Reaction #3

To be honest, of all the readings in this class, Cohen seemed the most excessive and unnecessary. The book was full of information, but much more than was really useful to the class. But in any case that's just my opinion. It was also easier to relate the more personal readings to this class, so Cohen's was a bit taxing by comparison. Nonetheless the information was illuminating.

One of the most convincing and entertaining readings was the piece on King Tut. The range of themes it brought together was impressive, and the arguments were convincing. It was fairly detailed, but not tedious. While it wasn't the most important reading for the course, it was another great cultural studies essay.

Probably my favorite part of the course was the paper assignment. As a film major, I enjoyed the opportunity to read more images. And it made me see that there was some value in image reading that could extend just past art and film courses..

Overall this was an excellent course that gave a critical and careful look at history through a more culturally informed lens. Hass' associations and observations were inspired and gave me a whole new appreciation for the cultural studies field.

Reflection 4

I have always enjoyed U.S. history, but this class made me look at our country's past very differently. I do not feel like the things I have learned in the past were necessarily wrong, but I feel that through grade school, high school, and even some college courses, a lot has been left out about the history of our country, and how we have treated others. As a country we have prided ourselves on democracy and equal rights, yet we do not exhibit these qualities. We constantly are pushing others to the side, and making others suffer, so we can be more successful. This is something I never realized before this course.

I also didn't realize how much gender roles have played a role in American history. I always knew they existed but I never knew to which extent they were taken. Throughout the entire course gender roles existed and to some point they still exist today. Americans pride themselves on Manliness, men are seen as being strong and powerful, while women are seen the be responsible and thought of the be the caregivers. Although gender roles are not as prevalent in today's society as they have been in the past, they are still very much in existence.

Overall, I really enjoyed this class. I feel that I have learned a lot about our nations history, and the formation of our national identity. I have learned how the national identity changes quite often, and it is the people of our country who define the national identity. This class was a great course on the Culture of America and how we got to where we are today.

Reflection 4 (Final Thoughts)

I wanted to take a moment to reflect on this course and how it has allowed me to see America and its "Culture." As I stated on the last day of discussion, I did not think that America had a culture because we do not have key identifiers like some other countries found in other parts of the world. But if you examine our history, it is apparent that there are key identifiers during certain periods of our history that collectively create an American Culture. Our culture, unlike many others, if fluid and it changes over a period of time.
As I think of the times we are in now, I see a new culture emerging, and we can help it come to fruition. I believe that with all of the economic and world issues that we are experiencing, we could establish a period of reform. Our new culture could be centered around reforming the world and our nation.

Reflection

I think what struck me most about professor Hass's last lecture was how quickly the last four to six years have become apart fo the annals of analytical "history". It shows that the world at cultural zeitgeist around us is produced by historical actors, but more importantly, by unique events. The atrositys of Abu Ghraib and "enhanced interrogation" used at Guantanamo Bay have helped dictate policy debates on redifining the definition of torture --and has even called into debate the efficacy of the information gained, which in turn has opened up discussion of increased transparnecy (from surprise of the year, the previous administration).
The terrorist attacks on Sept. 11/2001 created fear in the international financial markets, which the government felt needed to be stimulated by easing regulatory measures and acceptable market practices. Years non-interventionalist policy on apart of the SEC and lackadaisical due-diligence by credit rating agencies helped lead to the current financial crisis --which in turn has lead to the re-leveraging of the country's fiscal futures to escape from.
Again, people can also argue the connection between the enviornmental crisis and the need for cheap oil and the Iraq war all they want, the point is it is interesting to notice how strongly some of the events that many of us would consider to happen 'not that long ago' resonate with the issues of today. And in our "flatter" more inter-connected world of today, our national narrative is increasingly becoming more international by the year. I just thought it was interesting and somthing I thought about during class, and made me feel really old :(

Reflection #3: Final Thoughts

I have throughly enjoyed this class.  I was eager to go to class and discussion every week, knowing I would learn something new about American history and our culture.  Before this course, I was one of those people who thought naively that Americans do not have a concrete culture, basing this on the fact that I could not think of rituals or customs that we partake in as a nation.  I see now that our rituals are not as obvious, but need to take a further in-depth look to see them.  I think they are less obvious because we have struggled and maybe still struggle with a national identity.  There are so many other races and ethnicities in the United States bringing their own culture with them.  Over the years the 'we' of the US has made the mistake of dehumanizing such minorities instead of learning and embracing their cultural behavior, because of fear.  

This class really opened my eyes to the world around me.  I knew that minorities faced hardships in this country, but I had to idea the extent they actually endured.  The saying goes, "history repeats itself," but I believe if you have the educational background, the negative aspects of our history should not be repeated.  Since everyone does not go to college, I think it imperative to teach some of the more heart wrenching facts in high school. 

We as Americans have a lot of work to do now.  We are currently in a time of hardship and need to work together to get out of such a rut.  We have seen collaboration efforts succeed before, and I have no doubt it can happen again.      

Reflection #3

Before this class I never really realized how much the "We" has changed over the course of U.S. history. I have taken a number of US history courses, and I have been aware of the discrimination which people such as the Irish and African American's have faced, but I looked at it in depth, like I have in this class. I have learned that ever since we have landed on American soil, we have been excluding others from our way of life, and depriving them from basic rights. We like to think that we have come along way since forcing Indians off land, and enslaving African Americans, and in many ways we have, but we do still discriminate against certain races.

As mentioned in class before, it seems like we define being American, and the "We" by who is excluded. When looking back on this course I can not think of a time, when Americans have not discriminated against a race or religion. Although we no longer enslave others, we still treat people from different races poorly, and often stereotype others. Although we have taken great steps towards being more accepting, and less discriminatory. Although I hope that we are heading in the right direction I also feel that as a country we still have a long way to go before we can truly say that we treat everyone equality

Reflection 4

I want to sum up some of the things this class has taught me.  I realize that the type of history I was taught in high school left out many details about what was going on at home and solely focused on the government and the war itself.  I enjoyed learning about the impact it had on society much more than just about the occurrences of the war.  Learning what was going on at home helped me connect the past to the present which was the link that was missing from my knowledge of history.  Coming into the class I expected it to be like all the other history classes I've taken and didn't think there was much more to tell, but I was definitely wrong.  The way this class made a full circle from the part to the present and connecting it together throughout really helped me understand that times have changed drastically but there are still many factors that have stayed the same.  Also, I feel like I received a non-biased view of the past.  IN previous classes I would only learn about what we felt and how war affected the white population.  In this class I learned much more about how war affected both sides.  I also, learned about how it affected the different genders and races which I had never touched on in previous classes.  Before I was taught the happy side of history where America was always the good guy and we never did anything wrong.  Now my view has been widened to see that even our nation makes mistakes.

Reflection 3

One thing Professor Hass tried to teach us was what is nationalism and patriotism.  I found myself finding out what they were during the beginning of the class when we read books like Little Women.  This book portrayed patriotism in the sense of the father going to war while the children and mother stayed home in full support of their husband/father doing whatever they could to help with the war.  The entire society was supportive of the war and their soldiers.  Throughout the class this type of nationalism seemed to dwindle as we progressed from war to war, decade to decade.  More recently we see patriotism a more broken than in previous years.  Being anti-war has been seen as extremely unpatriotic whereas now patriotism doesn't depend on being supportive of war and few seem to still think so.  Within WWII and into the current war on terrorism society has been becoming much more unsupportive of the governments decision to go to war.  At first those people were seen as being unpatriotic and unsupportive of the nation.  Now the idea of patriotism has been altered to include those who don't necessarily agree with the government and their decisions.  Being more opposed to the government and speaking out against it is seen as still being patriotic.  There are still many people who are not patriotic and decide to be completely against the nation as a whole including many celebrities which is unfortunate to see because of the impact they have on the media and in turn the media has on the population.  It would be nice to always have a unified nation but, it is good to see that we have not totally lost our unity when it comes to threats of our nation.  The reaction to 9/11 was really good since we all came together to ban against terrorism. Unfortunately the unity didn't last very long but it is reassuring to see that it is still possible to do in our nation. 

Reflection 2

The articles by Herr, Pyle, and Crawford were really eye-opening to the different responses and views of the different wars.  Patriotism and Nationalism were main factors in the support for the war.  Along with a common enemy and media coverage which highly altered the support of the war.  I didn't realize there was such a significant difference of support of the wars within both the soldiers and the nation.  The three articles demonstrate the immense difference in opinion of the war with respect to other wars.  These writers addressed the wars from different perspectives, whether as a soldier in the war or as a report at home and at the war.  The main things that effect the way the war was accepted at home was how the media portrayed it.  Before wars were shown on television a sense of nationalism and patriotism seemed greater in this nation.  I also believe that people were more pro-war than now because before people didn't have a way of truly knowing how horrible war is, only what they imagined.  By showing people what war actually looks like really upset people and made them realize that war was worse than what people may have thought.  Media being brought out during WWII greatly influenced why the public became so anti-war.  Seeing actual footage from the war made everyone rethink whether war was really a good thing as Herr portrayed in his article.  Crawford brought in the opposition from the soldiers perspective by retelling his fake war encounters.  Many soldiers were in a similar position to the one he talks about where the soldiers don't actually support the war or want to be their fighting for their country.  The way Crawford described the soldiers not wanting to be fighting the war, not being supportive of those in other regimes, and the all around negative feeling of those we are trying to protect was upsetting yet, true.  It is unfortunate that so many soldiers were forced to fight in wars of the past yet, didn't want to be fighting for their country.  What happened to the past sense of nationalism where it was seen as an honor to fight for your country?

Reflection #2

My favorite reading this course was The Montgomery Boycott and the Women who started it, telling the story of Mrs. Jo Ann Robinson.  I had little knowledge of this event, only really knowing the role of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat.  I was unaware that a boycott was installed and what this boycott stood for for the African American community in Montgomery, Alabama.  I am thankful that after many years of searching for someone to publish her manuscript, Mrs. Robinson finally found someone to complete the task and tell her story.  It does not surprise me in the least bit that for so many years no one was willing to listen to her story, for the 'we' of America did not wish to discuss the topic of African American power.  

Her manuscript focused on the relationship between black activists and white leaders following Rosa Parks arrest.  She discusses how she organized and facilitated the events leading up to the boycott, working diligently sending out flyers and plotting the right time to begin a huge change among African American lives in this part of the south.  After 13 months of boycotting the bus system, the buses were finally desegregated, and the African Americans had won over justice.  

A quote by Mrs. Robinson that especially stood out in my mind was her words in regards to the way African Americans felt saying they would, "suffer for the sake of peace."  It is still beyond me that our country treated people so wrongly and inhuman.  Many African Americans kept questioning when they could stop suffering and what it would take to do so.  Finally, their collaborative movement brought the onset of less suffering, for they were standing up for themselves and fighting back.  

This piece touched me because it revealed how powerful people can be when they fight hard and are passionate about their cause.  Furthermore, this boycott was led by women, showing their strength and power in a world that sought hard to suppress them.  Mrs. Robinson is an inspiration to me and I am glad I was exposed to her story.  

Reflection 1

Professor Hass' lecture on the War Memorials was insightful on how many discrepancies there were when it came to the memorials.  Before this class I had not learned much about the memorials besides that they exist.  Hearing about the competition that was used to decide what the WWII memorial and how important the race of the statues were really surprised me.  I didn't imagine a memorial as something controversial but instead as a way of remembering the past.  Now I realize that the memorials had to accommodate the correct representation of the soliders and that was a difficult task based on what happened and what those in the states saw. 

 A point we addressed in discussion was the purpose of the memorials and what those who participated in the wars felt about them.  It seems that the war participants didn't really want the millions of dollars spent on the memorials but would rather that money be spent in a way that will help those still living.  While the purpose of memorials is meaningful and respectful of the soliders' who fought for our country there are cheaper ways to recognize them and everything they did.  For instance, we could spend more time in school recognizing their importance and how much they did for our nation.  

Another point recently addressed in section was whether memorials will be built for current wars or recent movements.  I feel they will not be built because of how expensive they are.  Currently, we especially don't have the millions of dollars to spend creating memorials.  Different measures should be taken by educating the nation about what occurred.  This will help us all remember the past and see what needs to be done in future situations that may be similar.

Reflection #4

After looking back over the semester, I think it is clear that I will take a lot away from American Culture 201. Among many other things, the most important lesson I have learned throughout the class is to never take anything at face value and to always question everything. Growing up we are taught American history from a textbook that contains a very small selection of stories from the past. Not only have many aspects of our country’s history been left out of our education, but the stories we do hear are usually told from only one perspective. Although I have previously learned about many of the events and people we discussed in this course, I have only heard them from a single viewpoint. This class definitely helped to open my eyes and showed me how biased and protective the American education system is.

One of the stories that I think particularly exemplifies this point is the tale of Custer. As a child I remember learning about Custer as a hero who defeated the Native Americans and helped bring about the end of the wars. I have a distinct memory of my brother being assigned to a report on Colonel Custer as part of their American Heroes project. However, what we aren’t taught in the classroom is that Custer was actually an aggressive degenerate soldier who instigated a battle with Native Americans and probably deserved what he got. It is amazing to me that this story, and countless others, have been distorted so much. This class definitely made me look a lot more closely at the history education I have, and got me to question many of the stories that I have previously taken as fact. I have learned how important it is to look at everyone’s side of historical events and not just accept the version we have been taught.

Reflection #3

Although I have enjoyed almost all of the readings we have been assigned during this course, Crawford’s “The Last True Story I’ll Ever Tell” touched me on another level. I think the main reason this piece affected me more is because it told a story about the war that is currently being fought. Going through the other readings I was not surprised to find that there were many aspects of history that I had either been mis-taught, or never learned at all. However, after reading The Last True Story I’ll Ever Tell, I was shocked to discover how little I know about the current wars. Although I know the basic background and reasons we initially became involved in the war, I never realized how much I have lost track of what is going on overseas. Crawford’s storytelling technique not only helped me to get a better grasp on the state of the war, but also made it seem more real. Unlike many other people, I don’t know anyone who is currently serving in the armed forces and I have never really felt personally affected by the war. However, after reading Crawford’s account I started to feel a stronger connection to the American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are risking their lives everyday for our country. I don’t want to say that I have taken their services for granted, but rather I was just never really aware about all that they were going through.

After thinking about this for awhile, I started to become very disturbed by how little information we are actually given about the current war. It seems like in previous wars the country came together in support of the troops, offering aid and helping in anyway that they could. However, now I feel like everyday we are hearing less and less about the war and the conditions the soldiers are facing in Iraq. Most of the war coverage in the media is focused on the Obama administration, and what they are trying to do to end the war. There is rarely any footage or stories told about the actual men and women who are fighting. I had never really noticed this before reading Crawford’s piece, and now that I have, I am curious to know why. Because the fighting overseas has lasted far longer than initially expected, I’m guessing the government is trying to downplay the war, hoping to avoid scrutiny. However, I think this is unacceptable. I believe they need to make a more conscious effort to inform the public about the current state of the war and not let it be forgotten before it is even over.

Reflection #2

I thought that Professor Hass’ lectures on the construction of war memorials were both very interesting and eye-opening. It had never occurred to me before that veterans would not be in favor of having a memorial built in their honor. This seemed to be especially prevalent in regards to the possible creation of a World War Two memorial. I always assumed that memorials were places where soldiers would come to reflect on their time at war and to remember their friends and comrades who had died. However, after hearing Professor Hass’ lectures and doing a bit more reading about the opposition to memorials, it seems that many view war memorials as a superficial attempt to garner patriotism rather than honor those lost in war. After thinking about this viewpoint for awhile it has started to make more sense. Veterans who spent time in World War Two have an experience that no one else will ever be able to fully understand. They have been through things that can’t be put into words or physical forms. Maybe they feel that the construction of a huge showy memorial is more for appearance and not actually designed for the benefit of veterans. By creating a gaudy monument, it seems like the government is trying to call more attention to the war, almost promoting a celebration instead of a rememberance.

This idea fits with many of the themes we have discussed throughout the class. We have talked a lot about how times of war seem to bring Americans together and heighten patriotism. I think that the government feeds off these emotions and feeling of “togetherness” in order to promote their own agenda. When the country is focused on fighting against some other nation, outside of America, there is less interest and effort directed towards dissenting within the country. Perhaps by constructing memorials that remind people of the war, the government is hoping that the unifying and patriotic feelings of wartime will also be aroused. If this were to happen people might again not spend as much energy fighting battles within our own borders. Therefore, while at first glance our looming war memorials may seem like honorable tributes to the veterans of our country, I think it is more likely they were created for additional purposes, beyond just serving as rememberances.

Reflection #4

After taking American Culture 201, I believe the greatest benefit to me has been making myself more accepting of other opinions and ideas. mirroring several of the previous comments, I believe that if nothing else, at least I will be a little more skeptical of things in the future. I find that in our culture today, there is little emphasis placed on individualism and developing our own ideas, and much more placed on following what is considered normal. It was individualism that brought change in the early years of our nation, and I believe we have come far from this mindset. Within the course, I enjoyed our time spent on the Vietnam war the most. I have a better understanding now of how controversial the war was, and the different yet valid opinions. I also thought looking at consumerism and its history was very interesting as well. Overall, after coming into the course not really having a good idea of what to expect, I believe that it has been very beneficial to my understanding of the different opinions of major issues that exist within the United States today.


I thought the paper assignment was very interesting as well. It forced me to look deeper into a photograph and interpret the artist's intended meaning, rather than simply taking it for face value. Similar to questioning everything, taking the time to thoroughly understand a topic and assess it rather than simply what is given is imperative, especially today as many issues are very complex and require a multi-angled approach to resolve. More than the facts we discussed, it is this type of thinking that made the class so beneficial to me.
Going forward, as I enter discussions about current events and political issues, I will be able to think back to this course and hopefully approach the conversation with a more open mind.

AC 201 Class Reflection

For my final post, I thought it would be interesting to reflect upon my experiences taking this course and the main points I have taken away from it. Before taking this course, I found myself very unclear as to what exactly “Intro to American Values” was going to be about. Now, after delving deep into the underlying cultural values associated with each decade and war era within the past two centuries, I have come to the realization that what it means to be “American” is a product of our own creation. Whether it be the construction of gender roles during the Civil War (Little Women), or the establishment of “Americanness” as defined by patriotism and racial superiority (To Die For; Playing Indian), American culture and the underlying values associated with it have been artificially constructed around a certain set of norms associated with each generation. Furthermore, as we look at the progression of our nation (a nation that once embraced slavery and Japanese Internment, to one that elected an African American President) it is clear to me that what it means to be “American” is always changing with each successive generation.

On a more pessimistic note, another dominant theme that has stuck with me throughout this course is that ignorance has deeply engrained itself deep within the American system, both socially and politically. On a social level, we have seen countless times instances of racial and gender inequality, which consequently led to the exploitation of minority groups. On a political level, we have seen the government spend millions of dollars on war (i.e. Vietnam) when problems such as poverty and racial inequality were left unsolved. That being said, when looking at the progression of our nation once more, it appears as if our country is slowly detaching itself from this deeply engrained ignorance. It will be interesting to see what happens next…

Crawford Response

After reading through Crawford’s The Last True Story I’ll Ever Tell, I find myself sitting in my chair with an unsettling feeling deep within my stomach. As I think carefully about why I’m feeling this way, I realize that I, like many others, have completely taken for granted the sacrifices that are currently being made by our troops in Iraq. Crawford’s very detailed and casual account of both his experiences in combat and his interactions with fellow troops shows me a different side of the war that I have never been thoroughly exposed to. I believe that my detachment from the war is part of a larger national issue, which stems not only from a nation wide failure to effectively educate the average citizen on the war itself, but a failure to humanize the war so that people can relate.

One of the most striking aspects of Crawford’s text is the realization that the account of the Blue Crab Festival is a fictional story. Before reading through the last chapter in its entirety (“The Last Story I’ll Ever Tell”), I was overcome with joy to see that John was able to make a smooth transition from the war back into society. However, when I was made aware that this account was, in fact, fabricated, my joy quickly turned to dismay. It was at this point where I came to realize that on a daily basis I live my life in complete ignorance, failing to acknowledge the true scope of the war and the effect it has on our troops. Although we all may claim to understand the war and be their to support our troops when they come home, we will never truly understand their experiences. For this reason, I believe that efforts should be taken on the home front to inform the public about the war on a more individualized level so we can more easily relate to soldiers’ experiences and emotions.

Dr. King Response

After reading through Dr. King’s speech regarding the War in Vietnam I learned a lot about King’s dedication to the civil rights movement both within our borders and beyond them. More importantly, from the arguments set forth by King it becomes clear to me that the U.S. hypocritically identifies itself as the ultimate problem solver of the world by failing to properly address the very issues that were eating away at our nation during this era. Moreover, the war in Vietnam not only adversely affected people on the American home front, but the lives of many Vietnam civilians, whose land and homes were destroyed.

In the post WWII era, the U.S. was much more concerned with the containment of Communism than with solving problems of widespread racism and poverty that was characteristic of our nation during this time. As King mentioned, too much money was being afforded towards the war effort rather than directing it towards those impoverished citizens who needed the help from the government. Additionally, there was a great irony associated with the fact that an unreasonably high proportion of African Americans were drafted into the military to fight and die for our country. Why should they be forced to fight for a country that for so long had excluded them from greater society? The answer is clear, they shouldn’t have had to. However, this supports my notion that the U.S., in all its power and conceit, feels that it is their inherent duty as a nation to police the rest of the world while its home front remains plagued with issues of its own.

On a different note, America’s quest to eliminate the threat of Communism was also a huge blow to the very people they attempting to protect and liberate. As King states, “we have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village.” The war destroyed not only South Vietnamese land and crops, but have corrupted and killed innocent civilians, including women and children. A prime example of this was the My Lai massacre, in which American troops recklessly burned civilian villages, killing women and children who were thought to be associated with the Vietcong.

Reflection 4

John Crawford’s stories made the recent wars much more real to me. The level of detail and the way he described each situation almost made me feel like I was right next to him. Even with his masterful storytelling something constantly jumped out at me; why was he and his troops not supplied with adequate gear and equipment at all times? The first example arose in the first story when he was in the sandstorm. Intel informed him that there were incoming enemy tanks to their position. Crawford asked around if they had anything to “kill” a tank and everyone came up empty. What struck me was that our troops were basically sitting ducks if there actually was an attack on their base.

The second example occurred in the last story. He first illustrated that his body armor was from the Vietnam era and would hardly protect him from incoming fire. He then went on telling that his hummer had no protection and incoming fire would rip right through the doors. There wasn’t even a back to the hummer and when they stopped abruptly, he actually fell out of the vehicle.

What is most striking to me about all these examples is that it shows our army and soldiers are not sufficiently supplied for modern combat. Are we not supposed to be the best army in the world with the most sophisticated weapons and technologies? What does this say about how much we actually care for our soldiers if we can’t even provide them with body armor? In lecture Hass says that wars are now soldier centered and “support our troops” is a main theme. How can this be true if everything Crawford illustrated is true?

Final Thoughts (Militarizing the National Mall)

Looking back on the course, it is clear how much I have grown in terms of how I think about U.S. history. I never realized how the desire to assert U.S. "manliness" and power has and continues to affect national policies and, in some cases, has even been the motivation of war. I also did not see how so very important rhetoric is to the American people--the use of language to express a certain kind of logic is used time and time again in the monuments we build, in the laws we write and even in the Constitution. Thus, one thing this class has shown me is the profound importance that lies in words. This can be seen especially when referring to the idea of the U.S. soldier. Dating back to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, the role of the citizen soldier was elevated to new heights as Lincoln made it our responsibility as citizens to remember the soldier for his sacrifice and place him at the center of the nation. 

As we continued throughout the course, we have seen how the use of the memory of the soldier has created a kind of militaristic nationalism in very strategic and key ways. How we memorialize the soldier provides insight into how we view the soldier today and how we, as U.S. citizens, view ourselves as a nation. Our obliged duty to the soldier continues to shape the way we see ourselves with respect to other nations and has definitely created a sense of pride among many Americans.

This concept of remembering the fallen soldier through architecture on the National Mall is extremely compelling because we have both literally and metaphorically placed the soldier in the center of the nation. We have established the National Mall as the universal war memorial site, which says to me how important power and masculinity are to our national identity. Just a thought. 

I have enjoyed the class and good luck to everyone with their exams!

-Kristen

Reflection 2

I found last weeks lectures about the war memorials interesting. I have seen the memorials and always knew the importance of remembering our soldiers, but I never realized how controversial they were, and how much went into every detail. I think that the fact that people didn't like the Vietnam Memorial because it wasn't "masculine" enough brings us back to one of the major themes of the course which is gender roles. We would like to think that we have come a long way since the civil war, yet we still consider war, and soldiers to be masculine, and turning boys into men. The same goes for the controversary the race of the soldiers caused. At the time that these memorials were built, race should not have been such a big issue.

The fact that bringing loved ones items to the site of a death, or tragedy began with the Vietnam memorial was also new to me. I am used to seeing flowers and stuffed animals on the side of the road or at a grave site, but I was never aware until last week that this orginated with the Vietnam Wall. The sight of all the memorabila along the wall, gives us insight to how many people and families this war affected.After Professor Hass's lectures I have a new appreciation for the war memorials, and for the people who designed them. I now realize that they not only represent the fallen soldiers, but their families, and all of the people affected by the war both at home, and in foreign countries.

Reflection #4

I took this picture on Spring Break '07. For those who haven't been to DC this is a picture of the Vietnam memorial with a reflection. No real big significance to the reflection to which I'm about to write.

This post is mostly to reflect on the course overall. I really enjoyed the way the course as a whole the starting with the Civil War and proceeding into the present. The songs and the readings all were a vital piece to help the class as a whole learn who "we" really are.

What I personally have learned is that you shouldn't take everything you learn as a fact, that even what prof Hass and our GSI's say aren't necessarily the whole truth. "We" must question everything, be curious, and be the ones that step up and be the change we want to see. I really hope that everyone walks away from this class with these three principles, so to speak. And just maybe more and more people will understand the "we."

reflection 4

I found the Crawford reading to be a bit of a reality check. His account about the most modern war made me think about what is currently happening and how Americans aren't as aware or involved with it as they were during WWII. What struck me the most, and I pointed this out in discussion, was the way he described his ideal homecoming and how he would want his friends to perceive his experiences. He hoped his friends would be curious and pester him until he told what they hoped would be thrilling war stories- and he succumbed to their pressure and told them the real tale of what war was like- he told them of accidentally killing an innocent child. His story was a brief description of his idea of what real war was like and he hoped they would take something away from that. Crawford wanted the American people to understand and care about the reality of a war he didn't believe in, but what his account demonstrates is how war, to Americans, has been reduced to a far-off story of valiant soldiers who are fighting for themselves, when in fact the soldiers are fighting for Americans who don't seem to care. We as Americans have bumper stickers and signs that say "Support Our Troops" but how much are we actually doing? Are we acting on a cause we claim to believe in? Some people are, but the community involvement is not nearly at the extent it was in previous wars. The media plays a huge part in downplaying American soldiers' experiences in the War on Terror. What's happening is sad, like Crawford's story, and true -- like Crawford's story.

Reflection 1

So I've been thinking about lecture yesterday, when Professor Hass was talking about the lack of veteran support and desire for a World War II memorial. It makes sense, because I'm not sure about the veterans in your families, but my grandpop, a tail gunner in the Army who was not only wounded but who was later captured and held as a POW for nine months (including a force march), didn't really talk about his experiences too much. Although he died in 1998 and I never got the opportunity to ask him how he felt about such a memorial, I'm sure his opinion would echo many of the opinions I found with a quick google search into opposition of a memorial. One site I found, <http://www.savethemall.org/media/scourge.html> gives the opinions of some former WWII soldiers who didn't want something so big and gaudy to remember their friends by. They would have preferred, if not nothing, than something smaller and in a different site so as not to ruin the National Mall from its original intended use: "one large, open, beautiful gree concourse, an expanse which people use and admire." One veteran said that he didn't need a memorial of stone to be repaid for his sacrifice: he got a good college education (via the GI Bill) and continues to recieve a stipend of $175.10 every month. Another GI said that "I'm not arrogant enough to think any one of us has the same right to be memorialized on this Mall as Abraham Lincoln or George Washington." Another veteran, also an architect, suggests a museum with which to educate people as opposed to a memorial, but is resigned to upset that politicians will maintain building this safe design instead of arising to the challenge of teaching America something about the war in order to remember those who fought and those who died.

It is interesting to note that the driving force behind this memorial was Bill Clinton, who wanted the building to start before he left office. Was the World War II memorial, then, just a politician's stab at leaving a legacy other than his adultery and lies in the wake of his presidential administration?

Reaction #2

I thought the Harraway reading was an excellent choice for an introductory cultural studies reading. While it might not have seemed too integral to the course in terms of exam content, it laid out a useful methodology for interrogating museums and other spaces which construct narratives of the past.

One of the most important things I learned in the readings for February, however, were from "A Chance to Make Good" and "To Die For." Never before had I known so much about the experiences and struggles of African Americans in this time period. In high school we just received some minimal information about sharecropping and Jim Crow, without learning about many of the details.

On the other hand, one thing I had no idea about were the large-scale Americanization movements which were mobilized at the turn of the century. I especially did not realize how much pull ex-Confederates had over legislation and, literally, the words that went into History textbooks. Within this framework of compromise, the ending of slavery takes on a new context -- it did not change American culture as radically or quickly as one might assume. The result was decades of virtually no progress made in advancing civil liberties and the continued oppression of minorities. I hadn't realized this stagnation was in service of the reconciliation effort.

Especially important were quotes from actual people who lived during that time. Perhaps that's one of the great strengths of this course; we get a wealth of personal voices coming from many different backgrounds and time periods. It's much more illuminating and interesting than reading one book which claims to tell you all you need to know about America. Between the essays, photographs, songs and films, the curriculum for this class really excelled at capturing multi-faceted cultural perspectives.

The Last Reading

I really enjoyed today's Discussion. It was a great change of scenery to be outside during class. I feel like we also had a great discussion about the reading. I feel as though this reading was the most interesting out of the three war accounts that we have read. The twist that was thrown in at the end aided in this. I would just like to address one of the discussion questions from this reading. Question five asks, "Did Crawford's use of emotional appeal and writing the story as factual rather than fiction have an impact on the reader? Would the story be appealing had it not been thought of as true?" I feel as though Crawford's use of emotional appeal and writing this story as factual rather than fiction had a big impact on me. As I look back, media that has any type of emotional effect on me has been 'inspired by true events' or 'based on a true story'. The fact that the events might have actually occurred gives it the notion that someone actually felt the pain of the incident or actually learned from the event. The fact that Crawford tells us at the end that his story was fabricated in parts is basically teaching us a lesson. The lesson, I feel, is also an overarching theme of this class. It is to question all facts that are put in front of you. Crawford wants us to question ourselves as to why we feel so connected to a story just because we think the story is true.

Reflection #4

I have found this week's lectures and reading very interesting. I thought the reading was really interesting and I enjoyed it more than previous readings. I thought it was interesting for a few reasons. First, I found it was easier to relate to than other readings. Of course, I'm not a soldier and I will never know what it is like to be in war, but it is about something that is still going on and we have been around to experience. We have learned about WWII and the Vietnam War, but we could not relate to the Herr and Pyle readings as much because it was before our time. Also what was different about this story, is that is was written by a soldier, not a journalist. I don't want to go into too much detail about comparing the readings because it's a final exam question, but of course I found it interesting just because of the difference in tone of the stories, as well as the difference in the actual content.
Another thing I found interesting this week was the lecture yesterday about war memorials. I was not really familiar with any of the memorials so it was interesting seeing the pictures and hearing the stories of how they were designed and built. I was particularly interested in the Memorial to Women in Military Service. Although it didn't surprise me too much that once again women were discriminated against, through the design and building of the memorial. It, of course, made me a bit angry that even women who served for our country cannot get proper recognition. It is a shame that there isn't even a sign or plaque to recognize what the memorial is. Also, I wasn't even aware this memorial existed! I'm sure a lot of other people aren't familiar with it and that probably stems from the fact that it is barely on the mall, has no signs, and wasn't even paid for or supported by our government.

reflection 3

I found Professor Hass's lecture yesterday to be very interesting. I did not know that the Vietnam memorial brought about the public pastime of leaving items of sentimental value at places of tragedy. For American people who were mourning the loss of many soldiers, this was a method of recovery, just like the memorial represented American recovery. For some people, it feels good to leave an item that resembles the lost friend or relative. However, to me it shows how materialistic people can be. Americans feel the need to share a visual item with all who will look upon it. In this way, it makes it easier to express sorrow if other people acknowledge a person's feelings by thinking about the representational items left behind. Another thought I had about the memorial occurred when Professor Hass showed the picture where the Washington Monument was seen in the distance. She briefly suggested that it was obvious how the shape of the Washington Monument represented male masculinity while the Vietnam Memorial represented "not-so-male masculinity". I really don't think the artists had the idea of human anatomy consciously in mind when designing the monuments, but it is something to think about and argue over. The monuments are representational but are also art and the perception of their exact meaning is in the eye of the individual.

Reflection 3

I found today’s lecture on the Vietnam Memorial to be very insightful, especially concerning memorial gifts that were brought in honor of the soldiers who served and died in the war. Growing up my parents always encouraged me to bring an object to a funeral that reminded me of the deceased, such as a photograph. When I was young I figured the act of bringing these objects was just a normal tradition or ritual that had been passed down for many generations. Learning that this new traditions started just a couple decades ago came as a shock.

I also found it very fascinating knowing how the ideas and feelings toward soldiers have changed dramatically during the course of our history. At the very beginning of our early nation and in other countries, soldiers were buried in mass graves and not identified. The battle at Gettysburg changed this custom by placing soldiers into individual graves and attempted to identify the bodies. What I find most interesting and which makes me proud is that we have continued to put emphasis on the soldier. We later gave dog tags to soldiers after Gettysburg. During the Vietnam War, Americans put the emphasis on the soldier greatly and organizations such as POW were created to help combatants. What I find most interesting is how we have gone from a nation where we placed our soldiers into mass graves, to a nation that spends millions of dollars searching for the bodies of soldiers that may have been lost. This nation transition has placed the soldier in the center of the war which continues today and will continue in future wars.

Before today's lecture I hadn't really ever thought about national monuments/memorials, even though it was brought up several times before by Professor Hass in lecture. The Vietnam Memorial sticks out the most to me though, because it was very different from the previously discussed ones (Washington and Lincoln memorials). It was interesting to me to see the how Teddy Roosevelt's take on manliness and the nation has carried through in U.S. history. The fact that Reagan rejected the design of the Vietnam Memorial because it was not manly or herioc enough reemphasizes the nation's desire to appear strong and powerful. This recurring themes makes me wonder how our recent presidents have encouraged this very vision. Is this need to show manliness still dominant today?
Before this lecture, I also never thought about the practice of bringing stuff to sites of tragedy or memory. I attributed this practice as a way for the people to honor the memory of the life lost, that physically bringing something tangible to the deceased person (or place of memory for the deceased person) is a way to invoke the memory and the life of that loved one. There seems to be a need to bridge the gap between what no longer physically exists and what is still physically there. Bringing stuff to to a memorial could be a way to narrow that gap. It seems that leaving one things at a memorial is both a way of remember a person whose life was cut short and a way to help them themselves move on.

I also found today's lecture to be very informative and interesting. However, in contrast to Alex's feelings coming out of lecture, I found the "disasters" of the 1970's made me feel more reassured during our troubling times we are experiencing now as a country. If we were able to survive supply shocks and disasters to many of the important institutions and sphere's of American life in the 1970's we may be able to emerge as a stronger America in the near future. Among some of the more troubling similarities between the 70's and now would be the current account deficit (which has only seemed to grow), the % of American oil that is imported (and the similar political and social instability of the OPEC nations), a disastrous war that was not well received at home and abroad, an environmental crisis, and the real perception of lack of transparency and accountability among the executive branch of government.

I thought the interesting part of lecture came in the discussion of former President Jimmy Carter. From what I knew about Presidents going into lecture, it was said of Jimmy C that he was a very smart man, but a notorious micro-manager who was not able to get anything done because of it. I am divided whether or not to sympathize with his pragmatic and parental approach of telling America to suck it up with his sweater comment, or whether or not to be appalled at some of the ideas that were coming out of Washington in the day.

Reflection #4

I found today’s lecture to be a little disturbing. The expression “history always repeats itself” has never seemed as real to me as it did today. It seemed as though after every point Professor Hass made, she asked us “seem familiar?” The “disasters” of the 1970’s and those of the present time are nauseatingly similar. We are making the same mistakes we made almost forty years ago, and facing the same consequences we suffered through.
The best example of this from lecture, was when Professor Hass pointed out that our reliance on foreign oil is going in the wrong direction. In the 1970’s 35% of our oil came from foreign sources, leading to an oil crisis. What do we expect to happen now that we’ve reached a 55% reliance? It seems as though President’s Carter solution for wearing a sweater might not be as ridiculous as once perceived. Perhaps with practical solutions, we can begin to force our reliance on foreign oil in the right direction.
The events in Iraq and Vietnam are also shockingly parallel. With only the difference of a military draft, both wars are practically the same. Both were started under false pretenses. Both have received harsh ridicule from the American people. And both will be remembered as lapses in judgment on the part of the executive branch. Although corruption today is a common characteristic of an ambitious politician, have we learned nothing from Nixon and the Watergate scandal? It seems as though a solution to our current situation is to look to the 1970’s and recognize it as a decade of mistakes, mistakes that should not be repeated.

response #3 cont...

after looking at it i wasnt quite sure if my last post was long enought so i wanted to add a littel bit more.
as were many other people, as evidence by the posts, i was very struck by the differences between Pyle and Herrs correspondences. i can remember even laught a couple of times during pyles article, for exampel, at the way he described the german prisoners of war looking out upon the allied invasion fleet. However, the only thing i remember about Herrs was cringing and even needing a little bit of a break for some comic relief. again, like many others i feel that this is indicative of the characreristic of the two wars. nobody really knew what was going on in vietnam and so this led to the fear and frustration so eloquently expressed by Herr; while in WWII the soldiers, especially by the time that Pyle was writing what we were reading, felt that there was little chance we would lose the war becuase we were taking part in a much more orgainsed war with a much clearer moral goal which led to much more relaxed/ adventuristic tone of Pyles writing. I hope that this makes sense.

Response #3

Again, i must say that i have enjoyed our discussions. i may even had a new favorite part of american history. there were a few things that i thought were interesting about the topic weve been discussing lately.
first, i found the documentay that we watched on McNemara (Spelling?) very interesting. it is really erie to hear the way that they thought about vietnam back then. there was somthing that struck me more than anything else though. what i took from lecture was that in this documentary McNemara was basically saying...yeah, we made these mistakes, but even that is better than a full on war with the russians. while i cant say that i disagree with that assesment it begs a very important question. why did there have to be a war at all? how about we ust dont bomb the H#ll out of North Vietnam and dont have a war with North Vietnam or Russia.
Second, is the fact that the cold war was not menttioned untill the very last lecture on the war, and even then it was only relatively lightly mentioned. i am taking another Amcult class on the cold war and in that class vietnam was taught as still a very central part of the vietnam war. im not saying there is a problem with either class, just that it is an interesting comparison.
Finally, i am going to be presenting in section this week so i look forward to more grat discussion!

Reflection #4

I thought that the Herr article was very graphic and differed greatly from Pyle. There are so many factors that contributed to the differences in the styles of these two articles. During WWII we lost more men than in Vietnam, but the Vietnam War hit home harder because it received more coverage. Americans were able to see the horrors of the Vietnam War and were constantly surrounded by it, while WWII was not covered as much. Herr also used vivid details and specific experiences in his writing, while Pyle did not. He actually went into detail about soldiers being killed and what the corpses looked like.
We have talked in discussion about the idea of the two wars being different in terms of the patriotism expressed during these wars. After Pearl Harbor was attacked, the United Sates gained involvement in WWII. But with the Vietnam War there was no real danger that was threatening American citizens. This may be a reason why there was so much resentment and protest of the Vietnam War. Many Americans believed that we had no business even being their.
I believe that the causes of war relate to Herr and Pyle's accounts and experiences of the wars described in their articles. While Pyle expresses WWII in a lighter way and avoids gruesome details, Herr is much more graphic and pays close attention to details. America's outlook on WWII and the Vietnam War definitely influenced the way in which each war was interpreted. Herr's gruesome accounts were pushed by the antiwar sentiment of the time, while Pyle’s interpretation of WWII shows how blind and clueless Americans were.

Reflection 2

Herr’s story of the Vietnam War brought to light many aspects of the war that I had very little knowledge about but what struck me most was how he described the war. His story not only enforced my belief that the war was horrific but his descriptions and narrative illustrates hell on earth. Every aspect of the war was brutal and harsh. The battles were sporadic and wicked. He describes that the soldiers and captains were always on the move because it was harder to hit a moving target. They also tried to be prepared for any situation that could occur but the irony was that with this constant movement, coupled with the cruelty of the forest, which Herr describes as almost alive, made it almost impossible to be prepared for everything and surprises happened frequently. Soldiers were also so exhausted from the war that it eventually got many of them killed.

What is horrific and what struck me the most was that this atmosphere was so terrible that it was almost guaranteed that all soldiers would “snap” at some point and go crazy. Herr describes an incident where a soldier placed a grenade on the door of an outhouse and it blew up once the next person used it. I think that these incidents occurred so frequently was because of the nature of the war itself. The constant carnage, the pure exhaustion and the constant moving would wear down anyone’s physical and mental strength. I enjoyed reading Herr’s article because he left nothing out and kept it raw, but that also made it hard to read knowing our soldiers had to go through it.

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.

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. 

Reflection #3, The Vietnam War

After reading Herr's article and preparing the discussion on the material, I have gained a much better understanding of the feeling present in America at the time regarding the involvement in Vietnam. In the past, I have learned about the war, however never focused as much on the reaction of our people at home. I also had not thought of the economic factors that played a role in who actually fought.

I felt the Herr reading was very informative as well. I have never had the opportunity to reach such a vivid description of a war account in class, and I felt that the author did an excellent job at presenting his account without a lot of bias. Herr excelled at displaying the emotions felt by the soldiers, and the day to day life experienced by those in Vietnam. I felt that the Pyle account was substantially more slanted, and painted the war discussed as "the good war", and did not focus on the chaos and brutality of the conflict. This in a sense distances readers who do not get the same feelings from the text.

From lecture, I also obtained a better understanding of the difference between not supporting the war and not supporting the troops. I must admit that before I was a little quick to judge those in opposition, perhaps sometimes misinterpreting the protest as being rather anti-American. After our discussion, I find it easier to take the time to really think about the motivations behind those who publicly express their opinions about any type of political action. Overall, I am glad I had the opportunity to further explore the topic of the war and its implications to the rest of the country both at the time of occurrence as well as the present day.

Reflection #3, Herr v Pyle

Herr's dispatches from Vietnam are obviously and drastically different from the editorial columns of Pyle's from WWII. In discussion last week we touched up the idea of the two wars being different in terms of the patriotism expressed during these wars and this has been a running theme of the lectures this week. One point that was mentioned in terms of the completely opposing degrees of patriotism was the origins of the wars and why they were being fought. WWII was fought to ensure the citizens' safety, with Pearl Harbor being attacked, US Citizens were literally in danger. However the Vietnam War had no real bearing on the citizens at home, as a proxy war they had no deep investment or even interest in the war.
Herr and Pyle's accounts of their experiences, I believe, reflect these origins of the war. Pyle is patriotic and expresses the lighter side of WWII while Herr is much more graphic and depressing and shows the unrational and psychotic side of Vietnam. One could argue that America's view of each of these wars at home was developed by these writers and the sentiments that they expressed of the war. However, I believe that the opposite is true. Instead of the writers influencing America, America's outlook on the war influenced the way in which each war was covered. Herr's confused and troubling accounts then are directed by America's antiwar sentiment at the time, a type of justification to fuel the protests against Vietnam. Like the citizens at home, Herr's accounts mirror the disconnect felt by the soldiers in Vietnam.

Discussion Questions- 4/2

1. Thinking back to World War II, How were American’s reactions to the war different? How was America’s position in Vietnam portrayed on the home front through articles, T.V., photographs as well as any other type of media?

2. How did Herr’s experience as a war correspondent differ from Pyle’s? How is this expressed in the readings? Do Herr’s readings accurately inform the American public?

3. How do Dorthea Lange’s photographs taken during WWII and the Great Depression differ from the famous photographs of the Vietnam war? Do you think the pictures taken during Vietnam accurately depict the feelings of people at home and how people were being treated in Vietnam during this time? ( See below for Pictures)

4. Even though Vietnam was considered a Proxy war, looking back was it? Take into consideration the number of troops, the amount of money spent, the number of bombs dropped, as well as the American publics reaction.

5. How do the attitudes of the soldiers Herr described differ from the soldiers which Pyle interacted with? Do you think the soldiers attitudes had an affect on the outcome of each war? What about the attitude of the American people?

The Vietnam War vs. Civil RIghts for all (Reflection 3)

Today's lecture made me think of how America has the habit neglecting the core issues on the mainland to fight wars in other countries. This was evident with the internment of the Japanese Americans and the lack of civil rights for African Americans during World War II and it is also seen with the Vietnam War and the issues minorities faced in trying to find civil rights. We learned about the different movements shared by the African Americans and Chicanos that occurred during the Vietnam War and it is sad that many of these Americans were sent to fight the Vietnam War when they were not getting the best treatment at home. It is sad that they had to fight for America abroad and also fight for civil liberties at home.
It says something about our nation when a group of people are not seen as equals but they are relied on the most to fight in the war. We learned in lecture that African Americans and Mexican Americans among others were sent to the front lines the most because they lacked high socioeconomic status and did not have any access to college. I would argue that their lack of economic status and access to college also slowed down their progress when it came to civil rights. I do not like that the government allowed certain people who could afford college to stay in America instead of fighting the war in Vietnam because it makes it implies that the minorities who could not afford higher education were disposable; they were not as important to the nation. These ideas lead me to think of our nation in a different way.

Reflection #3 Herr

WOW. That's what really sums up my impression from the Herr article. I knew before reading that it was going to be dramatically different and would be more graphic. But I when he talked about how he almost an EAR and a solider 'supposedly' licking his bayonet, oh man. There is obviously a huge gap between the Pyle and Herr article.

The difference I feel is due to not only the popularity of the wars but also the nature of the wars. WWII we lost more men, but Vietnam hit home harder because of the coverage it got not only by embeds like Herr, but Video. The body count every night after the evening news. WWII was a far thought in the distance, while Vietnam was in your face and there was no way to ignore it. Another major differences that I noticed between the two articles that you could feel Herr's emotions more and Pyle seemed to make everything lite and airy, probably to again keep the public involved and engaged with the war.

This article is a real representation of the time and really leaves no questions, Vietnam and any war is a real mess, regardless of intentions.

Reflection #2

I found today's lecture particularly interesting.  I know many people protested the Vietnam War (or conflict rather) and believed it was a mistake, but I believe that McNamara's reflection on the war and the many mistakes made throughout (the first mistake engaging in war) truly legitimizes that Vietnam was a conflict based on bad decisions.  As Professor Hass mentioned, the fact that McNamara is bold enough to look back upon the choices he made throughout the Vietnam Conflict as Secretary of War, shows that although he did not realize his mistakes at the time, he can reflectively look back and point out poor decisions made throughout the war.  I also think that McNamara's releasing of the film in 2003 - during the Iraq War - shows that McNamara sees similarities between the two conflicts and hopes that his realization of past mistakes will be noticed by others (e.g. the current government and/or secretary of war) and not be made again.  

I also think that it is interesting that there were many false pretenses of attack (e.g. the August 4 attack in the video) that were later confirmed as false, yet our defenses jumped on the war bandwagon before confirmation (or on the ambiguous presumption that: "We were definitely attacked... I think").  I think that the quotation from the video "Belief and seeing are both often wrong," has significance in this situation because if you want to believe something so badly (e.g. the U.S. forces thinking they were attacked by Vietnamese) you will see it (the sonar people thought that they picked up a missile attack when indeed they did not).

I also think that the concept of the domino effect - although it seems like it could be plausible - was a false assumption.  As McNamara said in the video of his conversation with the Vietnamese official - the Vietnamese would fight the Chinese until death - they would not simply "fall" as a domino would to communism.  Another reflection on the domino effect is perhaps a current day domino effect in the middle east in terms of the spread of terrorism.  The U.S also has a kind of counter-domino effect belief if you will - that if we spread democracy to Iraq, other Middle Eastern Countries will fall to Democracy.  

In conclusion, all wars will have opposition of some  kind, and the fact that McNamara, the Secretary of War during the Vietnam Conflict, is willing to acknowledge he was wrong, the terms in which he was wrong, and just how wrong he was, really validates that Vietnam was waged and conducted under false pretenses and drawn from unjust conclusions.  I am looking forward to reading the Herr reading to be able to compare his disoriented (as described by Professor Hass) dispatches of the Vietnam conflict and comparing it to Pyle's dispatch.  

Reflection #3

I really enjoyed the Jo Ann Gibson Robinson reading. Like pretty much everyone else, I was unaware of her role in the Montgomery Bus Boycott. I'm glad we got to read another side of the story and really see where the origin of the movement came from. The more I think about it though, the more in annoys me that people don't know this part of the story and she is not more well known for her role in it, like Rosa Parks is. It says in the beginning of the reading that the editor and her met in April 1984 and I assume the book was published shortly after. So there had been over 20 years for this story to popularize, yet still not many people know about it.
My high school prided itself on diversity and learning about human rights all over the world so we do not repeat the same mistakes we have. We even had an entire year long interdisciplinary study on the 60's and the Vietnam Era, with a large portion of it spent on civil rights. Therefore, I'm actually kind of surprised I didn't learn about Robinson's story earlier.
I wish I had learned about her story earlier and I wish it was more popular so other people know her story too. Of course, what we learn about Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. is extremely important, but I think it is also equally important to know the true origin of the movement and honor the people who were behind the scenes and doing extremely important work.

Reflection 4

I have tried to consider the discussion question for this week that we didn't address in class. The question is: "How has standing up to the government helped to form the national "we"? How does the idea of dissent coordinate with our idea of national identity in terms of the Chicano Movement and the Black Civil Rights Movement?"

In previous discussions we have considered 'common enemies' as a strong unifying force. I have also considered that our nation has a reactive identity, where opposition to a movement or to an idea unifies an anti-party (anti-communism, for instance). In a pre-midterm reading, one of the books considered the idea that Americans tended to define themselves by what they were not, but rarely address what/who they were; much like a process of elimination, if an American wasn't this than he/she would act like that often causing an anti-movement. We see this within America as well. The consumer republic warranted anti-movements within our borders: the hippies, the religious rights groups and the environmentally sensitive Green groups. So, how then does a minority group speaking up against the government (and social norms) cohere to these ideas of national identity, or does it contradict the ideas we have considered in class thus far? 

I think that they minority groups of the time fit rather nicely into the former categories: common-enemy unification and deductive-identity unification. Much like the hippies rejected mass consumption and indulged material life, the Black Civil Rights and the Chicano Civil Rights movement rejected the standard racial hierarchies. Their movements were anti-discrimination, anti-racial superiority, anti-democracy-for-whites-only. These minority groups defined themselves on what they were not by rejecting the segregation and discrimination laws of the land. They were united by an idea of what they thought was wrong, something they were not. Although I am sure that many of the members of each movement had similar ideas on what they thought was right, it was their idea of injustice (wrong) that initiated and fueled their anti-movements.

Discussion Questions

1. What similarities can be seen in the feeling toward the Vietnam War and the Iraq War? Consider the popularity of both wars and the opposition to each.

2. As Professor Hass introduced in lecture, the Memoir of Jo Ann Gibson Robinson put the world-changing event of the Montgomery Bus Boycott on a human scale. Jo Ann Gibson Robinson’s account of the event emphasizes personal struggles and sacrifices. What are the purpose and the effects of her personal narrative? How can we relate this type of story telling to the social and cultural shifts of this time period?

3. We have spent many lectures and discussions examining the idea of national
identity and specifically the problem of “we”. How has standing up to the government helped to form the national “we”? How does the idea of dissent coordinate with our idea of national identity?

4. Preceding the Montgomery Bus Boycott, many stories circulated about the mistreatment of women on the buses. Were women the target of public discrimination? Or were the stories of women more effective in rallying the black population to fight for desegregation of the public transit systems?

5. In comparison to the Black Civil Rights Movement, why do you think that the Chicano Movement was less publicized? Do we have a strong national memory of the Chicano’s fight for equal rights?

Civil Rights

The documentary we watched today in lecture highlighted a new sense of what nationalism means to minority/immigrant groups. As Mexican-Americans were fighting for their rights to land, the activism they portrayed was a sense of collective unity of their Mexican roots and heritage. Similarly they identified with other minority groups who were also fighting for their civil rights, therefore, creating a further sense of collective identity and nationalism in regards to their minority group status. I feel that U.S. nationalism transformed through civil rights movements as a form of embracing one's cultural origins and creating awareness of the struggles their ancestors (as well as current struggles) within the white patriarchal society of America. U.S. Nationalism, along with the American national identity are not fixed, they are both fluid and change depending on the generation and societal climate of the time. As America was discovered and claimed as the "new world" it took on the identity of having to incorporate ethnic immigrants, and through civil rights movements, U.S. nationalism became a simultaneous mix of ethnic identity and American identity. The collective acknowledgement of minority groups civil rights movements introduced a collaborative sense between minority groups, when earlier in U.S. history, some minority groups were said to be hostile to newly arriving immigrant groups not recognizing the common oppressions they faced. Is there ever going to be a concrete national identity or sense of U.S. nationalism? Does America thrive on the social hierarchies that oppress members of minority groups?

Connecting My Past to My Present

Usually I go into lectures expecting to just simply take notes and try my best to relate to the topic enough to retain the information for as long as i can. This week I did not have to try as hard. The topic hit very close to home.
The video was very interesting and eye opening and while I watched, I kept asking myself if my grandmother had experienced any of the things put forth in the video. I didn't know for sure because that's not something that comes up at Christmas dinner. I had never asked her questions about her childhood with concerns of the exact location she grew up in. I knew it was in Detroit, but I had not idea there was a specific black community such as Black Bottom, therefore I figured the communities were similar to how they are now, just a little older.
After class I called my grandmother and asked her where she grew up. She told me she grew up around the Hastings Street area. That led to a rather long story about her daily routine, which included going to many of the various black owned businesses.
When I asked about things such as the building of the highways and the GI Bill and things of that nature, I received a surprising reaction. She had an air of positivity in her responses. First of all, she was not personally affected by the formation of the highway. She lived a little ways from the construction so her home was not demolished. What was taken away was her hangout spots. But still she was very pleasant about the situation. "We just hopped on the streetcar and rode down to Woodward Avenue" was how she addressed the issue.
In concerns with housing, she says that the fact that the whites were leaving Detroit, gave her an opportunity to be a homeowner. She loved the city and didn't plan on ever leaving (which she hasn't), and did not have any desire to live by whites anyways. Therefore she does not feel as though she suffered much during that time.

Reflection #2

I thought this week's lectures and discussion were very interesting and I really learned a lot. It was interesting to see where our nations obsession with buying stuff came from. Our society clearly is still concerned and obsessed with having the biggest and best things just to simply have them and show them off. It seems as if this all started in the 50's and later on with the onset of the cold war. Also, I didn't even know that the cold war was a "war" over which country had the best products. Still to this day we seem to have this competition with other countries over having the best cars and technology.
I also thought the video about Detroit was really interesting. I knew that whites fled out of Detroit and settled in metro Detroits suburbs, but I didn't know they were actually encouraged by the government and helped out by being able to purchase homes there, while African Americans were deterred from leaving the city. Growing up in metro Detroit I have seen where these different races have settled and how they have traveled from city to city following others. It is interesting to see how this all started and why and when people started moving out of Detroit.
Lastly, I travel down I-75 all the time and I had no idea the background behind the highway. I'm glad I know the story behind it now and what the city and surrounding areas had to go through when it was being built.

The Story of Stuff by Annie Leonard

Cohen concludes her “Prologue” to A Consumers' Republic with: “I hope that readers, aware of how my life has conformed to the large patterns set out in this book, will begin to contemplate how their own lives may also have been shaped by these economic, political, social, and cultural structures that reigned over the second half of the twentieth century and still are with us in many ways today… If we all are citizens and we all are consumers, how we choose to mix the two reveals a great deal about who we are as individual Americans as well as about the virtue of the America we live in at any particular moment in time” (15).

Please watch the video (see below) while thinking about the following questions:

(1) During discussion section we addressed different consumer ideologies. According to Annie Leonard, what is the current relationship between citizenship, consumerism, and nationalism? Is this an extension of the “consumers’ republic,” or something entirely different?

(2) How is our current government responding to our economic crisis?

(3) Is it un-American or un-patriotic to resist consumerism? Think of examples in your own life or around you (i.e. in the media).

(4) Any comments on the gender or racial logics addressed (or not addressed) in this film? Can you make connections to Cohen’s arguments?

(5) Any comments on the solutions Annie Leonard proposes?



You may also propose additional discussion topics/questions. And please feel free to comment on other student’s comments to this post as well.
-Isabel

Queen For A Decade? Discussion Q's (first post didn't work)

1) Minority groups, mainly African Americans and women in America, utilized their identity during the late thirties through WWII, in what ways did the White patriarchal ideal resist or change due to the protests and boycotts?

2) How did advertising and marketing work to reinforce the prescribed societal roles (especially on women) during WWII and post WWII? What implications did this create for future movements (Civil Rights, 2nd wave of Feminism) to destabilize patriarchal societal gender roles?

3) Did the consumer identity for citizens aid in creating or adding to an American national identity? If so, in what ways?

4) In what ways did the GI bill impact American post-war national identity, and how did it affect progress of an egalitarian American society?

5) How did the debate over extensions of price control divide down gender and racial lines? How were each side and their opponents depicted, and how does this relate to the destabilization of women's civic authority since the onset of WWII (pp. 134-135)?

Consumer's Republic Response

Reading "A Consumer's Republic" was an interesting and extremely relevant read to the state of our economy today. The history of consumerism and its impact on women, African Americans, working-class populations, American businesses, and so on is extremely important to understand so that when we have our own income, insurance, budget, and independent life, we can make smart decisions about our consumption and our savings. Since this book is placed in historical context that discusses government decisions, protests and boycotts, as well as the advertising of the time, it is interesting to see how mass consumption and the U.S. economy's patterns are similarly re-created today. What I found the most interesting were how women and African-Americans utilized their identity as a consumer to make a voice for themselves in the white male patriarchal social and economic climate between 1920 and the 1950s. Although the struggles for civil liberties, consumer protection, product regulation, non-discriminatory work opportunities, and public voice did not necessarily end, it is apparent, especially within the African-American population at the time, that their activism as consumer's allowed the group to propel forward into demanding civil rights. Similar to this, women attained strength as a public voice that possibly helped create better organization and attention for the 2nd wave of feminism that went through the 1970s.  One final point that i wanted to address was how the government policies and organizations that aided in consumption and economic change was vital to Cohen's book, but I also enjoyed how she addressed how the broader national changes affected the individual based on gender, race, and class. Oftentimes this can be overlooked, but being able to understand how the nation as a whole and individuals of the nation were impacted allows for a more holistic understanding of consumerism and the issues that arise from it. 

March 19th-Queen for a Decade? Discussion Q's

Redlining: Institutionalized Racism

The video that we watched in Lecture this week regarding the red lining that occurred across the Unites States was eye-opening to me not only because the film discussed the history of the freeway I-75, located in my hometown of Detroit, MI; but also because I still see the very real effects of this red lining in my community and many others around the Detroit area. As a native Detroiter, I have been exposed to the areas of extreme poverty that envelope my city--from abandoned homes to littered parks, I have become accustomed to seeing my hometown in this sad condition. After viewing the video, however, it is clear that there were actually systematic policies that led to Detroit's current crisis as whites were rewarded for moving to the suburbs and blacks were deterred from purchasing homes in white communities. 

As the video stated, many whites did not want to live amongst black neighbors because they feared that the property value of all the houses in that neighborhood would decrease. Thus, the federal government found a way to keep white future home-owners happy and free from the "problem" that the African-Americans posed. The government began making it nearly impossible for blacks to purchase homes in "green lined" areas (which were generally white homogenous areas) by restricting their ability to get loans and move into areas that did not want them. This is terribly sad as, although many African-Americans fought in the war and should have benefitted from the GI Bill, they continued to experience institutionalized marginalization and discrimination.

Another thing that the video explained was the complete destruction of the thriving black communities in Detroit in the 20s and 30s, Black Bottom and Paradise Valley. It is probably no accident that the freeway that allowed whites easy access to the downtown Detroit area to enjoy a bit of the city (I-75), simultaneously destroyed communities in which blacks were able to prosper. Of course, the bulldozing of a white neighborhood would be abominable, thus, this decision to get rid of Black Bottom and Paradise Valley demonstrates the constant attempts of the federal government to divide and segregate race and class.

Additionally, it is amazing, almost scary, to me how often I use I-75 to run errands, visit friends or just to hang out downtown. I never would have imagined that such an integral part of my daily life holds with it such deep-rooted implications. I can definitely, as Professor Hass stated, now understand these historical underpinnings and be a more educated and more knowledgeable individual for that. Needless to say, I am glad I saw the video and cannot help but be aware of Detroit's history from now on. It was a worthwhile and much-appreciated lesson.

Reflection #3

I really enjoyed today’s lecture on consumerism and the cold war. I liked how professor Hass kept stressing the idea of “buying stuff.” It seems that since the consumerism era of the 1950’s, American’s have been obsessed with having a mass collection of junk. We are constantly encouraged to buy things we do not need, and still manage to feel a sense of patriotism every time we reach into our pockets.
Unfortunately, with today’s economic crisis, we have lost this sense of spending. We have begun to question our real need for the items we purchase. We have not however lost this 1950’s ideal of “keeping up with the Jones’s.” This American ideology I find most fascinating. In connection with our lecture on shame and my last reflection, American’s will go as far as possible to maintain an image of a spender. Although they may be in debt, American’s refuse to let their neighbors and friends see that they have lost the ability to spend.
I personally believe this can be explained in 2 ways. 1 reason is the same we previously discussed. We as Americans are too proud to admit that we failed, and our sense of shame causes us to hide our financial difficulties. My second reason, is that the ideal American is one with a credit card and cash in hand. We think of malls, and Walmarts and Costcos where Americans are accumulating large quantities of junk they don’t need. Though some call it disgusting, and others extreme, most of us call it American and for that reason we have no choice but to continue spending in order to maintain our “American” identity.

Reflection #2

I thought that this weeks readings were all great in shedding light on events that have happened in the US's history, even those events that don't always seem to get recognized.

The biggest example of this was the Okihiro article about the Japanese-American interment camps. I find it very interesting that a majority of them still wanted to show that they were American by erecting fences and carrying on with American traditions such as 4th of July parades. It was also interesting that the US government went into the camps and asked for recruits for the military. If I was in that situation I don't think I would be too willing to serve in a capacity, such as the military, for a country that had just uprooted my family, and placed me in a barbwire enclosure or in a "renovated" horse stable with no privacy. It just seems absurd.

Ernie's correspondents, I found to be also interesting on how he had illustrated the war for the people back at home. Though hes accounts were watered down and definitely not really geared toward telling the people at home exactly what was happening in the war itself, but more of like here's a story about how your son is doing and some of the things that he sees. Stories to try and keep morale up about the war, and I feel this is the reason why he came to hate the soldiers and the war itself. He didn't hate the soldiers themselves but just the idea and the situation that they had to do and go thru.

Reflection 3

Thinking about WWII as Ernie's War and a unifying period in American history, I found Professor Hass's comment in discussion to be a novel perspective. She said that her grandparents of Italian and Irish descent were married and it was considered a "mixed" marriage and their children were considered "mixed".  I have rarely considered the racial hierarchy/tension between Italian immigrants and Irish immigrants mostly because this would never be seen as a problem today. However, in studying the culture before and during the war, I believe this story holds great value in understanding the war as a unifying force. WWII was in a sense an americanization process, bringing ethnicities together on the common ground of patriotism. Also, with a strong understanding of an enemy, it was fertile soil for American breeding. 

I also consider the perspective of the immigrants- much like discussion question 2 from Ernie's War. Although I recognize that there was (probably) some tension between loyalty given to ancestral countries and America, there may have also been a strong desire to assimilate to American culture. This is a different view that we usually discuss. We often talk about America's desire to assimilate 'newcomers' but I would assume that families immigrating to America would also have a desire to assimilate to their new country. Maybe this is something that most people have already considered already, but I found it an interesting, new point of view brought on by Professor Hass's contribution to our discussion yesterday. 

Handout Questions for Class on 3/12

Ernie's War

1. Do you think that our perception of future wars would have changed if they had been reported in the same way that Pyle reported WWII (as opposed to newscasters and video footage)? How so?

2. Given European Americans’ background how do you think that they felt having to fight in Europe, some in their home countries. How about German Americans? Do you think that there was any immigrant population in the United States that did not feel conflicted?

3. Pyle uses this knowledge of what is important to his readers to pick his topics and to more intimately connect the readers to the individual soldiers, rather than just the abstract concepts that they represent. Where do you see evidence of this in his writing and how is it effective? How does he bring out a sense of patriotism and duty in his readers through his writing?

4. What do you think that this added complexity means in the context of America’s thoughts at the time about the war? Does it reflect a tension that the soldiers and citizens at home felt too?

An American Story

1. Considering that Americans were fighting to liberate concentration camps in Europe, how did they not see the hypocrisy in sending their own citizens to internment camps based on ethnic differences?

2. How did the media use its influence to misinform Americans about the experience of Japanese-Americans in internment camps? How much is the media driven by government motives?

3. Given that FDR was already thinking about internment camps as early as 1936, do you think that they would have happened eventually? Was Pearl Harbor just an excuse for a previous agenda?

4. The many groups oppressed by white Americans throughout our history have responded in different ways to their persecution. As we saw in Killing Custer, the Native Americans chose to fight back against the government. However, many of the Japanese-Americans taken to internment camps seemed to take their situation in stride and make the best of it using humor and beautification. Why do you think they chose this reaction? Was it more effective than resistance?

The Riddle of the Zoot

1. Do you think that Malcolm would have developed this ideals anyway, had his youth not been spent in an urban, hipster environment?

2. Given the similar racial messages and cultural experiences that tied both youth populations to the suits that they wore, why do you think that in general many Mexican Americans men enlisted in WWII, while most African American men avoided it?

3. How are the balances of power reflected in the zoot suit, both from the “white” perspective and from the standpoint of the African and Mexican Americans wearing the zoot suit?

4. How does this resistance fit into the era of the citizen soldier and how do you think that it helped or hurt Black “progress” on racial hierarchy? What do you think these Black readers felt towards Pyle’s columns?

The Great Depression and Today

I found that our current economic times give more meaning to how the Great Depression may have felt. The media describes how many people lose their jobs everyday and how many sectors of our economy have declined. It was interesting to talk about the Great Depression and the shame that people felt in discussion, because we see and may feel those same feelings in our current times. The shame during both times was due to the fact that people could not provide for their families and it is difficult for us to deal with that because we have a culture that believes one should be able to provide for one's family. I also feel that there is a parallel between the Great Depression and now because we tend to feel that as Americans, we should be able to find jobs to secure our necessities. People were shocked at the economics of the Great Depression as people are shocked now because we think that America and its people are supposed to be successful. It troubles us when our ideas of America are not consistent with the realities of our economic situations.