HST195 - Forum 1 Feedback Hello students, I have finished scoring your posts and replies for Forum 1, and the grade in the Moodle gradebook now reflects your score on this assignment and your current grade in the class. First, some words about the forum subject matter. Then I'll explain the positive adjustments I made to your forum scores. SUBJECT MATTER I'm glad to see so many of you grapple with the problems that multiple sources, especially ones which contain conflicting historical claims, can bring to an already controversial subject, such as the Vietnam War. But a careful analysis of the sources, even biased sources, can reveal even more historical truth than relying on a single source. Before I began teaching this course in 2000, the PBS series and an accompanying PBS guide were the only materials students had to work with. The course was only 3 credits, LCC did not have Moodle, and the students independently studied at home while watching the PBS episodes on cable TV . . . the class did not meet in a traditional classroom. Can you imagine that? More importantly, can you imagine what a disservice was done to those students and the historical "knowledge" they received for their tuition dollars? So I decided that a history class needed textbooks by historians, not journalists or film editors. George Herring http://www.uky.edu/PattersonSchool/faculty.htm Christian Appy http://www.umass.edu/history/faculty/appy.html As many of you have concluded, the Herring textbook is the best "factual" reference for the events that occurred during the war. It is footnoted, indexed, and has an extensive list of citations and suggestions for further reading, all of which have been read and analyzed by Herring. Some of you are enjoying the stories in the Appy book, but you must be careful and not make any grand conclusions about the war after reading just a single compelling or emotion-filled story. Everyone likes stories, but you must strive to keep them in their limited realm and avoid making sweeping claims. I know someone who served in Vietnam. Should I just take was he said he experienced as the "truth" for all soldiers who served? Of course not. My uncle served in the war, but has not shared any information with me about his time in country. What about his experiences? Should they be ignored or remain "out" of the official record of the experiences of war? More importantly, if you read the preface (pages xxv-xxvii) in the Appy book, as I said in your Assignment 1 instructions, what about those who refused to speak with him? And what about the other "silences" he experienced as a foreign writer who had to get permission from the communist government before conducting interviews with "approved" people? And let's not forget the fact that this book contains less than half of the interviews he collected. If you were editing the book, wouldn't you include the most compelling, eye-opening, jaw-dropping, disturbing, or exemplary stories, and leave the mundane, the rest, on the "cutting room floor"? Speaking of cutting room floor, by watching the AIM presentation, some of you discovered that the original 780 minute, 13 episode series has been cut down to 660 minutes in 11 episodes. What happened? The answer involves a number of issues. Since 1983, when the series was first released, a worldwide event occurred with Communism's collapse and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Some of the claims in the last episode were dated (China and Vietnam were still at war with each other in 1983, but they are not now) and many historical details were not available to historians or the public within those 10 short years after the U.S evacuation in 1973. Other edits were made based on the shortcomings revealed by the AIM program and its historians. Also, the presence of "political correctness" emerged when interviews were edited for content that may have been considered offensive. (In particular, I remember an interview where the soldier used the derogatory term "gook" to refer to a VietCong. You will not hear this part of the interview in your newer, shorter, DVD series. This is a shame actually. If we desire historical truth, then allowing viewers to hear the terminology, even if it is racist, is important. In our own country's history, we are all aware that some Americans have used the "n" word, right? Even respected authors such as Mark Twain have used the term, but we don't censor his books, do we?) Some students dislike the tone of the AIM program, but to compare a one hour program to an 11 hour documentary, and expect them to "feel the same" is just not a sound analysis of the sources. After 4 or 5 hours, the PBS series can feel more like a friend, like a valuable source of information. And it is. I would not waste your time by requiring you to watch 11 hours of it if it was nothing but fiction and historical inaccuracies. But being aware of its bias is key. The same holds true for the AIM program. In the PBS series, we mainly hear the voice of the narrator, who is telling us a story. The AIM video also had a narrator, but its main voices were historians, who have studied their history and have specific sources and facts to support their claims. It should not be easy to dismiss someone's claims if they have given you historical evidence. This is why I ask you to cite your sources, use quotes from the textbook and videos in your forum posts and written assignments. It makes for much more compelling, and historically accurate work when you do this. In this class, you are entitled to your own opinions, but those opinions must been "informed" opinions. If you are presented with data, and then make a claim contrary to that data, you had better be able to show support for it. Lastly, many of you did not address the New York Times article well enough. The article really made some "brutal" criticisms of the PBS series and its producers. Many students only noticed its claim that the AIM series was a biased polemic. Did you remember reading these parts? "Nonetheless, during the … program - … in the rebuttal produced by AIM … intelligent criticisms are offered: The series makes Ho Chi Minh into a nationalist rather than a Communist; it ignores the role of the South Vietnamese Army; it minimizes the brutal treatment of American prisoners of war; it slights the actual conduct of military operations. At no point, however, do the producers of ''Vietnam: A Television History'' give an inch. They confuse their series with Holy Writ." (Holy Writ, wow what a term to use !!! The PBS producers believe their series is the Holy Bible of the Vietnam War. It goes on.) "In 1983, this critic called the Vietnam series ''a landmark in television journalism,'' a judgment I still hold. Its great strength was that it offered room for many points of view. The paradox now is that the members of the public television community who deplore the AIM rebuttal rule out all points of view except their own. Or, as one of them says on the program tonight, the only reason to broadcast the rebuttal is ''to show people what bad propaganda is like.'' He misses the point; actually, he misses all the points. For one, the rebuttal is not bad propaganda. This becomes evident at the conclusion of the program. Vietnam experts and other interested parties, including Reed Irvine, the chairman of Accuracy in Media, debate the merits of the rebuttal. No one, in fact, can find much wrong with it." (No one found much wrong with what the historians in the AIM program had claimed !!! The final blow, AGAINST the PBS program and its producers is this.) "No new interpretation of history is allowed. The (PBS) opposition to broadcasting the AIM program suggests that the producers of the (PBS) Vietnam series and their supporters feel this way about history too. It cannot be reinterpreted unless the reinterpretation has their (PBS) approval." (That is definitely a problem. If you didn't carefully read this article, then you could have missed this point. If you did read and understand it, did you ignore it because it didn't support your own position or biases in favor or PBS?) ADJUSTMENTS TO SCORING IN FORUM 1 A problem that some students had was missing the Wednesday deadline for their first post. A second problem was the lack of participation throughout the week, which was required of this assignment. The largest problem that 50% of the students had was not posting the MINIMUM of 3 posts/replies each week for both weeks. If every post/reply you made earned an excellent score of 3 (re-read the instructions and criterial for an excellent score of 3, which usually involves citations of the historical evidence to support your position), and you posted or replied the minimum of 6 times, you could have received the full 18 points. Since there is no limit to the number of posts and replies you could make during the week, more frequent involvement with the materials and your group members almost assures that you can earn the maximum score and achieve a 100%, A+ on this forum. As you look at the scores your posts and replies received in Forum 1, remember that the score, from 1 to 3, is the TOP number. You were aiming to earn 9 points or more each week (a minimum of 3 posts/replies). The grand total for the two weeks should be 18. You will notice that the grand total (the bottom number) is only 15. That is because I have "given" everyone a positive 3 point adjustment. That is a 15% increase to your score, the equivalent of a letter grade and a half boost. Also, at 2 weeks long, Forum 1 was originally weighted double the value of your first, one week long, written assignment. I've also adjusted that to only 1.5 times the value. Both of these changes have been made in hopes of providing positive encouragement for all students to actively participate in all remaining forums this term. MIDTERM EXAM As my previous announcement to you stated, you should definitely be spending your time with this week's materials and in studying for your midterm exams next week. Good luck to you in your continuing studies and preparation for the midterm.