Friday, January 31, 2020

How To Tell a True War Story Essay Example for Free

How To Tell a True War Story Essay The chapter â€Å"How to Tell a True War Story† tells various stories by different characters, on which the author, Tim O’Brian comments through metafictive statements such as â€Å"a true war story is never moral†. Through this short story within the book, the author offers the opportunity to understand the art of writing about War. The story with the â€Å"baby buffalo† is an excellent example of the sophisticated implementation of O’Brian’s ideas about â€Å"how to tell a true war story†. I will examine each of the author’s instructions with regard to the story and analyze why this story is a â€Å"true war story† according to the author. â€Å"The [author has] told it before -many times, many versions’, but [now tells] what actually happened†. This immediately raises the question, why the author failed to tell the true story before: it might be the case that it was too embarrassing for him to tell. After all a soldier tortured an innocent animal, while the others were watching him without intervening. In this sense O’Brian’s metafictive statement about embarrassment proves to be accurate in this case. Furthermore the fact that Curt Lemon played â€Å"catch with Rat† and â€Å"was dead† instantly after it, indicates emotional detachment of the author and the reader is left with many questions about this single sentence: How did this happen so quickly? Why is the author so emotionally detached from his death? Is it really what happened or is it what seemed to happen? After all if somebody dies in a war, it seems so quick and the factual and emotional truth is hard to separate. It might very well be the case that the description about Lemon’s death is â€Å"skewed† because â€Å"what seems to happen becomes its own happening†: since Lemon died so unexpectedly, the author tells it in a way he â€Å"felt it to happen†. One moment alive another moment dead already. After Rat’s best friend died, he deals with his sorrow and emotional pain by torturing a harmless animal, a baby buffalo. His motivation: â€Å"wasn’t to kill, it was to hurt†. After â€Å"opening a can of C rations† for the buffalo, â€Å"he took careful aim and shot off an ear†. Then â€Å"he shot twice in the flanks†. At the end â€Å"he shot off a tail and shot in the left front knee†. Although this is â€Å"evil and obscene† human behavior, â€Å"nobody said much†. Even the author describes the event emotionally isolated, without â€Å"having a moral or suggesting proper human behavior†. He merely explains what happened, â€Å"without offering abstractions or analysis†. While Rat’s deeds seem to be morally wrong and very cruel’ â€Å"it is hard to extract the meaning†. One really has to â€Å"look under to surface to unravel the deeper meaning†. Seemingly the torture of the animal is unnecessary but it is the only way Rat can deal with the loss of his best friend. He is angry at the whole world for loosing him; after all he is only a â€Å"kid†. The story in this sense is not about war at all: we had no description of the enemy who killed Rat or any combat action. We are left with the sorrow and pain that the war caused. In this sense â€Å"a true war story is never about war. It’s about sunlight†¦love and memory†. All in all it is clear that almost every statement about â€Å"how to tell a true war story† is implemented in this single story.

Thursday, January 23, 2020

Ural Mountains :: Informative Essays

The Ural Mountains are a rugged spine across Russia, running 1,300 miles from the fringe of the Arctic in the North, to the bend of the Ural River in the South. Traditionally they form a boundary between Europe and Asia. The north- south course of the Urals is relatively narrow, varying from about 20 to 90 miles in width, but it cuts across the vast latitude landscape regions of the Eurasian landmass, from Arctic waste to semidesert; the Urals also are part of the Ural economic region, a highly developed industrial complex closely tied to the mineral-rich Siberian region, and are the home of people with roots reaching deep into history. Physical Features The Urals divide into five sections. The northernmost Polar Urals extend some 240 miles from Mount Konstantinov Kamen in the north-east to the Khulga River the southeast; most mountains rise to 3300-3600 feet above sea level, although the highest peak, Mount Payer reaches 4829 ft. The next stretch, the Nether-Polar Urals, extends for more than 140 miles south to the Shchugor River. This section contains the highest peaks of the entire range, including Mount Narodnaya which reaches 6217 ft. and Mount Karpinsk Which is 6161 ft. These first two sections are typically Alpine and are Strewn with Glaciers and are heavily marked with permafrost. Farther south come the Northern Urals, which stretch for more than 340 miles to the Usa River in the south; most mountains top 3300 feet, and the highest peak, Mount Telpos-Iz, rises 5305 ft. Many of the summits are flattened, the remnants of the ancient Peneplains uplifted by geographically tectonic movements. In the north, intensive weathering has resulted in vast "seas of stone" on mountain slopes and summits. The lower Central Urals extend more than 200 miles to the Ufa river, rarely exceeding 1600 ft., althought the highest peak Mount SrednyBascy, rises to 3261 ft. The summits are smooth, with isolated residual outcrops. The last portion, the Southern Urals, extends some 340 miles to the westward bend of the Ural River and consists of several parallel ridges rising to 3900 ft. and culminating in Mount Yamantau, 580 ft.; the section terminates in the wide uplands of the Mugadozer h ills. The People Human habitation of the Urals dates to the distant past, The Nenetes are Sanoyed people of the Pay-Khoyregion, and their language belongs to the Samoyedic group of languages, which is widespread throughout northern Siberia. The most numerous indigenous groups the Bashkir, long settled in the southern Urals speak a tongue relater to the Turkic group. The Russian population is the largest group of people and is concentrated primarily in the central and

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Was the Spanish-American War Truly as John Hay Said, a “Splendid Little War”

Was the Spanish-American war truly as John Hay said, a â€Å"splendid little war†? Why or why not? The Spanish-American war was for the American government the first step on the road to becoming a â€Å"global, police power†, for the Spanish it was the dissolution of Cuba and their empire, from said conclusion is it fair to name such a war a success, an aforementioned â€Å"splendid little war†? [1] This essay hopes to examine the limitations of Hay’s statement, the war was to irreversibly â€Å"shape relations between the United States and the rest of the globe for the coming century†, and it was the trigger that ultimately taught the U. S. the cost of World imperialism. It is impossible to label such a conflict as totally triumphant and simplistic, it was fraught with diplomatic complications, both domestic and colonial, as is written herewith. The situation in Cuba before American intervention had always been precarious; Cuban rebels had continually opposed Spanish rule throughout the 19th Century, such was the animosity between the Cubans and Spanish that it culminated in the erection of some of the first Spanish concentration camps (reconcentrado). Dubbed â€Å"Butcher Weyler† by the American press, Spanish general Valeriano Weyler sought to curtail the uprisings, thus causing numerous deaths and epidemics among the Cuban inhabitants. [2] This onslaught erupted both the Cuban population and the American press into a fierce frenzy; American readers experienced a â€Å"battle of gigantic proportions† between two rival newspapers, (New York Journal and New York World), â€Å"in which the sufferings of Cuba merely chanced to furnish some of the most convenient ammunition†. 3] With so much public attention, the Cuban crisis became a great exhibition of jubilation; there was much desire for intervention in the affair. Said exaltation was further prompted by the events of February 15th 1898, when the battleship USS Maine exploded in Havana Harbor killing 266 American sailors. Demands for war with Spain were imminent and colossal, the â€Å"yellow journalism† and its fabrication of news intoxicated the †Å"whole Country with war fever†, slogans of â€Å"Remember the Maine! To Hell with Spain! † became very popular. 4] Theodore Roosevelt, assistant secretary of the navy, had always been of a militaristic nature, having commented that â€Å"This country needs a war†, and proclaiming President William McKinley as â€Å"white-livered† with â€Å"no more backbone than a chocolate eclair†, had proclaimed the disaster â€Å"an act of dirty treachery on the part of the Spaniards†. [5] The longing for war by the public and certain members of government following the atmosphere of hostility prompted, reluctantly, McKinley to declare war on Cuba. Having blockaded Cuba on April 22nd, Spain then subsequently declared war on April 24th. The Spanish-American war was initially a â€Å"splendid little war† as described by Hay; it was an â€Å"unbroken series of American victories† within only 10 weeks of combat. [6] The major campaign of the war occurred at San Juan Hill, where a unit of newly formed Rough Riders under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Roosevelt along with two regiments of African American soldiers stormed a position atop Kettle Hill. So successful was the battle that Roosevelt â€Å"would rather have led that charge than served three terms in the U. S. Senate†, that he had been â€Å"revelling in victory and gore†. The combination of defeat at San Juan Hill and around the port of Santiago in which â€Å"474 Spanish were killed†¦while only one American was killed and one wounded† initiated the surrender of Santiago on July 17th, and the capitulation of Spain on July 26th 1898. [7] The Treaty of Paris of 1898, signed on December 10, 1898, ended hostilities between the Spanish and the U. S. The Treaty of Paris deemed that Cuba would become an autonomous country, and the U. S. acquired Puerto Rico and Guam with the understanding that Spain be paid twenty million dollars for the Philippines. The scandalist treaty was the subject of much debate in the US Senate during the winter of 1898-1899, which was finally resolved on February 6th, 1899 by a one-vote margin of 57 to 27 with only two Republicans opposed: George Frisbie Hoar of Massachusetts and Eugene Pryor Hale of Maine. How was it that the U. S. a traditionally isolationist nation, become involved in such conflict. Nationalist historians argue said involvement to have been directed in accordance with constitutional diplomacy and the democratic principle of projecting liberty and national spirit; in essence the American Dream. George Brown Tindall argues that the U. S. involvement in the war was initiated out of a â€Å"sense of outrage at another country’s imperialism†; It is true to say that until 1899 Spain had acquired substantial influence over the sugar industry, territory held equated more than the fifty millions that the U. S. held in Cuba. Tindall also argues the impact that public opinion and ferocity had on the declaration of war; â€Å"too much momentum and popular pressure†. Indeed said impact was so great that Tindall argues â€Å"the ultimate blame for war, if blame must be levied, belongs to the American people†. 8] Indeed â€Å"many†¦were heavily influenced by the view that western imperialism was justified by the (alleged) superiority of Anglo-Saxon and Nordic ‘races’†, that it was warranted for the U. S. to spread her idealism and the American Dream to other civilisations. [9] There was however more imperialistic interests that influen ced the coming of war, Revisionist historians proclaim the level of U. S. involvement corroborates with desire to defend its own interests that political expansion was in aid of guarantying economic control. Indeed McKinley favoured said intervention and the establishment of a government made up of the â€Å"wealthy Cuban planter class†, as he believed it could be controlled economically and â€Å"incorporated into the American Sphere†. [10] In the short-term the ‘prizes’ of victory over Spain were appealing, not least politically, for many economic advantages came with the acquisition of territory in Cuba and the Philippines. These incentives therefore substantiate Hay’s statement of the American-Spanish conflict as a said â€Å"splendid little war†, an easy and cost-effective method of amassing a greater economy and furthering the American dream. The overriding advantage for the U. S. was that it was a â€Å"little war†, it was also cheap, â€Å"its cost was relatively slight†, the fact that it took ten weeks and the lives of ‘only’ 5,462 U. S. soldiers (379 in actual combat) painted a popular picture of ease in what was the first U. S. campaign. [11] Politically the advantages came from the influence the U. S. gained through becoming a new major world power. With the precedent of waging and ultimately winning a foreign war, the U. S. had the potential of authority over future entanglements. Flushed with the easy victory over Spain, inflamed by the vision of a colonial empire, many were caught by the propaganda for a naval power†. [12] Roosevelt stressed â€Å"we must strive in good faith to play a great part in the world†, and by doing â€Å"the world’s work by bringing order out of chaos†¦from which the valor of our soldiers and sailors has driven the Spanish flag†. [13] Moreover the U. S. obligation â€Å"to take up the White Man’s burden† further exacerbated United States political intentions in the global theatre, indeed imperialists such as Senator Albert J. Beveridge and Henry Cabot Lodge, â€Å"stressed America’s moral obligation to extend the benefits of Anglo-Saxon civilization to a backward people†. [14] Indeed individuals such as McKinley commented on how â€Å"to educate the Filipinos and uplift and civilize and Christianize them as our fellowmen for whom Christ also died†. [15] Missionaries became increasingly involved in colonial affairs; they pursued the chance to convert the â€Å"little brown brother† to Christianity for the â€Å"sake of their souls†. [16] Economically the advantages of the war for the U. S. were of paramount importance, and were of major influence in the initial reasoning for a declaration of war. Cuba in the 19th century was the â€Å"sacred cow of American diplomacy†¦Cuba in American history has often been synonymous with sugar†¦which has the power of stirring more political devils in Washington than any other elixir†. Sugar was a major export of America and therefore Cuba became a major concern for economists in a time of unrest and conflict, a potential acquisition for the â€Å"the Sugar Trust†¦the most hated trust in America†. 17] Big Business also profited from the notion of expanding global markets, with the new access to China and its multitude of consumers, businesses such as the American Tobacco Company foresaw the new opportunity, naming the â€Å"Philippines (as) the key to the Far East†. [18] Indeed U. S. involvement in Cuba was startling; Frank M. Steinhart of the National City Bank of New York (NCB) became leading e conomic leader, and was therefore able to ascertain all of Cuba’s resources under the NCB with their 24 Cuban branches. One governmental individual commented no how â€Å"Cuba is no more independent than Long Island†. 19] Colonial empire really did suit the U. S. A. How then could such a â€Å"splendid little war† be so farcical, why were said consequences of war so detrimental to opinion concerning United States diplomacy? In essence there were three major complications, whose effects brought about severe limitations to Hay’s statement. In short imperialism and the desire for expansion of economy and territory contradicted with U. S. tradition of ‘isolationism’, and that the idea of a nation with democratic values holding colonial control was unpalatable by many people. The acquisition of territory far overseas put a great amount of strain upon U. S. administrative and defensive concerns, not least because of their practical distance, but also due to constitutional contradictions. It gave the potential for continental warfare between the Great Powers, and the reality of guerrilla warfare in unfamiliar civilisations. The empire also brought about a further internal conflict, with both governmental and influential individuals, which sparked off following the condemnation of U. S. imperial stature. The U. S. ad only recently acquired an empire of colonies, she was naive and inexperienced with the policing and protection of lands outside of direct U. S. jurisdiction. The activities of rebellious peoples soon exacerbated such concerns, initiating a period of guerrilla warfare, requiring a sharp adaptation of U. S. occupational forces to facilitate a war of counter-insurgency. February 1899 marked the beginning of open hostility and aggression towards the U. S. occupational forces by the Filipino insurgents. The U. S. now had to follow the precedent set by the British, that an empire was a mixed-bag of complications and benefits. Proclaiming the slogan â€Å"No hay derecho a vender un pueblo como se vende un saco de patatas† (â€Å"There is no right to sell a nation like a sack of potatoes†), Filipinos launched vicious attacks on the forces of Aguinaldo and Mabini to oppose the â€Å"new colonial masters†. [20] The U. S. soon discovered they were running a counterinsurgency every bit as brutal as anything that â€Å"Butcher Weyler† had done in Cuba. Regular army soldiers, many of them veterans of the U. S. Indian wars, undertook â€Å"marked severities† (as one termed it) against these new â€Å"Indians†. One U. S. rmy officer wrote: â€Å"We must have no scruples about exterminating this other race standing in the way of progress, if it is necessary†. Many questioned the point of attempting to hold such alien territory, when there were ongoing domestic problems, one newspaper editor commented that it was â€Å"a sinful extravagance to waste our civilizing inf luence upon the unappreciative Filipinos when it is so badly needed right here in Arkansas†. During July 1902, the U. S. declared the Philippine Insurrection over, 200,000 to 220,000 Filipinos had died, and of whom only 15,000 were actual combatants, which suggest that U. S. forces consciously made war on the enemy's entire society that the concept of total war occurred fifty years earlier than 1939. [21] Critics of expansionism were another annoyance for the U. S. government. Those in office found the idea of dependency incredibly taxing, that the foreign acquisitions would perpetuate existing domestic problems. Other member foresaw that the ruling of said overseas dependencies would contradict, even violate, the â€Å"premises of republican government and the values of classical liberalism†. Although he failed to fervor his stance on U. S. imperialism in the presidential election of 1900, William Jennings Bryan became a high profile contester of expansionism; as a result, the election did not provide a clear mandate for or against overseas empire. Opponents of the U. S. Empire even more fervent than Bryan established the Anti-Imperialist League in Boston to oppose the Philippine Insurrection and colonialism. Erving Winslow, Edward Atkinson, Moorfield Storey, William James, Andrew Carnegie, and former President Grover Cleveland added their voices to the anti-imperialist chorus. However due to their narrow upper-class and governmental social base, the â€Å"antis† were unable to generate much support for their arguments, indeed Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov Lenin described them as â€Å"the last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy†. [22] Despite the apparent failure to change U. S. foreign policy, the Anti-Imperialism League became a major concern of the government, not least because its foundation was made of some actual political personalities thus creating the rifts of viewpoint shown, but it also caused embarrassment in the face of public and international scrutiny into the affair and the consequences of it thereafter. Indeed such was the strain of the opposition that the government even suppressed the delivery of three anti-imperialism pamphlets to Manila written by, vice president of the Anti-Imperialism League, Edward Atkinson. Economists too were somewhat discouraged by the U. S. involvement in foreign relations, indeed the firm Gompers recognized the problematic nature of overseas economic development. These economists feared the possible conflict of competition regarding the expansion of existing U. S. monopolies and conglomerates, foreseeing their impact on foreign society in the pursuit and carving up of land, resources, and profit. Foreign competition was also of major concern, believing the â€Å"menace of cheap oriental labor† as detrimental to the U. S. proletariat. [23] The fabled China market and political engrossment of overseas markets meant the establishment of an â€Å"open door† in China and to the protection of the territorial integrity of China. This therefore threatened war, a political tool to be reluctantly used if other powers obstructed U. S. entry into China market, only war could sustain the policy. The rising sun of Japan and Tsarist Russia therefore threatened future U. S. non-entanglement. In conclusion it is inaccurate to deem the 1898 war and Philippine Insurrection as â€Å"splendid little† wars; in reality each was fraught with so many conflicting problems and consequences. To many individuals the concept of colonial expansion was exciting, not least as it perpetuated U. S. power and influence but many sought to gain economically, spiritually and personally from said imperialism. The cost of empire was of higher significance however, as its political costs were severely detrimental to the McKinley administration, its effects on physical practicalities of defense and economy damaging, and the diplomatic portrayal of the U. S. A embarrassing. Eighty years previously John Quincy Adams had predicted the outcome of U. S. involvement in global conflict, â€Å"no matter how righteous the initial cause†¦her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force†¦She might become dictatress of the World†. Hay was wrong, 1898 was never a â€Å"splendid little war†, never a war â€Å"on behalf of people other than its own†. [24] Bibliography B. Bailyn, The Great Republic: History of the American People Vol. II; Toronto, DC Heath Canada, 1998 J. L. Bates, The United States 1898-1928 – Progressivism and a Society in Transition; New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co. , 1976 H. Brogan, The Penguin History of the United States; London, Penguin, 2001 H. Underwood Faulkner, A History of American life Vol. XI – The Quest for Social Justice 1898-1914; New York, The Macmillan Co. , 1961 S. Foner, The Spanish Cuban American War and the Birth of American Imperialism 1895-1902. Vol. I; New York, 1972 L. B. Francisco, and J. Shepard Fast, Conspiracy for Empire – Big Business, Corruption and the Politics of Imperialism in America, 1876-1907; Quezon City, Philippines, Foundation for Nationalist Studies, 1985 E. Cobbs Hoffman, and J. Gjerde, Major Problems in American History. Vol. II Since 1865; Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co. 2002 M. A. Jones, The Limits of Liberty – American history 1607-1980; Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983 T. Mahan, Lessons of war with Spain; London, Sampson Low, Marston & Co. Ltd. , 1899 J. B. Moore, Four Phases of American Development; New York, Balt, 1912 C. S. Olcott, Life of McKinley – Vol. II; Boston, Houghton M ifflin Co. , 1916 J. R. Stromberg, The Spanish-American War: The Leap into Overseas Empire; U. S. A, The Future of Freedom Foundation, 1999 G. Brown Tindall and D. E. Shi, America: A Narrative History – Sixth edition; New York, W. W. Norton & Co. , 2004 ———————– [1] E. Cobbs Hoffman, and J. Gjerde, Major Problems in American History. Vol. II Since 1865, p. 98. [2] G. Brown Tindall and D. E. Shi, America: A Narrative History – Sixth edition, p. 759 [3] Ibid [4] G. Brown Tindall and D. E. Shi, America: A Narrative History – Sixth edition, p. 760 [5] Ibid [6] M. A. Jones, The Limits of Liberty – American history 1607-1980, p. 402 [7] G. Brown Tindall and D. E. Shi, America: A Narrative History – Sixth edition, p. 764 [8] Ibid, pp. 759 and 762 [9] L. B. Francisco, and J. Shepard Fast, Conspiracy for Empire – Big Business, Corruption and the Politics of Imperialism in America, 1876-1907, p. 135 [10] Ibid, p. 141 [11] G. Brown Tindall and D. E. Shi, America: A Narrative History – Sixth edition p. 764 [12] J. B. Moore, Four Phases of American Development, pp. 147-148 [13] E. Cobbs Hoffman, and J. Gjerde, Major Problems in American History. Vol. II Since 1865, p. 100 [14] M. A. Jones, The Limits of Liberty – American history 1607-1980, p. 403 [15] C. S. Olcott, Life of McKinley – Vol. II Boston, Houghton Mifflin co. 1916 [16] G. Brown Tindall and D. E. Shi, America: A Narrative History – Sixth edition, p. 765 [17] L. B. Francisco, and J. Shepard Fast, Conspiracy for Empire – Big Business, Corruption and the Politics of Imperialism in America, 1876-1907, p. 33 [18] H. Underwood Faulkner, A History of American life Vol. XI – The Quest for Social Justice 1898-1914, p. 310 [19] H. Underwood Faulkner, A History of American life Vol. XI – The Quest for Social Justice 1898-1914, p. 313 [20] J. R. Stromberg, The Spanish-American War: The Leap into Overseas Empir e, p. 2 [21] Ibid [22] J. R. Stromberg, The Spanish-American War: The Leap into Overseas Empire, p. 2 [23] H. Underwood Faulkner, A History of American life Vol. XI – The Quest for Social Justice 1898-1914, p. 310 [24] E. Cobbs Hoffman, and J. Gjerde, Major Problems in American History. Vol. II Since 1865, p. 97

Tuesday, January 7, 2020

Summary Of Let It Rain By Rene Rowling - 1262 Words

Struggle in Finding Happiness J.K. Rowling, the famous author of the Harry Potter fantasy series said, â€Å"Depression isn’t just being a bit sad. It’s feeling nothing. It’s not wanting to be alive anymore.† As teenagers and even young adults we struggle with finding our purpose and happiness in life. Certain things happen while going through this stage and they can change our life and the way we view things. In the short story â€Å"Let it Rain† by Rene, the main character Jessica expresses the struggle and confusion she has by the way she lives and interacts with other people. This is mainly due to the death of her father, memories of happiness in the pass, the isolation and loneliness of living by herself and not communicating or interacting†¦show more content†¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"The news didn’t surprise her, he had been struggling with heart diseases for a long time.† The news came in a really bad moment on Jessica’s life. She didn’t think of it ti ll some time went by, then all she could think of was the death. It kept her awake at night running through her head over and over again. It bothered her but she couldn’t help it. Jessica does not seem to be a very social person. In the story it only talks about a good friend named Leo. They are always there for each other when needed. They talk about personal things and confine their thoughts and emotions, but they’ve never revealed their feelings about each other. While being together, Jessica seems to be thinking about something else, she thinks of the pass very often. â€Å"Truth was, she wasn’t listening to him.† She asks him, â€Å"How do you know you’re going to die?† Jessica feels like is going to happen to her soon, so she’s scared. Leo understands her in a way but not completely and tells her not to be scared, that life was much scarier. He is confused at times by the way she acts so sad and troubled by the world. She has be en thinking of the past very often and how happy it made her feel to remember. â€Å"There is no pain so great as the memory of joy in present grief.† by Aeschylus. She obviously misses her father and wishes to go back to the good old days. She thought of the Bernard Bridge, she wanted to go there. It’s a symbol of freedom and peace for her. She planed to go one