experiences in the field

Jessica N. Pham
Warfare in the 20th Century
Alfred Hunt

FIELD WORK PAPER

Brief personal narrative:

Selecting Semester at Sea as my study abroad program was a decision that resulted in personal conflicting thoughts and occasionally even doubt. For some time, I questioned if the program was “right” for me. On one hand, I felt that had I settled on a program set in one location (such as Paris, France or Buenos Aires, Argentina), I would have truly experienced a single culture in its entirety. On the other hand, the idea of sailing around the world and seeing many cultures, no matter how briefly, is a concept so remarkable that it struck me as almost unreal. As the program progressed, I steadily adjusted to the immediate changes that had occurred in my life upon leaving to study abroad. I grew to love the program, and I do not regret choosing Semester at Sea. I am grateful to be a part of the small percentage of the population that has circumnavigated the globe.

Though it may sound cliché, one truly finds himself during a life-changing experience such as studying or living abroad. I questioned many aspects of human nature that I never had previously. My inner debates and questionings were focused more and more on why people behave the way they do, or make the decisions that they do.

As we ventured further along into our voyage, I experienced a personal epiphany. I realized that I had finally mastered the skill of traveling. Rather than remaining simply a tourist, I have evolved into a true traveler. The fact of the matter is I derive more pleasure from exploring than I do from sightseeing. I personally prefer to backpack through a country without a set itinerary or destination in mind. I realized also that I usually felt frustrated after taking part in tourist groups or visiting an overcrowded memorial or museum. So thus developed a new debate within my mind: are the effects of tourism positive or negative? To whom are the results of tourism most beneficial, the presenter or the observer?

Essay: The Clashing Aspects of Tourism

The general concept of tourism is simple and seemingly positive. A country or society has willingly allowed a significant part of their culture to be witnessed and experienced by others. But what is the reasoning that lies behind exposing these memorials, war sites, and museums? Is tourism used to educate the general public? Alter preconceived notions? Portray a political message or standing? Or is a historical site simply used as a means for monetary benefit? Suddenly, the questions seem endless.

A visit to the Cu Chi Tunnels and the Cao Dai Temple in Vietnam reaffirmed a personal curiousness towards the contradicting aspects of tourism. As the field trip began, I immediately perceived the tour guide to be biased. Before crawling through the intricate three-layer tunnel system utilized during the Vietnam War by the North Vietnamese and followers of Ho Chi Minh and the Communist party, our group was briefed on the history of the war in accordance to the tour guide. It was almost shocking to hear an “us versus you” presentation—I found myself personally questioning whether she thought that I should be ashamed for being Vietnamese-American. I also wondered how she and the rest of her company would have reacted if they had known that my parents are from southern Vietnam and left what was then Saigon around the times of the war. After concluding that I was possibly reading too deeply into things, I attempted to take in the remainder of the Cu Chi Tunnels visit with a neutral approach. However, it seemed that the biased beliefs remained on her part. The fact that the Vietnam War began as a civil conflict seemed to be forgotten, and that significant aspect went unmentioned all together. It was not presented as North Vietnam versus South Vietnam or a Communist state versus a Republic, but rather “us against you, the Americans.” A mural of stereotypical images of American soldiers stood behind a display of different types of traps the Viet Cong used during the war. The illustrations featured men that were clearly depicted to be American: large, tall, blond-haired and blue-eyed, with large noses and broad shoulders, falling into human traps wearing foolish expressions on their faces. The tour guide would then narrate along the lines of “then you guys would fall into these traps we invented,” followed by a menacing grin. I was not quite sure how to react, and I know several of my peers were also left with an uneasy feeling.

To be standing on the horrific battle grounds that once saw extreme violence and conflict should have been a surreal experience. Instead, the more souvenir stands I walked by, the more frustrated I became. When I reached the point in the tour in which there was an opportunity to pay money to fire guns, I became passionately angry and questioned the motive of the Cu Chi Tunnels tour. What was the current, direct intention of this historical site turned tourist area? To portray the United States and the South Vietnamese as unintelligent or unsuccessful? Or does it simply come down to the fact that there are two sides to every story, and it is often difficult to remain unbiased? I realize that though every individual perceives any sort of presentation in different ways, I still question the validity and the motives of the presenters. I wondered if we as Americans feel (possibly at a subconscious level) that it is our civic duty to visit these sites in which we had once wreaked havoc or lost lives. Moreover, I would like to know how other non-American foreigners would perceive a tour such as the one I had experienced, and whether they would view what they saw objectively.

Furthermore, I was slightly embarrassed to see some of my fellow peers be more concerned with taking cheery photographs and purchasing souvenirs as evidence of their visit. Had they gone on the field trip because they had heard about this so-called “bloody war” in past history classes or from their parents, and felt obligated to visit the area since they were already conveniently in the country? It seems as though many feel the need to visit a historical site or memorial only to justify and prove that they were in a country. Though this is certainly not always the case, it is often all too common.

Several of my peers visited the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City. Upon discussing their visit afterwards, I learned that they too shared my uneasiness toward how it portrayed the war and were shocked at all the notions of anti-America. I find it both fascinating and disturbing that the museum had once been known as “The Museum for American War Crimes,” and worse, “The House for Displaying War Crimes of American Imperialism and the Puppet Government of South Vietnam.” And as we as Americans refer to it as the “Vietnam War,” it is known to many Vietnamese citizens as the “American War.”

My experience visiting the Cao Dai Temple, however, contradicted my Cu Chi Tunnels tour immensely. Another facet of tourism was displayed: tourism utilized in a manner to expose and educate, but in a different sense. Cao Daiists were praying and going through their usual rituals, while onlookers observed. I found this to be encouraging. Tourism was being used to represent the present, rather than recreate the past. Furthermore, it is encouraging when a faith or culture welcomes others to observe and learn more about important aspects of their ways.

During our time in Japan, I visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. I felt less uneasy than I had felt in Cu Chi, Vietnam. Still, was this museum composed of a series of artifacts that a general public desired to see? Or was it a representation and exhibit portraying a hopeful desire for peace? I am leaning towards the latter concept; the museum was moving and highly educational. As I left the museum, however, I cringed as I walked past a souvenir shop selling overpriced t-shirts that had anti-nuclear weapons messages or “Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum” sprawled across them.

Initially, tourism appeared to be a simple concept. After voyaging around the world, I came to realize that it is multifaceted and complex. Is an aspect of a culture simply condensed and minimized to fit the expectations of the tourist? Or does it shed a light upon past events to prevent history itself from being buried?