82 David, The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the speech we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make that speech truthful? There are a number of run on sentences in the paper. Finally, your last sentence makes a statement that is not true at all, certainly not at this point in the class, in the war, and definitely not supported with data 68 Brandon, Your first paragraph suffers from too much narrative, simply retelling me what the speaker said or did, instead of why you chose that person's story and/or why it was compelling. As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. Your paper suffers from some very inaccurate historical information as well (imprisoned peasants, heads on stakes, impossible to win). 78 Alex, Your first paragraph suffers from too much narrative, simply retelling me what the speaker said or did, instead of why you chose that person's story and/or why it was compelling. The end of paragraph 2 suffers from some very inaccurate information about Diem as a communist. He was not. While you did complete the assignment on time, you failed to address some of my questions that I posed in the prompt for this journal. (You wrote "trying to find only good is inethical.) Be careful when reading the instructions in this online class and address everything asked. On assignments, you only get a single attempt. (You get a bit more opportunity to fully address the material, and add to your initial work, in the forums, like the one due this week.) 72 Brett, While your paper was "on topic", it was a bit too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. Be sure to write history, and your assignments, in past tense. In part two, you mistook negative for boring, which was not what I was asking you to address. 70 Jessica, While your paper was "on topic", it was a bit too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the speech we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make that speech truthful? There are a number of run on sentences in the paper. 95 Angeline, Very nice job on this first assignment. Good analysis of the credibility of the speaker you've chose in Part 1. That was the most difficult part of this assignment, and your paper made a worthy attempt to deal with this complex subject, just as the one you are dealing with in Forum 1. Be sure to write history, and your assignments, in past tense. 70 Jenny, While your paper was "on topic", it was a bit too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the speech we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make that speech truthful? You also had a very strange take on what you believe Malcolm Browne should have done about the burning monk. He should have doused the flames? 70 Joshua, While your paper was "on topic", it was a bit too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the speech we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make that speech truthful? You said the Malcolm Browne story was sad, but failed to explain why? You also state "war is pointless", but without any support. 82 Kevin, As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. In part two, you mistook negative for boring, which was not what I was asking you to address. But thankful for you, and your score, you kept talking and made a better case, although a bit vague. 86 Lacy, Good analysis of the credibility of the speakers you've read in Part 1. That was the most difficult part of this assignment, and your paper made a worthy attempt to deal with this complex subject, just as the one you are dealing with in Forum 1. But in Part 2, you stayed on that speaker "reliability" theme of Part 1. Be careful when reading the instructions in this online class and address everything asked. On assignments, you only get a single attempt. (You get a bit more opportunity to fully address the material, and add to your initial work, in the forums, like the one due this week.) 70 Lance, As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. Your second paragraph of Part 2 is not on target. Be careful when reading the instructions in this online class and address everything asked. On assignments, you only get a single attempt. (You get a bit more opportunity to fully address the material, and add to your initial work, in the forums, like the one due this week.) I did like your personal connection to Watkins, and I agree with you. 90 Laurie, Nice job on the paper. I especially like the inclusion of the Herring material to support your position. The only problem was that Part 1 seemed to drift away from my initial questions and on to something else. Be careful making big jumps, such as your part about the Luyen story to the President of the United States. To do that well would have taken more time/words. Related to this, you also jump to bold conclusions, such as your last sentence in Part 1, about the hopeless situation. That was certainly NOT known... not the case in the 1950's. 95 Leslie, Very well done. Part 2 was much better than Part 1. Your first paragraph suffers from too much narrative, simply retelling me what the speaker said or did. The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the speech we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make that speech truthful? You found him believable, but the last sentence mentions "dulling the details", which seems a bit contradictory. You are probably the only student who mentioned the term "advisors" in the last 5 years I've taught this class. Great, but be careful. Your definition is overall correct, but in some cases, and at some times, advisors were indeed, just advisors. ;-) 96 Marian, It was very wise of you to explain your personal biases well, and from the start. I'm also impressed that you took the time to "entertain" the notions that government officials could also be truthful. Without these things, you work and score would have suffered. Paragraph 4, I'm unclear whether you are including the differences in North and South Vietnam in Phillips story. It is also incommensurable to compare the terms "arguments or disagreements" with "rape and pillage". Last sentence paragraph 4. Paragraph 5 certainly went off topic a bit, sounding like a soapbox. Can any act be defined as traitorous? That is a topic for another paper... a much longer one. 70 Michelle, While your paper was "on topic", it was a bit too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. Your first paragraph suffers from too much narrative, simply retelling me what the speaker said or did, instead of why you chose that person's story and/or why it was compelling. The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the speech we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make that speech truthful? Your paper seemed "rushed" to me as I read it... a collection of undeveloped comments. 72 Nichole, Your paper suffers from some very inaccurate historical information as well (hamlets are misunderstood, French and U.S. jumbled) You are also redundant in the first half on the Medal of Honor issue, stating the same information in three places. The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the speech we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make that speech truthful? 70 Rebecca, While your paper was "on topic", it was MUCH too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. The paper seemed on its way to being an excellent one, but fell short. 100 Roxanne, Very well written. Cathartic assignment for you? I am VERY curious about your last paragraph, which seemed to come out of no where. I'll save my other comments until I see you on Monday. 96 Tera, Very nice job on this first assignment. The weakest part of the assignment for you was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the speech we read accurate? Finally, you are incorrect when you state that the direct cause of Nguyen's suffering was the USA. He was tortured by the communist North Vietnamese all of those years.