New Mini-Documentary

Brooklyn College has posted a mini-documentary featuring me and two women who served in Vietnam. (Gotta say, I ain’t a TV natural!)

This was shot over a year ago, and it highlights two amazing women. Sue O’Neil was a nurse at the 27th Surgical Hospital in Vietnam, and Dr. Jeannie Christie served as a Red Cross volunteer in Vietnam – a ‘Donut Dolly.’

We did this because it is my opinion that the Ken Burns epic documentary on Vietnam that airs in fall 2017 severely slighted the stories of American women in Vietnam. As Dianne Carlson Evans, the founder of the Vietnam Women’s Memorial frequently points out, perhaps 260,000 American women lived worked and served in Vietnam during the war years.

Vietnam Veterans Recognition Day, March 25, 2017


Danny Friedman, Chapter 72, Brooklyn at the March 25, 2017 Vietnam Veterans Recognition Day, 55 Water Street, Manhattan. Danny is profiled in my book Bringing it All Back Home: An Oral History of New York City’s Vietnam Veterans.

 Jimmy Bacolo. Jimmy is profiled in my book, Bringing It All Back Home.

New York City’s Gold Star Families standing in front of the Vietnam Memorial Wall, 55 Water Street.

Day Two


Day two of the VVA Board of Directors and Conferencen of State Chapter Presidents meeting, Silver Spring, MD. Very moving and useful. Great opportunities for oral histories here.

The VVA is worrying about its longevity. Some years ago it decided to be a ‘last man standing’ organization. How long can it hold out? If the decision is made to close down, how will this be done? The VVA has assets that will have to be disposed of. But, even as discussion about this issue grows, membership numbers are increasing nationally; VVA now has 78,816 members, an all time high. 

Talk at Automotive High School

Anthony Wallace and I spoke today at Automotive High School, in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, to a ‘learning community’ that had spent several weeks reading and discussing Tim O’Brien’s Vietnam War novel, The Things We Carried. We were honored by the invitation.

The Principal, Mrs. Lafergola-Stanczuk and her staff made us feel welcome, and the students were well behaved and well prepared. They even gave us both gift bags filled with a remarkable array of Automotive High School items, for which I am very grateful.

The event took place in the auditorium. In preparation, students had created a replica of a fragment of the Vietnam Memorial Wall in Washington, DC.

Wallace at Automotive HS May 2 2014_MG_2024

The students had taken care to place on their replica the names of Thurman Wolfe, Joseph DiGregorio and William DiSantis. These men were members of a squad Sgt. Wallace commanded as part of B Co, 2nd Bn, 7th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division, when he served in Vietnam in 1970.

These men have a special significance for Mr. Wallace. The reason is explained in a note left on the Virtual Wall. It reads: “On the night of 15/16 April 1970, Fire Support Base Atkinson, located about 4 miles northwest of Dong Xoai in Tay Ninh Province, was attacked by a reinforced battalion from the 95C NVA Regiment. The fight resulted in 25 US wounded in action and 7 dead.”

Wolfe, DiGregorio and DiSantis were killed. Wallace was wounded among the wounded.

When he saw those names on the replica wall, Mr. Wallace offered them a military salute, as he does every time he reports for service as a National Park Service Yellow Hat at the Wall in Washington.

After an introduction by Mrs. Lafergola-Stanczuk, I spoke for about five minutes in an effort to place Sgt. Wallace’s comments in context. I told the students about American casualties in Vietnam, gave them some factual information about their chances of being wounded, had they been an infantry soldier during the war years.

Mr. Wallace followed, and told him of his personal experience.

Easily the most interesting part of the event was the question-and-answer session. The students had clearly come prepared with questions to ask, based on their understanding of the Tim O’Brian novel.

Students wanted to know if Mr. Wallace had experienced racism while in the American military, and whether or not he would serve again, given the opportunity to go back in time. He told them that as an African-American man, he well understood the special burdens American citizenship placed on people of color, but nevertheless believed then, and continues to think, that citizens have obligations to their nation.

He told them that one reason he felt good about his service is that the American military at the time, in his opinion, offered rapid advancement to anyone, regardless of color, if they were proven capable. He reminded them that in order to become a noncommissioned officer he had to take tests and receive qualifying scores, and that once admitted to NCO school, he was evaluated according to a system that paid no attention to color, but rather competence. As a result, he graduated fifth in his class from NCO school.

Students wanted to know about the psychological impact of service in Vietnam. One asked if he suffered from post traumatic stress, and another wondered if he suffered from “shell shock.” While he indicated he did not suffer from shell shock while in Vietnam, and continues to believe that he does not suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, he nevertheless acknowledges that other people have suggested that at least some of his behaviors, such as sleeplessness, could be related to PTSD.

Because so much of the media image of the Vietnam War involves depictions of American military personnel killing civilians, students wanted to talk about that. He was asked if he had seen civilians and/or children killed. He said no; in Tay Ninh Province he saw almost no civilians at all. He did recount an incident in which he watched a young boy, perhaps 9 or 10 years old, disassemble and reassemble an America M-16 rifle in a fashion that suggested that the young man knew precisely what he was doing, just as a soldier might.

Other questions circled around the issue of killing in combat. One individual asked about the personal items he carried while in Vietnam, and Mr. Wallace explained that, among other things, he carried his Holy Bible, and tried to read it as often as he could, sometimes by moonlight, and on other occasions under a tarpaulin, by flashlight.

Given that, students were interested in the potential ethical and moral conflict between the Bible’s attitude toward killing and his obligations as a soldier. Mr. Wallace explained that as an American soldier in a combat situation, it was too late to worry about biblical injunctions against killing. At that time, he used his rifle as quickly and accurately as he could, because if he did not, the enemy surely would.

The students were engaged enough to listen through two class periods, and we joined a small group of them for coffee and muffins in the principal’s conference room. We spoke with them briefly, and learned a little bit about their thoughts concerning the O’Brian novel.

All in all, it was a privilege to be asked to visit Automotive, and Mr. Wallace and I would be delighted to do it again.

Automotive HS May 2 2014

WNET Interview

On Veterans Day, WNET (channels 13 and 21) posted an interview I did with them about the amazing veterans that I profile in my book. The segment airs on TV tonight and tomorrow:

WLIW(@WLIW21) Wednesday 11/13 7:30 pm
Thirteen(@ThirteenNY) Thursday 11/14 8:30 pm
NJTV (@NJTVonline) Thursday 11/14 10:30 pm

New York Public Library Talk, November 5, 2013

(Above, left to right: Everett Cox, Joan Furey, Earl Jacobson, Philip Napoli. Photo credit: Alexandra Kelley, NYPL)
On Tuesday, November 5 I had the privilege of hosting a panel  discussion at the New York Public Library. Four Vietnam veterans told their stories, two of whom, Joan Furey and Herbert Sweat, are profiled in my book Bringing It All Back Home.  All four have recorded oral histories. Below is a very lightly edited version of the opening remarks I made.


            I’d like to begin my saying how honored I am to be here speaking with you. I want thank Alexandra Kelly, Emily Jacobson and the NYPL Outreach Services staff for inviting me, for providing us with this fabulous space in which to meet, and allowing us all to collectively honor and listen to the veterans that we have with us here tonight.

My job in these first few minutes is to help establish a context for the comments that will follow. I’d like to talk for just a bit about three things: the power of listening, about oral history, and about the general, popular understanding of Vietnam veterans.


We have with us 4 veterans of the American war in Vietnam; Joan Furey, who served in Vietnam as a nurse in 1969; Herbert Sweat, who served with the 173rd Airborne Brigade in 1968; Everett Cox, who served with the 245th Surveillance Airplane Company in 1969, and Earl Jacobson who served with Task Force Alpha, at the Nak-hon Pha-non Royal Thai Air Base, in Thailand.

Our goal over the next hour is to listen to them; to try to slow ourselves down, and truly, deeply hear, about the meaning of war from men and women who have served our country abroad in the Vietnam War.

The reasons for doing this, for tonight’s exercise in deep listening, are of course as varied as the people in the audience. I’d like to offer my own.

I listen, and I invite you to listen, not just out of respect for the service of the men and women in front of us — although that’s a real enough reason to do so — but also because their stories contain a series of truths — about race, about gender, about sacrifice and healing, and about the long-term meaning of military service. These truths are subjective — personal to the teller. But they are real none the less for that, and in my view, these stories and their truths help us think and learn about ourselves.

For example, by listening to these veterans, we – civilians like myself — can learn about the hard choices people sometimes have to make, and that can allow us to reflect on our own lives and circumstances. Choices made in wartime can sometimes literally have life-or-death consequences, and by listening to and understanding the choices made by veterans in war, we can place our own decisions in perspective. Furthermore, the stories of veterans can teach us about how people persevere in the face of adversity; how people can work to overcome the difficulties they face. This is something we can learn from, too.

I’m leery of talking about the “healing” power of conversation, for talk of healing seems to me to suggest that we want injuries to somehow go away – and the injuries of war never really do. But perhaps these veterans can teach us how one works toward that goal. Maybe they can show us that healing is a journey, a process, an objective — not a thing — and help us understand their voyages – and therefore our own.

This kind of listening, can, correspondingly, have a deep impact on the veterans themselves. More than one of the approximately 200 veterans I spoke with in my Vietnam project told me that the our conversations allowed them to express things that they had never shared before. One veteran told me that by speaking with me about his military service, he felt empowered to turn to his father, also a veteran, and forge a new bond on the basis of that shared experience. Mr. Sweat once indicated I played a role in his feeling welcomed home. I was and remain deeply honored by that  remark.

Oral History

Turning to the subject of oral history, this project, this effort to hear with all parts of our system awake and alive to the sounds of truth, lies at the heart of the practice of oral history – my professional field. Allow me therefore to say a word about oral history, which forms the basis for tonight’s panel discussion. Oral history is something of a misnomer that can lead to confusion, but there is no better term around. It is sometimes called oral testimony, too, but that sounds like something that would occur in a court.

Oral history is not the same as “history” as you know it from college classes and books that are based on documents created by people at the time events take place. To understand oral history and its aims, you have to put aside the empiricist notions of history that are in common circulation, in which there is a world of objective, knowable fact, and it is the historian’s job to simply find and record those facts. Academic history doesn’t really work like that in the first place, and oral history certainly does not.

Like historical research as traditionally practiced in the academy, oral history is interested in what took place in the past, but is equally interested in what the events of the past mean now. In this way, it deals principally with the intersection of the present and the past, the way the past lives on in the present. It is about both the past and the present at the same time.

It is an interdisciplinary field, and has much in common with sociology, psychology, anthropology, journalism, but also overlapping with history as more traditionally understood. Oral historians also deal with the archival record (I spend as much time in the archives as I do recording people) but we add to those accounts new ones, created retrospectively, via memory, with all of the faults and problems — and all of the rewards — that this will imply.

We get at these memories and their meanings using the qualitative interview method that emphasizes participant’s perspectives. We follow an open-ended interview model, in which the researcher guides a narrator through his or her story.

The data of oral history is the result of that collaborative exchange, usually recorded on audio or video, and then transcribed, shared and interpreted.

Each of tonight’s panelists has engaged in that process, either with me or with the NYPL Outreach staff, and our discussion tonight will revolve around the recollections uncovered in the process.

Oral history exists, in part, because for hundreds of years only the literate and powerful left historical records behind. This fact shapes the history that can be told about the past. Today, when most people, at least in the US, have a basic level of literacy, we are too busy to produce historical records about our lives. We don’t write letters anymore, we email, at best. Perhaps we text. And many times we just pick up the phone if we need to communicate something. For this reason oral history provides one means – perhaps the very best means – of capturing the intimate, private and subjective stories that are critical, but at the same time so often missing, from the historical record. Tonight is a celebration of the stories of the veterans of our wonderfully diverse city – only made possible by the practice of oral history.

One result of our being together tonight, I hope, will be to encourage you, your families and friends to connect to the NYPL Outreach Services staff, and to help them record the histories of the veterans you know. Information on the NYPL project, and a sign up sheet, is available for you in the back of the room.

A few Comments about Vietnam and Vietnam Veterans

There have been various tellings of the history of Vietnam veterans and their lives after the war. In many studies they are understood either as examples of special interest activism as they crusade for a cause such as compensation for Agent Orange exposure, or as illustrations of  “social problems” — men and women pathologically reshaped by their Vietnam experiences. Post-traumatic stress disorder plays a central role in this literature. Much of the time the words “veteran,” and “illness” are linked. These issues have shaped the pubic perception of what it means to be a Vietnam veteran – indeed a veteran generally.

No one in this room would challenge the reality of PTSD or traumatic brain injury, or Agent Orange-related illness, or the need for veteran’s activism, but the reduction of the veteran’s experiences to these themes is profoundly misleading, and in my view, unfair.

So, tonight we will hear about PTSD, undoubtedly, and about illness and suffering, but also about recovery. We will hear about racism, but also about our potential to overcome racism. We will hear about the public reception of Vietnam veterans in the 1970s, but also about the pride veterans take in their service. We will hear about a range of experiences, all of which were true, to one degree or another, for veterans from NYC, and the nation generally.

If we listen to these men and women and what they have to say, carefully and deeply, we can bear witness to their story, their truth, and the multiple meanings of Vietnam. Using what we learn, we can become faithful storytellers, altering perceptions of Vietnam and its veterans one by one, as we move through the world.

Book Talk October 15 at the Lilac Light House Tender




Tuesday, October 15, 6:00 to 8:00 PM
(presentation begins at 6:30)

Philip F. Napoli, director of the Veterans Oral History Project at Brooklyn College, speaks about Bringing It All Back Home, a new book drawing on in-depth oral history interviews he conducted with more than two hundred military veterans between 2004 and 2010.

He will be joined by several of those featured in the book to to discuss their experiences both in Vietnam and as veterans after the war.  LILAC’s long-time volunteer, Jimmy Bacolo, will be among those sharing memories of coming home.