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.