For instance, the writer claims that the book Uncle Tom’s Cabin and its common predecessor who attacks the topic of slavery in order for the abolitionists to unite together and fight for the same beliefs, isn’t fair or moral since they were disrupting the peaceful state that the U.S was in and shifting the people apart even more. On the other hand, the other passage written by the Southern literary messenger of Richmond also opposed Mrs. Stowe;s tale but he/she had a very biased opinion towards the South so he/she just argued using his/her untrustworthy opinion and very little knowledge. For example, the messenger didn’t think that the author of the story should have put emphasis on the abolition actions since they didn’t deserve the attention and it was unfair for the South since they their opinions didn’t get noticed. 1) C-1 2) The Pro-Southern Court Speaks (1857) 3) Author: Roger Taney 4) Author’s Position: Against Dred Scott and his wish to become a free African American 5) Bias: The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has the authority to speak for what he favors and in this case, his bias leaned toward the South so he supported them by going against Dred Scott. The Court also must cancel the Missouri Compromise since it goes against the constitution so they couldn’t
In the rest of the documents, they are stating about if a war is about to happen and in these they are explaining their war. I believe that these wars are both happening because of teritory. Document 3 (The Art of War by Sun Tzu) is grouped by itself because it doesn't really state whether it's belief is for or against the war. It's using relgion to test the rulers to see who deserves it the most. In the document they are determining that by a set of questions.
The first technique that I will be discussing is rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is a question asked for effect that neither expects nor requires an answer in the poem Exposure there two rhetorical questions and they both go back to Owens hatred of war the first quote is “what are we doing here?” even though the soldiers know they are here to fight for the war they have started to question it due to the fact that they are now facing a new war on which they dislike very much, this new war is the war against the weather the other rhetorical question is “is it that we are dying? ” during the war the soldiers wanted out of the war so badly the wanted to die. The hatred they felt for he war was flowing through there veins “but nothing happened” they were freezing cold and getting shot at by the enemy who would not want out of that? The next technique that I will be showing is repetition.
A common theme arises in the letter arises in a sense of “Why Am I Here?” as America starts to question “Why are we fighting the war?” Neither knows what the purpose of the war is and those who fought in it question why it has to be them. Many of the combatants seek comfort in believing they are fighting the war for the future of the children of Vietnam. This is mainly influenced by their guilt in feeling responsible for the death of their parents. Despite the differences of situations between the large conservative body of America and the soldiers of Vietnam, they did share the same opinion or uncertainty of the purpose of the
Without using O’Brien’s methodology, one cannot tell a true war story. First, O’Brien states “A true war story is never moral” (347). Then he instructs us not to believe the story if it seems moral, as there is no morals or virtue within war. When telling a true story about war, one must include all the graphic details just to paint the picture for the reader. O’Brien writes “If you don’t care for obscenity, you don’t care for the truth” (347).
Americans were so tired of the war that the feelings were reflected in the election of Johnson vs Nixon. When the President put in affect the draft many of the young adults did not agree. These young adults did not want to go to war and would protest not to go. In the United States all the people were getting upset and no longer wanted the war overseas or here in the US. Americans no longer would look at war the same
Harry Williamson Response Paper Letter from a Birmingham jail In the article Disagreements About Civil Disobedience Divide America's Anti War Movement we are presented with several views of civil disobedience present in todays society. The sole goal of these organizations is to end the war in Iraq because the members believe what is happening overseas is unjust and immoral. The feud between the organizations is simple; what are the best steps to help end the war? The cultural relativism aspect of this situation is that America (our current day society) wants war with another country, these two organizations are attempting to change that view. On one side you have people like Patrick Reinsborough who is an Organizer of Direct Action Against the War.
In the poem, a veteran is expressing his opposition towards the war, and criticizing the way the government tries to compensate the war veterans by honoring them with pointless memorabilia that will never make them feel proud of their participation in the war. Instead of creating highways and postage stamps in their name, he only wants to educate the people of a “simple recognition/ of the limits of our nation to inflict our will on others./ What I wanted was an understanding that the world is neither black-and-white/ nor ours”(lines 8-13). He expresses his outrage toward the Western mentality that caused an absurd war that only brought negative repercussions. The world cannot be the way a group of leaders decides it to be because the beauty of this world is that it is diverse and full of different aspects. He accentuates the need for the people to understand that no one is superior to another, and the differences among humans should be accepted and welcomed.
Firstly, it only gives one side of the story of the anti war views because the source says "I WANT OUT". This shows that America is battered and bruised because it doesn't say anything about people who supported the war. The representation is also not objective because it has a emotional tone to it so the image of America would make many people feel sorry for America so it makes them pull out of the
Most readers found it hard to point out the main point because of the way idea are presented within the text. The author didn’t do a good job with the flow of ideas because in the beginning of the story, he exposed the readers to the main character shame behavior. The main character Achilles refuse to fight with the Greeks because king Agamemnon took the girl (Briseis) that was given to him as a prize for being a great soldier. When asked to go fight the Trojan, Achilles further responded “Well, I’m going back to Phthia now” (page 6). The author shouldn’t disgrace the main character in the beginning of the story if he were to praise him in later part of the story since, this confuse the readers.