I think juxtaposing the Pyle reading from last week with Herr's article for today's discussion shows progression in American transparency in reporting that acted as a catalyst towards what it means to be an American. It was much easier to be an American during WWII when Pyle's writing (granted it was an editorial versus more fact based reporting) encouraged a greater public sentiment supporting the war, compared to the chaos and bloodshed captured in Herr's reporting. However, one could just as easily argue that public outrage and support for American involvement in WWII was much more unified and fervent due to the attack on American soil at pearl harbor, whereas the war in Vietnam was an abstract proxy war half a world away.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
I found today's discussion both very interesting and informative. Vietnam is also talked about as a transformative topic and time in American history, and it is interesting to know about the reaction to the war domestically as well as other economic factors that ended up playing a large part in the overall scope of the war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you on both aspects. I also believe that Herr's article shows progression in reporting, and that it was much easier to be a proud American during WWII when we were seen as the good guys rather than during Vietnam when we were the invaders. I also feel that the differences in their readings exemplify Americans feelings towards the war. From what I can gather Americans during WWII were supportive of the war effort and looked at our country as being heroic. Where as much of the American population opposed the Vietnam war and saw our country as hypocritical.
ReplyDelete