University in which he wondered “whether people with different backgrounds, different experiences and different opinions can address difficult questions and, if not necessarily agree with one another, at least strive, with mutual respect, to better understand each other and to find common ground.” Similar questions have been asked by generations of military veterans with respect to the potential impact of their military backgrounds and experiences in their lives as civilians. The oft-cited PEW Research Center’s 2011 study of war and sacrifice in the Post-9/11 era draws attention to the “military-civilian gap” and notes that this gap “is much wider among younger respondents.”1 Consequently, as Woll writes, “Reintegration challenges can be particularly pronounced for young service members and veterans enrolling in or returning to colleges, universities . . . where most of the students are younger and lack experience with and exposure to the military.”2 Such lack of experience and understanding on the part of “traditional” college students not only can lead to student-veterans feeling frustrated or isolated in classrooms but also, at an extreme, result in behaviors such as those of the University of Florida fraternity members whose chapter was suspended after an incident in which disabled military veterans were verbally insulted and spat upon.3 In an effort to bridge the “military-civilian gap” and to help military veterans and college students “better understand each other,” I designed a first-year seminar titled “Meadville’s Military Matters” in which first-year college students at a four- year liberal arts college interacted with, interviewed, and composed profiles and “war stories” (using David Venditta’s War Stories: In Their Own Words as a model) for military veterans in the local community. While doing so, the students were asked to develop responses to the questions: Why does the military matter to the local community, to the nation, the world? What military matters have shaped the local community’s economy, history, landscape, etc.? Keywords: military-civilian gap, student-veterans, college students, military veterans, community-engaged courses Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society222 Local M ilitary M atters: B ridging the M ilitary-C ivilian G ap through C ollege-C om m unity Interactions R ationale C ourse: “M eadville’s M ilitary M atters” C ourse D escription: In this section of FS 101, w hich is connected to the “Year of M eadville,” students w ill hone their abilities as readers, w riters, listeners, and speakers by interacting w ith people and places throughout M eadville and C raw ford C ounty and conducting prim ary and secondary research to discover w hy the m ilitary m atters to M eadville. A ssignm ents: • Interview of a local veteran • “W ar Story” based upon D avid Venditta’s collection W ar S tories In Their O w n W ords: P ennsylvania Veterans Tell of S acrifice and C ourage • A rtifact D escription of one of the m ilitary artifacts at the B aldw in-R eynolds H ouse M useum • W ar M em orial D escription and A nalysis of one of the m ilitary m em orials in S aint A gatha C em etery or D iam ond P ark • W ar M em orial D escription and A nalysis Speech • Public Poster Presentation G uest S peakers: Tony and M arsha Pedone Lilac S prings Veterans B reakaw ay Pat Em ig N orthw est P ennsylvania M useum of M ilitary H eritage C laude A nshin Thom as Vietnam W ar Veteran and B uddhist M onk K irk Savage P rofessor, H istory of A rt and A rchitecture, U niversity of Pittsburgh Field Trips: B aldw in-R eynolds H ouse M useum Saint A gatha C em etery D iam ond Park A ctive A ging: “Through A Veteran’s E ye” S tudent R esponses: “The readings and speakers really helped m e have a better understanding of how m uch the m ilitary m atters to the tow n of M eadville.“ “The repeated m essages from guest speakers and assigned readings have given m e m ore insight into w hy the m ilitary m atters.” “A ssigned readings and veteran interview s have contributed m ost to increase m y understanding of m ilitary m atters.” D . A lexis H art, PhD , A ssociate Professor of English and D irector of W riting “B elieving w ar is beyond w ords is an abrogation of responsibility — it lets civilians off the hook from trying to understand, and veterans off the hook from needing to explain… . If the past 10 years have taught us anything, it’s that in the age of an all-volunteer m ilitary, it is far too easy for A m ericans to send soldiers on deploym ent after deploym ent w ithout m aking a serious effort to im agine w hat that m eans. W e can do better.” --P hil K lay, form er U S M arine and w inner of the N ational B ook Aw ard for R edeploym ent “A s the size of the m ilitary shrinks, the connections betw een m ilitary personnel and the broader civilian population appear to be grow ing m ore distant. This m ilitary-civilian gap is m uch w ider am ong younger respondents.” “There is a w idely held perception am ong both veterans and civilians that the public does not understand the problem s faced by those in the m ilitary.” “The stories w e tell consistently portray veterans in extrem es — either em phasizing vets’ heroism beyond com prehension or their propensity for erratic violence.” --C apt. Shannon M eehan, R et., U .S . A rm y "P eople should get to know som eone in the m ilitary — befriend your m ilitary neighbor… The best thing that can happen is for people to have natural, hum an relationships w ith one another." --M eredith K leykam p, A ssociate P rofessor of Sociology at the U niversity of M aryland The Year of M eadville is about building a sustainable and just future for our tow n by: • C elebrating M eadville and the voices of its residents • Listening to, learning from , and building w ith each other Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 223 About the Author D. Alexis Hart is an Associate Professor of English and the Director of Writing at Allegheny College in Meadville, Pennsylvania. A U.S. Navy veteran, Hart has published and edited scholarly work on veterans’ issues, and was the co-recipient, with Roger Thompson, of a 2010 Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) Research Grant to study veterans returning to college writing classrooms. She is co-chair of the CCCC Task Force on Veterans and a National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Policy Analyst for Higher Education in Pennsylvania. Endnotes 1. “The Military-Civilian Gap: Fewer Family Connections,” PEW Research Center, 2011, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/23/the-military-civilian-gap-fewer-family- connections/ 2. Woll, Pam, Teaching America’s Best: Preparing Your Classrooms to Welcome Returning Veterans and Service Members (Bethesda, MD: National Organization on Disability, 2010). 3. “Florida Frat Suspended After Allegedly Harassing Veterans,” CBS News, April 2015, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-fraternity-suspended-after-allegedly- harassing-veterans/ References “The Military-Civilian Gap: Fewer Family Connections.” PEW Research Center. 2011. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/23/the-military-civilian-gap-fewer- family-connections/ “University of Florida Frat Shut Down for Harassing Military Veterans,” Huffington Post, April 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/28/university-of-florida- fratveterans_n_7164668.html Venditta, David. War Stories: In Their Own Words. Allentown, PA: The Morning Call, 2011. Woll, Pam. Teaching America’s Best: Preparing Your Classrooms to Welcome Returning Veterans and Service Members. Bethesda, MD: National Organization on Disability, 2010. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society224 Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 225 Summary of Featured Sessions (listed in order of scheduled appearance) Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society226 Dr. James Marten, Marquette University (keynote address) James Marten, professor and department chair, became the second member of the history department to be awarded Marquette University’s Lawrence G. Haggerty Faculty Award for Excellence in Research (Athan Theoharis received the award in 2002). Marten is founding secretary-treasurer of the Society for the History of Children and Youth and past president of the Society of Civil War Historians. In addition to forty journal articles, essays, and chapters in books, Dr. Marten has written or edited a dozen books, including Sing Not War: Civil War Veterans in Gilded Age America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011), Alternate Selection, History Book Club; Civil War America: Voices from the Home Front (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2003; New York: Fordham University Press, rev. paperback, 2007); Children and Youth in a New Nation (2009); Children in Colonial America (2006); Childhood and Child Welfare in the Progressive Era: A Brief History with Documents (2004); Children and War: A Historical Anthology (2002); and The Children’s Civil War (1998). The Children’s Civil War won the Alpha Sigma Nu Jesuit National Book Award for History in 1999 and was named an “Outstanding Academic Book” by Choice Magazine. In 1999 Marten also received a four-year, $176,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities for the Children in Urban America Project, an online archive of documents related to children and youth in Milwaukee from the 1850s to 2000. In 1999 he spent a semester as a Fulbright lecturer at Northeast Normal University in Changchun, China. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 227 Secretary, John C. Harvey, Jr., Admiral, U.S. Navy, (RET.), Secretary of Veterans and Defense Affairs, Commonwealth of Virginia (guest presentation) John C. Harvey, Jr., a retired U.S. Navy Admiral, was sworn in as Virginia’s Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security in January 2014. By legislation signed on March 3, 2014, Governor McAuliffe renamed and refocused Secretary Harvey’s post, which is now the Secretary of Veterans and Defense Affairs. After graduating from the United States Naval Academy in 1973, Secretary Harvey served our country as a nuclear-trained surface warfare officer for over thirty-nine years. Among the many sea-duty tours in his career, Secretary Harvey served as the reactor officer in the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS NIMITZ(CVN 68) and positions as Commanding Officer of the destroyer USS DAVID R RAY(DD 971), the cruiser USS CAPE ST GEORGE(CG 71), and during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT Carrier Strike Group. Secretary Harvey also served in a variety of manpower and personnel policy positions while on shore duty, including being appointed in 2005 as the Chief of Naval Personnel, the Navy’s senior uniformed human resources official. As Secretary, Harvey is responsible for the oversight of all veterans-related issues in Virginia, executed through the Department of Veteran Services, and ensuring that a productive relationship is maintained with the military services and Department of Defense activities located within the Commonwealth. Secretary Harvey also leads Governor McAuliffe’s initiatives focused on military communities to ensure that Virginia remains the base and installation location of choice and is the most “military-friendly” state in the nation for the hundreds of thousands of Servicemen and women and their families who serve throughout the state and call Virginia home. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society228 Speed Killed My Cousin, a play by the Carpetbag Theater, Inc. (performance and talk-back) Linda Parris-Bailey, is primary Playwright- in- Residence and Executive/Artistic Director of the Knoxville, TN-based Carpetbag Theatre Inc., “a professional, multigenerational ensemble company dedicated to the production of new works giving artistic voice to the issues and dreams of people who have been silenced by racism, classism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression.” Her story-based plays with music focused on themes of transformation and empowerment. Her current work, Speed Killed My Cousin (2012), presents the story of a young, African- American female veteran of the Iraq War, and her struggle with Post Traumatic Stress disorder and Military Sexual Trauma; it was awarded a NEFA National Theater Project grant to support touring (2015) and an NPN Creation Fund grant (2011). Between a Ballad and a Blues (2008), her ode to Appalachian renaissance man Howard “Louie Blue” Armstrong, was developed with support from the NPN Creation Fund (2007) and the Arts Presenters Ensemble Theatre Collaborations (2006). (Playwright Linda Parris- Bailey just received a Doris Duke Artist Award for 2015.) Her published works can be found in several anthologies including Alternate Roots, Plays from the Southern Theatre; Ensemble Works; Monologues for Actors of Color; and High Performance and Breathing the Same Air. She currently serves on the Management Committee of the International Women Playwrights Conference in Stockholm, Sweden. Her work was performed at the WPI conference in Australia. As a cultural worker, Parris- Bailey has worked in communities throughout the United States including residencies for the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and New World Theatre. She has been the recipient of the Otto Award for Political Theater, Circle of Change Award and Artist of the Year. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 229 Cast Bert Tanner has performed with the Carpetbag Theatre since 1985 in Cric? Crac!, Red Summer, Dark Cowgirls and Prairie Queens, Nothin’ Nice, and Swopera. His regional credits include Caleb in Miss Evers’ Boys, Winin’ Boy in Piano Lesson, Sam in Master Harold and the Boys, Chief Priest of the Sun in Royal Hunt of the Sun, Peacock in When the Nightingale Sings, and Daddy Grace in Love Johnny. Carlton “Starr” Releford made his professional debut in 1999. Since then he has worked with numerous theatre companies including the Bijou Theatre, Clarence Brown Theatre, Word Players and Actor’s Co-Op. He currently performs regularly as a spoken word artist with Black Sunshine Arts and Entertainment. He feels blessed and thanks God for this opportunity. Ashley Wilkerson is an award winning actress, poet, and performance artist. She received her BA in Cultural Studies and Media from Eugene Lang College—The New School for Liberal Arts in New York City. She is a graduate of Booker T. Washington High School for the Performing and Visual Arts (Theatre). Selected stage credits include August Wilson’s Jitney (Rena, AART), The Wake of Jamey Foster (Pixrose Wilson, Cherry Lane Theatre), her award winning solo show, Freckly In My Eye (commissioned by the South Dallas Cultural Center), and the DFW Theater Critics selection: Coco & Gigi (Gigi, Echo Theater). She stars in the feature film Swetwater (Dir. Brian Skiba) and has appeared in several national commercials, music videos, and print advertisements. www.dawnofashley.com. Guest Director Andrea Assaf (director) is a writer, performer, director and cultural organizer. She’s the founding Artistic Director of Art2Action Inc., co-founder of the Institute for Directing & Ensemble Creation (with Pangea World Theater), and consultant with the Arts & Democracy Project. She’s a former Artistic Director of New WORLD Theater (2004–09), and former Program Associate for Animating Democracy (2001–04). Andrea has a Masters degree in Performance Studies and BFA in acting, both from NYU. Her performance work ranges from interdisciplinary collaborations, to community-based arts, to spoken word. Recent original touring works include Outside the Circle, with Samuel Valdez (2012), and Eleven Reflections on September (2011). Andrea serves on the Executive Committee of Alternate ROOTS, the Board of the Consortium of Asian American Theatres & Artists (CAATA), and the International Management Committee of Women Playwrights International (WPI); she is a member of the Radius of Arab American Writers (RAAW). Supporting Crew Brett Carlston is a junior at Virginia Tech. He is majoring in Theatre Arts and minoring in Music. Brett works in production at the Center for the Arts at Virginia Tech and was an assistant sound designer for the Virginia Tech Theatre Department’s production of Trojan Women this fall. Lara Periard is a senior at Virginia Tech double majoring in Theatre Arts and Humanities, Sciences, & the Environment. She has worked backstage on several productions with VT’s School of Performing Arts, including stage managing for the graduate student production of Swollen Tongues this past Spring and performing in an Actor as Author documentary theatre public showing led by Matthew Francis in 2014. Proceedings of the Third Conference on Veterans in Society230 The Legacy and Symbolism of the Confederate Battle Flag (Panel Presentation) • Dr. John Coski is author of The Confederate Battle Flag: America’s Most Embattled Emblem. The book looks at the flag’s history and the various meanings attached to it. Some people view it as a symbol of white supremacy and racial injustice; others think it represents a rich Southern heritage. Coski is historian and library director at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Va. • Dr. Wornie Reed is the director of the Race and Social Research Policy Center at Virginia Tech. He is also a member of the Dialogue on Race in Montgomery County. Among his many publications are Racial Profiling: Causes and Consequences (with Ronnie Dunn) and Handbook of African American Health: Social and Behavioral Interventions. Roanoke, VA • November 12–14, 2015 231 Tim O’Brien, author of The Things They Carried (plenary presentation) Tim O’Brien was born in 1946 in Austin, Minnesota, and he spent most of his youth in the small town of Worthington, Minnesota. He graduated summa cum laude from Macalester College in 1968. From February 1969 to March 1970 he served as infantryman with the U.S. Army in Vietnam, after which he pursued graduate studies in government at Harvard University. He worked as a national affairs reporter for The Washington Post from 1973 to 1974. His writing career was launched in 1973 with the release of If I Die in a Combat Zone, Box Me Up and Ship Me Home (1973), about his war experiences. In this memoir, O’Brien writes: “Can the foot soldier teach anything important about war, merely for having been there? I think not. He can tell war stories.” His short fiction has appeared in The New Yorker, Esquire, Harper’s, The Atlantic, Playboy, and Ploughshares, and in several editions of The Best American Short Stories and The O. Henry Prize Stories. In 1987, O’Brien received the National Magazine Award for the short story, “The Things They Carried,” and in 1999 it was selected for inclusion in THE BEST AMERICAN SHORT STORIES OF THE CENTURY edited by John Updike. O’Brien is the recipient of literary awards from the American Academy of Arts and Letters, the Guggenheim Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Arts. O’Brien won the 1979 National Book Award for Going After Cacciato. His novel In the Lake of the Woods won the James Fenimore Cooper Prize for Best Historical Fiction in 1995. In August 2012, O’Brien received the Dayton Literary Peace Prize Foundation’s Richard C. Holbrooke Distinguished Achievement Award. In June 2013, O’Brien was awarded the $100,000 Pritzker Military Library Literature Award. He has been elected to both the Society of American Historians and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. O’Brien currently holds the University Endowed Chair in Creative Writing at Texas State University. He lives with his wife and children in Austin, Texas. About the Veterans in Society (ViS) Group at Virginia Tech Overview The Veterans Studies group at Virginia Tech is committed to researching and engaging the enduring questions raised by military veterans, including questions of identity, role in society, and how past vet- erans’ experiences can inform today’s policies and action. We are comprised of faculty, staff, and students; we include veterans, military family members, and community members, all committed to the important work of exploring veterans’ issues in contemporary society. Our work is grounded in the humanities and social sciences, seeking to contextualize and make connec- tions among the experiences of veterans of different eras, locations, and modes of service. We value rich scholarship with meaningful connections to the world beyond academia. Mission Statement The Veterans Studies group calls attention to the rich diversity and experiences of veterans and military families. We encourage new ways of thinking that promote both inclusive communities and inclusive scholarship that takes seriously veterans as a category of anFeaturalysis. About The Center for the Study of Rhetoric in Society (CSRS) The Center for the Study of Rhetoric in Society examines communications in public, nonprofit, academ- ic, corporate, and governmental settings to better understand language in use. How does language inspire people to action? How does writing change society, and why? The CSRS searches for answers by studying everything from the communication strategies of a national social change movement to “everyday rhetorics” that often go unnoticed or unexamined. All of the center’s research and creative projects combine research methods developed in rhetoric and writing studies with methods across the disciplines. Through externally funded research and outreach, the CSRS seeks to translate analysis into action. The CSRS welcomes collaboration and partnerships with other academic units, community organi- zations, corporations, scholars, and activists in Virginia, the United States, and internationally. See http://www.rhetoric.english.vt.edu/ for more information. CONTACT INFORMATION For questions regarding the conference: Dr. James M. Dubinsky, Director Center for the Study of Rhetoric in Society (CSRS) Department of English, Virginia Tech. 540- 231- 1939 / dubinsky@vt.edu More info about ViS: http://veteransinsociety.wordpress.com/ VT Veterans Studies Group Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA 24061 November 12-14, 2015 the third conference on Veterans in Society