Now that we have the important background information, it is time to ask the really tough questions. What was the point of these people killing themselves in the name of protest? Did their acts have any significant effect on the war? Are they martyrs or just crazy? These are just some of the questions that I have been thinking about while conducting my research. Keep in mind that the questions and answers that I pose are only coming from one perspective: mine. I created this site to give people something to think about. Therefore, I hope that you can form your own answers to these questions, and perhaps think of some better questions to ask.
So, what the heck was the point? As far as I can tell, every person who I have discussed on this site was deeply concerned about the lives of innocent people in Vietnam. Although it is hard to tell just from reading newspaper articles, it seems to me that they were not driven at all by self-interest or thoughts of grandeur. None of them thought, “Hey, this is a great way to get on the news.” Although, it’s hard for me to believe that anyone would do that just to get on the news. These people were driven by some call (probably religious in nature, definitely moral in nature) to show the world how dire the situation was in Vietnam. Norman Morrison’s good friend, John Roemer, really explained it much better than I can.
In a society where it is normal for human beings to drop bombs on human targets, where it is normal to spend 50 percent of the individual's tax dollar on war, where it is normal...to have twelve times overkill capacity, Norman Morrison was not normal. He said, 'Let it stop.'That explanation can be extended to include every person who immolated themselves. They didn’t just decide on a whim to burn themselves to death. They saw something that they perceived to be a grave injustice. Something so perverse and immoral that it was their duty to say “no.” I see something truly beautiful in that.
What questions does this raise about the morality or immorality of war? Not just the Vietnam War, but every war. As Roger LaPorte said, he wasn’t just protesting Vietnam, he was protesting “all war.” All of the people who I have highlighted on this site were religious, either some form of Christian or Buddhist. In both Christianity and Buddhism, the use of violence is seen as a sin. Although I am not very religious, I know quite well the Commandment that declares, “Thou Shall Not Kill.” Obviously, any kind of war is violation of that commandment. No matter how hazy Kennedy’s, Johnson’s, Nixon’s, or Bush’s understanding of that commandment was/is, it was crystal clear to Thich Quang Duc, Alice Herz, Norman Morrison, Roger LaPorte, George Winne, and all the others I don’t know about. Those people could see something that no President to date has ever seen- the truth that war is immoral, that it is a crime, that it is murder.
Throughout my many hours of combing the Internet and library for information on this topic, I constantly wondered why there is so little information about it. Why isn’t there a “Morrison Street” in Washington D.C.? Why aren’t there postage stamps with the faces of Norman Morrison, Alice Herz, or Roger LaPorte all over the U.S.? Morrison, Herz, and LaPorte were so sure that the U.S. government was wrong that they killed themselves to protest against it. They gave their lives to point out the immorality of the government’s actions in Vietnam. Personally, I see all of them as a symbol of everyone’s duty to recognize and protest any unjust government action. That is a very powerful symbol. Is it in the government’s interest to embrace a symbol of such opposition? Probably not.
However, that does not entirely explain the lack of literature or media attention surrounding the self-immolations. In some ways, I’m afraid, we just don’t get it. In the Newsweek article about LaPorte’s self-immolation, the writer calls LaPorte’s decision to immolate himself a “pathetic” one. The writer adds that LaPorte’s self-immolation “came only a week after pacifist Norman Morrison, a Quaker, incinerated himself in front of the Pentagon in a similar pathetic protest against the U.S. role in Vietnam.” I was dumbfounded when I read that. How could anyone have the audacity to call what they did “pathetic?” I fear that that sheer ignorance, that blindness to the truth, still permeates through this society today.
Here’s another important question- is self-immolation just a form of suicide? In Fire in the Lake, Fitzgerald writes that a series of Vietnamese self-immolations in June of 1966 were “not an effective act of protest but merely suicide” because “the Americans did not respond” (301). Although that is an interesting way of looking at it, Fitzgerald’s view completely ignores the mindset of the protestors (monks, in this case). Thich Nhat Hanh writes that the self-immolations (of the Vietnamese monks, at least) cannot be considered suicide because
the monk who burns himself has lost neither courage nor hope; nor does he desire nonexistence. On the contrary, he is very courageous and hopeful and aspires for something good in the future. He does not think that he is destroying himself; he believes in the good fruition of his act of self-sacrifice for the sake of others.It may seem that this debate is nit picking, or something along those lines, but I honestly think that to call the use of self-immolation “suicide” degrades the meaning of the act. All of the people who immolated themselves (American and Vietnamese) sacrificed their bodies for something far larger- the safety of an entire race. That, to me, cannot be simply considered suicide.
What was the effect of these self-immolations? Did they help end the war? Considering the war went on for another decade following Thich Quang Duc’s self-immolation, it is safe to say that they did not have a huge effect on U.S. foreign policy. However, it is equally obvious that they struck a chord with some. While searching the Internet for information, I stumbled upon an article from February 1991 that reports that at least 3 American men had immolated themselves in protest to the violence in the Middle East. These men must have known something about those who had used self-immolation in the past. Was Roger LaPorte naďve to think that his act would stop all wars? Perhaps, but I’m not sure if that really matters. These people sacrificed themselves to appeal to the humanity inside all of us. It’s impossible to quantify that, unlike the way you can quantify the number of soldiers killed in a battle or the number of times a village gets bombed.
I could go on like this forever. Before I close this section however, I again want to stress the fact that these are my opinions alone. I hope that anyone who visits this site can come to their own conclusions and raise their own questions. I will end by saying that by learning about this subject, my perception of what the anti-war movement was, of what protest is, and of what faith is has completely changed. All of the people discussed on this site were guided by a great faith in Justice and Peace. I hope that one day, we can all share such a strong faith.
Letter to Editor
Here, a modern day war-hawk challenges those against America's War on Terrorism to "follow their predecessors like Norman Morrison and Roger LaPorte" and burn themselves in order to prove their dedication to peace. My reaction- It's frightening that some people believe that a war can create a more secure world.
1991 Self-Immolations and Info about the act
A Poem by the late George Starbuck about Norman Morrison