A Green New Deal

This is worth reading. It's a call for the correct amount of change that our nation, and by extension our nation's impact upon the world at large, need take. We can be new leaders, according to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. May we indeed heed her call, enact this change, and force the old guard into a state without their age-old, imperial power. It's high time for the young people of this country, and the world, to rise up and demand redress for the wrongs perpetrated upon peoples and the Earth for the last 300+ years.

I welcome your thoughts below...

JR#10 - Platoon: The Real Enemy of War

Because of television, Vietnam was one of the most widely reported wars in US history. Morning and night, news reporters reported on current events of the war, often with horrific accompanying film footage. It was the first war which was seen in everybody's living room... The spectacle of war, now redefined, had become a specter which haunted America's collective unconscious during the late 60s and early 70s, and it would continue to do so until the present.

In many ways the extensive media coverage of Vietnam accounted for the tremendous anti-war feeling that was generated in America at the time. Considering the formidable cost in life and money, many people simply could not see why US troops were fighting in Vietnam. It was this opinion that forced not only the public but also many government officials, even presidents, to seriously consider why America was involved in the war at all. 

Despite the coverage in the news, the Vietnam War was a subject that was initially avoided by Hollywood filmmakers. War films had always been popular with Hollywood, but here was one war that one did not to wish to look at. Why do you think this was? Why do you think that it took decades until American filmmakers were to make films about Vietnam, many of which attempt to portray actual events and not simply repeat the old style of war films?

Many Americans, and many soldiers who went to fight in Vietnam, initially expected a real war, one like those as seen in the movies where "ground was taken, advances made." It was a shock to find that US and VC battalions often took the same piece of land again and again, that there was no clear front line, that this was not a war between nations but a revolutionary civil war on the surface and an ideological war underneath... This shock caused confusion within soldiers simply because of the image of war that had been portrayed in the movies, did not align to the war which was being fought in Vietnam.

Who was the enemy? Was it the villager? Was it a shadow? Was it themselves? If there was no obvious enemy then how could soldiers see themselves as liberators? What were they defending? 

Viewers had been "brought up" with war films and other media, but again Vietnam was very different. If Platoon is part of the war-film genre, then, as critics, we need to be very clear as to what we mean by war-film genre. What do we expect in such films? Consider the qualities and archetypes of (1) characters, (2) settings, (3) plots, (4) conflicts, and (5) imagery, motifs, and themes which viewers expect of war films. 

Naturally, audiences have certain expectations of "the war film." Part of the pleasure in watching certain types of films is that viewers enjoy predicting what will happen next and having these expectations fulfilled. But what happens when a film that falls into the war-film genre and all its attendant expectations conversely does not seem to fit the genre? 

Recall our conversation about war movie archetypes. On the most basic level, war films portray and fulfill the expectation that there will be a victory of one side over another, the victor usually being the freedom-spreading US. How many of these archetypes apply to Platoon, how many do not? Which aspects operate on only an overt, visual level in Platoon? That is, although Platoon looks like a war film, it is the deeper conflicts and latent themes of the film that make it different. For example, we, as an audience, know straight away which side we are meant to identify with, who we are to support, who are to be the heroes and who the enemy.

In three ACE'd paragraphs, please respond to any of the following prompts in order to perform a brief analysis of Oliver Stone's Platoon. Begin with discussing who you would say are the heroes in the film and who you would say is the enemy? Using our discussion about war-film archetypes, analyse whether or not the heroes and enemies fit into the expected "norms" which govern these two types of characters. In what ways are the normal "heroic" qualities that you would expect to see in a war film shown in Platoon and in what ways are these qualities problematized or thwarted? If Platoon does not fit in with the normal archetypes of a war film, then we need to consider the ways in which it differs. Why do you think that Stone has made these directorial choices? What is Stone trying to do or say? What are the film's stances on morality, soldiering, trauma, etc. In what ways does Platoon have viewers look at war in the normative way and also the "new" way as projected after the media spectacle of the 60s and 70s? Finally, consider Chris's closing statement in your response's final paragraph: 

I think now, looking back, we did not fight the enemy, we fought ourselves, and the enemy was in us. The war is over for me now, but it will always be there, the rest of my days. As I'm sure Elias will be, fighting with Barnes for what Rhah calls "possession of my soul." There are times since, I've felt like a child, born of those two fathers. But be that as it may, those of us who did make it have an obligation to build again. To teach to others what we know, and to try with what's left of our lives to find a goodness and a meaning to this life.

Your journal response is essentially a draft to your next Response Paper! This journal is due, posted to the blog before class, by Wednesday, February 13th.

In-Class Reading and Discussion

Dear All,

I'm sorry that I cannot be with you again today... I've been struck with a terrible fever which has, thankfully, slowly been going down throughout the day. I'm hoping to return to school tomorrow!

For today's class, I would like for you to engage three articles about PTSD and the recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Each of you can take a turn reading one of the articles. Then, open up a discussion among yourselves. What are your general reactions upon reading these articles? Can you connect these readings from NPR to any of the texts which we have engaged previously?

• Ahmed, Beenish. "In Pakistan, It's Not Just Soldiers with PTSD." NPR.org. 8 November 2013. Web.
• Hensley, Scott. "PTSD And Depression Common In Returning Combat Soldiers." NPR.org. 7 June 2010. Web. 
• Talk of the Nation. "For Soldiers With PTSD, A Profound Daily Struggle." NPR.org 2 June 2011. Web.

Thank you all so much! I hope you find these articles interesting and meaningful to the course.

Sincerely,

s.

JR#9 - Truth and Testimony

Moving to the root argument and central premise of ts course—i.e., witness and testimony—let us comment upon, respond to, and analyze the reading assignment due today.

In an ACE'd paragraph, first briefly summarize Parts I-II of the article titled "Trauma and Testimony: The Process and the Struggle" (Laub 1991). Then in a second paragraph look deeper into the text, analyzing it for figurative lang., rhetorical devices, and any latent, socially-dominant messages—i.e., hegemony—which are suggested by Laub's writing, those which may be either upheld or vaporized..

JR#8 - Reactions to Holocaust Poetry of Extremity

After returning from Winter Break, we have turned away from the soldiering, boot-stomping, gun-tooting, bomb-dropping side of warfare and have begun to discuss the atrocious and long-lasting effect of WWII upon the innocent victims of the war. Namely, we have begun to investigate poetry of extremity, as it is termed by Caroline Forché in her landmark anthology entitled Against Forgetting. Importantly, the vast majority of the poetry, if not all, in her anthology is found poetry. This is a key component in the literary, cultural, and historical value of the selected poets' work. The simple fact that their work was not formally published, that their work was discovered, and by accident most often, positions their poetic endeavors as surviving relics of the Holocaust. They are artifacts in the truest sense of the word. As Forché notes, "Regardless of 'subject matter' these poems bear the trace of extremity within them, and they are, as such, evidence of what occurred" (30).

Found poetry is a key aspect of postmodern theory and philosophy. As we've discussed in class this past week and a half, these poems are wrought with poignant tales of survival, longing, and hope. These motifs become juxtaposed by death, forgetting, and the loss of hope. Indeed, these works, as Forché reminds us, have been found, compiled, and published as a direct means of not forgetting! 

In an ACE'd paragraph of at least 7-10 sentences, select two poets which we have read so far in this unit. Then, select two poems from these poets to analyze for their literal and figurative meaning. Consider the following questions as you compose your response:

• How do these works illustrate the motif of extremity? 
• What do they express and how do they express it? 
• How does the form of your chosen works serve to accentuate the content and the thematics of the poems? 
• And, finally, how do these poems bear witness to the atrocities of WWII and to the humanity which so many individuals sought to erase, and yet failed to do so?

Your responses are due, posted below as a comment, by classtime tomorrow. Thanks all!