Up, Simba

Sorry for the late posting.

While I was reading Up Simba (better late than never) I was, like I said in class, bored. The author exhausted every detail of his following McCain's campaign trail. The only that kept me reading was my own curiosity of WHY the author was hanging on to every detail in his narrative.

So there's this account of what he experienced during his following. How he saw the people around him, how they interacted with each other. The chemistry of the campaign trail in it's purest form. How can anyone argue with him? He's just telling it like it is, right? Dubiatio- make them think you don't have any tricks.

Young people is the target audience, and young people don't care. They will all probably flip through this edition of Rolling Stone looking for pictures of Steven Tyler and Snoop Dogg and articles about Courtney Love's latest overdose. These people aren't going to care about the people that follow John McCain around the primary campaign trail. Maybe that's the point he's trying to make- young people don't care, and that's exactly what their strategy is. Make it uninteresting and appalling to the young population and they will keep with the status quo- don't vote, don't care. Really? Who cares what is in McCain's iPod?

Up, Simba

Perhaps it was the Jay Heinrichs sarcastic feeling, or even all the ethos that indulges me in Up, Simba. First, in the foreword, Wallace establishes himself as "NOT A POLITICAL JOURNALIST," which is followed by many other claims, but that he is solely a Rolling Stones magazine writer. This is important to me because by stating this, I was then inclined to believe that he is an average American writing on what he sees and experiences on the campaign trail.

The use of sarcasm brings a notion of informality, but the way that he uses this sarcasm is in an educated, structured way establishes credibility and ethos.. Most people use sarcasm as a way to express a feeling or thought, but use it in a way that doesn't truly serve much purpose. Wallace, on the other hand, gives the sarcasm in a way that pulls me into the article much deeper. For example, he says,"Do you give a shit whether McCain can or ought to win. Since you're reading Rolling Stone, the chances are good that you are an American between say 18 and 35" By presenting the cold, hard truth of most young Americans, as well as establishing ethos to his name by presenting a statistic, he is able to get his point across without having to beat around the bush. Another prime example is when Wallace states "The two press buses are known as Bullshit 1 and Bullshit 2, names conceived as usual by the extremely col and laid-back NBC News cameraman Jim C." By naming the campaign buses as "Bullshit 1" and "Bullshit 2" that adds humor to a rather dry subject of politics.

In its entirety, this work reminds me of Jay Heinrichs, due to Wallace's frequent notion that he is speaking directly to the reader, rather than solely stating facts without any personalization. Because of the personalized feeling, this leads me to give Wallace credibility for his writing.

McCain's Layers

This extremely long article has so many layers to talk about, just as McCain has so many layers to talk about. However, the two things I keep coming back to as a reader who can look back over the past nine years and feel regrets for my country, is the “what ifs” and the irony of the 2000 election juxtaposed with the 2008 election.

First, I cannot help wonder how the Iraq War would be different, or whether it would exist at all if McCain, a POW, would have been chosen as the Republican nominee over Bush, who avoided the draft. If McCain would have somehow managed to win the presidential election, certainly this man who experienced the worst of Vietnam first-hand would not have made the same mistakes of that war again. I feel like McCain has just been screwed over by Bush so many times: from negative campaign ads to how Bush’s conduct with Iraq has altered the way that many Americans think about Republicans, or even politics in general.

McCain, was the wrong layer of who he is at the wrong time. In 2008 America was calling for, well, a change. Obama quickly gobbled up this concept with his “Change we can believe in” slogan. And then who was the original master of change, John McCain, suppose to be?

I went to a presidential rally for Obama. I skipped school for Obama. I was in aw of the feeling in the crowd. A rock concert response to a president. The ironic thing is that this was how people my age were treating McCain back in 2000, but it wasn’t enough for McCain to get nominated back then.

I feel bad for McCain. He seems to never be able to catch a break. In the 2000 election he was too different from his own party to beat out Bush as his party’s nominee. He bashed the right wing televised church groups that supported Bush, he refused bundled and soft money, he was open with reporters allowing them to ride with him in his campaign bus. BUT, America was not ready for him. Then in 2008, I honestly thought of him as a bitter old man who seem like he would just be more Bush, although he fought hard to portray himself as not being like Bush. This was the first election that I could vote in and honestly, me along with most of the people my age were uninformed about who the McCain of 2000 was. He was called the “Maverick” to try to regain some of his glory in 2000, but to me, a maverick just sounded like a nice way to old and outdated. For the America of 2008, McCain was not different enough.

Perhaps if more people would have been able to read “Up, Simba” before the republican nominee was chosen in 2000 or bothered to read it before the presidential election of 2008, our history may have been completely different. Better or worse, who is to say? I’m only speculating.

Up Simba

After reading Up Simba, I was impressed by Wallace’s use of rhetoric, specifically his presentation of his ethos, and the representation of the political process especially the behind-the-scenes show. Even though Wallace mentions his position as a RS writer and the neutral position of the article, the most impressive focus for me was directed toward the online audience. He mentions “whether it works on your screen or Palm or not, for me the whole thing ended up relevant in ways far beyond any one man or magazine. If you don’t agree, I imagine you’ll have only to press a button or two and make it all go away.” He sets up his position, yes as a neutral writer, however he understands that this audience, the one willing to actually read through despite the distraction of a web browser or streaming, will adhere to the ideas he’s implanted in the article. The forward is an interesting element to the entire article. He already discusses very heavily in “Who Cares” whether “[you] even give a shit whether McCain can or ought to win.” The millennials, as this current generation is called, is one that has developed a dependence on the use of technology to learn whether it be politics, economics, and especially academic. Hence this demographic, this “generation who has cared less about politics and politicians than yours” , is composed of millennials, a group composed of digital technology users and as a rhetorical element to include this new audience was an interesting and strategic technique. Most importantly had I not found this article through this class and stumbled online, this foreword would’ve captured me. The inclusion of all the difficulties of the campaign trip as well as the definition of certain terms helped include the audience in the surreal world where you hit “the rack at 0130 and get up at 0600 and do it all again” merging in a progressive perspective where Wallace includes the audiences, depicts the main subject, reveals the background, and shows the “Negativity” that occurred – hoping we “stay awake” during the entire process.

Up, Simba

Much like Maya Lin's article Making the Memorial, I felt like Wallace's Up, Simba was very conversational. He seems to make it clear that this article is just him describing the election exactly the way it went down through his eyes. Wallace takes us behind the scenes of the rhetoric used by the politicians in this election. It seems to me that Wallace is trying to say that the whole process is just a bunch of politicians scamming people into voting for them because they ultimately are trying to "become the most powerful, important, and talked-about human being on earth." I think he is trying to point out that it is important to look into what a politician like McCain is really trying to achieve when he says "I run for president not be Be Somebody, but to Do Something." So pretty much he wants the youth of America to be less selfish and more involved with the issues of our country or is this just another way get the youth of American to vote for him. This reminds me of Kennedys line "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Isn't it all just a big scam to get us to believe in something that the politicians themselves probably don't even believe in. I think Wallace does a good job of pointing out how ridiculous some of the candidate's one liners are that often persuade a whole audience to think that they are supporting something miraculous. When McCain says he will always tell the truth, the whole audience cheers but why? Wallace points out that many of us won't agree on his truth that the gun laws are safe or that MLK's birthday shouldn't be a holiday in Arizona but who cares, as long as he is telling the truth everything will be ok!

Up, Simba

Upon completing “Up, Simba” I was impressed by the ethos that Wallace builds for himself at the beginning of the article. I think they way he presents himself not only caters to the right audience but also is effective in creating a non-biased representation of the John McCain’s campaign. Since this article was written to be included in an issue of “Rolling Stone” the colloquialisms and phrases he uses properly fits into the foundation of the magazine.

For example, numerous times in his article, Wallace uses curse words like “bullshit” and “shit”. While this fits in with the decorum established by “Rolling Stone”, it wouldn’t be acceptable in a formal newspaper. I think this is why this article is so fascinating. In the foreword at the very beginning of the article, Wallace establishes himself, in a very similar way to Sontag’s “Trip to Hanoi”, as “NOT A POLITICAL JOURNALIST” and has “no partisan motives or conservative agenda behind [his] article”.

Both of these elements help to improve how enjoyable the piece is to read. By having Wallace establish that he is not a qualified political journalist and that he can cater to a younger audience just by the language he writes with, brings a fresh perspective to a topic many citizens consider uninteresting. This hooks the reader at the beginning of the article and slowly transitions to talking more about campaigns and politics.

Fortunate Son

I like "Fortunate Son" because the lyrics are easy to understand, and it reminds me of O'Brien in The Things They Carried. O'Brien was drafted into the war against his wishes and talks about how he didn't even believe in in it. He hated the "simpleminded [patriotic]" people, which is similar to "star spangled eyes" in the song. The song also talks more about how some people were "born" to fight for their country no matter what, but others, like O'Brien, aren't rich, lucky, nor can they force themselves to believe in fighting.

et tu brute?

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes

Bob was comparing the Masters of the Vietnam war to Judah. This was the character in the book of Mark that betrayed Jesus and gave him up to the Romans in exchange for money.

For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch

He highlights the distance that these masters have from the war and the comfort that is granted by this distance.

The most powerful line in this song:
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

This relates to what Krzys was saying about the decline of the English department and the rise of power in the Business school. Maybe we are just all out to make money and get power? Does that always have to lead to war though?

Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Bob gets into forgiveness. Bob emphasizes that these sins committed by these masters of war are unforgiveable. Like Judah, they will never be forgiven by Jesus and granted eternal life. Bob will be standing over their grave making sure they make it straight on to hell.

Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan's Master of War has a direct message. He is singing about how politicians send off soldiers to war, and "hide in their mansions." I like this song because he's not hiding his message behind any fluff. It's to the point. Masters of war are the politicians, and I think a good example today is Karl Rove and George Bush. I like "Blowin in the Wind" because it is an anti-war song about how pointless war is. How many wars must we fight before we learn that the end result will be death and suffering. It also made me think about why there is war. What are the reasons as to why we are currently in the Iraq war and to what extent will this war take us? In a way, Blowin' in the Wind reminds me of how people can be swayed so easily by politicians to enter war. They're like feathers in this whirlwind.

Master of War and Born in the USA

Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A. and Bob Dylan's Masters of War show but a small depiction of the Vietnam war and though they use different lyrical schemes the messages is still received. Born in the USA uses more repetitions to tie the entire theme of being "born in the USA." Rather than a positive encouraging theme, being born in the USA comes with obligations which stem forth consequences. The upbeat music contrasts very heavily to the messages of this song after all he was "going off to kill the yellow man" but "they're still there he's all gone." The words rings after the hype and the flash of the song are over and maybe that was the intended purpose: after the hype and flash of the Domino Theory and yet in the end we were still left wondering.Masters of War takes a different approach. The repetitious scheme of the chorus is absent and instead ventures on a narrative like most good songs do. Songs venture to establish a theme, an ethos, and while the logical message of the lyrics are important, a song with its background music to fill in the void unlike reading a book or seeing a billboard, tends to sway especially if the genre fits the person. The message at the end if very heavy and dark. It begins with the establishment of what the masters have created, what they've resulted. Masters targets a different audience with its lyrics as a warning, a critique. I feel that due to Christianity's awareness the references to Jesus and Judas and the link they provide is apt after all the lyrics implied that Judas, who betrayed and sold out Jesus, is forgivable as opposed to the war mongers who have "all the money made" yet "will never buy back [their] soul." While instead of being distracted, the background music ties each verse one after another leaving me only to follow the progression of creation, consequence, warning, and lastly judgment. From creation to judgment, Bob Dylan proves he knows how to present an argument as well.

Songs of Vietnam

Although some of the selected Vietnam songs may seem "simple" like Maya Lin's memorial design, there is much more thought and devotion rooted in them than I realized before. I have heard many of the selected songs before, but now that I have a deeper understanding of the time period during the war, they are more than just a catchy tune.
Fortunate Son and Born in the USA were well known to me as a child but I overlooked the idea that they are about your average man who is pushed into the war. In John Fogerty's Fortunate Son, he speaks of the American government who wanted more and more men to make sacrifices to go into the war. But yet the "senator's son" is able to escape such pressures. The song may seem "simple" because the chorus is repetitive, but it effectively shows how deeply angry Fogerty was about the men who did not enter the war because of their social class. Bruce Springsteen speaks of a similar situation in his song, "Born in the USA." He came from a small town and eventually "they put a rifle in his hands" and sent him to Vietnam. Much like Fogerty, I think he was trying to show the unfairness the average man felt for being forced into a war he didn't understand.
Arlo Gurthrie embellishes his story in his song Alice's Restaurant much like O'Brien did in his stories throughout The Thing They Carried. Alro attempts to show how ridiculous the draft had been. He explains how he couldn't go to war because he littered and the draft found that immoral and cruel. But who said you have to have morals to go fight in a war that is cruel and unjust itself. Ultimately, the artist's of these songs show their disapproval over different aspects of the war and they connected to middle class Americans by portraying themselves as one of them.

Eve of Destruction/Blowin in the Wind

The songs written during the Vietnam era reveal many interesting things about the uncertainty and turmoil in the American people towards the Vietnam War. In the song “Eve of Destruction” , McGuire writes that many of the soldiers are “old enough to kill, but not for votin”. This comparison tries to put things in perspective for the American people, by emphasizing the youth and innocence of the young soldiers that were being sent to Vietnam. It goes on to list many other crazy things that are going on in the world, using deductive logic to say that the world is on the “eve of destruction”. The evidence he provides is the conflict in Vietnam and its effects in the United States.
Although McGuire’s song was in protest of the war, Bob Dylan’s song took a different step rhetorically. Rather than try to logically break down the reasons why the world is on a self-destructive path, Dylan uses “Blowin in the Wind” to explain that during this period of time there are many unanswerable questions. Most applicable is when he asks “Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died?” His answer is that it is “blowing in the wind”, meaning that there often is no answer, or if there is one, it is often very hard to find.

McNamara: A Complex Man

Like the title states, Errol Morris’ The Fog of War definitely strives to portray exactly that message—that war is indeed a fog and not any clear, definite thing. The documentary conveys this message by allowing one subject (Robert McNamara) to be the main focus from beginning to end. Through this extensive look into the mind of such an integral part of the Vietnam War, the audience is able to begin to understand the complexities of the war as they see that McNamara himself is a complex man.

According to some background research I did on the film, Morris entered his interview with McNamara as a planned twenty-minute session. Morris was wanting to make a film about Vietnam, not about McNamara specifically. It wasn’t until the camera began rolling that Morris realized the exceptional material he had unlocked: a man who seemed to be confessing the guilt he had carried around with him for decades. All the while, of course, still carrying a militaristic charisma that defended his dignity.

The artistic flare that Morris weaves into the documentary makes it seem as if McNamara is talking directly to me, with close-up views of his face and him looking directly into the camera. It seems that McNamara has a liking for getting so close to a subject that it makes you feel as if you know them on a personal level. Not only does he do this throughout the film with McNamara, but he also does this with the awkwardly long shot of Kennedy as well as with others.

This film was made in 2004, which puts it at about 30-35 years past McNamara’s active role in the war. McNamara had three whole decades to ponder over the consequences of his actions and the justifications for his reasoning. At times McNamara admits his own wrong, such as admitting that he was acting as a “war criminal.” At other times, however, he still defends many of his actions, justifying that it seemed like the right thing to do at the time, and therefore no one can be blamed. The most eloquent idea that McNamara presents, however, is at the end. When asked one last question about the war, he replies: "Vietnam is so complex that anything I say will require qualifications.” I think that this is the most important lesson to be taken from this documentary.

Fog of War

Unlike Hearts and Minds, the documentary Fog of War gave me a better understanding of why the US thought they had the right idea to invade Vietnam. But like McNamara states, the American government didn't know the Vietnamese well enough to emphasize with them and put themselves in their shoes. By showing McNamara admit and analyze his mistakes throughout the war, the film attempts to build sympathy for the man.

McNamara visits Vietnam far after the war is over and realizes the war was just a huge misunderstanding. After finally getting to know the Vietnamese people and seeing what they were truly fighting for (freedom), McNamara realizes the US was unaware of this at the time and basically saw the Vietnam War as an addition to the Cold War that needed to be taken care of. Although being naive of the Vietnamese people doesn't justify the American intrusion, I still almost felt sorry for McNamara because the film portrays him as a man stuck in a bad situation with no way out.

It made me wonder what I would have done in a similar situation. McNamara was a business man who had very little experience as the Secretary of Defense and he made that very clear to President Kennedy. The film takes away some of his blame by showing how he was pressured into his position. It almost seems as if McNamara wants to blame Johnson for the war since McNamara apparently told him that, "we ought to think of other action rather than military action." This is also an attempt to take the blame of McNamara and see him more as the good guy who had no choice but to follow the president's orders.

Despite who said this or who did that, I don't think it is fair to blame one single person for the Vietnam War. McNamara was obviously blamed for much of the military action that took place during the war, but it's hard for me to put myself in his shoes so I really don't have much room to judge him. Ultimately, this documentary attempts to take some of the war guilt off of McNamara's hands.

The Other Side

“The Fog of War” provides an interesting perspective on the many wars that the United States were involved in. Many films are very quick to point fingers at “conspirators” and skew clips and snippets of past media in order to prove their point. One thing that “The Fog of War” did very well was to let the main focus of the documentary, Robert McNamara, speak for himself. Again no overbearing narrator was present in the documentary, which left the audience to believe they were coming up with their own conclusions. In fact, Errol Morris takes this rhetorical design in a different way by allowing McNamara narrate his own thinking process and background.
The presentation of McNamara’s own account in the documentary humanizes the former Secretary of Defense, by allowing him to tell his side of the story and show true emotion. By introducing this point of view McNamara is not the perpetrator, but he argues that he was a victim of his situation. It would’ve been easy for Morris to make a documentary giving evidence on the incompetence of the government during each of the wars, but instead he chose to let McNamara speak his mind and give the lessons he learned from his experiences. Because of this, I believe that Morris is trying to give a commentary about how war often clouds people’s judgment and that even extremely intelligent and logical people like McNamara can be confused in the “fog of war”. Furthermore Morris explores how even in succeeding wars, many of the same mistakes were made, giving credence to McNamara’s lesson on how "You can't change human nature.”

Though Fog of War by no means justifies America's involvement in the Vietnam War, it gave more understanding of why it did happen. It allows us to see what the American gov't went through,the complex web of confusion that is war. Was the Maddox attacked by the North Vietnamese? Maybe once? The truth was they did feel threatened, and wanted to protect America..was it right to start bombing based on such unclear information? But what if they waited and more Americans were killed? They faced so many complex decisions that had to made quickly. I guess this allowed me to see some reasoning for how it began,even though it was largely a slippery slope fallacy--if we let them take Vietnam, Communism will inevitably spread to all surrounding areas.
But the fact remains: after they knew mistakes had been made, they chose not to try and correct them. They instead decided to shield the public from the truth, blatantly lying and continuing on in a losing battle.

McNamara's lack of Ethos

If this was McNamara’s attempt at qualifying or excusing his actions prior to and during the Vietnam War, he achieved just the opposite. He makes two major mistakes in the documentary which in my eyes discredit any ethos he has toward teaching the viewer "lessons".

His first big mistake is denying the blame for his actions, and in fact quickly placing the blame on president Johnson when asked who should be held responsible for the war. This made McNamara look even guiltier. He further tries to pin blame on the “fog of war” as the title suggests, saying that the definition of the “fog of war” is that “war is so complex that it is beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables” Yes, I understand that there are multiple layers to war. Yes, there are of course many people and circumstances to blame. But, was McNamara not a consistent force escalating the war? You were Secretary of Defense, McNamara, obviously you are guilty of something; we’re not stupid!

His second big mistake is not answering the questions asked of him. One of the “lessons” he talks about is to “answer the question you wished was asked of you”. Seriously McNamara? What possible good can he think would ever come from telling us that he is not being honest with us, (even in this documentary)? Yes in hindsight, most Americans would say that the war was a terrible idea and most would also try to say they were against it. However, that doesn’t change their actions or words during the war. Toward the end of the documentary there is a flashback to an interview of McNamara during the war where he is asked whether the “war is turning into a stale mate”. He laughs in response and outright lies saying that the US military is showing “substantial progress”. Soon after this he also says in a “lesson” that you cannot change human nature. So basically putting these two "lessons" together, I gather that he was a liar back in the war years and is still a liar now.

I would feel more sympathy for this man if he would just admit his actions and answer all of the questions. Yes, he tears up a few times. Yes he says, “We all make mistakes”. But, he never fully accepts blame; there is always an excuse. If he is not honest with me about his actions during the war nor completely honest in his answers to the questions the interviewer asks, how can I find the "lessons" he is trying to teach in the documentary credible?

Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision

Although her design was controversial, Maya Lin had idea of what the Vietnam Memorial should represent. I think she wanted to emphasize the remembrance of the lost soldiers and allow American Patriotism to take the backseat.

Maya Lin says that she, "really did mean for people to cry" and when "you read a name, or touch a name, the pain will come out". Maya knew that her design would strike on debate and erupt negativity, but even so, see had a "strong clear vision" about what would connect better with those who lost friends and family members. When we look at the Marine Corps War Memorial we see a soldiers raising an American flag, without knowing anything about the statue I see a representation of American pride and American resilience. Though the memorial is for the honored soldiers, the statue itself doesn't give you that idea at first glance. Maya's goal wasn't to create a large US flag, but create something in which the people could actually feel and embrace emotionally. I think she saw the American soldiers as not just American Soldiers, but as human beings -- human beings that all had a family waiting for their return home. When we think about war memorials we think of statues, flags, and accolades, Maya Lin went with was she envisioned and created a tombstone to remember the soldiers; a tombstone families and friends could visit and remember there lost ones by.

Fog of War

The title “Fog of War” was the first thing that perked my interest in this movie. Wikipedia defines it as “a term used to describe the level of ambiguity in situational awareness experienced by participants in military operations.” This film involves the fog that not only hinders the soldier’s view but the different fogs that hinder our views of the war as well as all those involved.

The introduction to this movie begins very powerful. The music entices you to feel and to be moved not toward a bright happy response as more colorful music would lead, but rather uses dark and ominous melodies – perfectly matching the fear in a fog of war. McNamara then speaks of a sentence in which he said which he stopped and this banter is included but for what purpose? Maybe it’s to say that the perception of things especially in war can be changed up and edited to reveal whatever is necessary. He then talks about the mistakes that a good commander would accept that they’ve made, but with the arrival of nuclear weapons, one mistake is catastrophic. Lastly he introduces the purpose and points that he’ll reveal, talking about the lessons he’s learned. By going back in time and revealing all the aspects of McNamara’s traits that set up his ethos, and at his age talking about hindsight and retrospect, we can’t help but sit and watch the lessons that taught so much to McNamara.

Another fog of war is revealed regarding the consequences of war. "[General Curtis] LeMay said if we had lost the war, we would have been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. . . . What makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?" The reason that nobody from the U.S. was prosecuted depended heavily on the fact that we won that war, but that also begs the question: since we obviously didn’t win the Vietnam war, are we too supposed to judge those involved in the war? Or does war ignore the humane aspects and simply allow all rules to be thrown to hell?

The Fog of War

Although I felt that Robert McNamara was sincere in “The Fog of War,” I don’t believe that he was successful in supporting every one of his Eleven Lessons. For example, in Lesson #5—proportionality should be a guideline in war—he names a series of Japanese cities that were destroyed, matching them to American cities of equivalent size, and telling us to imagine the destruction. It’s a very effective visual, supported by names of cities along with percentages flashing across the screen, but McNamara then states this "is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve." What does he even mean, where is the conclusion? There is no lesson learned here. Later he states, “LeMay, said if we had lost the war, we would have been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right… What makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?" It is a very good question, but instead of explaining further, he then proceeds to make excuses, explaining that it was the Cold War, and how the government truly believed in the domino. He even says that he was only following the orders of his President. Sometimes his logic just plain doesn’t make sense. For example, he explains how his position as secretary gave his wife and son stomach ulcers, yet exclaims how they were the best years of their lives. The documentary ends with McNarma being asked if he felt guilty or responsible for what happened in Vietnam. He replies with "I don't want to go any further into this… it would arouse more controversy.” But wasn’t that one of the main points of this documentary? Wasn’t it a chance for him to explain the reasoning behind government actions?

Maya Lin the Silent Author

One of the most interesting topics posed in the documentary is the purpose of the “silent author”. Maya Lin uses this phrase as she speaks at the tenth anniversary of the Vietnam Memorial. She speaks of how that she, as the mind behind the design, must remain silent and let her work speak for itself. She is merely a conduit through which the emotions of the veterans could flow. This particularly resonates with the Civil Rights Memorial that she designed years after her success with the Vietnam Memorial. By incorporating a quote by Martin Luther King Jr. she decides to highlight the work of a notable Civil Rights activist instead of drawing attention to her design. Although the work is hers, the true author or inspiration behind the work is the Civil Rights Movement itself.

The documentarian also highlights this “silent author” aura with the incorporation of a reoccurring scene in which Maya Lin works on an unnamed project. Years after Lin completed her Vietnam and Civil Rights Memorials, she continues on with other projects. By coming back to the same scene with a hardworking present day Lin, the director emphasizes that out of necessity all of her pieces have the implied author of the people to which they are dedicated. While she may or may not be personally attached to the things she commemorates, her artisanship is rightfully not the center of attention but rather the ideas and emotions evoked while examining her works.

Maya Lin

The words for Maya Lin are courage and creativity. I am utterly amazed how Maya is able to turn her abstract ideas into giant architectural works of art. I also admire how she focuses so hard on her projects that nothing can stop her from achieving it. Her entry for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial visually was not that awe-inspiring which caused a huge opposition against it. However, she sternly sticks by what she claims as a simple and meaningful memorial and eventually overcomes the movement from the conservatives to add unnecessary parts onto her design. The fact that she was an undergrad when she began putting in the works of what would become the Vietnam Veterans Memorial shows you how awesome she is. I can see why Krzys has "I Heart Maya Lin" under his Bio on Twitter now. She's like the cutting blade she uses to cut out patterns: she's sharp and focused towards her objective to make complete forms. Also, I think what makes Maya's work particularly interesting to me was her psychological intent in her art. She wants her architecture to evoke emotion and engage people. She intended for people to cry at the Vietnam Memorial. She wanted people to touch the water on the round granite at the Civil Rights Memorial. Maya Lin is thoughtful, creative, courageous, and simply a special person. I call it amazing.

Fog of War

McNamara was only a part of "a mechanism that in a sense reccommended" killing of 100,00 men women and children in Japan. He talked of the importance of "needing to think more about killing, about conflict" and if that's what we want in the 21st century. He admitted not being qualified for the position of Secretary of Defense.
And yet, somehow his recommendations to the President were to keep information from the American public. Wouldn't you think that being completely honest would be the best move, if your intentions really were best? Hiding details from the public didn't help his cause at all.
He said that he would only "answer the question [he] wished had been asked of [him]." So maybe the real questions had even been asked, but he answered them in a way as not to give his mistakes away. One of his lessons was to "be prepared to reexamine your reasoning," which was illustrated with bargraphs of men killed in action, wounded, tons of bombs dropped, images of dead bodies and burning villages, and rolls of images of soldiers in action.
He said that the war was the President's responsibility and never took credit for any of the wrongdoings of the war. He said that if Kennedy lived through it, the escalation would not have reached what it had. If he was really so opposed to the war, why didn't he speak out? He was in the perfect position to make a large impact of the direction that the war was taking and said nothing.
Even after his "resignation," McNamara chose not to say anything then either. Was he just being a coward? Or was there true evilness radiating from those actions (or lack of action)? Either way, he set an impressive precedent for administrations in the future. (sarcasm)

Fog of War

In the film, Fog of War, McNamara explains his different lessons that can be learned from the mistakes that he himself and the U.S. government made during the Vietnam War. His fifth lesson, "Proportionality should be a guideline in war," was one of his most effective and compelling arguments because he was able to redefine his military actions in terms of our own lives, a way of informing the American public about how war can be compared on the home front if we were to be the ones being bombed.

He makes a good point by showing all of his fancy statistics and comparisons, which seems to be all McNamara really has. The images of destruction and percentages of cities destroyed compared to our major cities is extremely effective to his logical argument. He is able to logically show how the destruction we caused on the Japanese cities was ridiculous statistically. Not only did the numbers make it seem unnecessary, but the thought of another country destroying 50+ of our major cities with fire bombs.

What he did lack was a conclusion about how we could have fought the japanese logically without bombing them. Yes he makes sense by saying we could have lost 20,000 or more troops on the beaches of Japan, but he never comes forward with his own conclusion, that he could have made when he was in office and it would have mattered.

The Things They Carried

The title says it all really. Tim O'Brien was very successful in comparing what the soldiers were actually carrying and what they were carrying emotionally and psychologically. In a way, Tim was trying to tell us that the soldiers did have the burden of carrying heavy equipment and worrying about dying, but the underlying theme was that each and every soldier has an important story to tell, and just showing what they did and what they carried does not do anything for somebody who wants to know how the soldiers truly felt after what they experienced. He does this by listing the many different items they have to carry. He tells us the exact weights and descriptions of every little piece of equipment, but this is like any old war story right? He then goes on to describing how the men also carried a heavy heart, that had to weigh the most, and how all of their thoughts are heavy as well. These comparisons of physical weight compared to mental and emotional weight help us relate how unimportant the rest of the world is when all you can feel is the weight of your own feelings. How can we look back at a war and read about the battle tactics and how the United States lost because we implemented the wrong strategy, when all we need to do is feel the weight of the war through a soldier's eyes. I guess all we can really do is look back and say 'Oh.'

The Things They Carried

Through different stories told by American soldiers, O'Brien explains how to discover the truth behind war stories. O'Brien reveals Rat's disappointment when he never receives a letter back from his best friend's sister. From this story, he suggests that "if at the end of war story you feel uplifted... then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie" (68). O'Brien claims that there are no happy endings or any particular moral to war stories. Rat was extremely upset when he was never acknowledged for his sincere letter. The end. He doesn't eventually run into his best friend's sister and discover that his letter was the best thing that ever happened to her.

O'Brien also tells Rat's story about Mary Anne who discovered her passion for battle. When Rat seems to be adding in his own commentary, Sanders tell him to "get the hell out of the way and let it tell itself" (106). Since all that matters is the "raw material", the truth behind the story becomes foggy when you add in your opinion. It prevents the audience from forming their own ideas about the story, whether it has a moral or not.

Sanders also states that in order to tell a story right you "need a consistent sound, like slow or fast, funny or sad" (107). By exaggerating a war story to provoke different emotions like laughter or tears, the point of the story is misunderstood. Basically, Mary Anne lost her innocence after becoming acquainted with the Greenies. Adding in your own personal opinion only distracts the listeners from the point of the story.

Ultimately, O'Brien attempts to make his audience realize that true war stories will not effect how we go about our daily lives. He begins to explain that in the end, really, there's nothing much to say about a true war story, except maybe "Oh" (77). There is no deeper meaning to the never ending war stories. The raw facts are the only truth because everything else is just someones interpretation of what they remember happening.

Story Telling

When reading The Things They Carried, O’Brien’s excerpt about storytelling was the section of the novel that grabbed my attention the most. This was because to me, it linked almost directly to how the use of rhetoric can influence a speaker’s meaning. O’Brien notes that “a true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done.” He suggests that other war stories, however uplifting and inspiring they may sound, are not the “true” way to tell the stories. This is justified when O’Brien states that "I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth." He’s trying to tell us that, sometimes fiction is the only route to communicate certain emotions to others, and that sometimes the real events, when told, betray the true feelings felt in the heat of the moment. This relates to rhetoric because it tries to hook the audience emotionally, not by using the logical facts, but instead “molding” the truth to allow the audience to attempt to live vicariously through his own experiences.

The Things They Carried and Notes

In the short story The Things They Carried O'Brien writes in a rambling way about the different equipment the soldiers actually carried. He goes into detail that doesn't seem important at first about the weight of these objects. These inanimate objects aren't important until compared to the emotional tolls the men also carried.
Their hearts are heavy. They must weigh the most. Their thoughts are heavy too. I believe towards the end First Lieutenant Jimmy Cross realizes with all the real weight from his gear he cannot afford to carry anything of an emotional nature like letters from Martha. He had to become a soldier more like a machine doing a task rather than a man who could get tied up in emotions, which in war could ultimately kill you. This is why he burnt the letters and the pictures to become more regimented.
I think Norman Bowker, from the Notes short story, never fully separated life back in the States with life in Vietnam during the war. When he couldn't get past the fabricated daydreams of life after the war created during it, he ended up killing himself. He "described the problem of finding a meaningful use for his life after the war" to O'Brien.
O'Brien probably inhanced the things they carried story to help us understand Notes better. O'Brien mentions this tactic in Notes.

The Things They Carried

While reading Things They Carried, I could not help but to realize how Tim O’Brien’s war experiences turned into such a phenomenal literary piece. O’Brien states “Often in a true war story there is not even a point, or else the point doesn’t hit you until twenty years later…” meaning that the point of the personal accounts came to him much later in his life. The point may be viewed upon differently in many minds, but, personally, I believe that point of the stories was to represent the experiences that the soldiers carried.

The composition of his war experiences seemed to be written down for the purpose of a diary. He presents many short stories that each serves a specific purpose in telling a certain story in its entirety, whether it was about telling a true war story, or even killing a Vietnamese soldier. By providing, me, the reader with these stories I am able to get a view into the experiences that O’Brien and his platoon encountered during the memorable Vietnam War.

Personally, the title The Things They Carried means literally, the things they carried. By this, I mean the stories and experiences that the Americans took from this war are the things they carry. In the case of the American troops, it was the sight of the death of their friends, such as the death of Curt Lemon, or the heartache from a girl thousands of miles away. These were things they carried during the war, as well as after for eternity.

The Things They Carried

Tim O’Brian really emphasized the use of repetition of, “the things they carried,” to explain the important things that individuals from each troop carried with them during the war. He not only uses the repetitious phrase to describe possessions that these soldiers carried but he uses the phase to symbolize the feelings, as well as the trying times and weathers that they face on a daily basis. The things that each soldier carried tended to consume them completely. For example, Lieutenant Jimmy Cross carried letters from his love. These letters distracted the Lieutenant from performing his duties adequately for his troops and thus resulted in the death of one of his soldiers. Taking full blame and responsibility for his fallen man’s death, the Lieutenant burned the letters but still could not let go of his love. He continued to carry her letters with him and they continued to consume his thoughts.
All of the soldiers in Tim O’Brian’s book were carrying a sense of cowardice inside them. Their cowardice nature was a symbol of their fear for not having a promised tomorrow. None of the soldiers were brave enough to admit their fear of the war, therefore they all joined a troop. Some might not think of them as containing cowardice but they did because they all went to war out of fear of people knowing that they were in fact, afraid. Their presence in the war was out of pure cowardice, not bravery. Tim O’Brian himself attempted to flee the war but as he approached freedom, out of fear of others thinking he was a coward, he cowardly came back and joined the war.

Mind Games

The aspect of the book that I found the most interesting was how Tim O’Brian seems to tell his reader one thing and then suddenly change his mind. This turns the book into more of a rhetorical teaching device than a war book.

For example he spends the whole chapter “The Man I Killed” repeating details about the man he killed merely to later tell us that he never killed him, it was a lie. His rhetoric, specifically in the repetition of details is so descriptive that I could feel his guilt. I felt so sorry for O’Brian. Then, when he says that the story was a lie, I felt betrayed. I had been tricked into feeling sorry for him. I didn’t want to believe the O’Brian who was telling me the story was false. This just proved to me how persuasive the rhetoric of pathos is. I had been convinced via O’Brian’s emotions to believe that he had killed this man and could not outlive the guilt of it. He had been so convincing that when he logically mentioned later that the story was false, I had a hard time changing my mind.

Another example of how he uses his mind games for rhetorical purposes is in how he teaches his reader how to tell a true war story in one chapter and then later says that there is no such thing as a true war story. This was more of a proof of the power of ethos. The true fact that he had fought in Vietnam had me convinced that his stories about Vietnam would be true.

I think that with the two examples listed above, O’Brian wants to show that stories, like war, are all about perspective. Each person tells a story differently from the next person just as each person experiences a war differently than the person fighting next to them. He also wants to show that the stories about war or death are more about the people in the story than the story itself. The purpose of the story is not to have a moral or an extraordinary tale or even anything truthful about it. The purpose of the story is to remember the people in it and to allow them to live on forever.

The Things They Carried

Through storytelling in The Things They Carried Tim O’Brien attempts to distance himself from his disturbing memories of Vietnam. I noticed that most stories are told in the first-person point of view, but the third-person point of view is used for exceptionally painful stories. Once again, O’Brien attempts to maintain a distance from his experiences. In “The Man I Killed” O’Brien describes the body of the dead Vietnamese soldier in great detail, sharing Kiowa and the other soldier’s reactions. Never once does he mention his own feelings about the dead Vietnamese soldier though. It is implied from his lack of personal input that he suffers extreme guilt for the death of the Vietnamese soldier. Through storytelling in The Things They Carried O’Brien discovers personal healing.

The things they carried

In “The Things They Carried”, I found it difficult to comprehend if there was a duality in the purpose of this novel. O’Brien writes “A true war story is never moral. It doesn't instruct nor encourage virtue nor suggest models of proper human behavior nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral don’t believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste then you've been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no rectitude whatsoever. There is no virtue.” I found this line to be very heavy to the rest of the novel that was written afterwards as I could not distinguish if a selection of text had a purpose behind it but as I tried to believe it, or maybe I was just compelled due to the pathos he set up or ethos as a soldier, I felt the significance behind each story as a means to convey experiences of confusion.

When narrating the story of Jensen and Strunk, I felt the significance was the mentality behind each of the men. The necessity to steal and be wronged by the theft, though through the chapter “The things they carried” the knife held meaning as every article and item held meaning to the men, led to the results of the chapter. Despite Jensen’s fear and Strunk’s pacifistic stance regarding the beating, the two men end up being friends and with Strunk’s death on the flight, Jensen’s duty is relieved – his relief ironic of the title “Friends.” Despite being enemies they understood a code of conduct, just or not, and despite being friends, they showed little sympathy at the state of the other.

“I survived but it was not a happy ending. I was a coward. I went to the war.” O’Brien’s desire to avoid the war and yet be compelled to fight shows a chain of causality. He runs to Canada, befriends an elderly man, and yet in the end, the weight of his consciousness only comes crashing down. Even after the war, he discusses his relative ease in adjusting to graduate school. The significance of this story deals with our consciousness – what it forced him to join, what it forced him to fight, and how it forced him to move on. The story lacked a moral ending and yet even now I cannot vouch entirely for the validity of this war story after all his adamant disposition against the war and being twenty yards to freedom, yet conforming to the standards of his hometown, seems a so unbelievable human that it could be well made to describe that sense of wartime virtue that so many story give off.

The Things They Carried: First Impressions

On the cover of my version of the novel, there’s a quote from the New York Times: “A marvel of storytelling…[The Things They Carried] matters not only to the reader interested in Vietnam but to anyone interested in the craft of writing as well.” Sounds like the perfect selection for this class then, huh? Perhaps that’s why Krysz was jumping up and down with excitement when talking about it. Indeed, Tim O’Brien masters a writing style that is simple enough for someone off the street to read yet engaging enough to attract fellow writers. And all the while we’re getting a first-hand glimpse of life as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam. Like Sarah mentioned in her post, the novel does seem to have a quality of being like a “therapy session.” In my words, I would call this the diary-like aspect of the story: O’Brien seems to be talking to his readers as if they were his friends, as if a diarist would write in his diary. At the same time however, as the quote states, a lot of the novel is storytelling. Therefore, we find a balance between the feelings that would be found in a diary and the plot that is found in a novel. And while Borders and Barnes and Nobles refer to this book as fiction, we also must take into account that this is a work of fiction from a writer who was actually over in Vietnam, who is actually a middle-aged man now living in America. Thus, I find O’Brien’s credibility as a writer higher than many others because he was a witness to the war.

Story-truth

At the end of The Things They Carried we are left not really knowing what truly happened-which stories were real, which ones were made up-which I think is exactly how O'Brien felt. He too didnt, or couldnt, even distinguish reality from his imagination. He wanted us to feel that confusion, to understand that thats what memories are, thats what the mind does. The War had become a mixed up version of the truth-a blur of what really happened and how he remembered it happening. But the exact truth doesnt matter-how you remember it is what counts, how it affects you and makes you feel. So he didnt need to focus on facts, but on making us feel what he felt.
He uses these stories not only to connect with us-or really make us connect with him and his experiences, but to comfort himself. He kept his memories, the people he cared about, his experiences, alive through his stories. As long as he could tell stories, he could hold on to these people forever, because with each story they came alive once again.

Repetition

While reading The Things They Carried, I was often distracted by the number of times O’Brien repeated ideas. However, I do think that his use of repetition within his novel succeeded in conveying a multitude of different ideas. By repeating ideas such as what the men carried with them and how men died, the repetition conveys that the things they carried were more than just material, they were also emotional and burdening.

For example, on page seventy, O’Brien first recounts how Curt Lemon died. Then, not too much further in the story, O’Brien recounts it again on page eighty-three. Since O’Brien knows that the audience hasn’t forgotten what happened to Curt Lemon, he uses this repletion to convey the impact his death had on the minds of the men. The high frequency of this story and others like it within the novel suggests that even though death was common to the soldiers in Vietnam, the aftermath of death is still as upsetting. This repetition can also be seen with the death of Ted Lavender.

Another message O’Brien conveys through his use of repetition is the soldiers’ need for something to ground them. For instance, on page two, O’Brien writes, “They [letters] were signed Love, Martha, but Lieutenant Cross understood that Love was only a way of signing and did not mean what he sometimes pretended it meant.” Then, on page twenty-four he writes, “She signed the letters Love, but it wasn’t love, and all the fine lines and technicalities did not matter.” In this use of repetition, O’Brien conveys that these types of thoughts are on the minds of the soldiers often and give them something to think about while surrounded by war.

Therapy through writing

While reading “The Things They Carried,” I kept thinking of how it reminded me of someone having a therapy session written down. O’Brian told stories, fictional stories about Vietnam. At first I thought it was a memoire of Vietnam stories because I knew that the author was a veteran, but it seems like he was just telling these stories to get a load off himself.
When I go to a therapy session, sometimes there are elaborations, stories that kind of happened, etc.. The point of therapy isn’t to lay down your life story verbatim, but to feel better. I think that this is what this author was doing. He took a life altering 2-3 years of his life in Vietnam and wrote out his pains. He told stories to get over the trauma. Whether or not they were true is beside the point, it helped him get past the horrors that he went through. Seeing your best friend die, walking around in a sewage pond, and getting shot at- all of these things happened one way or another.
His friend who hung himself didn’t have any way to release those feelings. He didn’t have an out for his emotions and so he just snapped one day. I think that by writing these short stories, O’Brian was saving his own sanity. Different people cope in different ways, but writing I believe is a wonderful way to get everything out in the open. Writing helps me organize my thoughts, remember sequences of events, and better understand myself.

Deception at its Best

After watching the documentary, Hearts and Minds, I felt an immediate sense of anger and betrayal. I can't think of a better way to show how we were deceived by our own government than to place their lying faces right next to the emotional scenes of the war they are lying about. The overall effectiveness of this film is that the documentary feel of it hides the argument they are trying to present. When I was watching it, at first, I felt like I was in another history classroom where I was just going to be fed information, and then left to discover my own opinion about the topic. However, Davis (the director) was able to make us feel angry and frustrated with our own government by placing the interviews and speeches of the soldiers themselves right next to the very thing they were lying about.

This technique of placing the representatives of the U.S. right next to the completely opposite situation of the Vietnamese, begins with the first 5 minutes of the film. Davis takes us directly to a village where people are living in poverty and constantly working for a living. We see them as just plain village people, not savages or crazed peasants. Just people in a third world country, trying to live a decent life like you and me. They don't seem to be in any kind of danger, or in need of any immediate assistance, however, as we see them working in the fields, an American soldier walks in the field of view, almost out of nowhere, carrying a weapon. Why do we even need soldiers in a peaceful area? Are we afraid of the woman with the basket in the field? Do we have some sort of obligation to protect those in this village? Or are we simply just taking advantage of the local villagers for food and shelter because we feel they need us and should help us? Davis did a good job of showing how differently we appear in a country we really should never have been in in the first place.

Later in the film, Davis shows the destroyed parts of a village, interviewing various villagers who have lost everything, including people they loved. After interviewing a local man who used to have a kitchen and house, Davis shows us an interview with a former soldier who was doing the bombing runs. He claimed with a cold conscience that he was just doing his job, and that nothing was more satisfying than seeing something explode. It was a professional business trip that concluded in a successful solution. He went on later to say that it was easier for him to do because he could not see the blood and people dying when he dropped the bombs. How does this make it any better? Yes, he was doing his job, but saying that it was OK to do just because he didn't see the immediate effects on the people doesn't make what he was doing right. A parallel can be drawn between the ideal American fortune 500 business meeting around the time of the recent lay offs. Many professionals met in certain areas of the country, discussed what was best for the company in terms of financial stability and saving the face of the company. They executed their orders from the CEO and other high executives without considering how it would effect any lower people in the company. Their way of laying off people with families was a soldier's way of dropping a few well placed bombs here or there, as long as it saves the face of the nation. This makes us all wonder, "Was this war just a professional business decision?"

We Can Change the World Forcefully

Davis accurately depicts the United States government's conception that we are supposed to save the world from "evil" forces like communism. I believe he shows how America became intoxicated with their newly acquired power over the world after World War II and ultimately shows America's wrongfully justified wrath on a mostly peasant country.
There was a since of duty in Americans then to better the world, to rid it of evil forces like the Nazis. American citizens thought their government couldn't be wrong after WWII and the American government took advantage of this to pursue personal agendas. They went into Vietnam to prevent the spread of Communism in a newly free country. They did it forcefully. And they were wrong.
American soldiers and American citizens began to see it. Journalists like Susan Sontag wrote about how wrong our government was for attacking the Vietnamese. Davis filmed it. After all, the Vietnamese were fighting the French for independence just how the Americans did against the British two centuries before. This is why America was wrong.
Ho Chi Minh talked of admiration towards the United States and their independence and protection of individual liberties. Why could the Vietnamese not have the same? Their own form of it should be allowed. Why did America have to intervene? They were hypocrites. It was a contradiction of their own values.

hearts and minds

Peter Davis’ play on the Hearts and Minds campaign title coined from President Johnson effectively parodies the euphemism representing the dualism portrayed by the war. By using contrasting points of views as well as an overall linear progression through the war, Davis sets up pathos through empathy and patriotism that marks the critically positive and extremely negative reactions to this film.

The film begins with a depiction of the Vietnamese country side. People working and making a living and it depicts a peaceful country side where people are trying to survive through daily means. It quickly follows the escalation of the war stating that American could “possibly control the future of the world” mixed with a song of soldiers. The number of presidents in support of the war speaking ultimately of the “hearts and minds” of the people there add to the patriotic understanding that first captured the hearts and minds of the American mainland. It builds a false sense of patriotism as it quickly switches to the feelings of desperation and leads to the flip side of this war.

To me some of the most powerful scenes were the interviews with the different soldiers – their commentaries and reactions. Many speak of the pleasures of war. One soldier at 35:56 speaks of the enjoyment of the kill, speaking of not wanting it for the “politics or whatever but because they were the opposition.” He grants much of what Sontag states in “Trip to Hanoi” that these people, the Vietnamese, were less than people in the American’s eyes. I empathized with the original scene where the people working to survive and the pleasure that seemed to glisten from the solider as he ended their hopes. This sense of compassion ties strongly to the positive reactions of this film: the flip side of the war marred by the depression of the bombings and killings.

The contrasting points of view tie heavily to the contrasting results of the war. The presidents assured the general public of the swift advancements of the war and their cynicism of the Tet Offensive and the actual failure of progress ties many of the contradictions portrayed in the film. The torturing of a native without the capacity to understand, threatened by helicopter dropping, and the officer’s response in the denying of such allegation only prove to strengthen the disparity between reality and what was fed to the public. This disparity adds strength to the emotional connection as the deceived revel on the manipulations they were barred against.

It’s not terrible difficult to see the responses against this film. While certain soldiers and certain officers were interviewed in their disgruntled nature, not all could see the negativity of the war like Coker. He tells the children at a school how the war was won despite the opposite being true – another layer of deception to the next generation. It stirs outrage at the fact, not only was the public tricked but that despite these acknowledgements Coker still attempts to undermine the kids. But at the same time, the existence of these accounts brought into light serve to portray the connections that people so far away could be the same as the rest of us – that the opposition could be the same as any other person.

Hearts and Minds

Hearts and Minds is a sobering look into the effects of the Vietnam War, both in the United States and in Vietnam. There is no Morgan Freeman to narrate the message about the horrors of war in a Discovery Channel-esque fashion, but rather Davis lets the images and people speak for themselves. In foregoing a strict formal documentary commentating merely on “when and where” of the events of the Vietnam, Davis is asking us, the viewers, to attempt to find our own significance in the things we are being shown.

One technique that Davis uses throughout the documentary is the juxtaposition of interviews and events in the US with the same things in Vietnam. A solid contrast is drawn between the Vietnamese people and the American soldiers. On one side a Vietnamese man speaks of the sorrows of the loss of life in Vietnam as he hammers away constructing children’s coffins. On the other side a former soldier in uniform calmly explains how his bombing missions were “professional” and was necessary job.

When placed next to each other in this manner, its hard not to sympathize with the Vietnamese people. The inclusion of clips of violence and death, raise the questions “why are we doing this” in our minds and blurs the demarcation between “good” and “bad” in the Vietnam War. Were we right to be there? Did the inconclusive end really justify the horrible means? Do we really have an authority over the way a people should live their lives? These are all questions that Davis encourages us to ponder over, using not only our minds, but our hearts.

What Did we Learn?

In the documentary "Hearts and Minds", Davis uses the brutal images he’s captured first-hand in conjunction with interviews from both sides to convey the thought that the American’s were ignorant and merciless in regard to the situation in Vietnam. He builds credibility as an anti-war proponent by interviewing soldiers who have come back willing to tell their agonizing stories. It is incredible the level of self- indignation these soldiers felt towards the acts they committed. It is also incredible the level of ignorance that high-ranking officials in the American government display through their comments on the war.

Throughout the movie, the audience was introduced to many different people. We saw deserters, POW’s, Senators, Generals, and the soldiers themselves. Each one had a different perspective on the war. For example, the soldiers that we met that have come back from the war agreed that America shouldn’t have been there. One ex-soldier stated, “We weren't on the wrong side. We were the wrong side.” This simple parallelism perfectly summarizes what many soldiers agreed upon. They felt that they were more the enemy than the enemies they were fighting. At the end of the movie, one of the soldiers was asked what they thought America learned from being in Vietnam. He simply replied that everyone involved in the war was afraid to admit that they did in fact learn something. Whether it was out of shame for what they did or out of some level of self-preservation, many Americans were afraid to admit what they had done.

One specific idea that Davis wanted to convey was excellently executed near the end of the movie. Davis was trying to prove that the view that Americans had towards the Vietnamese was completely skewed as a result of labeling them their enemy for so long. In the scene that I am referring to, Davis documents the grief that the Vietnamese go through when dealing with the deaths of loved ones. We hear the piercing cries of children and witness one mother trying to climb into the grave of what the audience is led to presume to be her son. All of these images provoke sympathy with the audience, and when General Westmoreland comes on the screen immediately after stating “The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does the Westerner. Life is cheap in the Orient”, we are angered by the idea that someone could be that incredibly ignorant.

The naivety portrayed in the American people in the documentary leads the audience to question whether or not what was happening in Vietnam was worth it. Additionally they were led to question the level of inhumanity that people could drop down to. Overall, Davis is successful in conveying his extreme disapproval of the war. Sense this was compiled in hindsight of the war, Davis uses this documentary as a warning for the future, one that he hopes will sink into every heart of every American.

Hearts and Minds

In his documentary, Hearts and Minds, Peter Davis relies on pathos, showing real-life images and interviews of Vietnam during the war. He creates feelings of extreme guilt by showing the innocent, human being side of the Vietnamese people, and he creates anger through the merciless images and interviews of the American soldiers’ treatment of the Vietnamese.

Davis succeeds in making Americans feel ashamed of their role in the war. A soldier tells about an incident where a Vietnamese soldier is thrown out of the airplane because of a communication barrier. The next clip is a stern looking sergeant claiming how he doesn’t believe such things occurred. It creates anger as it appears that the sergeant simply "brushes off" the topic. Throughout the documentary high school football scenes of coaches hyping their teams to crush the enemy and win are shown, paralleling the American attitude of letting nothing get in their ways of winning the war. One soldier in an interview explains how he wasn’t even sure what he was fighting for; he just wanted to kill because they were the enemy. Another scene describes a sergeant’s pride at watching his men’s faces during a funeral, a solemn moment, that is interrupted when he adds the fact that they still looked like “a bloody bunch of good killers,” completely ruining the sincerity and innocence of the moment.

Throughout Davis shows us what effect the war had on the innocent- the ruins of Vietnamese villages, crying children. He shows multiple interviews with Vietnamese people all claiming the same thing, about the amount, from their homes to family, they have lost. There is also a part in the documentary where multiple Americans are interviewed and asked if the war has affected them; all respond that it hasn’t. One man even has the nerve to admit that he doesn’t know which side of Vietnam America is fighting.

Towards the middle though, Davis does show a scene where prosthetic legs are being made for American soldiers and even interviews a soldier who has been paralyzed. These parts of the documentary show us that even though the Americans are seen as the bad guys, and the Vietnamese as innocent, it shows that even American soldiers suffered too. Showing how both side suffered ties into Davis's main argument that the Vietnam War was drawn-out much longer than it needed to be, and also that many people lost their lives for nothing.