When I Came Home

In 2006, a documentary was released that brought attention to a plight that has gone mostly unnoticed by the American people. The film by Dan Lohous was about the struggle of war veterans, from Vietnam to the Iraqi conflict, to obtain benefits due to them for fighting on behalf of this country. In When I Came Home, Dan Lohous follows Iraqi war vet Harold Noel as he fights to keep his family together through homelessness, Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a system of government that has failed him. The question Dan poses: Will Harold and a generation of new war vets suffer the same fate as the vets who returned from Vietnam?

Harold's plight is one that touches many Americans. At the time of filming, the director reveals that about 500 Iraqi War veterans are homeless (Lohous, 2006). Harold is not just a homeless veteran though; He is a family man. Living out of his SUV, Harold must endure life without his wife and son as they live with parents. PTSD has made maintaining a job and a family relationship difficult and obtaining help through the Veterans Association is like cutting through red tape with a dull fingernail clipper. To make it worse, this is a few years after 9-11. American sentiment on the War in Iraq is at an all time low; Americans want out. The poor treatment of returning war vets by the American public is reminiscent of when the soldiers returned from Vietnam. Eventually it will be the kindness of a private citizen that helps Noel off the street, not the V.A.

The story of Harold Noel and that of war veterans throughout history is very much one that aligns itself neatly with the conflict perspective. The text Human Behavior and the Larger Social Environment: A New Synthesis defines the conflict perspective as social systems divided by class (or other characteristics reflecting differences in social power) and the struggle for scarce resources (Johnson, 2005). Problems in this system can only be solved through social change, and not by the individual (Johnson, 2005). The government and politicians in charge act to protect their own interests; in this case the oil in the middle-east. The U.S. soldiers are gathered mostly from among the uneducated or disadvantaged with promises of a bright future of educations and careers. Due to the rising cost of tuition at colleges across America, many people are finding it difficult to finance their educations, and have to turn to outside assistance as sources of financial aid (Mutari, 2004). For many of them, it is their only choice for a future beyond the fast food establishments and an endless hell of minimum wage employment. They are sent into conflict with expectations that they will kill or be killed in the name of America, as emissaries of peace and freedom. They have endured a brutal indoctrination that has torn apart their sense of self, only to be remade as a tool of the US Military and they are expected to deny the emotions they will feel as they drive an armored personnel carrier over a 10 yr. old Iraqi child. They are expected to take pride in the shooting of a 17 yr. old Iraqi soldier. They are expected to be numb in face of a brutalized "enemy" woman. Meanwhile, our politicians are making money as shareholders in oil companies who are making record profits year after year. Some soldiers return only to be told their wives or girlfriends have left them. Some soldiers come home to find they can no longer deal with the images of death that crowd in their heads and take to drinking or brutalizing their own families. Most return to inadequate help or compensation from their government and the rich politicians. By the very design of the military, the soldiers have no voice to effect change from within. For change to occur, it will have to be by the citizens and from the government itself.

However, one could also see from the film that the rational/social exchange perspective was clearly displayed. The textbook defines the rational/social exchange perspective as being based on the assumption that human beings will act in their best interests via a cost-benefit analysis (Johnson, 2005). Harold Noel, in the film, chooses not to enter the homeless shelter system (Lohous, 2006). This is one of the requirements the V.A. had set for assistance to be available to him. However, upon seeing the conditions of the shelter, he chooses instead to live on the street rather than subject his family to filth and possible criminal elements found in some shelters (Lohous, 2006). Making the choice he felt was best for his family, he placed himself into a situation where obtaining his V.A. assistance was much more difficult. On a grander scale, one could attempt to say that the government has made a choice in setting the requirements for assistance a certain way so that it might conserve resources and limit spending which it could then direct elsewhere. It is conceivable the government would make requirements difficult so it would only have to distribute resources to as few individuals as have the wherewithal to meet them. Rationally speaking, this would make sense, since the concept of democracy is based on what is best for the majority, and not what is best for all.

The myth that America's democratic government is "for the people, by the people" is one of the lies we tell ourselves daily as part of American culture. Culture is defined by Mirriam-Webster's dictionary as "the set of shared attitudes, values, goals and practices that characterizes and institution or organization" (Anonymous, 2009). One can see American culture in When I Came Home by looking at it through the eyes of American values.

One American value which seems to be prominent in the film is that of the commitment to equality. The commitment to equality is, according to the text, the American tradition of equality of opportunity for social and economic rewards (Johnson, 2005). Noel and others like him joined the US armed forces in order to take advantage of an opportunity to gain these resources for his family. It is ironic that these resources are the very things denied him after his return from the war. In the film, Noel struggles every day just to get enough for himself to live on day to day, much less provide for his entire family (Lohous, 2006). It is interesting to note, however, that it is openly acknowledged that this value is really only the promise of opportunity, not a promise of equal access to resources. This is why Noel is able to find an advocate to help him fight the V.A. (Lohous, 2006). It is the help of the advocate that Noel needs to create opportunity for him. Without someone to fight on his behalf, Noel would be unable to succeed.

The willingness of Noel to turn to someone for help is counter to the value the text describes as a myth: self-reliance. The text defines self-reliance as the tendency to place a higher worth on work done "on our own" than achievements that required assistance (Johnson, 2005). Yet Noel, upon his return, seeks help from the V.A. for many things, not the least of which is PTSD. His wife and son require the help of family for a place to live. His friends, some war vets like Nicole, turn to the shelter system for help (Lohous, 2006). Also Noel was dependent on his network of friends to keep him updated on news about shelters and other issues. Noel himself was prepared to do what he could to help his friends, like Nicole, whom he assisted to get media attention to try to get her some help.

Possibly the most valuable of the American values demonstrated in the film was mobility. Mobility is described by the text as the ability to go where and when one wants without having to rely on or consider anyone else (Johnson, 2005). Harold Noel may have been homeless, but he managed to keep his vehicle (Lohous, 2006). Living in a city as he was, one might have thought he would save the expenses associated with a vehicle and sell it for enough money to provide his self with some money for housing but he didn't. Noel instead manages to keep himself in his vehicle and pay his transportation costs (Lohous, 2006). This is actually important, since he needs the transportation to make his frequent visits to the V.A. and his V. A. advocate, and it is unlikely he would have been able to spend much time with his son had he not had the vehicle. So much in America seems to rely on mobility. A person is limited by how far they can travel to work, shop, and many other everyday activities. For example. A person taking a bus can only carry so many groceries, and most likely cannot carry many items requiring refrigeration. A vehicle also gave Noel a roof over his head during inclement weather and a place to store his few belongings.

The most conspicuous of the values on display in Lohous' film was morality. The entire documentary was a comment on the morality of our country; do we allow "heroes" to wallow, impoverished and friendless? Is the system doing its best to address the needs of those who serve it? Is the system created to help the inequality of society, or is it meant to take advantage of it? On a micro level, what are we as individuals doing to help our soldiers? So many soldiers have come home to hatred; soldiers whose only sin was doing their jobs. Soldiers being neglected and forgotten as we pass them on the street the same way we did after Vietnam. The documentary is a plea for us, as Americans, to take notice and to take action. The advocate on behalf of Noel tried to push for as much publicity as possible to enrage the moral sensibilities of the public and to get help for Noel (Lohous, 2006). The filmmaker consistently makes us see the face of poverty on as personal level as possible. It is difficult to look at a man and his young son in dire straits and not feel some sort of sympathy for their situation. It is clear that the publicity drive on Noel's behalf succeeds when a private citizen eventually gives Noel an empty apartment for his family to live in (Lohous, 2006). This action itself is a statement of the morals a single individual had upon hearing of Noel's plight.

It is also clear from the film the type of morality the V.A. advocate displayed. He did not seek to place blame on Noel for his circumstances in life. He saw it as not Noel's failure, but as a set of unfortunate events and the failure of a government to provide for Noel. He did not attempt to seek any immorality out from Noel, nor did he care about the amount of work and time he had to put in to help Noel.

It is possible that the economic state of the US had a part to play in this tragic story. It is clear from the article "Relatively Deprived" that there are many factors one must consider when dealing with the issue of poverty (Cassidy, 2006). One must consider the "poverty line" and how it is calculated by those who are there to provide some sort of assistance. Often time one needs help but cannot qualify for help since these organizations rarely factor in things like cost for insurance, cost for automobile maintenance, or even just the cost of living for the area in which one is located (Cassidy, 2006). Had Noel and his family lived in another part of the country, it is possible they might have been able to keep themselves under a roof. If the country had not been sinking slowly into a deep recession, maybe they would not have fallen to the depths that they did. It is also possible that the V.A. would have had the funds to have better, more effective programs in place.

People like Harold Noel and Nicole are affected even more by the failure of the V.A. and the US government to address their needs when they return home. They have young children who are affected with them. No family should have to be torn apart by circumstance. Noel had to live separate from his wife and child. The V.A.'s requirement that his family enter the shelter system made Noels situation untenable. It might have been better if they allowed a case worker to evaluate his case on an individual basis, so they could have seen his point; the shelter system was an unsuitable environment for his son. Nicole, as the mother of an infant, should not have been in a shelter system. The V.A. should have been able to treat her to better situation so she didn't need to live in fear of losing her child to the system or to the streets.

As social workers in a time of economic decline, it is important we learn from this film and take note of those we see on the street. It is important we know who and what to turn to so we can help the Harold Noels that may come through our doors. It is important we realize that the man in front of us may have a family somewhere, and that it may not be his fault he is where he is in life. It is also important to recognize that someone may not be within our abilities to help, and strive to be able to appeal to other sources to help them.

After watching When I Came Home, I was disturbed by something. The filmmaker made such a strong push for the veterans that I had to wonder, "are veterans more deserving of concern than any other homeless?" The film almost seemed to assert that because these were veterans it was somehow more of our governments failure than with any other homeless. I would urge other social workers to avoid making this type of judgment. Remember that if we are truly to attain social equality, we must start at the lowest rungs of society and bring them all up.

Bibliography

Anonymous. (2009). Culture. Retrieved October 27, 2009, from Mirriam-Webster Online Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture

Cassidy, J. (2006, April 3). Relatively Deprived. The New Yorker , pp. 42-47.

Johnson, M. M. (2005). Human Behavior and the Larger Social Environment: A New Synthesis. Boston: Pearson.

Lohous, D. (Director). (2006). When I Came Home [Motion Picture].

Mutari, E. &. (2004). Class conflict: The rising costs of college. In J. H. (Eds.), Crisis in American Institutions (pp. 351-357). Boston: Pearson.