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.