







































CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

Difference of Receipt of Gratitude: A Comparative Analysis 

of the Experiences of Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm 

Veterans 

Marie Rivera 

Department of Sociology 

California State University, Los Angeles 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Scholarship has long understudied the veteran population 

in the United States in part because civilians generally lack the 

military exposure to adequately understand the lived experiences 

of veterans. Few studies analyze how the receipt of gratitude by 

the U.S. public is internalized by veterans, as well as the ways in 

which their experiences “returning home” depend on the war in 

which the veteran served. Namely, Vietnam veterans were 

ostracized upon returning to the U.S. civilian life they once knew 

so well. They lacked widespread social acceptance due to negative 

opinions regarding the Vietnam War. Reintegration into society 

became challenging and led to internalized schemas among 

veterans that their military participation was morally wrong. This 

contrasts with the social support attributed to Operation Desert 

Storm veterans. Operation Desert Storm (ODS) was a war in 

which American causalities were at an all-time low for the first 

time in U.S. war history (Hillen 1993). Civilians’ opinions were 

less harmful and contributed to the veterans being welcomed back 

with relatively open arms, though gratitude also is subjective and 

can be perceived differently by individuals within each cohort. 
Gratitude associated with military veterans has become 

normalized in the U.S. over time. We now have specific rituals and 

aestheticized scripts celebrating veterans and their services to the 

country that were not present during the Vietnam War. The 

political climate surrounding the Vietnam War made the context 

surrounding the receipt of gratitude different from that of an ODS 

participant. However, the existing literature does not sufficiently 

examine how the context of reception affects different cohorts of 

veterans receiving gratitude differently.  

From a symbolic interactionist perspective, I seek to 

describe the subjectiveness of gratitude and how it differs when 

comparing veterans from two separate wars. Symbolic 



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

interactionism claims that an individual's thought processes 

modify the interpretation of a symbol. In this case, Vietnam 

veterans' interpretation of receiving gratitude is unique due to their 

adverse experiences with stigma following the war. Symbolic 

interactionism further emphasizes that meaning arises from 

people's social interactions. The meaning of gratitude is thus 

perceived differently when comparing Vietnam veterans with 

ODS veterans. ODS veterans are positively associated with 

gratitude based on U.S. society's relative appreciation for their 

military endeavor. Contrarily, Vietnam veterans experienced 

hostility in society, which led to different interpretations of 

gratitude by veterans. Vietnam veterans perceive gratitude as a 

complex process. Therefore, they interlinked gratitude with their 

negative experiences with the war; thus, they assigned a different 

meaning of gratitude than ODS veterans who assigned a more 

positive meaning.  

 

GRATITUDE AS A RITUAL 

Gratitude can be interpreted as a state of being thankful or 

exhibiting appreciation. “Gratitude puts its benefactor into an 

emotion or state of consciousness resulting from both an 

awareness and appreciation of that which is valuable, meaningful, 

and fulfilling” (Bryan, Young, Lucas, and Quist 2018). In 

contemporary society, there are social mores regarding interacting 

with veterans, such as expressing our appreciation with “Thank 

you for your service.” Society has emphasized the rhetoric of 

viewing veterans as “heroes” and/or “victims.” For civilians, 

communicating gratitude is an expected ritual that attests to the 

“debt” civilians internalize regarding the veterans' service to 

ensure our safety and freedom (Robillard 2017). This “directed 

duty” overshines the individual's moral reasoning for introducing 

gratitude dialogue, perpetuating a lack of understanding of the 

veteran experience (Robillard 2017).  

Robillard (2017) suggests that gratitude is subjective, and 

its value depends on what meaning is attributed to the population 

in the question of getting thanked. The two populations being 

studied clearly differ in how “Thank you for your service” has 

been conveyed due to varying levels of stigma associated with the 

Vietnam War and Operation Desert Storm. Gratitude can also be 



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

perceived differently according to the individual receiving it. As 

such, when we introduce discourse comparing wars, we also 

acknowledge nuanced within-group experiences.  

 

INTERNALIZATION OF GRATITUDE 

Mcguire, Fogle, Tsai, Southwick, and Pietzak (2021) 

theorized that dispositional gratitude is directly linked to mental 

health. The authors felt that military veterans served as an “ideal 

population” due to their increased likelihood of having 

experienced various forms of trauma and psychological stress 

(Mcguire et al. 2021). Their findings support the hypothesis that 

receipt of gratitude is divergent depending on if the veteran is 

suffering from “psychiatric morbidities” (Mcguire et al. 2021).  

The internalization of trauma also affects the veteran's 

perception of receiving gratitude. Kashdan Uswatte, Steger, and 

Julian (2006) address a link between self-esteem and Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) experienced by military 

veterans. The instability of an individual's self-esteem can 

contribute to personal attachments to external environmental 

events and internally generated experiences (Kashdan et al. 2006). 

Suppose the interpretation of gratitude corresponds with the 

veteran's mental state. In that case, it is safe to assume that a 

Vietnam veteran would struggle immensely with receipt of 

gratitude compared to an ODS veteran.  

Internalized gratitude can have positive impacts on 

veterans. Kashdan et al. (2006:1611) find that, “upon examining 

the benefits of gratitude, it becomes apparent that they counter the 

emotional and social dysfunctions reported by veteran trauma 

survivors…The experience of gratitude requires a mindful, 

present-moment awareness of positive things received, and the 

causal chain to specific benefactors. Gratitude promotes a desire 

to engage in altruistic behaviors toward others and feeling grateful 

on a given day has been shown to build positive social interactions 

and relationships, counter negative emotions, and lead to greater 

emotional well-being, less social comparisons with others, and 

greater frequency of healthy behaviors.”  

Straus et al. (2019) explain that veterans with higher 

levels of social connectedness had lower levels of PTSD and 

alcohol use disorder (AUD). This finding suggests that Vietnam 



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

veterans likely suffer from higher mental health problems due to 

the prejudice they endured coming home. “Gratitude may be a key 

factor in buffering the effects of depression, in particular among 

those high in ambivalence over emotional expression, as gratitude 

allows one to reappraise burdensome situations in a better light” 

(Bryan, Young, Lucas, and Quist 2018). Gratitude was an avoided 

subject when associated with the Vietnam War.  

 

DIFFERENCE OF TREATMENT 

There has been an enormous paradigm shift in about how 

gratitude is delivered and expected to be expressed by civilians to 

veterans. Anti-war movements promoted throughout the U.S. 

spread the narrative that the war was morally wrong. 

Unfortunately, the soldiers became victims of the hostile political 

climate surrounding the Vietnam war. “Two other symbolic 

attitudes were more specifically related to the Vietnam War: 

attitudes toward ‘the military’ and toward ‘anti-war protesters’” 

(Brown and Sears 1978). The severe lack of support during 

reintegrating into society led many veterans to internalize their 

patriotism as shameful or wrong. “Rather, the more important 

determinants of attitudes toward the war were symbolic attitudes 

toward various political symbols associated with the war” (Brown 

and Sears 1978). Struggling with feelings of guilt, veterans began 

to feel alienated by society. The unwelcoming they endured 

catered to their already fragile mental state. “These participants 

spoke of being overwhelmed with societal betrayals, including 

hostile treatment and marginalization on homecoming…Being 

scapegoated for unpopular military and political decisions 

contributed to feelings of alienation and a growing sense of 

isolation in their social communities” (McCormack and Joseph 

2014). The stigma associated with the war still affected civilian 

perspectives of veterans and justified the mistreatment and 

marginalization of Vietnam veterans. “In general, veterans 

suffered from a longstanding experience of social rejection, 

abandonment, and even betrayal following the war, including 

pervasive stigmatizations and perceived “weaknesses, and their 

own preferences for self-reliance over inattentive social and 

governmental institutions” (Desai, Harpaz-Rotem, and Rosenheck 

2015:229).  



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

The trauma the Vietnam veterans endured extended 

further than the war: 

First, much discussion on the effects of war has 

dealt simply with the tensions and problems 

produced by returning from the combat theater to 

a civilian society in which the war was not 

popular and in which veterans received little 

moral support for the sacrifices they had made for 

their country. (Laufer, Gallops, and Frey-Wouters 

1984)  

The ostracism and moral questioning directly contributed to the 

veterans' trauma worsening upon arrival home:  

It has been widely noted that the Vietnam War 

was new to the American experience in at least 

two important ways. First, Vietnam was not 

primarily a war of confrontation, but a war of 

infiltration - a guerrilla war. It was not a war of 

fronts, but one in which the enemy was fluid, 

mobile, and, it often seemed, ubiquitous. Second, 

the scope and intensity of guerrilla activity placed 

the noncombatant status of all civilians in 

question. (Laufer, Gallops, and Frey-Wouters 

1984).  

Laufer et al. (1984) highlight the conspicuous elements of the 

Vietnam War experience; this improves the development of a 

reframed perspective of how a veteran is affected by their 

particular war.  

This process has allowed for a new generation of veterans 

to be celebrated. “After returning to the United States, Vietnam 

Veterans felt unwelcome joining the Veterans of Foreign Wars and 

the American Legion. That is how the Veterans of America got its 

start” (Anthony 2015). Modern society is still developing a deeper 

understanding of the wrongs committed against Vietnam veterans, 

which led to mistreatment and lack of gratitude:  

The earlier war/post-war portion of their 

experience was characterized by feeling 

unwelcomed when returning home, difficulty 

connecting with others, thwarted attempts to start 

a fulfilling post-service life, and finding 



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

themselves having to deal with life on their own 

in the face of inattentive others or unresponsive 

social institutions. (Desai et al. 2015)  

These veterans came home reflecting on their war experiences and 

began to internalize the preconceived notions that civilians had 

associated with them. These actions have ultimately contributed 

to the already impacting variables experienced by these veterans:  

In many cases, Vietnam veterans felt ostracized 

and stigmatized. Their social world became 

constricted, and they felt they could not trust or 

open up to others, profoundly exacerbating the 

already enormous challenge of being able to build 

a new life and reintegrate into social 

relationships. (Desai et al. 2015) 

The lack of support for these troops changed how 

gratitude is received later in life. Rosenthal (1975:89) states, 

“Furthermore, recent reports indicate that Vietnam-stationed 

veterans are suffering delayed rage and guilt reactions after their 

return to civilian life.” Vietnam veterans are starting to unravel 

many emotions now that frameworks regarding soldiers' 

participation in war have been reframed. This has affected their 

internalization of gratitude, seeing as veterans are now “allowed” 

to feel everything they were once forced to suppress (Rosenthal 

1975). 

 

PARADIGM SHIFT OF RECEIVING GRATITUDE 

During this new era, perceptions of war in society had 

been altered. The unfavorable ideas once affiliated with war and 

soldiers began to subside. Civilians developed a better 

understanding of the functions and societal benefits of a soldier. 

The military's positive associations enticed individuals, and being 

a veteran became a position of admiration and pride. Griffith et al. 

(1993) suggest, “What needs further examination, however, is (a) 

how experiencing the military meets the expectations of the 

enlistee for military service and (b) how experiencing the military 

should be represented...” That is not to say that this population of 

veterans endured trauma on multiple fronts. “In addition to 

individual difference factors, the impact of trauma is influenced 

by the nature and severity of stressful experiences and the unique 



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

characteristics of adverse circumstances” (Sukter, Uddo, Brailey, 

and Allain 1993). ODS veterans were met with support and 

newfound knowledge of veterans’ experiences while at war.  

Research efforts to discover the origins of 

negative sequelae to traumatic events and to 

identify population subsets who may be at 

greatest risk for negative impact, or conversely, 

resilient to adverse psychological residuals, are of 

crucial significance for increasing stress 

resistance and stress recovery among military 

recruits and people more generally. (Sukter, 

Uddo, Brailey, and Allain 1993) 

With the knowledge that positivity contributed to better mental 

health for veterans, civilians began to understand their 

responsibility for expressing gratitude. It was easier for civilians 

to positively associate with the ODS veterans because of the 

overall outcome of the war versus Vietnam's aftermath:  

Once the use of force was initiated, it was used to 

gain an overwhelming advantage, one so 

overpowering that it allowed us to sustain the 

lightest casualty rate in the history of warfare. 

The architects of Desert Storm had no desire for 

protracted war. (Hillen 1993)  

The historically low casualties and positive outcome of the ODS 

made the transition to civilian life more manageable. Additional 

comparisons were made to the outcomes of the Vietnam war. 

“Like the Korea stalemate before it, the Vietnam War revealed the 

tragic limitations of a strategy of limited war with no definitive 

objectives” (Hillen 1993). The blame was put on the soldiers for 

doing their jobs, while the government that ordered the attack was 

conveniently left out of the discussion. “A conscious decision was 

made to fight a war of attrition as opposed to a war of annihilation. 

The result was a costly and largely wasted effort that left a heavy 

burden on the professional military” (Hillen 1993). The soldiers 

were the scapegoats; this influenced the negative perceptions and 

unwelcoming. ODS veterans thus had organization and support 

from the people.  

The newfound support for the troops triggered Vietnam 

veterans. They found it upsetting to witness a new generation of 



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

soldiers be praised for fulfilling their duties when they had 

experienced only harassment:  

Operation Desert Storm brought memories of 

Vietnam abruptly into the consciousness of the 

Vietnam veteran. The American people were 

concerned that the war be definitively won, the 

objectives be clear, and the troops be taken care 

of and then welcomed back at the conclusion of 

the war. These elements were missing in Vietnam. 

(Vellenga and Christenson 1995)  

Vietnam veterans struggle to understand the ostracism 

they endured due to the opinions of the war and how that has 

shifted significantly to public demonstrations of gratitude now 

enacted towards veterans. “This process of making the connection 

between the war and their life struggles engendered anger and 

resentment, for instance, at not being given the same support that 

the veterans returning from current wars are receiving” (Desai et 

al. 2015). The domestic controversy surrounding the war and the 

lack of support for soldiers returning home was something only 

Vietnam veterans experienced. (Vellenga and Christenson 1995).  

The shame that the Vietnam veterans internalized was not 

something that widely occurred for the ODS veterans:  

A sense of shame was understood by these 

veterans in two very different ways... The second 

type related to being a part of such an unpopular 

endeavor and the response of the American public 

to the war. They alienated themselves so as not to 

be singled out as 'baby killers or one of those 

Vietnam bums,' as one veteran put it (Vellenga 

and Christenson 1995:8).  

The difference in receipt of gratitude reflects the change of 

perspective regarding soldiers:  

Because the Vietnam War was perceived so 

negatively by most people, an inevitable result for 

these veterans was an unavoidable isolation. The 

experience was too critical to shut out, and too 

unpopular to share, so a natural consequence for 

these subjects was to isolate themselves (Vellenga 

and Christenson 1995)  



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

If Vietnam veterans are affected by higher rates of self-isolation 

and shame, we can assume their internalization of “Thank you for 

your service” to be different from that of an ODS veterans.  

Existing literature acknowledges that gratitude is 

beneficial for veterans and their self-esteem. What the literature 

lacks is a lens comparing two different wars and taking into 

consideration how society has played a role in the internalized 

schemas of two separate veteran populations. One population of 

veterans experienced positivity and support, while the other 

experienced negativity and a sense of othering. With this in mind, 

we must address that gratitude is perceived differently due to each 

unique situation. In this study, I seek to fill the void in the literature 

and theorize the connections between treatment received and how 

that has contributed to the difference in their receipt of gratitude.  

Through analyzing veterans’ experiences returning home, 

I answer the question: How do veterans’ experiences of receiving 

gratitude differ by the type of war in which they served? Through 

the utilization of symbolic interactionism, I examine how the 

process of the receipt of gratitude is different depending on the 

meaning ascribed by the individual receiving it. When veterans 

have had negative interactions in society due to their military 

participation in a specific war, their perception of gratitude is 

altered. Further, when analyzing a separate population who has 

had positive social interactions and appreciates gratitude, we see 

that becomes a trigger to the population with uncomfortableness 

with gratitude. Newly implemented rituals displaying gratitude by 

civilians to veterans in contemporary society have led to unique 

perceptions and experiences of gratitude for an older military 

generation who feels unacknowledged. These new practices 

marginalize these populations further because gratitude comes 

after the trauma has been internalized. Thus, gratitude is 

interpreted differently among Vietnam and ODS veterans.  

Through my data collection, I have identified specific 

trends and recurring themes emerging from the interviews I 

conducted. I have analyzed previous research and found 

similarities. Newer generations of veterans have compared 

themselves and their experiences to veterans from the Vietnam 

era. They have suggested that their experiences participating in the 

civilian world were more manageable due to less stigma 



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

associated with their generational cohort. Vietnam veterans were 

ostracized, and their trauma extended beyond the barriers of 

combat. Their traumas worsened upon their arrival “home.” This 

has led me to believe that receiving, “Thank you for your service” 

is internalized differently. How is receiving gratitude interpreted 

differently depending on the war in which it was served? Is there 

a difference? Does the stigma of the war have anything to do with 

this different interpretation?  

 

METHODS 

 I approach this research study based on the question: How 

do war veterans’ experiences of receiving gratitude differ by the 

type of war in which they served? I examine how gratitude is 

interpreted differently and how social interactions have 

contributed to differing interpretations. In the current study, I have 

conducted semi-structured interviews with four self-identified 

U.S. veterans who were actively involved in combat either in ODS 

or the Vietnam War. One participant self-identified as a Vietnam 

war veteran, two self-identified as ODS veterans, and one 

participant participated in both wars. I developed an interview 

guide to steer myself through the interviews and ensure I was 

collecting all the necessary information for analysis. The 

interviews were semi-structured and I did not follow the same 

sequence of questioning for all participants, allowing the 

interviews to be as organic as possible. The interview guide 

emphasized the concepts of disclosure, stigma, and gratitude. The 

questions regarding disclosure were used to measure the 

differences in experiences with civilians. The questions asked 

about stigma allowed me, as the researcher, to contextualize 

whether some veterans are affected by societal stigmas at higher 

rates than other veterans. These led to questions about gratitude, 

the focus of my study.  

I utilized a convenience sampling methodology by advertising 

this research project in Los Angeles area Elks Lodges with high 

populations of veterans. Members tend to be active participants at 

the Department of Veteran Affairs. I gained access by leveraging 

my own Elks membership. I used a gatekeeper to increase 

veterans’ trust and participation, making them more accessible. 

This ensures my ability to expand my research. If participants 



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

perceive me as an ally and trusted friend, they will be more willing 

to discuss their experiences. At multiple lodges, I announced that 

I am looking to recruit participants who identify as either a 

Vietnam or ODS veteran. I briefly described my project, as the 

comprehension of my project critical to potential participants. I 

intend for participants to understand the meaning of the project to 

develop trust that their stories and perspectives will be heard and 

acknowledged.  

To increase validity, I utilized an audit trail by keeping 

record of all my data collected. I opted for this method due to the 

sensitive nature of the topic and to ensure that participant 

messages were accurately communicated. As a researcher, this 

takes a lot of trial and error, including revisiting the raw data to 

make accurate comparisons. The second method I used to increase 

validity is member checking. I wanted participants to know that 

my intention is not to speak for them, but with them. Member 

checking allows participants to actively participate in the research 

process and provide feedback. 

The strengths of my methodology lie in the semi-

structured interview process giving veterans the opportunity to 

narrate attitudes about receiving gratitude and what they 

experienced to have this perspective. The interview style allows 

for rich discussions and data. Member checking also validates the 

participant’s depiction of their experiences and allows me to 

collect more data from their reflection. As I adjust research and 

analysis as trends organically emerge, the use of audit trails 

ensures no outstanding details go unnoticed.  

 

FINDINGS 

 Respondents were asked directly whether they chose to 

disclose their veteran status to others. This question was followed 

up with probing questions addressing why they feel inclined or 

deterred from disclosing their veteran status to others. Sage, an 

ODS veteran stated:  

Normally I don’t, unless they ask or unless, ughh, 

normally no. Between military people who are 

buddies, they talk and sometimes the story gets a 

little bigger and bigger especially after a couple 

of beers, but normally no. You know, the ones 



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

who, who really, you know most people are quiet 

about it, the ones who brag about it really didn’t 

do anything.  

Sage is reflecting on his reluctance to disclose to civilians, 

expressing that he is more comfortable disclosing to other 

veterans. He goes on to share that there is a lack of understanding 

by civilians regarding military exposure and experience.  

Participants were then asked to examine if there was a 

conscious awareness of stigma attributed to those with military 

status. This was followed by asking the respondents to reflect on 

the possibility of their ever having felt stigmatized due to their 

military experience. I probed further and asked participants if 

specific military populations were more stigmatized than others. 

Most veterans shared that specific groups of veterans have been 

more stigmatized than others. Sage stated, “Vietnam war it was 

the nastiest war, it was the longest war…they called it the first 

televised war…a lot of [Vietnam veterans] still feel stigmatized 

from going over there.” As an ODS veteran, he was very mindful 

of how other generations of veterans before him experienced 

massive social stigmatization. Civilian perception of veterans was 

a trend that emerged organically. Respondents spoke of how 

perceptions of specific groups of veterans are vastly different 

depending on the war served. Perception emphasizes the 

individual experiences of possible ostracization or acceptance by 

society. It also highlights the symbolic interactionism framework 

where individuals ascribe meaning to certain things depending on 

their social interactions. Marty, a veteran of both wars expressed:  

Anybody that came back veterans that were in the 

late 60’s early 70’s all experienced the same 

thing. Everybody’s got the same type of 

atmosphere, organizations like the VFW didn’t 

want Vietnam veterans in as part of their 

organization because we weren’t as good as they 

were, cuz we weren’t in a war, we were in a 

conflict. So, that’s the, the assumption that people 

make. That we weren’t in a war. …I still won’t 

join the VFW even now. Because they said, we 

don’t need you Vietnam veterans, now they do 

need Vietnam veterans. We’re the Vietnam 



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

veterans are the old guys, it’s the same thing with 

Iraq and Afghanistan, so it kind of goes in a circle. 

It’s a little bit different it took a lot of time, but 

I’m around it all the time. 

Treatment was another key finding that surfaced 

organically. While analyzing the “stigma” section, I decided to 

differentiate treatment in hopes of highlighting that every 

generation of military men are treated differently. Respondents 

spoke of their experiences of how they are perceived and how it is 

different depending on the war in which they served. Even 

resources made available to them after their service are different 

Sage conveys:  

I believe yes, I would say so. You know right now 

the thing to do is when you see them, you know 

say, ‘Welcome home’, that’s the main thing that 

most of them never got to hear was ‘Welcome 

home’, they never, I mean never got that. They 

got everything but that. All they wanted to hear 

was, ‘Hey, welcome home’, that and ’Thank you 

for your service’. And they’re content with that, 

that’s what they never got, a formal welcome 

home. They brought them back and kicked them 

off the bus and so you know, whenever I see them, 

I say, ‘welcome home.’  

Formal recognition of service was not allocated equally. I was 

interested in this particular response and wondered if the 

participant who served more than one war felt similarly or had 

corresponding experiences. Mick was asked to reflect upon his 

experiences arriving home. Mick shared: 

It sucked. Flew out of a[n]Airspace base out of 

the Phillipines…the terminal at LAX was 

blocked, and it was blocked by people. My 

girlfriend, this is back when your girlfriend was 

allowed to pick you up at the airport. I saw her, 

and I had to physically push people out of my way 

to get to her.  

Gratitude is the center of the research study. Within the 

context of the interviews, I highlight that gratitude is subjective. I 

ask participants to discuss why that is. Their experiences with 



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

arriving home are different when compared. These positive or 

negative experiences gratitude look and feel different depending 

on the individual. With gratitude being reframed from generation 

to generation, scripts have been composed about implementing 

gratitude and making veterans feel appreciated. For Vietnam 

veterans, they say it is too little, too late. Marty shares:  

All the veterans appreciate each other. Like the 

29th of March is Vietnam day, you know Vietnam 

war day. So, it’s a recognition of you get kind of 

recognized but not, cuz, it’s over now. So, they 

were trying to do a drive by at the VA hospital, to 

be a drive by is like going to the hamburger stand, 

getting a hamburger, and going home. So, I told 

them thank you, but no thank you type of 

situation. I live three miles away from the VA 

hospital and I wouldn’t even go. 

Marty implies that gratitude was not given equally to each 

generation of veterans. Stigmas surrounding the Vietnam conflict 

overrode the need for gratitude to be given.  

 

DISCUSSION 

 Gratitude is a subjective emotion that can be interpreted 

differently depending on who receives it. When comparing the 

experiences of veterans from the Vietnam conflict and Operation 

Desert Storm , we must realize that they are qualitatively different. 

The present literature does not examine how veterans' individual 

experiences of being welcomed or not welcomed have influenced 

how they receive recognition. Utilizing a symbolic interactionist 

framework, I describe the subjectiveness of appreciation and how 

it differs when comparing soldiers from different conflicts. 

I highlight personal narratives and experiences to display their 

altered perceptions of gratitude.  

When comparing both populations of veterans, I find that 

their interactions with civilians were different. ODS veterans’ 

interactions were positive while Vietnam veterans still face echoes 

of stigmatization due to their participation in an unfavorable war. 

Through the symbolic interactionist framework, I reflect on these 

differences and how the meaning of gratitude has become 

subjective. ODS veterans appreciate gratitude, while Vietnam 



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

veterans face a complex relationship with gratitude. Further, the 

rituals of gratitude expressed by civilians has unintentionally 

contributed to the marginalization of one group of veterans in 

comparison to the other. Having only two comparison groups 

produces ungeneralizable data. 

 In future research, I could conduct a survey of veterans 

from a randomized or representative sample, which would permit 

me to make generalizations. I could also analyze additional wars, 

including Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan to expand the sample. 

 

REFERENCES 

Anthony, Maureen. 2015. “Vietnam Veterans--Thank Them for 

Their Service.” Home Healthcare Now 33(7):353-54.  

Bryan, Jennifer L., Chelsie M. Young, Sydnee Lucas, and 

Michelle C. Quist. 2018. “Should I Say Thank You? 

Gratitude Encourages Cognitive Reappraisal and Buffers 

the Negative Impact of Ambivalence over Emotional 

Expression on Depression.” Personality and Individual 

Differences 120:253-58.  

Desai, Miraj U., Anthony J. Pavlo, Larry Davidson, Ilan Harpaz-

Rotem, and Robert Rosenheck. 2016. “‘I Want to Come 

Home’: Vietnam-Era Veterans’ Presenting for Mental 

Health Care, Roughly 40 Years after Vietnam.” The 

Psychiatric Quarterly 87(2):229–39.  

Griffith, James, and Shelley Perry. 1993. “Wanting to Soldier: 

Enlistment Motivations of Army Reserve Recruits before 

and after Operation Desert Storm.” Military Psychology: 

The Official Journal of the Division of Military 

Psychology, American Psychological Association 

(2):127-39.  

Hillen, John F. 1993 “Peacekeeping Is Hell: A Veteran of Desert 

Storm Explains How the Clinton Administration Is 

Ignoring the Lessons of Vietnam.” Policy Review 

(Washington, D.C.) 66:36–39. 

Kashdan, Todd B., Gitendra Uswatte, Michael F. Steger, and Terri 

Julian. 2006. “Fragile Self-Esteem and Affective 

Instability in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.” Behaviour 

Research and Therapy 44(11):1609-19.  



CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 5 

Lau, Richard R., Thad A. Brown, and David O. Sears. 1978. “Self-

Interest and Civilians’ Attitudes toward the Vietnam 

War.” Public Opinion Quarterly 42(4):464-482. 

Laufer, Robert S., M. S. Gallops, and Ellen Frey-Wouters. 1984. 

“War Stress and Trauma: The Vietnam Veteran 

Experience.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 

25(1):65-85.  

McCormack, Lynne, and Stephen Joseph. 2014. “Psychological 

Growth in Aging Vietnam Veterans: Redefining Shame 

and Betrayal.” Journal of Humanistic Psychology 

54(3):336-55.  

McGuire, Adam P., Brienna M. Fogle, Jack Tsai, Steven M. 

Southwick, and Robert H. Pietrzak. 2021. “Dispositional 

Gratitude and Mental Health in the U.S. Veteran 

Population: Results from the National Health and 

Resilience Veterans Study.” Journal of Psychiatric 

Research 135:279-88.  

 Robillard, Michael. 2017. “A Case for Gratitude: A Response to 

Stephen Kershnar’s Gratitude Toward Veterans.” Reason 

Papers. 39(1):65.  

Rosenthal, Irwin. 1975. “Vietnam War Soldiers and the 

Experience of Normlessness.” The Journal of Social 

Psychology 96(1):85-90.  

Straus, Elizabeth, Sonya B. Norman, Moira Haller, Steven M. 

Southwick, Jessica L. Hamblen, and Robert H. Pietrzak. 

2019. “Differences in Protective Factors among U.S. 

Veterans with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Alcohol Use 

Disorder, and Their Comorbidity: Results from the 

National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study.” Drug 

and Alcohol Dependence 194:6-12.  

Sutker, Patricia B., Madeline Uddo, Kevin Brailey, and Albert N. 

Allain Jr. 1993. “War-Zone Trauma and Stress-Related 

Symptoms in Operation Desert Shield/Storm (ODS) 

Returnees.” The Journal of Social Issues 49(4):33-49.  

Vellenga, Barbara A., and Janell Christenson. 1995. “Healing the 

Wounds of War: The Vietnam Veteran after Operation 

Desert Storm.” Perspectives in Psychiatric Care 31(4):5-

8.  


