16th March 1968 – My Lai Massacre

Posted on 16/03/2015 by Michael

My Lai Monument

16th March 1968 – My Lai Massacre

Just after dawn on the morning of 16th March 1968, when the peasants were starting off to tend their paddies and the children were starting to have their breakfast, the quiet of the spring morning was broken by the arrival of US helicopters firing into people’s homes. This was soon followed by the arrival of troop carrying helicopters who also started to fire indiscriminately at anything that moved. Four hours later, by the end of this ‘military action’ 504 Vietnamese civilians were killed and soon after a village structure that had existed for hundreds of years was wiped out. The Vietnamese knew this group of villages as Song My, the rest of the world, when the news finally broke 18 months later, were to know the site of this massacre as My Lai.

My Lai Massacre

Earlier that year the US invading forces and their South Vietnamese lackeys had been taken by surprise by the Tet Offensive. This began on the night of the 29/30th January when units of the Vietnamese People’s Army (from the North Vietnam) and guerrilla units of the National Liberation Front (the NLF from the South) simultaneously attacked numerous military bases and cities in the south of the country, even coming out of the ground in the middle of Da Nang, the principal close to the border with the People’s Republic of the North.

The action didn’t achieve any lasting military objectives but the very fact that it could have been organised on such a scale in the first place started to create the realisation amongst the American imperialists that they wouldn’t be able to win the war. It would be another seven years before the panic-stricken Yankees and their hangers-on (literally as the last helicopters took off) fought tooth and nail against each other to get on the last helicopters from the roof of the American Embassy in Saigon as North Vietnamese tanks crashed through the compound gates.

But like a wounded animal, knowing it is about to die, the Americans lashed out with the aim of causing as much damage and suffering as possible. The cost of defeating the most powerful military nation on the earth would have to be paid for at a high price.

The area which encompassed Song My was considered to be more than just sympathetic to the NLF and was known by the Americans as ‘Pinkville’. The guerrilla units in the south followed the military principals of People’s War, developed by Mao Tse-tung in China in the war, first, against the Japanese Fascist invaders and then the reactionary, Western Imperialist supported, Nationalist Kuomintang.

Mao coined the phrase of the guerrilla army ‘swimming like fish amongst the people’ and the Vietnamese followed this lesson well. However, not only do revolutionaries learn from the experience of those who have gone before them. Reactionaries also learnt and decided that if the revolutionaries were swimming amongst the people then they would deny them the water. The fact that many innocent people would bear the cost of this approach wasn’t (and still isn’t – witness what has happened in the last 14 years with the imperialist wars of intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries of the Middle East) of concern to the American commanders in Vietnam nor their political masters in Washington. As far as they were concerned ALL the ‘gooks’ (their racist term for the Vietnamese) were guilty, if not for crimes of commission then for crimes of omission, even babies only a matter of a few weeks old or those yet to be born.

My Lai Massacre

It’s difficult to imagine what went through the minds of those soldiers who carried out the massacre that covered three separate hamlets in Song My. There were no reports whatsoever that these brave troops came under any sort of enemy fire. In fact there was only one casualty amongst the G.I.s – and his wound was self-inflicted in an effort not to indulge in the blood lust.

My Lai Massacre

Most of the troops involved were relatively new to the country and therefore couldn’t really argue that they were battle weary and bitter from what they had seen happen to their fellow conscripts – although I have heard one soldier argue that case. Neither could they use the excuse given in Northern Ireland by the British Paratroopers after the murder of Irish Republican demonstrators on ‘Bloody Sunday’ in 1972 when one reason given for them opening fire was that these ‘elite’ troops were frightened by being shot at.

My Lai Massacre

The majority of US troops in Vietnam by this time of the war were conscripts. The majority of them were in their late teens or early twenties. The majority of them were from poor, working class backgrounds. A disproportionate number of them were poor working class black Americans (in a tableau in the My Lai museum they are given equal status to the whites in killing women and children), living in a society that was even more racist and segregationist than it is now. Yet these working class boys, under the orders of officers with little more stake in US society than the soldiers under their command, just went wild.

My Lai Massacre Museum

Shooting at everything that moved, regardless of age or gender; burning of buildings, sometimes with people inside alive; destroying all foodstuffs including domesticated animals; trapping people in confined spaces and then throwing in fragmentation grenades; gang raping of the women regardless of age and even those in late stages of pregnancy; killing babies only a few weeks old; mutilating the bodies of their victims including cutting out tongues, cutting off hands, disembowelment and taking scalps; pulling out unborn foetuses from pregnant women; shooting the wounded if they made the mistake of lettering their murderers know they were still alive; this orgy of death and destruction went on for hours until they had killed all that they thought was alive.

My Lai Massacre

There was little evidence of any of the soldiers making any effort to put a stop to all this or to try to bring some element of civilisation back into their mission – although a few are said to have ‘not participated’ (but that begs questions about crimes of commission or omission). Apart from one exception. The three-man crew of one of the support helicopters put their machine between a group of G.I.’s and their intended victims. Whilst the gunner held his heavy machine gun on soldiers from his own side a handful of villagers were able to be escape the mayhem. One of the helicopter crew was killed soon after (in combat) but the two that survived were invited to the thirtieth anniversary commemoration at the Quang Ngai General Museum in 1998.

Even though the trials at Nuremberg (after World War Two) had, supposedly, rejected the argument of ‘just obeying orders’ as being no excuse or vindication for committing such atrocities this was the case put by many of those who attended (many didn’t) the Peers Commission that was set up more than 18 months after the event. Whatever orders might have been given that doesn’t excuse what these teenagers did, many of them going way above and beyond the ‘call of duty’, their obvious enjoyment of the opportunity to kill and maim with impunity being proof of that.

My Lai Massacre

(This wasn’t the first time American soldiers had been given orders by their officers and then executing them with a gusto that bordered on fanaticism. On November 29th 1864 the American army carried out a similar massacre against, mainly, unarmed Cheyenne and Arapaho at Sand Creek in Colorado. The film ‘Soldier Blue’, released in 1970, making a clear parallel between the two events separated by just under a hundred years.)

My Lai Massacre

So those who actually did the killing have no excuse (and shouldn’t be excused) but what were their orders? The same that had been given to other units before them, that is to go out and ‘search and destroy’ in what was designated as a ‘free fire zone’. This gave a virtual carte blanche for the soldiers to do whatever they wished and they would not be held responsible. This had been happening throughout the country for a number of years causing widespread devastation, through acts of the military on the ground, artillery bombardments, the widespread use of napalm and defoliation with chemicals such as Agent Orange. Therefore the idea of a ‘free fire zone’ was basically part of the philosophy of the American military and this would have been known by even such rookie troops as those that were sent into the Song My area.

My Lai Massacre

At the same time the military did not act totally under their own volition and were under the control of the politicians in Washington. Even if the rest of the world wasn’t aware of what was happening in Vietnam those in the White House and the Pentagon certainly did. And the fact that the very villages were bulldozed soon after the massacre indicates that the commanders in the field knew that things had gone slightly to far.

My Lai Massacre

So what made the My Lai Massacre different? It seems that news of what had happened was circulating very soon after the event. Although the murder of civilians and the destruction of their homes wasn’t new at Song My the Americans had taken their task of murder into a new league and it would have been impossible to have completely suppressed the news. At the same time the military would have wanted this news to have spread throughout the south of Vietnam as a warning, threat and promise to those Vietnamese who supported the NLF and the North Vietnamese.

My Lai Massacre

The reports and letters that went around, both the military structure in Vietnam and the offices of politicians and newspapers in the United States were only words. By 1968 it was images that were to make the difference. Anyone who was of an age to watch and understand the TV images being shown everyday throughout the world in the late 60s and early 70’s will understand the importance of images. TV news programmes showed, daily, American wounded and dead being collected from the battlefield as well as the scenes played out on the streets of Saigon (such the summary execution by a bullet to the head of a Vietnamese guerrilla or the self-immolation of a Buddhist monk). The power of those images is the reason why, ever since, photographers and journalists are ’embedded’ – read controlled – by the US, UK or NATO armies.

My Lai Massacre

Ron Haeberle, an army photographer, had only just started his tour of duty when he was sent to Song My. Although not believing what he saw he continued to take photos during the morning. After the massacre he handed in 40 black and white pictures to the military but kept 18 in colour. It was those pictures which were to make the written reports even more potent.

Wisely, for self-preservation reasons, Haeberle didn’t release those pictures until he had returned from Vietnam – war zones are very easy places to get yourself killed. Even though the extent of the furore after the release of his photographs was worldwide, to the best of my knowledge none of the other pictures he took that spring morning have ever been made public. However, it’s difficult to believe that any other pictures would tell us much more about what happened. The suppression, or destruction of his other pictures only goes to demonstrate the lack of openness of governments when caught out doing the direct opposite to what they say. (Most of the pictures on this page are from among those Haeberle kept to himself for the best part of 18 months.)

The Report of the Peers investigation set up when the news of the massacre was too widespread to be ignored seemed to give the impression that this was a ‘one off’, an aberration and not a matter of policy. However, the widespread deployment of ‘search and destroy’ missions, the ‘Strategic Hamlet Programme’ – whereby villagers were gathered together in virtual concentration camps in order to make contact between the ordinary peasants and the guerrillas that much more difficult – and the designation of huge swathes of the country as being ‘free fire zones’ meant that the lives of the Vietnamese people held no value in the minds of the occupation forces.

Atrocities carried out by the Americans and the South Vietnamese Army were not new, only the scale was different. Eighteen months before My Lai the Democratic Republic of Vietnam had produced a pamphlet, with photographs, of examples of war crimes committed by US troops and at about the time of the My Lai Massacre they produced evidence (presented to Bertrand Russell International Tribunal) claiming genocide on the part of the Americans. There’s no significant difference between the pictures in these pamphlets from those of Haeberle taken in March 1968.

After all the fuss, all the publicity, all the demonstrations on the streets throughout the world, all the words spoken, all the investigations carried out, all the crocodile tears of politicians, no one was held accountable for what happened at Song My/My Lai. A junior officer (Calley) was chosen as a scapegoat (which doesn’t mean him any less culpable) and found guilty but later given a Presidential pardon by Richard Nixon. The Peers investigation report was even told not to refer to it as a massacre and described it as an ‘incident’. Ultimately no one was held responsible.

And nothing has really changed in the policies of the American nor any other country that considers it has the right to enter in the internal affairs of another country. My Lai wasn’t the first of such massacres, neither was it the last.

For a period after defeat in Vietnam the US ‘sub-contracted’ the killing of innocent villagers, although really the concept of ‘innocence’ seems now to have been lost. In Latin America the fascist, right-wing murder squads ran amok throughout the 70s and 80s from Mexico down to the Tierra del Fuego. If these killers needed training they received that at the ‘anti-communist insurgency’ School of the Americas at Fort Benning. To keep their eye in the US invaded Granada and Panama, on both occasions civilians got in the way.

In the Middle East surrogates kept their populations quiet with the use of terror. Some of these lost the support of the US and have fallen. Others still carry out the will of the US although they would maintain they are independent nations. Sometimes things don’t need to be said for them to happen. Israel continues to murder Palestinians and destroy their homes. Indeed Israel was in the game of massacres before it was even established as a state, killing indiscriminately Palestinians in the village of Deir Yassin on 9th April 1948. The Zionists then sub-contracted the killing to the Christian militia in Lebanon and over two days in September 1982 they murdered thousands in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila.

Since the beginning of the 21st century the US has again got more directly involved and thousands have been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries of the Middle East following western government attempts at ‘regime change’. The Americans, and their allies, got around the embarrassment of large numbers of civilians being killed by not actually counting them, as they did in Fallujah.

And presently in India, the present and previous governments, since 2009, have been pursuing what they call ‘Operation Green Hunt’ against the dalits and adivasis (the ethnic and tribal groups) who in some of the most mineral rich areas of the country. However, in India the people are not just accepting this and are fighting back under the leadership of the Communist Party of India (Maoist).

If people thought that the massacre at My Lai was an aberration they should think again.

The voices of those who killed

On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the massacre in 2008 the BBC’s Radio Four broadcast a programme in its Archive Hour slot which includes interviews with some of those involved in the murderous attack. Personally, I don’t have any sympathy whatsoever for those young soldiers who have subsequently suffered from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder for what they did that day so long ago.

Here is a recording of that programme, entitled The My Lai Tapes is presented in two parts, Part 1, Part 2.

Ġgantija Archaeological Park – Gozo

Posted on 25/01/2025 by Michael

Ggantija – Gozo

Ġgantija Archaeological Park – Gozo

The Ġgantija Archaeological Park complex is a unique prehistoric monument situated at the centre of an extraordinary archaeological landscape, the Xagħra plateau on the island of Gozo. It consists of two structures built between c.3600 and c.3200 BC.

Notwithstanding its age, the monument survives in a considerably good state of preservation. The Neolithic builders made use of both locally sourced Globigerina and Coralline Limestone. The hard-wearing Coralline Limestone is used extensively at Ġgantija, while the softer Globigerina Limestone is reserved for inner furnishings, such as doorways, altars and decorative slabs.

The site consists of two structures, with separate entrances and a common boundary wall. Each unit consists of a number of apses flanking a central corridor. Two plaster fragments with red ochre, now on display at the Ġgantija Archaeological Park Interpretation Centre suggest that the internal walls were plastered and painted over.

Remains of animal bone discovered in this site suggest communal rituals and feasting. The use of fire is shown by the presence of stone hearths. A number of libation holes in the floor may have been used for the pouring of liquid offerings. It is probable that during ceremonial activities, the congregation would have assembled outside the monument, since the large forecourt in front of the two structures was purposely raised by the same builders.

Entrance to the Ġgantija Archaeological Park is from an Interpretation Centre that provides visitors with the opportunity to explore various aspects related to life in the Neolithic Period. The centre is also home to a selection of the most significant artefacts discovered at various prehistoric sites in Gozo.

The above text from Heritage Malta

In a number of ways the archaeological site of Ġgantija is not that impressive as those at Ħaġar Qim, Mnajdra and Ħal Tarxien but they make up for it in the fact that the complex is not covered by a huge ‘tent’ – so you can get a feel of the site as it was originally designed – and the artefacts in the attached museum are impressive and complement those on display in the National Archaeological Museum in Valletta.

The view of the complex is marred by the necessary construction of scaffolding – to prevent the collapse of some of the walls and, more importantly, to reduce the insurance claims of visiting tourists if the wall should collapse on them. The Maltese archaeologists are looking for a less intrusive manner to make the walls safe. Until then perhaps it should be treated like the Burnt School in Glasgow where the scaffolding structure is impressive in its own right – although now that is covered with plastic sheeting. However, with all the ‘delays’ surrounding the Mackintosh building it’s very much likely the Maltese will come up with a viable solution (and a much cheaper one at that) sooner than will the Scots in Glasgow.

Location;

Ġgantija Temples, Triq John Otto Bayer, Xagħra, Gozo

GPS;

36.04915 N

14.26774 E

How to get there;

The bus number 37 takes you to just outside the site entrance leaving from Rabat (Victoria).

Open;

09.00 – 17.00

Entrance;

Adults (18+); €10

Youths (12-17); €8

Senior Citizens (60+); €8

Concessions and Students; €8

Children (6-11); €6

Infants (1-5); Free

The ticket for the Ggantija Archaeological Park also includes entrance to the Ta’ Kola windmill, which is at the end of the road opposite the ticket office.

Manoel Theatre – Valletta

Posted on 21/01/2025 by Michael

Manoel Theatre

Manoel Theatre – Valletta

Teatru Manoel (Maltese for ‘Manoel Theatre’) is a theatre and important performing arts venue in Malta. The theatre is often referred to as simply ‘The Manoel’ and is named after Grand Master of the Order of the Knights Hospitaller, Fra António Manoel de Vilhena, who ordered its construction in 1731. The theatre is reputed to be Europe’s third-oldest working theatre.

The theatre is located on Old Theatre Street (Maltese: Triq it-Teatru l-Antik) in Valletta. It considers itself as the country’s national theatre and the home of Malta Philharmonic Orchestra (Orkestra Filarmonika Nazzjonali). Originally called the Teatro Pubblico, its name was changed to Teatro Reale (‘Theatre Royal’) in 1812, and renamed Teatru Manoel in 1866.

The theatre is a small, 623 seat venue, with an oval-shaped auditorium, three tiers of boxes constructed entirely of wood, decorated with gold leaf, and a pale blue trompe-l’œil ceiling that resembles a round cupola. The building is a Grade 1 listed building.

Before the construction of the theatre, plays and amateur theatrical productions were staged in the halls and piano nobiles of the Knights’ auberges. These were palaces constructed for the langues of the Order. The Langue of Italy often held such entertainment, staged by its knights in their Auberge. The records of the Langue even state that, on 2 February 1697, some Maltese gentlemen presented a play in the Auberge d’Italie. Women were prohibited from attending these events after incidents during the Carnival festivities of 1639.

In 1731, António Manoel de Vilhena commissioned, and personally funded, the construction of the building to serve as a public theatre ‘for the honest recreation of the people’. The Grand Master bought two houses from the Priory of Navarre, with a frontage on what is now Old Theatre Street for the sum of 2,186 scudi. It has a plain façade, in keeping with Valletta’s Mannerist style, and has three floors with a mezzanine-level above the ground floor. The façade incorporates a doorway surmounted by a stone balustraded open balcony, itself supported by three heavy scroll corbels. The interior is decorated in Rococo style. The theatre was possibly designed by Romano Carapecchia, and was built by Francesco Zerafa and Antonio Azzopardi.

Construction was finished in only ten months. This however, may be because alterations were made to the fabric of the three adjoining houses, incorporating them into a theatre. The building occupied an area of 94½ square canes, which was later altered to 93 square canes and 2½ palms. The theatre is said to have been modelled after the contemporary Palermo Theatre. Its auditorium was originally semi-circular or horseshoe shaped, with an illuminated parterre that served as a small dance floor. The first theatrical performance to be staged at the Teatro Pubblico was Scipione Maffei’s classic tragedy Merope, on 9 January 1732. The actors in that production were the Knights themselves, and the set was designed by the Knights’ chief military architect, Francois Mondion.

During the early British Era, the ‘Teatro Pubblico’ was renamed as the ‘Teatro Reale’, going through a series of enlargements and re-modellings throughout the 19th century, most notably in 1812, when Sir George Whitmore added today’s gallery and proscenium, raised the ceiling by one storey, and added eight more boxes, bringing the total to 67. Whitmore also transformed the auditorium to the oval shape that it has today. Further alterations were made in 1844, when the Manoel’s set designer, Ercolani, repainted the panels on the wooden boxes and had them gilded. Another stratum of silver leaf was added to the panels and ceiling in 1906.

The theatre had fallen into disuse in 1866, as a result of the construction of Malta’s new Royal Opera House, designed by Edward Middleton Barry, on Strada Reale, at the entrance to Valletta. The theatre began to serve as a doss house for homeless and indigent citizens who rented out the stalls for a few pennies a night. However, in 1873, the Teatro Reale – was officially renamed ‘Manoel Theatre’ and it enjoyed a brief new lease on life when the Royal Opera House burnt down. But by 1877, the Royal Opera House had been rebuilt, and once more, Teatru Manoel was eclipsed and fell again into disuse.

During the Second World War, Teatru Manoel served as emergency accommodation for victims of the constant bombardment by the Luftwaffe and the Regia Aeronautica. In the early 20th century, it was also used intermittently as the venue for Carnival balls and, for a period of about twenty years, it operated as a movie theatre.

Despite numerous alterations over the years, it retains many of its old architectural features, such as the white Carrara marble staircase, shell-shaped niches, and Viennese chandeliers. Two water reservoirs beneath the floor create an acoustic environment that is so precise that the hushed page-turnings of an orchestra conductor can be heard clearly throughout the auditorium.

Following the destruction of the Royal Opera House by Axis bombardment on 7 April 1942, Teatru Manoel was expropriated by the Government of Malta in 1956, and was quickly restored to its former glory. It reopened in December 1960 with a performance of Coppélia by Ballet Rambert.

The theatre is being restored by the Teatru Manoel Restoration Committee. Previous restoration attempts done in the 1970s were heavily criticised, with the removal of a balcony and the reinforcement of old stone with new masonry. The first phase of the new restoration took place in 2003, and included the restoration of the paintings on the frontispiece of the auditorium boxes. In 2004, the auditorium was restored by a team of Sante Guido Restauro e Conservazione di Opere d’Arte, who unearthed paintings that will allow the understanding of the theatre’s development. This second phase included the cleaning of the gilt. The third phase included the restoration of the proscenium arch and the boxes it incorporates, while the fourth phase of the restoration project was the ceiling’s restoration, which was inaugurated on 3 October 2006. Although controversial an application to restore the theatre’s façade was approved by Maltese planning and heritage supervisory bodies and was restored in 2017.

The above text is abridged from Wikipedia.

A few images of the auditorium can be viewed in the slide show below.