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.