I can only imagine what it would be like to have your source of communication cut off as a soldier. There is only one way to communicate with your family and friends back home: writing letters. They first prepare the soldier of the lack of communication when they go to Basic (Boot Camp). My best friend left of Basic October 2008; she was my friend that I was in constant communication with. No cell phone and no computer, only a few letters. Her letters were short and sporadic; my letters were long and detailed. I was told that is what got her through Boot Camp. Her mother just left for Kuwait; she will be gone about a year. Communication for her is a little different, she may write a few letters, but mostly she will be able to e-mail. However, her e-mails will be short and sporadic, much like the letters, because she won’t have the time to send long ones, nor will she have as much computer access as she would like.
Mandy and her mother are one of the main reasons why I chose to write on war. I didn’t know anyone in the army until I met them. Mandy’s mother has been in the Army since she was about 18; she thought she would never get deployed. Eighteen years later, they called her for a year of service in Kuwait. Right before she found that out, her daughter, Mandy, decided that she was also going to join the army. It was the first time that a war would affect my life, or at least that I thought about it affecting my life. To be completely honest, it still took me a while to figure out that the war is affecting me.
As part of English 102, our teacher had us blog. I was doubtful at first; slowly I started to enjoy it more. Oddly enough one of our blog assignments helped me decide the topic of my research paper. We had to choose a quote from Kurt Vonnegut’s book Cat’s Cradle. There was one quote that stuck out to me; “‘I do not say that children at war do not die like men, if they have to die. To their everlasting honor and our everlasting shame, they do die like men…But they are murdered children all the same’” (254). The ambassador of a small island said that quote at a ceremony for the “Hundred Martyrs to Democracy” (253). It was that quote that got me to think about how many soldiers are still children.
They may be of legal age to enlist in the army and they may legally be declared an adult; but to their family, that soldier will always be a child. Their family still thinks of the little boy that took his first step or played his first football game; their memories tell them their soldier is still their little child.
After I decided that I wanted my broad topic to be on war and soldiers, I was able to narrow it down as the semester went on. I think of it as a domino effect, I knocked down the first domino when I chose research war and soldiers. As class went on another domino would fall leading me to my topic. I ended up looking at the effects that war has on children too.
I thought the idea of the war having effects on children and children that are soldiers fit pretty well. They are affected differently, but yet they are both considered children. I also enjoy researching things that interest me. I hope to become a Pediatrician, so when I was able to incorporate children into this paper, it felt like the perfect fit.
Last semester in English 101 we focused on the course goals a lot. Much like English 102 we would pick one goal and focus on fulfilling that goal in the paper we were working on. Later we would go back and work on incorporating the other goals too. I think that processed helped a great deal when it came to writing in English 102. I felt that I understood the course goals, instead of looking at them as if they were in a different language. While I was trying to fulfill the course goals my writing style changed a little bit. In grade school and high school we always have to hand in an outline of our paper to the teacher. The concept of it was so that we would know what we wanted to write about and have some structure to our paper. When I started college and had to write my first paper, I sat down and told myself what I was going to write about. After an hour, I did not have much of that paper done. So I switched my style.
Most people go from unorganized writing to organize writing, however in a way I did the exact opposite. When I was working on my research paper, I focused my self to sit down and read my sources and then when I found a quote that I like or that I thought would work well in my paper I put a sticky note there so I could come back to it. Then I would type out one quote. I ended up rereading the quotes over and over until something came to me that I liked. Once I had the quote typed and my own opinion of the quote or my own interpretation of it I would work on incorporating it into a paragraph. I kept on doing that through my paper, sometimes the quote/ paragraph wouldn’t work and sometimes I needed to move it around in my paper; but that style of writing made it very easy to get my paper done.
Revising papers was something that I was never very fond of. I always found it hard to revise my papers mainly because I would have the comments my teacher gave me, but when it came to peer reviews I felt like I got the same comment every time. “It’s a good paper, maybe just add one more quote,” it was a comment that meant nothing to me I didn’t know where I should add that quote. In English 102, we did online peer editing sessions. I was very skeptical when I heard that we were going to edit papers that way. I figured I would get the same pathetic and useless comments. The online editing helped me a lot because people actually left useful comments. Some would be multiple paragraphs long. At first, I was slightly taken back because I liked to think that my paper was perfect and that I didn’t need to improve anything, then I read the comments and they made a lot of sense.
When I started to actually work on revising my paper, I relied heavily on my peer’s comments. It was nice to know how your paper was being read, so if they weren’t reading it how you wanted your paper to be read, then you had that chance to fix it. It also helped to know that they thought I was on the right track with my paper, because a few times I wasn’t sure if what I was writing really worked. As a writer it is possible to run out of ideas, so it is extremely nice to get another pair of eyes looking at your work. They have the ability to think outside of what you were working on, it brings another level to your paper; whether that is another stakeholder, another example, or working on better incorporating your audience into the paper.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Research paper
September 11, 2001 led to the beginning of a war that would last for years, but until recently it meant nothing to me. I was in sixth grade and sitting in English class when the planes flew into the Twin Towers, I knew what happened and that it was a horrible thing; I knew that things would probably change. What I didn’t know or realize is how it would affect me. I had no personal connection to what was about to happen…the Iraq War. October 2008 is when that changed. Four of my close friends enlisted in with the Army National Guard, one with the Marine Corp and one friend’s mother learned she was about to get deployed to Afghanistan. All of that got me to think about how wars, battle techniques, and weapons affect me, but also how they affect the soldiers and children. How do the changes in technology affect young children and children that become soldiers in times of war?
The idea that some soldiers are merely children came from the author Kurt Vonnegut in his book Cat’s Cradle. " 'I do not say that children at war do not die like men, if they have to die. To their everlasting honor and our everlasting shame, they do die like men, thus making possible the manly jubilation of patriotic holidays.'
'But they are murdered children all the same' (248)." Many join the army as boys, but most leave as men. The question is how do they leave; did they die from a rode side bomb, an M-16 Rifle, or a grenade? The way they died, the way they fought for our country, they deserve to be called men. Vonnegut wants us to know that the men that died for us, in reality are just boys. They still had a life to live, but they gave it up so we could continue our lives. Had they not done that, they might not have died as a child.
I don’t think Vonnegut is trying to tell us that war is always bad. However, I do think that Vonnegut wants us to think about the causes for war and see the effects that it has: lost loved ones, ruined cities/countries, broken families etc. Vonnegut states that the children were murdered (248). In a sense that is true. They chose to fight for our country, but why do they have to fight, what caused the war? Was it our selfishness?
David Nye, author of Technology Matters, brought up an interesting point pertaining to the causes of war. “The inventor Nicolas Tesla came to the opposite conclusion: He argued that each new weapons system, far from making war unthinkable, rather ‘invites new talent and skill, engages new effort, offers new incentive, and so only gives a fresh impetus to further development’” (175). When I first read that passage I wanted to blame war on the inventors; they are the ones that came up with gunpowder (or the next new weapon). However, we can’t point our fingers just at them, we are the ones asking them for newer and better inventions daily. Nor can we say that the death of our soldiers is due only to our enemies; their death also lies on our hands. In efforts to win the war, we ask or tell engineers, scientists, and inventors to make a new piece of technology or a new weapon that will protect us, and possibly kill the enemies. We are guilty of the deaths of those soldiers because we are the ones that insist on newer, better, and sharper technology. Other countries in turn take the concept of the weapons that we created, make their own and use them against us. Thus, taking away the advantage that we thought we had on that particular country.
The invention of new technology does not stop war; instead, it almost instigates war. “Events proved Tesla correct. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan did not discredit weapons of mass destruction but stimulated their production” (175). There is an unspoken competition between countries when it comes to weapons. A little competition is great; competition is part of what makes sports fun. However, competition among sports and competition among countries is different. Competition among countries is more serious, dangerous, and deadly; and we expect protection (176). “Civilians, who ultimately pay for weapons systems, expect the military to protect them. But as weapons became more powerful more civilians died in warfare, despite continual predictions of improved accuracy” (Nye176). Civilians use to be safe during a war. They may have gone through hard times like no having enough food or money, or women having to take on the work load while the men were at war; but physically there was typically no danger.
War use to be a face-to-face combat, frontline would strike frontline. Only the soldiers that were participating in that particular battle would be in danger. Their families, friends, neighbors, etc would not be in danger. Yes, they would still be affected, but in a different way. They would be affected because they lost a loved one, a father, or a brother, but the immediate effects wouldn’t affect them. They wouldn’t experience the physical danger; they wouldn’t be in the line of fire. Today, it is possible to die in war even if you weren’t participating actively in the war. Nye brings up another interesting point on technology and how it pertains to the military and our personal lives.
“Thus, if people have used technologies to increase their safety, they simultaneously risk the unforeseeable accidents and even disasters that arise from the interplay of changing technical systems and new circumstances. The greater the power of systems, the more serious is potential failure. This conclusion applies with ever greater force to the military, which faces more severe difficulties that railroad safety engineers or quality-control specialist” (167).
Owning a weapon is obviously a risk, a risk that many Americans to take. They are meant for protection, but having that weapon in the house raising the risk of an accidental death or suicide. That risk is huge, but that risk to the army is exponentially greater. With bigger pieces of technology, pieces that are more forceful, the damage is obviously increased. The men in the army are constantly risking their lives for us. They put their trust in a machine that could at any time go off unexpectedly because of an unknown mechanical error. “Furthermore, troops using sophisticated weapons often die from accidents and mistakes” (176). They, the soldiers, trust their weapons to help them, to save their lives, but so often a fatal mistake happens. They trust weapons that were designed to end lives, and occasionally the unspeakable happens, the soldier loses his life.
War and the weapons used in war are obviously dangerous. The weapons that are used can kill many people; soldiers aren’t the only ones who die in war. Families are broken up, fathers, brothers, mothers, etc can be killed whether or not they are a soldier, how does that affect children. How does the possible threat of death and danger of war affect children?
Children whose fathers are in the army seem to carry a sense of pride, but that isn’t the only effect that war has on children (Freud 17). Anna Freud, daughter of Sigmund Freud, wrote a book solely talking about children and war, in fact the title is War and Children, in her book she states, “Though the children seem to be proud of their fathers’ uniforms, they often seem to resent it and feel very much estranged when their mothers appear in such unexpected guises” (17). Children tend to feed off of their parents emotions. So when a mother shows her concern, her outward appear changes, or tries to act like things are okay children can typically pick that up. Then they too mimic their mother’s mood. Instead of a children being carefree and playful, they are over come with worry and distress from trying to figure out their mother’s emotions and why her emotions are that way.
Sometimes children feel the need to act brave, like a hero (Marten 108). They don’t want to show their worries and make it worse for their mother. James Marten records one such example in his book The Children’s Civil War. “She proudly reported that her ‘children bear themselves like heroes.’ Every night, ‘when the balls begin to fly like pigeons over out tent and I call them to run to the cave, they spring up…like soldiers, slip on their shoes without a word and run up the hill’” (109). Many times children say that want to be just like mom or dad, that excerpt shows that even in times of war children still want to be like dad. They want to be strong and brave. They want to be a hero and take care of their family.
(I have a lot information dealing with children and war, but I haven’t had time to incorporate it into my paper yet, but there will be more!!!)
The idea that some soldiers are merely children came from the author Kurt Vonnegut in his book Cat’s Cradle. " 'I do not say that children at war do not die like men, if they have to die. To their everlasting honor and our everlasting shame, they do die like men, thus making possible the manly jubilation of patriotic holidays.'
'But they are murdered children all the same' (248)." Many join the army as boys, but most leave as men. The question is how do they leave; did they die from a rode side bomb, an M-16 Rifle, or a grenade? The way they died, the way they fought for our country, they deserve to be called men. Vonnegut wants us to know that the men that died for us, in reality are just boys. They still had a life to live, but they gave it up so we could continue our lives. Had they not done that, they might not have died as a child.
I don’t think Vonnegut is trying to tell us that war is always bad. However, I do think that Vonnegut wants us to think about the causes for war and see the effects that it has: lost loved ones, ruined cities/countries, broken families etc. Vonnegut states that the children were murdered (248). In a sense that is true. They chose to fight for our country, but why do they have to fight, what caused the war? Was it our selfishness?
David Nye, author of Technology Matters, brought up an interesting point pertaining to the causes of war. “The inventor Nicolas Tesla came to the opposite conclusion: He argued that each new weapons system, far from making war unthinkable, rather ‘invites new talent and skill, engages new effort, offers new incentive, and so only gives a fresh impetus to further development’” (175). When I first read that passage I wanted to blame war on the inventors; they are the ones that came up with gunpowder (or the next new weapon). However, we can’t point our fingers just at them, we are the ones asking them for newer and better inventions daily. Nor can we say that the death of our soldiers is due only to our enemies; their death also lies on our hands. In efforts to win the war, we ask or tell engineers, scientists, and inventors to make a new piece of technology or a new weapon that will protect us, and possibly kill the enemies. We are guilty of the deaths of those soldiers because we are the ones that insist on newer, better, and sharper technology. Other countries in turn take the concept of the weapons that we created, make their own and use them against us. Thus, taking away the advantage that we thought we had on that particular country.
The invention of new technology does not stop war; instead, it almost instigates war. “Events proved Tesla correct. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan did not discredit weapons of mass destruction but stimulated their production” (175). There is an unspoken competition between countries when it comes to weapons. A little competition is great; competition is part of what makes sports fun. However, competition among sports and competition among countries is different. Competition among countries is more serious, dangerous, and deadly; and we expect protection (176). “Civilians, who ultimately pay for weapons systems, expect the military to protect them. But as weapons became more powerful more civilians died in warfare, despite continual predictions of improved accuracy” (Nye176). Civilians use to be safe during a war. They may have gone through hard times like no having enough food or money, or women having to take on the work load while the men were at war; but physically there was typically no danger.
War use to be a face-to-face combat, frontline would strike frontline. Only the soldiers that were participating in that particular battle would be in danger. Their families, friends, neighbors, etc would not be in danger. Yes, they would still be affected, but in a different way. They would be affected because they lost a loved one, a father, or a brother, but the immediate effects wouldn’t affect them. They wouldn’t experience the physical danger; they wouldn’t be in the line of fire. Today, it is possible to die in war even if you weren’t participating actively in the war. Nye brings up another interesting point on technology and how it pertains to the military and our personal lives.
“Thus, if people have used technologies to increase their safety, they simultaneously risk the unforeseeable accidents and even disasters that arise from the interplay of changing technical systems and new circumstances. The greater the power of systems, the more serious is potential failure. This conclusion applies with ever greater force to the military, which faces more severe difficulties that railroad safety engineers or quality-control specialist” (167).
Owning a weapon is obviously a risk, a risk that many Americans to take. They are meant for protection, but having that weapon in the house raising the risk of an accidental death or suicide. That risk is huge, but that risk to the army is exponentially greater. With bigger pieces of technology, pieces that are more forceful, the damage is obviously increased. The men in the army are constantly risking their lives for us. They put their trust in a machine that could at any time go off unexpectedly because of an unknown mechanical error. “Furthermore, troops using sophisticated weapons often die from accidents and mistakes” (176). They, the soldiers, trust their weapons to help them, to save their lives, but so often a fatal mistake happens. They trust weapons that were designed to end lives, and occasionally the unspeakable happens, the soldier loses his life.
War and the weapons used in war are obviously dangerous. The weapons that are used can kill many people; soldiers aren’t the only ones who die in war. Families are broken up, fathers, brothers, mothers, etc can be killed whether or not they are a soldier, how does that affect children. How does the possible threat of death and danger of war affect children?
Children whose fathers are in the army seem to carry a sense of pride, but that isn’t the only effect that war has on children (Freud 17). Anna Freud, daughter of Sigmund Freud, wrote a book solely talking about children and war, in fact the title is War and Children, in her book she states, “Though the children seem to be proud of their fathers’ uniforms, they often seem to resent it and feel very much estranged when their mothers appear in such unexpected guises” (17). Children tend to feed off of their parents emotions. So when a mother shows her concern, her outward appear changes, or tries to act like things are okay children can typically pick that up. Then they too mimic their mother’s mood. Instead of a children being carefree and playful, they are over come with worry and distress from trying to figure out their mother’s emotions and why her emotions are that way.
Sometimes children feel the need to act brave, like a hero (Marten 108). They don’t want to show their worries and make it worse for their mother. James Marten records one such example in his book The Children’s Civil War. “She proudly reported that her ‘children bear themselves like heroes.’ Every night, ‘when the balls begin to fly like pigeons over out tent and I call them to run to the cave, they spring up…like soldiers, slip on their shoes without a word and run up the hill’” (109). Many times children say that want to be just like mom or dad, that excerpt shows that even in times of war children still want to be like dad. They want to be strong and brave. They want to be a hero and take care of their family.
(I have a lot information dealing with children and war, but I haven’t had time to incorporate it into my paper yet, but there will be more!!!)
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Chiles, James R. Inviting disaster lessons from the edge of technology: an inside look at catastrophes and why they happen. 1st ed. New York: Harper Business, 2001.
• James R Chiles attended University of Texas Law School.
• While he was there he became interested in writing about Technology and History. Today that is his main focus of writing.
• A fun fact is that he is from Minnesota.
• The stakeholders he represents could be the general public, anyone that is affected by technology and their possible disasters.
• He writes to a broad audience. His first intention may have been to write to engineers and scientists; however it expanded to include everyone.
• As a student in English 102, we are writing to teachers of English 102 and our portfolio readers. Our audience is more specific and academic.
• His purpose was to inform people of the possible dangers of technology. He doesn’t say technology is bad, but states we should be cautious of its potential dangers.
• Chiles used examples from history to show how if technology isn’t handled right it can become a serious problem. In the paperback edition of his book, he uses September 11, 2001 as an example to show how our “mechanical wonders” could be turned against us.
• Chiles uses historical examples throughout his books, but he only talks about when technological disasters occur. He doesn’t mention when technology succeeds.
• His book has contains many different examples allowing a student to use it no matter what his/her research topic is. He talks about security issues whether it occurs within the government or military and that is the most beneficial to our group. Chiles chose not to write in a bias way, allowing his readers to take whatever side they want. It allows us, the reader, to formulate our own questions and decide for ourselves what side to take.
Freud, Anna, and Dorothy T. Burlingham. War and Children. New York: Medical War Books, 1943.
• Anna Freud, daughter of Sigmund Freud. Her love was for Child Psychoanalysis.
• Anna and Dorothy seemed to be very close and spent most of their time together.
• Not much information is available on Dorothy Burlingham.
• Throughout this book Freud and Burlingham represent children affected by war. The children are typically10 and under. They were exploring what war does to children and how they cope with it. They are able to see this because they spent time in nurseries with the children.
• Feud and Burlingham’s audience was primarily written towards doctors, psychologists, and individuals involved in research that involves Child Psychology. This was part of her research, so she took it very seriously but she was also there to help those children. As a reader, the only connection I feel as far as audience goes is that fact that I’m writing a research paper on war and the effects it has on children. However, I am also interested in child psychology so reading this book could be very interesting to me.
• World War II was going on while this book was being written.
• Freud and Burlingham don’t talk much about the war or the effects that it had on other people. They did that mainly because it didn’t pertain to anything they were writing about. It would have made their book too confusing. Freud and Burlingham wrote their book a particular way so they could study the effects that war had on children but also so they could spend time with them. It gave them a chance to diagnose and treat the children.
• This book has somewhat changed my idea for my research paper. Now I am thinking that I want to see how war affects younger children. Then I will get the best of both worlds. Learning more about the effects of war, but also learning more about children and child psychology.
London, Charles. One Day the Soldiers Came. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
• London attended Columbia University for Philosophy.
• He is working on getting his Masters degree.
• London speaks for children in this book. Ones that are victims of war, war that was caused by anyone and everyone except children.
• It’s hard to decide who the audience is in London’s book. I want to say it is for those that are for war, to show them the harmful effects that war has, but I don’t think that is the case. I think he wrote this book to show anyone that will read it what the effects of war are on children. He also addresses the issue of children as soldiers.
• London wrote this throughout the Iraq war. He also talks about other little wars or battles/ conflicts going on in places such as Burma, Bosnia, Congo.
• This book could prove to be useful because London talks about both children as soldiers fighting in a war and how war affects children.
The sources that I found started to point me in the direction of looking at war has affected younger children. I think that is interesting 1) because I want to become a doctor, a pediatrician so anything that has to do with children interests me and 2) it still ties war into my project. I think I probably want to consider adding in children as soldiers, but i won't do that unless I need to. For now Im more interested to see how children dealt with war, what they thought about it, and how their lives changed.
• James R Chiles attended University of Texas Law School.
• While he was there he became interested in writing about Technology and History. Today that is his main focus of writing.
• A fun fact is that he is from Minnesota.
• The stakeholders he represents could be the general public, anyone that is affected by technology and their possible disasters.
• He writes to a broad audience. His first intention may have been to write to engineers and scientists; however it expanded to include everyone.
• As a student in English 102, we are writing to teachers of English 102 and our portfolio readers. Our audience is more specific and academic.
• His purpose was to inform people of the possible dangers of technology. He doesn’t say technology is bad, but states we should be cautious of its potential dangers.
• Chiles used examples from history to show how if technology isn’t handled right it can become a serious problem. In the paperback edition of his book, he uses September 11, 2001 as an example to show how our “mechanical wonders” could be turned against us.
• Chiles uses historical examples throughout his books, but he only talks about when technological disasters occur. He doesn’t mention when technology succeeds.
• His book has contains many different examples allowing a student to use it no matter what his/her research topic is. He talks about security issues whether it occurs within the government or military and that is the most beneficial to our group. Chiles chose not to write in a bias way, allowing his readers to take whatever side they want. It allows us, the reader, to formulate our own questions and decide for ourselves what side to take.
Freud, Anna, and Dorothy T. Burlingham. War and Children. New York: Medical War Books, 1943.
• Anna Freud, daughter of Sigmund Freud. Her love was for Child Psychoanalysis.
• Anna and Dorothy seemed to be very close and spent most of their time together.
• Not much information is available on Dorothy Burlingham.
• Throughout this book Freud and Burlingham represent children affected by war. The children are typically10 and under. They were exploring what war does to children and how they cope with it. They are able to see this because they spent time in nurseries with the children.
• Feud and Burlingham’s audience was primarily written towards doctors, psychologists, and individuals involved in research that involves Child Psychology. This was part of her research, so she took it very seriously but she was also there to help those children. As a reader, the only connection I feel as far as audience goes is that fact that I’m writing a research paper on war and the effects it has on children. However, I am also interested in child psychology so reading this book could be very interesting to me.
• World War II was going on while this book was being written.
• Freud and Burlingham don’t talk much about the war or the effects that it had on other people. They did that mainly because it didn’t pertain to anything they were writing about. It would have made their book too confusing. Freud and Burlingham wrote their book a particular way so they could study the effects that war had on children but also so they could spend time with them. It gave them a chance to diagnose and treat the children.
• This book has somewhat changed my idea for my research paper. Now I am thinking that I want to see how war affects younger children. Then I will get the best of both worlds. Learning more about the effects of war, but also learning more about children and child psychology.
London, Charles. One Day the Soldiers Came. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
• London attended Columbia University for Philosophy.
• He is working on getting his Masters degree.
• London speaks for children in this book. Ones that are victims of war, war that was caused by anyone and everyone except children.
• It’s hard to decide who the audience is in London’s book. I want to say it is for those that are for war, to show them the harmful effects that war has, but I don’t think that is the case. I think he wrote this book to show anyone that will read it what the effects of war are on children. He also addresses the issue of children as soldiers.
• London wrote this throughout the Iraq war. He also talks about other little wars or battles/ conflicts going on in places such as Burma, Bosnia, Congo.
• This book could prove to be useful because London talks about both children as soldiers fighting in a war and how war affects children.
The sources that I found started to point me in the direction of looking at war has affected younger children. I think that is interesting 1) because I want to become a doctor, a pediatrician so anything that has to do with children interests me and 2) it still ties war into my project. I think I probably want to consider adding in children as soldiers, but i won't do that unless I need to. For now Im more interested to see how children dealt with war, what they thought about it, and how their lives changed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
