Day 7 28 Jan. 2003


1. Names. Making progress on placements now? I’ll ask for journals about every other week, probably, and will give you a schedule for those soon.


We also need to schedule at least one showing of Platoon before next Tuesday. Thursday evening? Sunday? Monday?


2. In the News. Lots of interesting stuff . . .


Ron Krehbiel opinion piece


“A simplistic philosophy of "destroy evil before it destroys you" under-estimates evil.   Imagine we walk through a vast marketplace crowded with people.  A handful of thugs set upon us.  We are bigger and stronger, but by the time we recover from our shock they have dispersed into dark allies.
Many in the crowds consider us friends and lament the violence of the thugs.  But their homes ring the market.  Families and possessions will be endangered by a big fight.  They will be angry
if we escalate things by retaliating.  Many also believe we have been bullies ourselves and share the resentments of the thugs against us, even while they reject their violence.   These may join the fray against us if we go on the attack.
Could we wipe out some bad guys?  Sure. But at the price of multiplying our enemies?  At the risk of turning the marketplace into a permanent battleground?
2003 is not 1940.   Hitler belonged to Germany, and no one else shared the resentments he used to arouse Germans to war. Those directing terror at us today come from communities around
the globe, and millions share their resentments.   Fortunately for us, even most of their sympathizers reject the violence of the terrorists.  But we lose ground every day that we ignore legitimate concerns at the grassroots and act in ways that endanger or seem to humiliate others.
The truth is that the thugs point to some legitimate complaints against us.   We have indeed allowed thirst for oil to drive us into close partnerships with brutal dictators.  We have indeed been blatantly one-side in an ancient, complex conflict while the other side has lived homeless for 50 years in refugee camps.  We have indeed flaunted our materialism and self-preoccupation in Hollywood debaucheries piped daily to TVs around the globe, while offering small crumbs to those who suffer. Our know-it-all posturing regarding Saddam has within 18 months reversed a global outpouring of sympathy after 9/11. . . .
If we begin with modesty and openness, we stand a chance of engaging the wisdom and support of moderate voices worldwide in removing those things that stir fringe groups to violence.
America still holds a wondrous grip on the hearts of many. Friends on every hand would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us if we acted as true partners. But we'll have to leave the cowboy act


I read about Bush's preparation for the state of the union address. 

"Christian Science Monitor" said he would need to justify war with Iraq and

reassure people about the economy.  "Political USA" basically said the same

thing, he would need to persuade the public to support war and deal with the

economy, and I couldn't find anything about the state of the union address

in the left of center newspapers.

I read my article from the National Review.  It was called "Don't Give Hussan the War He Wants."  The president is getting very frustrated because the inspectors are not finding any clear evidence that the are weapons over there.  Hussan wants to be remembered in history as a great warrior, not one that has been beaten down as some have in the past.  Basically saying that Hussan wants to go to war with the US.  It we do go to war it shouldn't be when he wants it to occur but rather when the we are ready. 

  Amanda Egley


       I read an interesting article in The Counterpunch.  The article ( ) written by Bruce Jackson titled Bush, Blacks, and Jews  is about affirmative access into colleges and universities. I agree with the idea of affirmative access. People have been talking for several years of compensation to African-Americans for slavery and segregation in the past. Many are against it because, how do you say what is enough and how do you distribute it? also, what is it? What do you give people for their families oppression? Money? Land? I feel the best way is to give advantages in education. The author of the article says that Bush had an easy access into good schools. He had average grades and yet made it into Yale, and , as the author said, it is not hard to see that daddy's money and political status helped him get there. In a small view , I don't approve of anyone having special ways into college, though it happens everywhere from Yale to Bluffton, but in a large view, I think this is the only rational way to give those the majority has oppressed a way to rise up to the equality they unfortunately still haven't reached. Besides, there are many colleges and universities in this country. If one denies you, try another. That's how it works. From the article, I can see why Bush is worried. With Affirmative access, an average white rich male student, even with all his fathers' money behind him, will be denied entrance to a highly selective college while an extremely brilliant middle-class African-American woman with only intelligence, aspirations, and hard work behind her, will be entered into the college.


Wouldn't that be a terrible thing.


Matt Gothard


Browsing over the various news sources on the Web, I chose to compare arrticles in The New York Times,, and. The deal with France and Germany not totally supporting the U.S. and Britain in the battle with Iraq. The NY Times article ( is from the Associated Press and provides unbiased, somewhat useful information (as should all majorly read papers). The article found at, entitled The Axis of Irrelevance and written by Oliver North ( article.php?a_id=233) , provides a list of nations and groups that Bush should refer to in his State of the Union Address as "Axis of Irrelevance." Not surpising at the top of the list is France and Germany. In the article, North rips these two countries apart. It isn't very nice at all. The third article I read was from The Nation and is entitle USA Oui, Bush Non! ( It gives the reader a view from the European side of this issue. I enjoy how the writer, Eric Alterman, says the Bush is a "cartoonish stereotyp representing the worst side of America" and the Bruce Springstein represents AMerica. Hands together for the Boss, I guess.

Stephanie Elton


The article that I read was from the national review talking about how SUV's

are not what is causing all the air polution, it is all the cars that came

years bfore the SUV's because the emmsion standards were way lower than they

are now.  I think that it is funny that all this talk is going on about

SUV's when we know that they are not going to be outlawed, if they want to

do something about it they should just make standards fit with car

standards, not to mention I don't think that the main point with SUV's is

air pollution but that the burning of oil is what is the main problem.

Figure out a way to cut down on the gas used not on air pollution.

Allan King, Jr.

The idea of chemical weapons and warfare of Iraq’s part have come to be noticed and investigated. The New York Times reports that there are more troops going into Iraq. We are getting ready for the worst-case scenario. also shows that the US is preparing for the worst possible scenario. In one article it shows that we are more powerful and that if we go to war it will be rough. The other article from says that it will be like a walk. Saying that it will be easy for us to win. Bush thinks that if something starts more things may branch off of this. Such as, biological and chemical warfare or more terrorist attacks. So they are looking at it very closely. major left of center

Jeff Hinderschied


The article that I found on the Internet was a story

in Newsweek magazine

(  This

article is a personal account from a 22-year old

soldier (Sgt. Matthew Figley) stationed along the

Iraq-Kuwait boarder.  His interview was very

interesting.  His overall thoughts and passion towards

war amazed me.  I guess that I just find it hard to

imagine anyone enthusiastically saying “I want to go

to war.”  At one point he actually says that he was

sorry that he missed out on the war in Afghanistan.

He called that a “heartbreaker” and said that he isn’t

worried about dying, its just a part of life.  He said

that he feels that there is no stress over there and

that “life is a cakewalk.”  I just can’t imagine

anyone being excited and anticipating war.  When I

think about it though, I would rather have people in

that mindset in our military who are not afraid to do

what needs to be done.

-Lesley Johanns


      The current topic I chose to write about is the juvenile on death row found here,2933,76690,00.html . The article states that four chief justices wish to review the death penalty for juveniles. In this case a juvenile was adjudicated for the burning of a live couple in the trunk of their car, naturally the prosecution chased after the death penalty. The four justices main argument thus far is “The practice of

executing such offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with

evolving standards of decency in a civilized society," Justice John Paul

Stevens wrote then. He was joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader

Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.” (Internet site )They make a valid point. One major point that must be pointed out is that the adjudicated

juvenile has not been found mentally retarded nor criminally insane, what

might save this adjudicated juvenile fate is the fact the he is only 17 at

the time of his offense. My solution would be to imprison this offender for

the rest of his natural delinquency, upon completion of adulthood sentence

the offender to death. Many people will disagree with me. This offender as

we know thus far was competent, in a sane state, and well aware of his

actions. Rehabilitation for an individual like this maybe effective, but the

safety of our communities and prevention of future actions such as this

should under no circumstance rest on a might chance. People will argue this

offender did wrong and does deserve to die, but then I ask why does he

deserve to live?

-Raudel Hermosillo

Article Supreme Court Won't Hear Juvinile Death Penalty Case,2933,76690,00.html

     This article got my attention because I would agree that the death

penalty for anyone under 18 is cruel.  The supreme court is refusing to hear

the case of a boy of commited a crime when he was 17 years old.  I don't

think that it is right to put anyone under 18 on death row because they are

not yet adults and their parents still have most of the control in the

household.  I think teenagers mature a lot from the age of 17 to when they

turn 18 so how can you give a death sentence to a person who is not yet

thinking on an adult level, it just doesn't seem fair.  Yeah they did a

horrible act, but how can you say they deserve to die because at that age

they are more of followers than thinking things through for themselves.  I

think the supreme court shoudl hear this case and think about what these you

people are going through when they get sentenced at such a young age,

especially when adults get off everyday for the same offense that these

teenagers are sentenced to death for.


-Candy Apperson,2933,76690,00.html

Supreme Court Won't Hear Juvenile Death Penalty Case


This article talks about how people (the 4 justices) have complained that it

is cruel and unusual punishment to kill those who are on death row who are

under the age of 18. It says in the article "While they appear to be

fully-grown physically and may seem to be functioning as adults, their

judgment and impulse-control are simply not that of adults," attorney Steven

Presson told justices in filings. But I feel that if they are of that age,

they will know the difference between right and wrong and if that is what

the jury wants to give to the criminal as their punishment, then so be it. I

don't think just because they aren't 18, they shouldn't be punished as

adults, they for sure know the difference between right and wrong and know

what they are doing and know that it is wrong. I really don't have a stance

on the death penelty but I think that all who commit crimes should face the

appropriate punishment whether is be life in prison or the death penatly.


Amber Fitzwater

3. J/H: 
On Gender Issues, from last time.
               From Since Feeling Is First, on equality (105)

4. War and Progress. The first half of the 20th century, not such a big time frame, hmm? The century began with empires, colonialism, the White Man’s Burden, and a great confidence about the ability of white males of European descent to make the world run more or less the way they thought it should. 

The U.S., still assimilating and settling its share of the continent, didn’t acquire an overseas empire to compare with Britain’s or France’s. But note the foreign adventures in Cuba and the Philippines. See Lisa’s web site for more.

Men like John Dewey and William James—disciples of pragmatism, believers in reason and progress and the ability of human beings to make the world better. James’ lecture “The Moral Equivalent of War.”

The Progressive Era, and Populist leaders like William Jennings Bryan; reform movements on labor, gender, and other issues—Prohibition and women’s suffrage by 1920.  Bryan’s plan for international arbitration and cooling off periods, 183.

Humanities 2 spends considerable time on the European/world side of all this, but it’s relevant to our study as well. One little window: some excerpts from Matthew Stevenson’s “Roads to Sarajevo,” Harper’s Feb. 2002.

Contrast this decadent little world with the realities of WW I—endless trench warfare, suicidal frontal assaults on machine gun positions, mustard gas. The romantic view of war and the other one—two poems from English war poets, both killed in the trenches.

Rupert Brooke. 1887–1915

149. The Soldier

IF I should die, think only this of me;             

That there’s some corner of a foreign field                  

That is for ever England. There shall be                   

In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;                  

A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware,                       

Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,                  

A body of England’s breathing English air,                  

Washed by the rivers, blest by suns of home.

And think, this heart, all evil shed away,                  

A pulse in the eternal mind, no less                

Gives somewhere back the thoughts by England given;                  

Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;                  

And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness,                   

In hearts at peace, under an English heaven.

Wilfred Owen

Dulce Et Decorum Est



Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,

Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,

Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs

And towards our distant rest began to trudge. 

Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots                    5

But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;

      Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots

Of disappointed shells that dropped behind. 

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,

Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;   10

But someone still was yelling out and stumbling

And floundering like a man in fire or lime.—

Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light

As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. 

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,                           15

He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. 


If in some smothering dreams you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;                            20

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest                25

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.

The eventual result of the war: not a controlled, contained little enterprise with some shuffling of boundaries and shifting of powers, but unprecedented destruction and loss of life. U. S. entry helped swing the tide against Germany and Austria. The failure of Wilson’s League of Nations, and the harsh terms of the treaty of Versailles. The war to end all wars merely set up an even greater and more destructive one, only twenty years later.

World War II as “the Good War.” Americans have made a major effort to remember it that way, surely, especially since Korea and Vietnam, conflicts with much murkier objectives and outcomes. Even many near-pacifists pause at this one, and say that Hitler had to be stopped. If the question is framed as “Should the world have taken up arms to fight Nazism, or just surrendered?” the answer seems pretty obvious. But of course that’s not the only question that might be asked.

I’m quite ready to grant that, given the alternatives after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. could hardly do otherwise than fight the war. I certainly recognize the bravery and sacrifice of those who fought, and I’m surely glad that our side won. But let’s think about some other aspects as well

The costs. About sixty million dead, mostly civilians. 25 million in the Soviet Union—about a tenth of the population—a figure that the U.S. might have done well to recall during the days of the Cold War, when we widely assumed that the Soviets would jump into another war at a moment’s notice if they saw the slightest chance of success. Six million in Poland, four million in Germany, two million in Japan, 1.5-2 million in Yugoslavia. From 5% civilian deaths in WW I to 66% in WW II, mostly because the fighting was no longer localized/restricted to narrow battlefields.

Transformations of U.S. society. Total mobilization, transformation (and revitalization) of industry. Toward a permanently militarized economy. Restrictions on civil liberties, and internment of Japanese Americans.

Strategic bombing. Deliberate attacks on civilians en masse, for the first time in U.S. history. Accounts of Japanese and German atrocities—which were real—and the quickly escalating brutality all around. German “Blitz” of London, and Allied bombing in response. Firestorms of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo. And then of course the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

NOTE: when I searched for “Dresden firebomb,” I got this site, . It seems a pretty accurate description of the Allied bombing campaigns, but note the source: some kind of Aryan Nation group. Gulp.

And the atomic bombings. Even in 1994-95, too controversial to allow a Smithsonian exhibit that would have told some of the results, and recognized the possibility that the war might have ended without either nuclear bombs or an invasion of Japan. J/H put the outcome to “the demonic momentum of militarism on both sides” (209). What do you think? 200,000 Japanese lives. Everybody in Toledo, more or less.

What were the options? As I said earlier, there were few good ones by 1941, or even 1938. There was some resistance to Nazi rule, especially to the deportation of Jews and others to the death camps. But for all the Schindlers and Corrie Ten Booms, there were thousands of others who went along.

To come up with a plausible nonviolent answer, probably we need to think back further. Throughout the period from 1914-1945 (and beyond), the logic of warfare overwhelmed all else as a way of resolving disputes among the nations of Europe. When we look back at them, those disputes seem utterly out of proportion with the devastation that the wars caused. But for those who look at that period and conclude that therefore there’s no hope, consider Europe today. Germany and France and England , deadly adversaries in both wars, share the same currency. When you cross the border from Germany to France you don’t even have to slow down. The idea of one of those countries going to war against the other seems absurd.

How did that happen? Not because anybody conquered anybody else. But because trade and travel were established, and it became far more profitable for everybody involved to do business than to shoot at each other. In the Muenster cathedral there’s a plaque about a ceremony, an exchange with Coventry Cathedral in England. Both were destroyed during the war, but both have been rebuilt. Peace is possible.


Student Responses:

Alisha Fought


      How do you really know who is telling the truth?  The authors of The

Missing Peace repeatedly tell us that history textbooks taught in school are

biased on the side of patriotism and are leaving out important events and

detail.  But who’s to say that the authors of this book aren’t doing exactly

the same thing?  Are they being biased on the side of pacifism and

distorting the facts to support their views?  I continually ask myself this

throughout the reading.  It’s easy to see the numbers, such as the amount of

lives lost in World War II, and wonder if there wasn’t a better way.  But

who’s to say that the number of lives lost wouldn’t have been just as great

if not greater if the US had stayed out of the war?  This book reports 60

million lives, mostly civilian, being lost in the course of this war (201);

but how many of these were due to the Holocaust?

      Throughout these chapters the authors infer that “violence…produced more violence” (175), but how can they prove this?  I think that if our nation does not defend ourselves, or in some cases intercede before it becomes necessary to defend ourselves, we will still be the recipient of violence, whether we retaliate or not.  William James was quoted as saying

“…peacemakers should not ignore or deny human impulses to violence, but

rather credit their power and find productive ways to channel them” (182). 

I must say I absolutely agree.  Find alternative means to violence, discover

ways to avoid war and you will have my full support, as long as these

alternatives produce results and still offer protection.  I hate war, I hate

the idea of people killing other people, I hate that innocent lives are

destroyed in the crossfire, and so if there is any successful means to avoid

it then I say go for it.  But I will not passively stand by and allow people

to destroy this world and threaten my freedom without fighting and

supporting those who fight.


Though the reading for tomorrow I some of it disturbing.  I believe it was during the Philipine-American war, that the americans viewed dark skinned people as savages.  It was so bad that one African American Soldier switch sides and joined the Philipine army.  Also around this time American International Expositions and World Fairs used nonwhite people as part of their exhibits to show their savagness and inferiority.  The country made an "Open Door Policy" which involved China.  They made everyone belive that this would provide everyone with economic opportunities, but what they didn't not say was that it would give the United States economic power.  In my opinon that was pretty underhanded.  The idea that really has bothered me since I read these couple of chapters was that after Pearl Harbor, we placed Japanese Americans in concetration camps.  I know that the maybe the country went into a state of panice, however I think it was wrong to assume that these people were necessarily linked to the Japanese attacks. 


  Amanda Egley



      Theodore Roosevelt once said "all great races have been fighting races." As I read for this response about the Spanish-American War in the book, I turned on the History Channel and the new documentary TR: An American Lion was just coming on. So as I read, I also watched this show about his life. As the historians said of Roosevelt, he was a war-monger. He was glad for the American newspapers to start printing of the atrocities in Cuba by the Spanish so that the United States would declare war on Spain. I do not see the need for the war, even after hearing the view of the opposite side from the books. I doubt that Spain was really a threat to the United States, so that can't really be used as a reason. If it wasn't for the atrocities by the Spanish, I would say that this was a war that should not have been fought. But any country who causes suffering onto the people  they govern over, needs to be stopped.


      I am glad to finally read about World War II in this book. I sometimes laugh when I hear of World War II as the "good" war since the atrocities of the  Axis powers wasn't the reason why we went to war. If it was, then the war would have been a good war. I also find it hypocritical to say that we fought for justice when we put Asian-Americans in concentration camps during the war and, as did every country for centuries, did not view Jews as completely equal. There has always been ill-feelings towards Jews, it was just Germany who happened to take this to the extreme. If the England, France, and United States side lost the war, and if we suffered the same hardships as Germany did, I have no doubt that we could easily have been the ones to build camps for Jews, blacks, gays, and other socially unacceptable people, especially when I remember how quickly the government built camps for Asian- Americans.  I wish people would remember this part of W.W.II, then they may not see America as this blind justice who defeated the evil Nazis. We were just as bad. Even after the war, American soldiers, more than soldiers from any other country, stole huge amounts of goods from the Nazis who stole them from Jewish families, some of whom were still alive in concentration camps. That is another aspect of the war people don't like to admit to. I still feel that W.W.II was a war that must have been fought. The Nazis could not have continued on their quest to erase the millions of "socially unacceptable" people. If war is to be declared, it should be done for humanity, not for political agendas.

 Matt Gothard


I'm not so good at understanding this history stuff that we've been reading.

But I'm confused at the title of Chapter 10 "The Good War":Misremembering

World War II".  The Good War? I don't understand how any war can be good. It

was said on page 200 that "the 400,000 U.S deaths in WWII, almost all

military personnel, were agonizing for famililies affected, but the

triumphant national cause made their grief meaningful and bearable". How can

this be true. I don't know how anyone can say that a death being meaningful

and bearable. The thoughts of anyone dying is a horrible thought no matter

who it is. I couldn't even imagine having my worst enemy die. That thought

just boggled my mind.



Amber Fitzwater


Violent Means Undermine Progress: War and Peace 1898-1918

    The Spanish American War of 1898 was fought so Cuba could have their

independence from Spain.  The Cuban's didn't want the American soldiers, but

wanted their help in other ways.  I don't think that Americans had the right

to interfere with Cuba's war for independence when they didn't want our

help.  We could have supported them in other ways than to send unwanted

troops over there.  By us going they didn't get their independence Cuba just

went from Spain dominating them to the U.S. trying to dominate them, so what

was the point in fighting a war.  The war against the Philipines doesn't

make sense to me at all.  I think as a nation who had to fight for their

independence, we would undersand why other countries wanted their freedom

and we wouldn't want to dominate other countries.  Just because the U.S.

became more and more powerful doesn't give them the right to kill innocent

people because they don't want to be ruled under the United States


"The Good War":  Misremembering World War II

     The thing that bothered me most about this chapter was the fact that

Americans didn't care about all the Jewish people dieing all they wanted was

revenge on Japan.  To me that is just so selfish, innocent people were

dieing because of their religion and all we could think about was getting

revenge.  Peral Harbor was a horrific act and very upsettig to all

Americans, but there is more to life than just worrying about ourselves.  We

are no better than the Germans were because we took Japanese Americans and

put them in concentration camps because of their etnicity, when none of them

had anything to do with the attack.  And to think that Peral Harbor could

have been avoided, if the U.S. would have been willing to compromise, it

just makes me wonder what our government was thinking.  Mayer said, "I do

not want Hitler to rule the world, and if he wins the war he will.  The

trouble is that if we win it hw will rule the world anyway."  (213)  I agree

with his statment because even though Hitler lost the war, he brought the

world to war with each other, and in turn we all lost so much.  So in the

end the question that has to be asked is, was i worth it?

-Candy Apperson


Raudel Hermosillo Jr.

Response 2


      Juhnke and Hunter came up with what I feel is a major contradiction that I

will address.

      In his new spiritual conversion, that convinced him if God wanted him to

fight he would and God would protect him, he no longer was a “literal

follower of the teachings of God”, he was a soldier fighting for survival.

York subjected himself for this fight of survival and proved nothing more

than God protects those who strive to do the right thing regardless of

consequence or casualty.

By declaring one Alvin C. York the “greatest U.S. hero of World War I” is a

contradiction to their entire “search for non-violent alternatives in United

States history”. I will not dishonor Mr. York’s heroic war actions, he is a

hero, a war hero with 25 dead Germans, and 132 captured Germans, under his

belt. The contradiction is here, after only two attempts of being exempted

from this violent war, he conformed to the United States government. Where

would this country be today if Rosa Parks gave up her seat on that bus after

the “white man” yelled at her twice to get off his self-proclaimed seat?

Obviously the Rosa parks incident came years later, but the point I am

making is this minority of a minority-female and African American- was more

heroic by being firm to what she believed in. Had she conformed to the

segregation aspect of the country back then, segregation perchance, would

still be at large today. Therefore I believe one Rosa Parks is more of a

hero than Mr. York, she stood for what she believed in and never budged for

the “white man”, or the country. York was heroic, but I feel he would have

been an even greater hero had he a little more Rosa Parks in him and stood

his ground on his true feelings of the war, and not choosing to conform to

the draft.



I have never been much of a history person, but I must

say that I find World War II amazing.  The idea that

World War II is referred to as "The Good War" is

disheartening.  Although when you really think about

it, we have always been taught that of all the wars

that the United States has been involved in, World War

II seems to be the most justified.  We are presented

with several reasons why it was justified, but it

seems that we rarely ever hear about the overall

devastation, injustices, and losses that resulted from

World War II.  The statistics that the book gave

concerning the war were shocking to me.  Around

400,000 people were killed, a significant portion of

them being civilians.  That number seems almost

unreal.  I remember reading a sentence in the chapter

that said some felt that the triumph of the war was

more than what was lost.  I do not understand how that

can even be rationalized. 

I found the particular section on the mistreatment of

the Japanese Americans to be very interesting.  The

fact that the United States government detained

112,000 Japanese Americans from the west coast and

shipped them to concentration camps for no valid

reason is amazing to me.  To detain that many people

for the reason of "military necessity" even though

there was not one case or any evidence showing that

any of these Japanese American individuals attempted

to carry out sabotage or anything along those lines,

was a clear violation of civil, not to mention, human

rights.  Overall, World War II resulted in both good

things (the end of the Holocaust, a more unified

United States, an end to the Great Depression boosting

the economy) and the obvious bad.  I think that it is

very hard to look back and think “What if?”

-Lesley Johanns


In most of these articles it shows that most of the wars at the beginning of the 20th century may have used violence but we always got what we wanted. We had to sacrifice lives to get where we are today. When McKinley came into office there was a big imperialistic movement because McKinley was not for that. Many more peace movements sprang up at this point. At one point in the reading it said that only minor disputes could be the only ones solved nonviolently. I believe there will always be violence no matter what we do. There are many aggressive people out there and when you come across one with very strong opinions you will not lay down so they will fight. Those kinds will not come to an end nonviolently. That is why the world is like it is today. The authors said that World War II was the “good” war. We won that Great War with national unity by fighting. It had to be done. We were not going to lie down against Adolf Hitler. He was going to go all out violently as we have known through his past So we took it to him. I believe we are always up for making peace. But if someone is going to use violence then they better be ready. We use violence only when we need to. We try to resolve nonviolently but it does not work most of the time so we use violence to beat them. We are too powerful why are they trying.

Jeff Hinderschied


"universal impulse of heroic self-sacrifice" or "The Moral Equivalent of

War" either statement to me seems totally off base. How can we find ways to

channel our natural aggressiveness to go to war?  So what we are saying is

that there are a bunch of killers running around just waiting to go to war? 

I don't think so.  The only natural instinct that we have to is protect what

is ours, going to war is just one way to do that and I don't know many

people that want to go out and risk their lives constantly.  Is war

glorified somewhat in our history?  Yes, but that does not make us a bunch

of killers running around saying war, ya, ya, war, war.  No, we do what we

feel is necessary, whether or not what we do is right is a diferent matter.



Allan King, Jr.


Several things came to mind while reading Tuesday's assignment.

1) Pacifism and violence seem to have been categorized as feminine and masculine. Is that true today? Compare and contrast the leaders of each side before WW1. On one side you have individuals such as Theodore Roosevelt ( a miliatry maniac) and on the opposite end of the spectrum is Jane Addams, a prominant pacifist. Going into the trenches and defending freedom by killing and destroying lives is seen as manly, courageous, and something all male should be ready to do. Looking at the players in the situation we find ourselves in today, I can't help but wonder if these same sorts of ideas are running through anyone's mind. Trying to find a prominant female perspective throughout this is difficult.

2) Propaganda plays a major role in every war. The point is to justify violence so that no one will second guess the actions that will follow. During the Super Bowl, two more of the "drug money supports terrorists" ads were run. Identifying one supreme evil, whether it is communism, terrorism, etc., may very well get the majority of the population on your side. However, is it right to highlight the evil actions of one nation and slide yours or those of other nations under the carpet?

3) I can't help but call indiviuals such as Ida Tarbell, Florence Kelley, and Carrie Chapman Catt "whislteblowers." Was this a predeseccor to those who brought to light the criminal acts of corporate America?

Stephanie Elton