A new world a new American foreign policy: the Carter administration, Nicaragua, and the legacy of the Vietnam War, 1977-1981

The impact of the Vietnam War conditioned the Carter administration’s response to the Nicaraguan revolution in ways that reduced US engagement with both sides of the conflict. It made the countries of Latin America counter the US approach and find their own solution to the crisis, and allowed Cuba to play a greater role in guiding the overthrow of Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle. This thesis re-evaluates Carter’s policy through the legacy of the Vietnam War, because US executive anxieties about military intervention, Congress’s increasing influence, and US public concerns about the nation’s global responsibilities, shaped the Carter approach to Nicaragua. Following a background chapter, the Carter administration’s policy towards Nicaragua is evaluated, before and after the fall of Somoza in July 1979. The extent of the Vietnam influence on US-Nicaraguan relations is developed by researching government documents on the formation of US policy, including material from the Jimmy Carter Library, the Library of Congress, the National Security Archive, the National Archives and Records Administration, and other government and media sources from the United Nations Archives, New York University, the New York Public Library, the Hoover Institution Archives, Tulane University and the Organization of American States. The thesis establishes that the Vietnam legacy played a key role in the Carter administration’s approach to Nicaragua. Before the overthrow of Somoza, the Carter administration limited their influence in Nicaragua because they felt there was no immediate threat from communism. The US feared that an active role in Nicaragua, without an established threat from Cuba or the Soviet Union, could jeopardise congressional support for other foreign policy goals deemed more important. The Carter administration, as a result, pursued a policy of non-intervention towards the Central American country. After the fall of Somoza, and the establishment of a new government with a left wing element represented by the Sandinistas, the Carter administration emphasised non-intervention in a military sense, but actively engaged with the new Nicaraguan leadership to contain the potential communist influence that could spread across Central America in the wake of the Nicaraguan revolution.

Diverse heritage: exploring literary identity in the American Southwest

Since the age of colonisation, the territory of New Mexico has been exposed to a diversity of cultural influence. Throughout recorded history various forces have battled for control of this territory, resulting in a continuous redefinition of its political, geographic and economic boundaries. Early representations of the Southwest have been defined as “strategies of negotiation” between Anglo, Hispanic and Native populations, strategies that are particularly evident in the territory of New Mexico. The contemporary identity of regions like northern New Mexico have destabilised the notion of what constitutes racial purity in regions which are defined by diversity. This thesis aims to evaluate the literary history of northern New Mexico in order to determine how exposure to a diversity of cultural influence has affected the region’s identity. An analysis of Anglo and Native writers from northern New Mexico will illustrate that these racial groups were influenced by the same geographic landscape. As such, their writing displays many characteristics unique to the region. In providing a comparative analysis of Native and Anglo authors from northern New Mexico, this thesis seeks to demonstrate commonalities of theme, structure and content. In doing so this research encourages a new perspective on New Mexico writing one which effectively de-centres contemporary notions of what the American canon should be.

Redefining military memorials and commemoration and how they have changed since the 19th century with a focus on Anglo-American practice

This thesis is a study of military memorials and commemoration with a focus on Anglo-American practice. The main question is: How has history defined military memorials and commemoration and how have they changed since the 19th century. In an effort to resolve this, the work examines both historic and contemporary forms of memorials and commemoration and establishes that remembrance in sites of collective memory has been influenced by politics, conflicts and religion. Much has been written since the Great War about remembrance and memorialization; however, there is no common lexicon throughout the literature. In order to better explain and understand this complex subject, the work includes an up-to-date literature review and for the first time, terminologies are properly explained and defined. Particular attention is placed on recognizing important military legacies, being familiar with spiritual influences and identifying classic and new signs of remembrance. The thesis contends that commemoration is composed of three key principles – recognition, respect and reflection – that are intractably linked to the fabric of memorials. It also argues that it is time for the study of memorials to come of age and proposes Memorialogy as an interdisciplinary field of study of memorials and associated commemorative practices. Moreover, a more modern, adaptive, General Classification System is presented as a means of identifying and re-defining memorials according to certain groups, types and forms. Lastly, this thesis examines how peacekeeping and peace support operations are being memorialized and how the American tragic events of 11 September 2001 and the war in Afghanistan have forever changed the nature of memorials and commemoration within Canada and elsewhere. This work goes beyond what has been studied and written about over the last century and provides a deeper level of analysis and a fresh approach to understanding the field of Memorialogy.

“Something isn’t right here”: American exceptionalism and the creative nonfiction of the Vietnam War

In this thesis, I argue that few attempts were as effective in correcting the exceptionalist ethos of the United States than the creative nonfiction written by the veterans and journalists of the Vietnam War. Using critical works on creative nonfiction, I identify the characteristics of the genre that allowed Paul John Eakin to call it ‘a special kind of fiction.’ I summarise a brief history of creative nonfiction to demonstrate how it became a distinctly American form despite its Old World origins. I then claim that it was the genre most suited to the kind of ideological transformation that many hoped to instigate in U.S. society in the aftermath of Vietnam. Following this, the study explores how this “new” myth-making process occurred. I use Tim O’Brien’s If I Die in a Combat Zone and Philip Caputo’s A Rumor of War to illustrate how autobiography/memoir was able to demonstrate the detrimental effect that America’s exceptionalist ideology was having on its population. Utilising narrative and autobiographical theory, I contend that these accounts represented a collective voice which spoke for all Americans in the years after Vietnam. Using Neil Sheehan’s A Bright Shining Lie and C.D.B. Bryan’s Friendly Fire, I illustrate how literary journalism highlighted the hubris of the American government. I contend that while poiesis is an integral attribute of creative nonfiction, by the inclusion of extraneous bibliographic material, authors of the genre could also be seen as creating a literary context predisposing the reader towards an empirical interpretation of the events documented within. Finally, I claim that oral histories were in their essence a synthesis of “everyman” experiences very much in keeping with the American zeitgeist of the early Eighties. Focussing solely on Al Santoli’s Everything We Had, I demonstrate how such polyphonic narratives personalised the history of the Vietnam War.