This project mainly consisted of our Veteran Interviews, our use of historical thinking skills in our Gulf of Tonkin in-class writing, and our reading and analysis of The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien. Through seminar and smaller group discussion, we determined what it means to tell a true war story.
My role in my project group was that of Logistics, meaning it was my job to fill out and organize the paperwork and keep the process running smoothly. I feel I succeeded in this role because I would check in every day with my group members to make sure we were all on the same page. I could have fulfilled my responsibilities better had I left myself more time to fill out the paperwork, as I did not anticipate our video being so long and the lengthy process it would be to comb through the whole thing. Something that sticks with me from the interview itself was the weight of the stories our veteran told us. Before the interview, the events we were studying seemed distant and removed to me, but listening to our veteran share his experiences with us revealed the reality and severity of the circumstances. This evolved my perspective on the truth of war into what it is now-- that the truth of war can only be found in war stories.
The historical thinking skill I struggled with the most when I was working with the documents was sourcing. This skill was difficult for me because I found it frustrating that some of the documents stood by themselves, without a title, author or date (in the worst instances). In cases like those, I found sourcing extremely unhelpful, as it was sometimes difficult to discern where a document originated from. To overcome my aversion to sourcing, I used the provided timeline to deduce when a document could have been created, and who would have a similar reaction at that time.
The historical thinking skill that came the easiest for me was critical thinking, as I found it incredibly fun to come up with all the possible pressures that may have revealed themselves in the language of any given document. To improve this skill, I widened my vocabulary to include commonly used words during that time period so I could better understand the messages being conveyed in the documents.
The first substantial revision I made to my writing through the critique process was that of my thesis. By removing opinionated wording such as “violent,” “corrupt,” and “dishonest,” I was able to increase the objectivity of my thesis, which greatly strengthened my writing. With this revision, the reader is much less likely to feel pressured into a certain way of thinking or a certain belief.
A second substantial revision I made was that of removing unnecessary sentences. I deemed a sentence unnecessary if it did not support my thesis or if it fell under a different topic than what was the focus was. This kind of revision makes my writing stronger because oftentimes unnecessary sentences would bring up excess questions, and when I moved on to another topic, those questions remained unanswered. By eliminating these instances, I shifted the spotlight back to the essential points of my paper. Since my final draft stuck only to necessary topics, it was much more concise writing for the reader to comprehend.
A part of my Tonkin writing that shows my challenge extension in action is “This violent language indicates violent intentions, which may have led to the trouble in the Gulf of Tonkin in the first place. There is no discussion whatsoever of more peaceful courses of action. The major exclusion of these diverse possibilities exhibits how set the government was on continuing its aggression, as the minds of authority had already decided on brutality.” I believe the challenge extension makes my analysis a stronger piece of writing because by incorporating different historical thinking skills into it, the reader receives a more well-rounded perspective. Extensive analysis such as this also explores historical possibilities that might have been neglected had it been absent. Some additional evidence or background knowledge that would make my writing even stronger would be documentation of what was happening in the U.S. while the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was taking place. This information would contribute to my understanding of what the U.S. government was trying to accomplish and the extent it would go to in order to reach its goals.
My role in my project group was that of Logistics, meaning it was my job to fill out and organize the paperwork and keep the process running smoothly. I feel I succeeded in this role because I would check in every day with my group members to make sure we were all on the same page. I could have fulfilled my responsibilities better had I left myself more time to fill out the paperwork, as I did not anticipate our video being so long and the lengthy process it would be to comb through the whole thing. Something that sticks with me from the interview itself was the weight of the stories our veteran told us. Before the interview, the events we were studying seemed distant and removed to me, but listening to our veteran share his experiences with us revealed the reality and severity of the circumstances. This evolved my perspective on the truth of war into what it is now-- that the truth of war can only be found in war stories.
The historical thinking skill I struggled with the most when I was working with the documents was sourcing. This skill was difficult for me because I found it frustrating that some of the documents stood by themselves, without a title, author or date (in the worst instances). In cases like those, I found sourcing extremely unhelpful, as it was sometimes difficult to discern where a document originated from. To overcome my aversion to sourcing, I used the provided timeline to deduce when a document could have been created, and who would have a similar reaction at that time.
The historical thinking skill that came the easiest for me was critical thinking, as I found it incredibly fun to come up with all the possible pressures that may have revealed themselves in the language of any given document. To improve this skill, I widened my vocabulary to include commonly used words during that time period so I could better understand the messages being conveyed in the documents.
The first substantial revision I made to my writing through the critique process was that of my thesis. By removing opinionated wording such as “violent,” “corrupt,” and “dishonest,” I was able to increase the objectivity of my thesis, which greatly strengthened my writing. With this revision, the reader is much less likely to feel pressured into a certain way of thinking or a certain belief.
A second substantial revision I made was that of removing unnecessary sentences. I deemed a sentence unnecessary if it did not support my thesis or if it fell under a different topic than what was the focus was. This kind of revision makes my writing stronger because oftentimes unnecessary sentences would bring up excess questions, and when I moved on to another topic, those questions remained unanswered. By eliminating these instances, I shifted the spotlight back to the essential points of my paper. Since my final draft stuck only to necessary topics, it was much more concise writing for the reader to comprehend.
A part of my Tonkin writing that shows my challenge extension in action is “This violent language indicates violent intentions, which may have led to the trouble in the Gulf of Tonkin in the first place. There is no discussion whatsoever of more peaceful courses of action. The major exclusion of these diverse possibilities exhibits how set the government was on continuing its aggression, as the minds of authority had already decided on brutality.” I believe the challenge extension makes my analysis a stronger piece of writing because by incorporating different historical thinking skills into it, the reader receives a more well-rounded perspective. Extensive analysis such as this also explores historical possibilities that might have been neglected had it been absent. Some additional evidence or background knowledge that would make my writing even stronger would be documentation of what was happening in the U.S. while the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was taking place. This information would contribute to my understanding of what the U.S. government was trying to accomplish and the extent it would go to in order to reach its goals.