The Vietnam War marked a point in history where the United States had dropped even more bombs than they ever had during World War II. While military officials believed that Operation Rolling Thunder should have been used to relentlessly drop bombs on North Vietnam to force them into submission, civilian decision makers made it more difficult for the military to fully take advantage of their arsenal. Moreover, President Johnson carefully gave orders as to how the war was fought so as not to involve other communist parties that the United States might regret going to war with. In so doing, he banned bombing missions and strikes on key locations (airfields and missile sites) that could have conceivably [at the time] weighed the war in the U.S.'s favor but also risk going to war with nations carrying a nuclear threat. Johnson's desire to spare civilians also played a large role in how the war was fought, with no proposal of striking dikes and dams that could have disrupted food production and cause flooding in towns.
Instead, bombing campaigns were focused almost entirely on transportation sources, industry sites, and electrical power plants. North Vietnam's ability to direct and mobilize citizens severely counteracted the United States' efforts to tip the war in the allies favor. North Vietnam had an amazing ability to adapt to the situations they were faced with and kept their nation functioning despite the efforts of the United States to disrupt them.
Regardless of America's inability to disrupt the North Vietnamese and short of decimating the civilian population, it was questionable whether massive, full-scale bombing could have affected the North Vietnamese ability to support the Vietcong.
1.) How might have the American public reacted to the war if President Johnson had been more cavalier during Operation Rolling Thunder?
2.) How did President Johnson's foreign policy reflect the way he actually fought the war?
3.) How did the Vietnam War reflect on more recent conflicts in the Middle East, namely Iraq? (i.e. Civilian casualties, public reception, and rules of engagement.)
On August 28th, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. gave a prophetic speech regarding the civil rights of blacks. He begins his speech by referencing the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln. A notion which suggested that all men would be created equal. King points out that the executive order may have created hope for black slaves, but it did not truly free the blacks from oppression.
King's argument is that all men should be created equal, both black and white alike. "I have a dream…" is the central focus of King's speech. He has a dream that despite the oppression blacks have suffered and despite the oppressive actions of whites toward blacks, they will come together, hand in hand, sharing human equality.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (perceived character) with their argument?
King appeals to logic first by referencing the Emancipation Proclamation in the beginning of his speech, the executive order which stated that all men are created equal (white and black alike). King mentions that although the proclamation was a turning point in history in favor of equality, it has not however freed the "Negro" from oppression and unequal human rights. Speaking to the current events (of the time) of the unjust and unequal treatment toward blacks, he addresses the severity and need for action to make a change. "...there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges." In this particular portion of King's speech, he points out that until there is change in the unjust treatment of blacks, the nation will never fulfill it's place in history as a free and democratic society in which all men are created equal.
The emotional quality of King's speech is demonstrated by his ability to express his dream of a better world in which the nation of tomorrow will show unity and peace between races. One particular part of King's speech that touched me the most on an emotional level was his expression of the hope for his four children who "...will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." King expresses a dream in which the superficiality of the color of one's skin will be overseen and the true character is what will matter most.
King's perceived character; he demonstrates a true idea of equality by recognizing the diversity amongst the demonstrators and pointing out that "...they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom." Speaking to the black demonstrators of the whites who stand side by side for the equal and fair treatment of blacks. King also expresses a commonality with the demonstrators that just like them, he has struggled and he urges the watchful people to remain hopeful and follow his dream of a better tomorrow. Above all, what held true with King's character was his belief in non-violent demonstration. He made sure to emphasize his belief by saying "We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence." He further emphasized his point by telling the demonstrators to meet physical force with "soul force". What King meant by that is to stand proud of one's self in the face of physical force and violence, to not waiver and let one's perceived character falter by meeting violence with violence.
3. What is the historical significance of this document?
Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech was a pivotal point in history in which the beginning of equality amongst all races would surface. I realize that King's speech focuses on the equal treatment of blacks, but the same can hold true for other minorities as well. The March on Washington was the largest civil rights demonstration in American history, which holds a universal meaning for equality not just toward race, but gender, sexuality, and religion. King's words will echo for eternity as the day in which one man stepped up and spoke the true words of equality. He gave reason to believe that people of all colors, genders, and sexualities could come together and fight for equal rights.
4. Do you find the author's argument convincing? Why or why not?
I found Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech to be very convincing as well as moving. Having been interested in the civil rights movements of the 1960's for some time and absorbing information regarding the oppression of blacks and other races, I get sickened by how people were treated and continue to be treated to this day all over the world. I'm a true believer in human rights and equality, having experienced my own share of unfair treatment in some situations (albeit not to the extent of which blacks had experienced throughout history). It hits me on an emotional level to see and hear of racial injustice. When I was reading the power point presentation, "Second Reconstruction", it was deeply disturbing how whites would treat the four black college students who sat down and demanded service at a whites-only lunch counter by pouring their drinks and other food items over their heads as they sat there peacefully and quietly.
Aside from my particular views, I did find King's speech very convincing because he had the ability to move people. He had the ability to touch people's souls with words that would evoke sympathy and understanding. As I mentioned before with the particular mentioning of his four children being seen for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. It proved to be very convincing to me because on a personal level, I can understand where he's coming from. I too would much rather someone look at the content of my character above anything else.
By the 1930's, countries around the globe had experienced the Great Depression. The concept of the "invisible hand" was ill-fated to solve the economic troubles of most nations and it was left to the governments to decide how to solve the economic problem. While Franklin Roosevelt was not about to give into the communist or fascist party systems a chance in America, there was an effective but destructive system at work in another country--Germany. Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party (also known as the Nazis) managed to improve the German economy, while "crushing democracy."
Hitler led a twelve year reign of terror that would shake the world to the present day, he used this terror to strike fear into the people of Germany to follow him or suffer dramatic consequences. He believed in a fascist system, that of racial purity, and would blame impurities for the ailments of the nation. Hitler singled out the Jewish community, as well as Gypsies, homosexuals, the chronically ill, and mentally or physically disabled and labeled them as pollutants of Aryan blood. Tens of thousands of innocent lives were lost due to Hitler's fascist beliefs. The Nazis worked to help promote a cult following of Hitler. That the leader was portrayed as an embodiment of the "will and destiny" of the German people who would essentially lead them to the "preeminence in the world they so richly deserved." These ideals won the trust of the German people and would leave little room for them to question Hitler's actions.
How did Hitler shape the economy to improve and what were the effects of his methods on a societal level?
How is fascism and socialism relevant or irrelevant to each other?
Why did the people of Germany put their faith and trust into Hitler's methods even though he was tyrannical throughout most of his time as leader of Germany?
1. What is the author arguing?
Franklin D. Roosevelt came into the picture after the devastating hit that the nation took since the start of The Great Depression. In Roosevelt’s inaugural address, he vowed to tend to the people at the bottom of the economic pyramid unlike his predecessor president Hoover who believed that a theory called trickledown economics would solve the problems of the nation’s poor and otherwise ignore the pleas of the poor and downtrodden. Roosevelt incites a sense of calm, collected, and confident awareness of the nation’s economic downfall that could only be saved by ignoring that which could only bring further economic destruction—fear.
“…let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”
--Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Roosevelt builds on restoring the self-confidence of the people by reassuring the people that the nation will continue on and prosper as it always has despite the moment of economic hardship. He does not, however, deny that there is a troubling economic situation and he emphasizes that action is to be taken immediately.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?
Roosevelt does not offer a detailed solution to the troubling economic situation, but he does offer some insight into creating jobs, “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” Roosevelt explains that this can be accomplished in part by directly recruiting people to the Government and accomplishing projects that would help “…stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.” He emphasizes that we must do more than just talk about what can be done to fix the situation; he says we must act and act now.
Roosevelt attempts to repair the hearts of an ignored nation that Hoover left behind by sympathizing with the downtrodden, poor, sick, and hungry people that have been impacted by the effects of an economic downfall. Roosevelt urges the public to stand together and work together to achieve financial stability while he works to achieve the goals he set forth in improving the economy. Empowering the citizens of America with the duty of walking alongside him and each other in order to battle that which threatens to destroy and continue to destroy the nation’s economy.
Roosevelt’s perceived character is that of a confident, aware, and active individual who is not disdained by the task at hand of repairing a nation overwhelmed by a national crisis. His demeanor exemplifies that which he tries to bestow on the listeners and viewers, which is a sense of duty to the people that he so considered to be the masters and the government the servant to the people. He emphasizes the importance of not ignoring that which would help repair the nation—the people.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
Prior to the inauguration of President Roosevelt, the nation had been left to essentially fend on it’s own as the people fight for their families for economic stability. President Hoover left Roosevelt with a disturbing reality that the government was not behind the people and that there was no end in sight to the hardship the nation would endure. Roosevelt offered a sense of relief and hope that the troubles everyone faced and were threatened to face would come to an end at the hand of his efforts.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
I do find Roosevelt’s argument convincing, because he offers the idea that there is an end to a crisis that seemed so dark and unending for so many. Despite the fact that he did not offer any specific details as to how he would adequately fix the situation, he does offer attentiveness to the situation that his predecessor did not. As one veteran left his encampment in Washington D.C. mentioned, “Hoover sent the Army; Roosevelt sent his wife.” Roosevelt offered a tenderness that the people had not experienced during Hoover’s term as president. Hoover’s response to the veterans wanting benefits for serving in the World War was to break the encampment with force, while Roosevelt’s wife Eleanor Roosevelt visited the encampment and sympathized with the veterans regarding their economic state and offered assurance. Proving the attentive attitude that Roosevelt so adequately expressed in his address.
The nation lacked an understanding from the government and especially from the leader of the nation, Roosevelt’s address focused almost entirely on embracing the people and offering peace to their troubles.
