S. Liu’s AP Language & Composition Blog

Two Faces of the Vietnam War

The Vietnam War was the longest military conflict in US history, stretching from 1959 to 1975. The North Vietnamese and National Liberation Front fought against the United States and South Vietnamese army over control of the country. Conflicts over Communism split Vietnam, and the United States joined in the war in 1965 to prevent the South Vietnamese government from collapsing, but to no avail. In 1975 Vietnam was reunified under Communist control at the price of millions of lives on both sides.

Richard M. Nixon stated in 1985 that, “No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now.” The media was extremely selective in the material they chose to publicize and the public was often shielded from the events that showed the Americans in a bad light. Even then, the war was extremely unpopular and even divided the American public. Although the war in Vietnam is over today, the wounds of Vietnam will never heal for many of the more than two million American veterans of the war.

Photography holds the power to speak in times when words fail. During the Vietnam War, photographs were often publicized either to support or denounce the war. It was one thing to merely read an article about the war, but a whole other story when a photograph was included portraying a child being attacked by napalm or soldiers looking downtrodden and defeated. Photography during the Vietnam War depicted its many faces. Some portrayed the war as something worth fighting for, while others depicted the pain and suffering that the soldiers faced on a daily basis.

This is a picture taken during the first couple of years after the United States’ entry into the war. The lighting in this picture is actually pretty bright and makes the face of the soldier shine. His eyes also offer contrast because they are a much lighter color, which make them stand out. When I first saw this picture, his eyes popped out and drew me in. The focal point of this picture is also the soldier’s eyes and the frame is directly centered on his face, which forces the observer to pay attention to the soldier and nothing else. The background is also more faded, which brings your eyes to his. Despite the fact that he is a solder who kills, he kills to protect his country and his eyes bring out an innocent confidence about him.

However, there seems to be some irony in this picture. The soldier’s face looks relaxed and almost innocent, but the words on his helmet, “war is hell” seems to contradict that whole speculation. The photographer forces the observer to think and question his motives. Does the picture promote or denounce the war? What is the soldier thinking? It’s a little more ambiguous, but it seems to promote the war. Since this photo was taken in the beginning, the slaughter hadn’t begun yet. There were prospects of riding Vietnam of Communism, which was a worthy purpose for fighting a war in the soldiers’ minds. Despite the fact that “war is hell”, the soldiers fight for a purpose and are willing to put their lives on the line and endure hell to fight Communism because it’s worth it in the end.

On the other hand, this photograph is very different. It was taken not long after the other, but it portrays a different point of view. While the other soldier’s face was in the light, this soldier’s face is in the shadows. It’s not washed clean, but smothered in dirt. From the bags under his eyes and tattered helmet, he has clearly been through a lot and endured difficult conditions. The focus of this photo is still on the soldier and the background is blurred out to reduce background noise. Contrary to the prior photo, this soldier looks tired and downtrodden rather than confident and upright. He fights to protect his country, but he grows weary. However, the focus is still primarily on his eyes because of the color contrast between his eyes and his skin. This soldier also carries items on his helmet, but rather than a phrase, he carries poker cards for luck. Instead of fighting with an intrinsic reminder, he fights hoping that luck is on his side.

This was a photo used to represent to opposite end of the spectrum. Throughout the war as the Americans kept losing ground and men, the war became unpopular and the public started demanding the withdraw of troops. This photo was proof that not all the soldiers are happy to be there. Soldiers aren’t immortal and they grow weak as war wears on them. That silent confidence eventually fades and exhaustion settles in.

These two photos are similar in the set-up because the lens is focused on the faces of the soldiers. The backgrounds are blurred and the focal point directs you straight to the eyes through contrast. Each soldier also carries a memento in his helmet to remind him why he’s there and what his motivation is. However, the photos are also very different because of their latent meaning. The first depicts the soldier as having a quiet confidence. His face is clean and relaxed, giving the message that the war is moving along nicely. The phrase on his helmet, “war is hell”, is the soldier’s reminder that he is fighting to relieve the people of this “hell”. By fighting to end the war, his goal is to restore the peace that was there before. The second photo, on the other hand, depicts the soldier as being tired and worn-out. His face is in the shadows instead of the light and his eyes are heavy. Instead of fighting the war to end it, he carries cards in his helmet for luck and prays that he’ll make it out alive. This photo depicts the message that the war is becoming stagnant and may be to no avail.

A simple photograph can often say more than words. Pictures have a way of weakening the strong, puzzling the wise, and silencing the boisterous. They are powerful tools that were used throughout history to convey a message. Throughout the Vietnam War, they were used to promote and condemn it. In the end, the war was one of the most unpopular and costly in American history, but we learned from it. A headshot of a soldier alone speaks loud and clear for the photographer’s purpose and intent. The Vietnam War ended 33 years ago, but it is eternally preserved through the photographer’s lens.

Bibliography

Ponmanadiyil, Vinod. “Most Powerful Images.” VinodLive.Com. 15 Feb. 2007. 21 Apr. 2008 <http://www.vinodlive.com/2007/02/15/some-of-the-most-powerful-images-from-around-the-world/>.

Rosenburg, Jennifer. “Vietnam War Photographs.” About.Com. 2005. National Archives. 21 Apr. 2008 <http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blyindexvietnam.htm>.

“Vietnam At a Glance.” VietnamWar.Com. 2007. 20 Apr. 2008 <http://www.vietnamwar.com/>.

being a second semester senior is hard… as much as people say that it isn’t, they all lie. say for example you’re one of the people who don’t go to common route and endure a rigorous curriculum for your last year. as everyone takes cartooning and ceramics, you take ap psychology, ap physics, ap calculus, ap english language, and get involved in way too many things. you have to keep all of this up and yet suffer through severe senioritis and the pressures of your teachers watching and scorning over your wavering determination. welcome to my life.

all throughout the previous three years of high school, i’ve worked pretty darn hard to do my best and keep my gpa up. i also had this major doubt that senioritis would hit me. “i have the willpower”, i told myself. lies. senior year hit and the prospects of going to college overwhelmed me. i didn’t have the motivation to keep going, but i had this crazy rigorous curriculum in front of me, and i was captain of flags, and there were so many things that i was involved with that i was constantly grasping for time… well sort of. slowly everything become more important than my schoolwork. i would do anything and i can assuredly say that i could breeze through college if i could major in procrastination. the only thing keeping me going was the fact that i could possibly be deferred if my grades slid too far. don’t get me wrong. there are still things i’ve held up such as my grades (kinda…), my involvement, and my streak of never skipping class ever (though this may change..). but unfortunately in this case, senioritis has taken over.

so what was i to do? i wanted to keep going and finish off strong, but my mind was shutting down. my own body was against me. dang it. there’s no resolution yet… but i only have to hold on for 2 more months and then i’m free. being a second semester senior is rough… not just intrinsically but extrinsically as well.

my first reaction to this photo was shock at the irony of it all. The racism in Boston had gotten so severe, to the point where a white man would use the american flag, a symbol of freedom and equality, to beat an african american man. this one photograph now represents the event that happened in 1976 and it shows how skewed peoples’ perceptions are of the flag and america and the freedoms we have. but at the same time, this picture had a lot of power. it opened up the eyes of many to the injustices and moved others to take action.

this photo was also compared to the painting of the boston massacre, the flag-raising on mount suribachi, and a photo of a woman using the flag as refuge after hurricane katrina. the flag stood for different things in each piece. in the painting, the flag also symbolized the irony of the injustices in the country. however in the flag-raising, the flag stood for freedom, power, justice, and it was so powerful because it shows how america can pull through adversity. in the last photo, the flag was a symbol of refuge. even though the woman is using it as a blanket and doesn’t wear a smile, she is still seeing it as a source of protection. the flag stands for the same things, but it is used to send multiple messages.

in the article, canaday talks about the two paintings and contrasts them in terms of content and meaning. “the peale family” was a painting that portrayed the family as being harmonious and comfortable with each others’ presence. the way that the people interacted and the way that an observer’s eyes flowed across the piece made the whole piece seem unified. although the painting could be separated into two groups of people, small details bring it all together. every person in the family does seem to have a little bit of personality, but the general consensus is harmonious.

“the bellelli family” was a piece done that portrayed the family as being a lot more divided. each person has a different expression and mindset. giovanna looks really attached to the baroness and ignores the baron, the baroness looks somewhat scathingly at the baron, giuliana seems to have some connection with the baron, and the baron is halfway in the shadow and not completely revealed. this makes every person seem to have their own mindset. unlike peale’s piece, there isn’t really any concept of harmony involved. besides giuliana’s line of sight connecting to the baron, the baron is completely separated from the rest.

i agreed with most of what canaday said because i had the same perceptions of the paintings before reading his critique. at first i liked peale’s painting better because it seemed warmer and had a more unified theme, but then i discovered that it seemed more stagnant. “the composition of “the peale familly” might be adapted to any number of group portraits, but that of “the bellelli family” could not.” i completely agree with this because anybody could paint a picture of a seemingly perfect family, but it’s a lot harder to give each person their individual psychological personality and capture it on a canvas. perfection is a lot easier to capture and being able to encapsulate conflict is a much greater feat that sets the piece apart.

From the very first glance, it’s clear that this girl is more than she seems. Her eyes tell a story and make the viewer want to know more. Contrary to what people often think, this Afghan girl has light colored eyes, which contrasts everything else in the picture because it’s dominated by warm colors. The girl’s face is also the only part of the picture that is in focus, while the background is blurred out. This forces the viewer’s eyes straight to the girl’s face and reduces all possible background noise. Another interesting thing about this picture is the strength portrayed from this girl. Even though she is at a refugee camp, she doesn’t seem resigned to it at all. Although she covers her face, her eyes are strong and tell a story. She doesn’t seem like she is giving up, but rather fighting for something. Usually when a person is photographed, the photographer tends to capture 3/4 of the person’s body. But in this picture, the frame is limited to the girl’s face and hands. This yet adds to the power of the photo by focusing on the girl’s face and emotions. Her hands are soft yet worked. This picture tells a clear story and delivers a message of strength and beauty.

Fatal Vision is a book written in 1983 about the famous murder case in which Jeffrey MacDonald murdered his wife and two kids. Joe McGinniss takes the viewpoint of an interviewer, documenting the sequence events while constantly referring to McDonald’s reminisces and flashbacks. Despite its hefty load of 600+ pages worth of documentation, McGinniss manages to keep the reader engaged throughout the whole thing. He keeps you guessing and manages to invoke doubt in your speculations while reading as well as in daily life.

When the narration starts at the army base of Fort Bragg, the murders have already happened. Jeffrey MacDonald’s wife, Colette, and two daughters, Kimberly and Kristen, have already been murdered. He himself has sustained some injuries but manages to awaken after being knocked unconscious and calls for an ambulance. Incoherently, he manages to exclaim that four hippies on LSD had broken into his apartment early morning and committed the atrocity. However, as evidence is uncovered, MacDonald himself quickly becomes a suspect himself and continuously pleads guilty. The book jumps back and forth from the narration by McGinniss to MacDonald’s recap of his life prior to the event. From what he says, MacDonald seems to love his family and everyone around saw their relationship as the epitome of perfection. Yet in McGinniss’ narrations, the evidence from the crime scene don’t seem to match up with MacDonald’s claims. Throughout the book, my views on MacDonald’s verdict vacillated back and forth as new evidence was presented and MacDonald’s motives seemed to change. Trials were set up, witnesses requested, evidence accumulated, all of which happened in a painstakingly long span of time. Yet, the author remains adroit in keeping his own opinions out of it. He leaves the speculation completely to the reader, and I wasn’t completely sure of my own verdict until the very last parts.

Although I am not usually one to read hefty texts due to my somewhat lacking in attention span, McGinniss managed to keep me hooked and interested throughout the whole piece. Since I could not decide where to stand for most of the book, my desire to find out more drove me to read into it further and further. A secure decision remained elusive as you continued to accumulate data to support and refute your side. Although at some points, the constant references to the night of the murder on February 15 and the complaints of how slow the army bureaucracy worked did seem to take its toll. Especially since MacDonald’s recollections seemed to change a bit every time he was asked for an account. Yet, the story continued to unfold through the development of MacDonald’s character as well as his wife’s parents and army officials. When one character seemed to reach a standstill, McGinniss shifts to story to develop another character and expands on the story, which in turn manages to incorporate the previously stagnant character. The story then continues ambiguously until the end. For example, at one point the story seems to read a standstill when the army refuses to look into the case further and Colette’s father, Freddy Kassab, is unsuccessful in publicizing the case. Kassab then goes to MacDonald to try and initiate interviews, and just when it seems like MacDonald would end Kassab’s misery, McGinniss introduces MacDonald’s lawyer Bernie Segal. Segal then causes the Kassabs a lot of grief by refusing the release of documents and interviews to the press.

In reading this piece, we as outside figures can see the case develop from a non-biased point of view. We see the motives of MacDonald change as he tends to lean towards events that gain him publicity and give him a chance to complain about his problems. The descriptions of his demeanor as well as the recounts of the murder can send chills down your spine. The vividness of the scene allows the reader to recreate the scene and invokes a feeling of disgust as to how a human being could commit such a crime. Yet at the same time, it makes the reader question his own life. MacDonald always claimed that he loved Colette and would be willing to do anything for her, yet he became a suspect in her murder trial. So what about us? Could this potentially happen to us? Can we really trust the people who are closest to us? This book is definitely not dated especially in our society in the United States because the crime rates have increased and cases like this tend to emerge constantly. An example would be the Green River killer, who attacked mainly in the Tacoma area. There are also cases of family members killing each other in the media continuously, which commonly end up making the headlines.

McGinniss made a breakthrough with this book because it was one of the first books written that would fall under the crime genre. Every detail of the crime was documented within the pages of the book and anyone who lived through the crime would probably be instantly transported back into the 1980s after reading into these words. Today, this book would fit in perfectly with the culture because the manner of the crime is not foreign to us. The media exposes similar events to the public on a daily basis. Although we may no longer have hippie cults, we have terrorists. The most publicized stories today are either related to murder or celebrity mishaps, so we are surrounded by it. However, one thing that would be different is the crime investigation. In the MacDonald case, a lot of the evidence was accidentally tampered with or destroyed during the initial sweep through the scene. Today, a crime area is immediately closed off and nobody is allowed near it unless they are authorized to do so. This event also probably taught the army a lot about how certain situations need to be handled. They are probably a lot more careful with their work and stricter with their codes of conduct. McGinniss may have anticipated all of this, but what he may not have anticipated is the excessive number of publications relating to murder documentaries that followed his.

This book is definitely, but unfortunately, timeless. The behavior that is documented in this book has been occurring since the beginning of time. People have always fought and killed over reasons that may or may not be justified, and they will continue to do so for an indefinite amount of time. It’s within one’s human nature to want things and fight to get it, and the media further enhances this by publicizing it.

McNamara was the secretary of defense during the controversial Vietnam War. He is often seen as an enemy and evil mastermind behind the many mistakes. So to convey this movie in an unbiased setting, these rhetorical strategies were imposed. First, McNamara was facing the camera directly. This impacted the film because it felt like McNamara was more human and speaking directly toward the audience. By connecting with his audience, he established a better relationship and persuaded us into understanding his reasonings about the war. Another powerful strategy of the movie was the impact created by the mood and tone. Philip Glass was primarily responsible for this effect. His music is not period, but provides intensity, urgency, and an ominous direction that builds as McNamara speaks. The music emphasizes important points of the movie so that the documentary has shape. Glass’s music complimented the images and dialogue in a way that captivated the audience without distracting them from the content. The music didn’t have words, which resulted in a constant/consistent tone that was serious and mysterious. Another thing that struck me about the film was the fact that you could hear Morris asking McNamara the questions. You could detect every hint of bias, every inflection in his voice indirectly described the ethos used in Morris’ movie. I enjoyed the fact that nothing was hidden from the audience. The fact that McNamara allowed himself to be portrayed by the controversial Morris shows that he isn’t afraid of the tough questions. Most people who are blamed for a war gone wrong wouldn’t want to be made a fool, especially by Morris. However McNamara uses the documentary to his advantage. He demonstrates wisdom and even recognizes some of the wrongs and mistakes he’d made in the past. This earns him credibility and makes the audience was to listen to him. McNamara is also quite “thoughtful” about his responses to the questions. He showed dignity when he decided not to answer the question about his family issues. Rosenbaum was surprised to find how much was said, without actually saying anything, by the images and pauses between questions. I fully agree with both of these sources and find myself persuaded in McNamara’s favor, which was definitely surprising to me.

I read a review on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Not only because I love the books, but because I wanted to know where the critic stood in the end. This is the conclusion of the 7-book series that has kept devoted readers hooked since the first chapter. Harry and his friends finally go on a search to complete the mission Dumbledore sent them to do. Along the way, they ran into numerous barriers and hindrances that they had to overcome. Harry learns that he is meant to sacrifice himself and does so to save the lives of those he loves. As a result, he fulfilled the prophesy and was magically returned to earth and dueled Voldemort to the death. The conclusion of the series meant the end of Voldemort and also included an epilogue revealing Harry’s future life, etc.

The critics seemed to really like the book because it was so cohesive with all of the other ones. J. K. Rowling pulled out a masterpiece as she tied the loose ends together to every problem and story that was mentioned throughout the books. Yet, she kept the reader suspenseful and urged us to keep reading until the very end. Contrary to what I thought, the critics also liked the cheesy epilogue. I thought it was a little over the top and tacky, but they thought it was a brilliant way to end the 7-part masterpiece that is Harry Potter.

I’m not sure what the last question means regarding its context in culture, but I do know for a fact that everyone can relate to this book. Everyone has faced adversity in some form and it’s crucial to be able to rise above it and move on. Rowling also emphasizes the importance of friendship and standing up for what you believe in, which is extremely important regardless of who you are what what culture you live in.

What does it mean to be an educated person? Does it necessarily have to mean that a person has to have a college degree or a certain amount of “classroom time”? In a lot of cases, education is a word that is thrown around that has some sort of label on it. How much education does it take in order to obtain that title? Would a person who dropped out of high school still be considered an educated person? If you said no, you just ruled out Albert Einstein and Bill Gates as educated people.

In the United States, being an educated person definitely has its perks. Those who had the chance to obtain a college degree are more likely to get better jobs and opportunities, while others are often left in the dark. However, is that really a fair assessment as to who is qualified to do a job? Despite having an education, some people may still not put their knowledge to use. In life, the talents and knowledge we have is only significant if we can use it to achieve something. Thus, what use is a graduate degree or master’s degree if a person doesn’t put it to good use. On the other hand, someone who didn’t get to go to college may still be smart and want to put their skills to use. Yet, they will often get turned down because they don’t have a diploma or certificate saying that they’ve spent a certain number of years in a classroom. Claiming to be educated is often not enough. People have to put their skills into good use to benefit society and make a difference.

In the United States, every state has a standardized test that students are required to take and pass before graduating from high school. Washington State has the WASL, which is administered sophomore year. Students who don’t pass can then retake it junior and senior year so they can graduate on time. Most students also take the SATs and ACTs during junior and senior year to obtain a 4-digit number that determines where they are eligible to apply for college. But is all of this really accurate? Psychologists from UCLA have determined that although test scores have been rising within the past couple of years, it’s not because we’re getting smarter but rather we are more prepared for the types of questions that are being asked on these aptitude tests. But what does it all mean and are these tests valid? From experience, I know that in a lot of cases they are not. I am definitely not a proficient test taker and had to study extremely hard in order to score decently. Yet even then, I felt like the score I got didn’t accurately reflect how well I could do. My GPA at school was a 3.95, but my SAT score was a 2050. It just didn’t seem to add up. If things were proportional, my SAT score should’ve been closer to a 2350. Since my score wasn’t phenomenal, does that make me uneducated?

As Americans, we often like to think that we as a society are pretty advanced and educated. But if we look at different societies in comparison to ours, our education system is definitely sub-par. For example, students in China will often study for 14-18 hours a day on their material. Their learning in math and science is extremely fast paced and they learn a lot more efficiently and with more vigor. All of their studying culminates to a single exam taken at the end of their senior year of high school that determines which college they are eligible to attend and also what career they may end up taking on. All of the colleges and universities then vie for the highest scoring student out of a pool. However, those who do not score as high can luckily get accepted into another school, but often times they are forced into the workplace because they are not able to further develop their education. In this society, the people with the top 5% would be considered “educated people”.

In a different spectrum, the definition of education varies in different cultures. In Greek culture, educated people focused around logic. In more primitive tribes, educated people were in complete contact with the environment and their surroundings. In different religions, educated people are the ones who can put their learning to good use and love one another. In the United States, educated people can avoid social conflict and use electronics. Yet, are any of these perspectives wrong? Or just different?

If you look around, there are many different forms of intelligence. There is the obvious form involving different subjects and grades and degrees. The general consensus in our society seems to be that if a person has his or her degree and went through college that they would be considered as an educated person. However, there is another more undefined branch of intelligence that involves street smarts; practical intelligence. Some may scoff at this, but all people need to have some form of common sense. People shouldn’t just immerse themselves in math and science but also know about the society around them and be able to make educated decisions about day-to-day situations. It is important to have communication skills, know how to talk to different people, and know when to say things. For example, if you’re in a dark alley in New York City, you wouldn’t act pompous or throw out racial slurs because you would run the risk of either getting attacked or killed. Practical intelligence is simply the intelligence people have to avoid pitfalls and be successful in life. So if a person doesn’t have street smarts, does that make them educated? What if they have a college degree but no common sense?

In the end, there is no formula that constitutes an “educated person”. A college degree on its own is nothing without street smarts and who we may consider to be educated here in the United States may be scoffed at in other countries where the curriculum is a lot more intense. Every country, culture, and person is different and it is impossible to strictly enforce a method to determine the “qualifications” that could earn one the title of becoming an educated person.

Shelley’s defense of poetry seemed really objective, as if you wouldn’t really understand it unless you were directly related to the audience he was aiming for. It’s like when you enter a presentation on an obscure subject and the only people who understand it are those who actually did the reading from the prior class. It also seemed objective because he included a lot of experiences that are extremely hard to relate to unless you’ve actually been through them. This makes it difficult for a general audience to get the message. Shelley also mounted poets on a pedestal and got people so worked up about the whole topic that those who contributed to the argument probably hadn’t even thought of those arguments until Shelley had stirred the pot. I myself do respect those who can write poetry because it’s something that I’m definitely inept at. However, I would not defend poets as passionately or dramatically as Shelley did because it seems almost necessary considering that anyone could make a big deal out of their passions…