Reflection #3 Herr

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

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

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

Reflection #2

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

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

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

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

Reflection #3

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

Reflection 4

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

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

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

Discussion Questions

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

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

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

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

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

Civil Rights

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

Connecting My Past to My Present

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

Reflection #2

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

The Story of Stuff by Annie Leonard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consumer's Republic Response

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

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

Redlining: Institutionalized Racism

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

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

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

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

Reflection #3

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

Reflection #2

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

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

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