Milton S. Katz, “Peace Liberals and Vietnam: SANE and the Politics of ‘Responsible’ Protest,’” in Walter L. Hixson, ed., The Vietnam Antiwar Movement (New York: Garland, 2000), pp. 65-66.
Fred Wilcox, Waiting for an Army to Die: The Tragedy of Agent Orange (New York: Vintage Books, 1983), pp. 4, 51; Fred Wilcox, Scorched Earth: Legacies of Chemical Warfare in Vietnam (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2011); “Effects of Chemical Warfare in South Vietnam,” in Frank Browning and Dorothy Forman, eds., The Wasted Nations: Report of the International Commission of Enquiry Into United States Crimes in Indochina (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), 117; and Duffet, ed., Against the Crime of Silence, p. 335.
The intimidating effects of the Phoenix interrogation program were compounded by the mass arrest of political prisoners, of which there were at least 100,000 at the peak of the fighting. Under the army’s small wars doctrine, effective prison management was seen as crucial to counter-insurgency as it provided a symbol of government authority and means of winning political converts through reeducation. The State Department consequently spent $6.5 million between 1967 and 1972 for the maintenance and renovation of the forty-two major prisons run by the government of South Vietnam, and built three additional facilities and a juvenile reformatory. The U.S. provided generators and handcuffs, built special isolation cells for hard-core “Vietcong,” and oversaw the construction of over thirty state-of-the-art detention centers (Provincial Interrogation Centers). Many of the supplies, however, were resold on the black-market by local authorities, usually cronies of Vietnamese Generals Ky or Thieu, or kept until wardens paid a bribe.
You sit comfortably on the sidelines, Monday-morning quarterbacking that teacher, with no idea at all what he went through. As I suggested to PenGun, I would suggest to you that you either teach or substitute at a majority black school and then get back to us on your opinion about it. I also noticed that PenGun gave no response to that suggestion. I would be very surprised if, after having been exposed to the teaching experience at a majority black school,you did not have more sympathy for that beleaguered teacher than you now have.
It is true that I have lack of sympathy for that person. It is not because I can not understand the challenges one can face in a class of black students. It is because that person’s article did not show any sympathy towards these black students. I have lack of sympathy for those who show lack of sympathy for others. As to challenging culture, we do not really disagree about the final objective of changing certain cultural trends. We disagree about the way to do it. Bringing obesity (in a history class) and combine it with the race-card is not the way to do it. Citing problems like one’s music preferences because of vulgar language or hyper-sexuality, is meaningless. As a history teacher, the author should have known better what happened when previous generations were scorned for their music or hyper-sexuality. If you think you can convince your students to change their music preferences, I have also a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Assessing the impact of the artifact
Formulating the research question
Writing the final essay Procedure: Using the neo-Aristotelian method of criticism Neo-Aristotelian Criticism and Nixon's "Silent Majority Speech" Critiqued by Forbes Hill By: Kelsey Peachey
Aspects of the speech neo-Aristotelian does not critique.
The wisdom of the speakers choice of target audience
The truth of Nixon’s statements
The reality of the values he assumes as aspects of American life Limitations Nixon uses two important premises
Plays off of emotions Logical and Psychological Persuasive Factors Hill analyzes using the precept that, the better the moral end that the speaker can use, the better the ethos he reveals.
Nixon is focusing on the future
he could not have immediate withdrawal from Vietnam because of the need to think about the long term effects Nixon’s use of ethos Target Audiences
“The silent majority”
Key decision makers
Americans not driven by a clearly defined ideological commitment to oppose or support the war Vietnamization speech Neo-Aristotelian criticism was the first formal method of rhetorical theory, until other methods of rhetorical criticism were established it was the only formal method.
After those first months, though, Jo let the stories be. Wherever they were, it wasn't here, not anymore. And there was something about the cemetery, too – the quiet, maybe, or just the inescapable sense of mortality – that put things into another perspective altogether. After enough time among the silent majority, Jo discovered, you found yourself worrying less about tomorrow, and more about today. There are so many tomorrows, after all. How can a person possibly keep track of all of them?
Thus is the story of the “silent majority.” On November 3rd 1969, one year after his victory in the United States Presidential race, President Nixon issued an address to the American public in which he coined the term “silent majority.” President Nixon’s address began by describing the situation he inherited when taking office....
Blacks in the US are our fellow citizens. Both Jim Crow segregation and the liberal welfare state have failed. Our worst cities are ones with majority black voters who elect failing political leadership, largely due to their blackness.
Thus is the story of the “silent majority.” On November 3rd 1969, one year after his victory in the United States Presidential race, President Nixon issued an address to
the American public in which he coined the term “silent majority.”
President Nixon’s address began by describing the situation he inherited when taking office.
“Blacks in the US are our fellow citizens. Both Jim Crow segregation and the liberal welfare state have failed. Our worst cities are ones with majority black voters who elect failing political leadership, largely due to their blackness.” What Whitehall said.
National Security adviser McGeorge Bundy claimed in Foreign Affairs (January 1967) that the bombing of the North was “the most accurate and restrained in modern warfare.” Eyewitnesses, however, pointed to the bombing of hospitals, schools, Buddhist pagodas, agricultural cooperatives, administrative buildings, fishing boats, dikes, and a leper colony and sanitarium, resulting in the death of an estimated 52,000 to 180,000 civilians. Nam Dinh, Vietnam’s third largest city in North Vietnam, was “made to resemble the city of a vanished civilization,” according to New York Times reporter Harrison Salisbury, despite being a center for silk and textile production, not war-related production. In Vinh (population 72,000), the destruction was akin to the German city of Dresden in World War II. This included nearly all homes, thirty-one schools, the university, four hospitals, the main bookstore and cinema, two churches, an historic 18th century Buddhist pagoda that served as the cultural center of the city, a museum of the revolution, and the 19th century imperial citadel.
By the spring of 1968, the patriotic ‘rally-round-the-flag effect was wearing thin and recognition of the war’s mounting costs was sinking in. On April 27, the Mobe sponsored another major demonstration, this one relatively peaceful. About 100,000 people congregated in New York to hear Coretta Scott King, Mayor John Lindsay, and other speakers. Another 20,000 gathered in San Francisco. A group of forty active-duty GIs were given the honored place at the head of the demonstration in San Francisco.