Many people say that the United States has only lost one war in her history; and that war was Vietnam. It comes as no surprise that the US presence in Vietnam is considered wrong by modern day Americans. We call it a failure, an unwarranted plethora of death, or even make the claim that the US attempted to act as the world police in a war we had no stake in. But anyone can tell you that this is because hindsight is 20-20. We can write off Vietnam as a mistake in US history but the truth remains that many people felt that our involvement in the war was not only just but necessary. Tim O’Brien’s memoir If I Die in a Combat Zone offers a new perspective on the war, as it was perceived by combat soldiers on the ground. The book makes a clear statement from the outset that an American presence in Vietnam was not only unjust but also immoral by portraying those against the war as intelligent and caring individuals and those for the war as callous, immature and uneducated.
As the novel begins O’Brien makes it clear that the speaker is wholeheartedly against the war and in a constant battle between the desire to be brave and the desire to be just. **Deciding whether or not to flea the country** ch5
Those against the war are capable of intelligent discussion as to their reasons **discussion with chaplain p55-60 and discussion with leuitenant p 61-67
Those for the war are incapable of intelligent discussion about the war and cannot offer a reasonable explanation for the war
To show how bad the war was for the soldiers O’Brien makes the point that they are treated as “cattle” and
• Simmilar environment to school children earn things like schoolchildren “gook” “motherfucker” “dink” and “tit” like going to school
These school children are then thrown into the battle fields where they are scared “out of their minds” ** few paragraphs showing the gunfire and crazy suff that the foot soldier has to go through ** specifically Ch 9 “Ambush”
Link to “EMPIRE”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe I have identified your thesis statement for your paper. I like how argumentative it is and how you say that O'Brien has made a direct distinction between the traits of war mongers and anti-war people. However, I am concerned that you haven't quite answered the prompt for this particular essay. I don't think, with this draft, you have explained "how the author uses character, story, tone, imagery, or other techniques to convey the message you've identified," as is instructed in the prompt. Also, I would have liked to have seen how you will tie this all together with the large theme of Empire. Be sure to carefully read the assignment instructions as you add to and revise your essay for the final draft. I believe that your argument is strong, just be sure to incorporate the necessary elements into your essay. Good luck!
ReplyDeleteI do really like the idea you put forth about the difference in being able to substantiate reasoning against the war by intellectuals versus those who supported it who through O'Brien's literary devices appear callous and rather stupid. As Steven says above, I don't know if I could directly find your thesis argument or how the topic for the paper 4 is tied into what you have so far. Maybe you could after more clearly stating your argument( I assume it's that supporters of war and U.S. empire are stupid and those reasoning against war and unwarranted loss of American life are smart- in a nutshell) discuss how O'Brien's word choice, tone and inflection support this, using the chapters you suggested? I think you might have said you would already do this but that is just what i'm thinking. Anyways I like the ideas.
ReplyDelete