Kacey McNally
Heroes by Robert Cormier
Heroes By Robert Cormier is about this boy, Francis Cassavant; that at the age of 18 has already fought in a war and lost his face. this happene d when he landed on a grenade in France trying to save some of his fellow soilders. when he returns home to Frenchtown, he has a mission he want to kill his childhood hero a man who he thinks that he ruined his life by hurting the woman that he loved. the book i think really shows to themes but the one that is easier to compare with history is violence doesn't slove everything.
As his mission, he wants to find and kill his life long idle Larry LaSalle, why well Francis thinks that he hurt his first true love and ruined his life by doing this. ao therefore he wants to find him and kill him. As he waits and finds larry he sits down and thinks about everything thats gets him to this point in his life. when i was reading the book he kinda left you hanging on who the hero really is in the book, it was sorta of confusing...
Now, as far as connecting this to history, well the thing that stick out in my mind would have to to be the war on iraq and the middle east. i personally think that it goes long very well with violence doesn't solve everything... sometimes it may make matters worse. what has the middle east do to us that was so bad that we have to be over there for like 8 years.. what have we accomplished besides killing osama beladen, and destorying their countries... and killing a bunch of their people. so to me this whole war thing is rediulations and pointless because all were trying to do is make their country ran like ours.
the prospective of this book i would have to say is, well its told by Francis Cassavant, about what it was like going off to war at a young age. and coming back as what could of been a hero. but he choose to keep his identiy a screct but when he go half his face blown off by a granade he was given a sliver star for bravery just for that reason.
Violence doesn't slove everything, the theme of this book.. Significance of the event that i choose i think is really important because its goes to show that violence dosen't solve everything and it may make matters worse and we've made matters worse for them over there its another country who cares what goes on over there as long as they are not bothering us who cares.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Book Portfolio Q4.
The things they carried by Tim O'Brien is a historical fiction book that takes you back to the Vietnam War and focuses you on the Alpha company and its men and their journey. That shows that you can set youer mind to anything you and achive it, i say this because obiously going to war and leading your company is not easy, and somedays you'd have to really dig down deep and give it all you got.
As a solider you would want the common physical things that you'd need in the woods. For example mosquito repellent and marijuana. pocket knives and chewing gum. But for Lieutenant Jimmy Cross he carries things more personal to him, that reminds him of his love for Martha, who is a girl that he went to college in New Jersey with, but she has not given him any indication of returning his love. Cross carries her letter in his backpack and her lucky pebble in his mouth. Now the machine gunner, Henry Dobbins well lets just say that hes exceptionally large. He carries extra rations because he's superstitious, he carries his ex-girlfriends pantyhose around his neck. Then we got the religious Kiowa he carries an illistrated new testament adn a gift from his father. and finally, we got the nervous Ted Lavender which carries marijuana and tranqulizers to calm him down... but later on in the story Lavender is shot on his way back from the bathroom.
Well to sum up what this book is/was about, well like i told you before it takes you back to the Vietnam War and what the Alpha Company had with them personaly to keep them in complete focus on what was going on around them. But a morjority of the story is focused on Lieutenant Jimmy Cross, and how pretty everytime he had down time he was look or reading things that reminded him of his love Martha, he was constantly thinking of her no matter what he was doing.
In history, this theme shows in many ways but one really sticks out to me and goes really well. Martin Luther King Jr and the civil rights movments and his "i have a dream" speech, i mean he was an african american during the 60's you were very very looked down apon your were pretty much dirt. but he had the confidence to get up there in front of the mall with millions of people black and white. Obiously being black during this time there were some goodtimes and bad time with the journy he had his mind set to it and he achived his goal and got his point accrossed.
I was always told that if you put your mid to something you can always achive it, no matter what it takes, if your set to a job its your goal to achive that, to me i think that this fits with this book because during the book Cross said that "his job is not to be loved but to lead" that statments tell me that he is truely dedacated to his company and himself.
As a solider you would want the common physical things that you'd need in the woods. For example mosquito repellent and marijuana. pocket knives and chewing gum. But for Lieutenant Jimmy Cross he carries things more personal to him, that reminds him of his love for Martha, who is a girl that he went to college in New Jersey with, but she has not given him any indication of returning his love. Cross carries her letter in his backpack and her lucky pebble in his mouth. Now the machine gunner, Henry Dobbins well lets just say that hes exceptionally large. He carries extra rations because he's superstitious, he carries his ex-girlfriends pantyhose around his neck. Then we got the religious Kiowa he carries an illistrated new testament adn a gift from his father. and finally, we got the nervous Ted Lavender which carries marijuana and tranqulizers to calm him down... but later on in the story Lavender is shot on his way back from the bathroom.
Well to sum up what this book is/was about, well like i told you before it takes you back to the Vietnam War and what the Alpha Company had with them personaly to keep them in complete focus on what was going on around them. But a morjority of the story is focused on Lieutenant Jimmy Cross, and how pretty everytime he had down time he was look or reading things that reminded him of his love Martha, he was constantly thinking of her no matter what he was doing.
In history, this theme shows in many ways but one really sticks out to me and goes really well. Martin Luther King Jr and the civil rights movments and his "i have a dream" speech, i mean he was an african american during the 60's you were very very looked down apon your were pretty much dirt. but he had the confidence to get up there in front of the mall with millions of people black and white. Obiously being black during this time there were some goodtimes and bad time with the journy he had his mind set to it and he achived his goal and got his point accrossed.
I was always told that if you put your mid to something you can always achive it, no matter what it takes, if your set to a job its your goal to achive that, to me i think that this fits with this book because during the book Cross said that "his job is not to be loved but to lead" that statments tell me that he is truely dedacated to his company and himself.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
the bomb.. Howard Zinn
Still, the vast bulk of the American population was mobilized, in the army, and in civilian life, to fight the war, and the atmosphere of war enveloped more and more Americans. Public opinion polls show large majorities of soldiers favoring the draft for the postwar period. Hatred against the enemy, against the Japanese particularly, became widespread. Racism was clearly at work. Time magazine, reporting the battle of Iwo Jima, said: "The ordinary unreasoning Jap is ignorant. Perhaps he is human. Nothing .. . indicates it." .... when i read this.. i think to myself what does that even mean? what that tells me when i read that is the japs aren't human?? -Kacey McNally 5/7/09 7:46 PM
The bombing of Japanese cities continued the strategy of saturation bombing to destroy civilian morale; one nighttime fire-bombing of Tokyo took 80,000 lives. And then, on August 6, 1945, came the lone American plane in the sky over Hiroshima, dropping the first atomic bomb, leaving perhaps 100,000 Japanese dead, and tens of thousands more slowly dying from radiation poisoning. Twelve U.S. navy fliers in the Hiroshima city jail were killed in the bombing, a fact that the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged, according to historian Martin Sherwin (A World Destroyed). Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, with perhaps 50,000 killed.
The justification for these atrocities was that this would end the war quickly, making unnecessary an invasion of Japan. Such an invasion would cost a huge number of lives, the government said-a million, according to Secretary of State Byrnes; half a million, Truman claimed was the figure given him by General George Marshall. (When the papers of the Manhattan Project-the project to build the atom bomb- were released years later, they showed that Marshall urged a warning to the Japanese about the bomb, so people could be removed and only military targets hit.) These estimates of invasion losses were not realistic, and seem to have been pulled out of the air to justify bombings which, as their effects became known, horrified more and more people. Japan, by August 1945, was in desperate shape and ready to surrender. New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote, shortly after the war:
If only the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender- that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place-the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war.
Why did the United States not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it? that is a very true statment.. i would really want to know why we choose to drop the bombs?? -Kacey McNally 5/7/09 8:03 PM General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, described Truman as a man on a toboggan, the momentum too great to stop it. Or was it, as British scientist P. M. S. Blackett suggested (Fear, War, and the Bomb), that the United States was anxious to drop the bomb before the Russians entered the war against Japan?
The Russians had secretly agreed (they were officially not at war with Japan) they would come into the war ninety days after the end of the European war. That turned out to be May 8, and so, on August 8, the Russians were due to declare war on Japan, But by then the big bomb had been dropped, and the next day a second one would be dropped on Nagasaki; the Japanese would surrender to the United States, not the Russians, and the United States would be the occupier of postwar Japan. In other words, Blackett says, the dropping of the bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia.. .." Blackett is supported by American historian Gar Alperovitz (Atomic Diplomacy), who notes a diary entry for July 28, 1945, by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as "most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in."
Truman had said, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." It was a preposterous statement. Those 100,000 killed in Hiroshima were almost all civilians. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."
The dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki seems to have been scheduled in advance, and no one has ever been able to explain why it was dropped. Was it because this was a plutonium bomb whereas the Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb? Were the dead and irradiated of Nagasaki victims of a scientific experiment? Martin Shenvin says that among the Nagasaki dead were probably American prisoners of war. He notes a message of July 31 from Headquarters, U.S. Army Strategic Air Forces, Guam, to the War Department:
True, the war then ended quickly. Italy had been defeated a year earlier. Germany had recently surrendered, crushed primarily by the armies of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, aided by the Allied armies on the West. Now Japan surrendered.
The bombing of Japanese cities continued the strategy of saturation bombing to destroy civilian morale; one nighttime fire-bombing of Tokyo took 80,000 lives. And then, on August 6, 1945, came the lone American plane in the sky over Hiroshima, dropping the first atomic bomb, leaving perhaps 100,000 Japanese dead, and tens of thousands more slowly dying from radiation poisoning. Twelve U.S. navy fliers in the Hiroshima city jail were killed in the bombing, a fact that the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged, according to historian Martin Sherwin (A World Destroyed). Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, with perhaps 50,000 killed.
The justification for these atrocities was that this would end the war quickly, making unnecessary an invasion of Japan. Such an invasion would cost a huge number of lives, the government said-a million, according to Secretary of State Byrnes; half a million, Truman claimed was the figure given him by General George Marshall. (When the papers of the Manhattan Project-the project to build the atom bomb- were released years later, they showed that Marshall urged a warning to the Japanese about the bomb, so people could be removed and only military targets hit.) These estimates of invasion losses were not realistic, and seem to have been pulled out of the air to justify bombings which, as their effects became known, horrified more and more people. Japan, by August 1945, was in desperate shape and ready to surrender. New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote, shortly after the war:
The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position by the time the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26.The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war:
Such then, was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Need we have done it? No one can, of course, be positive, but the answer is almost certainly negative.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.But could American leaders have known this in August 1945? The answer is, clearly, yes. The Japanese code had been broken, and Japan's messages were being intercepted. It was known the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had begun talking of surrender a year before this, and the Emperor himself had begun to suggest, in June 1945, that alternatives to fighting to the end be considered. On July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired his ambassador in Moscow: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace.. .." Martin Sherwin, after an exhaustive study of the relevant historical documents, concludes: "Having broken the Japanese code before the war, American Intelligence was able to-and did-relay this message to the President, but it had no effect whatever on efforts to bring the war to a conclusion."i personally think that whole paragraph it a bunch of crap. and that its all made up to cover the Jap's butts, to make them look like they're not scared.. but than again that just my opinion.. -Kacey McNally 5/7/09 7:58 PM
If only the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender- that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place-the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war.
Why did the United States not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it? that is a very true statment.. i would really want to know why we choose to drop the bombs?? -Kacey McNally 5/7/09 8:03 PM General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, described Truman as a man on a toboggan, the momentum too great to stop it. Or was it, as British scientist P. M. S. Blackett suggested (Fear, War, and the Bomb), that the United States was anxious to drop the bomb before the Russians entered the war against Japan?
The Russians had secretly agreed (they were officially not at war with Japan) they would come into the war ninety days after the end of the European war. That turned out to be May 8, and so, on August 8, the Russians were due to declare war on Japan, But by then the big bomb had been dropped, and the next day a second one would be dropped on Nagasaki; the Japanese would surrender to the United States, not the Russians, and the United States would be the occupier of postwar Japan. In other words, Blackett says, the dropping of the bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia.. .." Blackett is supported by American historian Gar Alperovitz (Atomic Diplomacy), who notes a diary entry for July 28, 1945, by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as "most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in."
Truman had said, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." It was a preposterous statement. Those 100,000 killed in Hiroshima were almost all civilians. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."
The dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki seems to have been scheduled in advance, and no one has ever been able to explain why it was dropped. Was it because this was a plutonium bomb whereas the Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb? Were the dead and irradiated of Nagasaki victims of a scientific experiment? Martin Shenvin says that among the Nagasaki dead were probably American prisoners of war. He notes a message of July 31 from Headquarters, U.S. Army Strategic Air Forces, Guam, to the War Department:
Reports prisoner of war sources, not verified by photos, give location of Allied prisoner of war camp one mile north of center of city of Nagasaki. Does this influence the choice of this target for initial Centerboard operation? Request immediate reply.The reply: "Targets previously assigned for Centerboard remain unchanged."
True, the war then ended quickly. Italy had been defeated a year earlier. Germany had recently surrendered, crushed primarily by the armies of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, aided by the Allied armies on the West. Now Japan surrendered.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
weekly Reflection #1
reflection on from d.day to1945...
during this session we talked about the European theater of world war 2..
we talked about how the German put a line of hedgehogs to prevents any tanks and vehicles getting to the shore line and get to the island.
we watched saving private Ryan... me as a visual person watching the movie really put it in perspective of what they actually went through, getting to the island and how many people died and wounded.
Then we talked about the pacific theater, we learned about pearl harbor and when that was and when FDR signed the papers to declaration of world war 2. but other then that i couldnt tell you what we talked about. as i go through the slide show i see a bunch of maps and pictures and some of them i dont even recall you talking about them... but as far as the assignment goes the soilder story i thought that was kinda fun and interesting assignment i could deal with things like that once in a while...
then comes in the 1945.. when the war of world war 2 was done,, and where FDR died and Hitler committed suicide, we read Hitlers will in class and talked it over, and we read the littler paragraph about FDR's death. we also talked about the Yalta Conference, this was about *dividing Germany *Formation of the united nation *German war reparations *The entry of Soviet forces into the Far-Eastern front (Japan) *The final, and most difficult issue, the future of Poland, and FDR represented the united states, Churchill represented GB and Stalin represented the soviet. Also in this we talked about the Holocaust, and how kinda disturbing and cruel it was. i remember what one of the sign into one of the camps said "work makes you free" this was on the way into Auschwitz the biggest concentration camps of this time. there we huge masses of graves with hundreds of dead bodies in them. and when soldiers walked into the camp they said they're were "walking dead".
As an overall view of how i liked class during this week, i thought it was interesting. and i like that its recant in history i mean my dad was born 3 years after this ended.. and in 7th grade i learned about the holocaust and i liked ti then but it's not like what we went over was the same stuff it was different.. but as far as all the infomation i was a lot to take in but it was stuff that im interested in so ill retain it better.. i hope haha..
during this session we talked about the European theater of world war 2..
we talked about how the German put a line of hedgehogs to prevents any tanks and vehicles getting to the shore line and get to the island.
we watched saving private Ryan... me as a visual person watching the movie really put it in perspective of what they actually went through, getting to the island and how many people died and wounded.
Then we talked about the pacific theater, we learned about pearl harbor and when that was and when FDR signed the papers to declaration of world war 2. but other then that i couldnt tell you what we talked about. as i go through the slide show i see a bunch of maps and pictures and some of them i dont even recall you talking about them... but as far as the assignment goes the soilder story i thought that was kinda fun and interesting assignment i could deal with things like that once in a while...
then comes in the 1945.. when the war of world war 2 was done,, and where FDR died and Hitler committed suicide, we read Hitlers will in class and talked it over, and we read the littler paragraph about FDR's death. we also talked about the Yalta Conference, this was about *dividing Germany *Formation of the united nation *German war reparations *The entry of Soviet forces into the Far-Eastern front (Japan) *The final, and most difficult issue, the future of Poland, and FDR represented the united states, Churchill represented GB and Stalin represented the soviet. Also in this we talked about the Holocaust, and how kinda disturbing and cruel it was. i remember what one of the sign into one of the camps said "work makes you free" this was on the way into Auschwitz the biggest concentration camps of this time. there we huge masses of graves with hundreds of dead bodies in them. and when soldiers walked into the camp they said they're were "walking dead".
As an overall view of how i liked class during this week, i thought it was interesting. and i like that its recant in history i mean my dad was born 3 years after this ended.. and in 7th grade i learned about the holocaust and i liked ti then but it's not like what we went over was the same stuff it was different.. but as far as all the infomation i was a lot to take in but it was stuff that im interested in so ill retain it better.. i hope haha..
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Soilder Story
i shared this with Alex but she hasnt commented back.
Dave Taber was one of "Horse Collar" Smith's communicators who fought bravely among Sweeney's men. Six of the seven men were casualties that night.
We were on top of the ridge near the command post. Major Bailey came up and made an eloquent speech. He said something like this: "All you fellows have buddies and friends that have been wounded and killed, and it will all be in vain if we lose the airfield. Now let's get out, hold the line, and save the airfield. This is telling me that major Bailey is encouraging them to do their absolute best, just because for the ones that have been killed or wounded -Kacey McNally 4/1/09 9:52 AM If we lose the airfield, we're going to lose the island." That was about the gist of it. It was quite dramatic and got everybody moving. I thought to myself it was almost like something out of a movie.I was with a close friend of mine, Ike Arnold. (Ike's name was really Herman Arnold, but I called him Ike.) We each had five or six grenades. We went out. I'm not sure what happened, but somehow we got separated from some of the other guys. In fact we were a little too extended, I guess. When the Japs attacked, we were throwing grenades. There was a lot of shooting going on, a lot of action: rifle fire, grenades moving so fast. Anyway, we were throwing grenades down the ridge, and then all the sudden Ike talked to me. [Choking up, Taber said, "I'd rather not go through this," but then continued.] He called me Tabe. He said very calmly, "Tabe, I've been hit." I turned to him. He was off to my side a little, and I said, "Where?" He said, "In the throat." He no more than said that, and he was dead. He must have been hit in the jugular vein or an artery. Blood just gushed out. I had my arm underneath him, across his back, and I lowered him down to the ground. [crying] There's nothing you could do. He was a very good friend of mine. I looked around, and I was all by myself. all i can pretty much say to this is WOW!, if this ever happened to me, having one of my really good friends be killed in front of me, in my arms no less i would have no idea what to do with myself... i'd be in total shock mode...
But i dont kno if he continued fighting in the war or not but if he did i give him all the credit in the world!! BUt now that i think about it i'd continue for him and be like what would "he" want me to do???-Kacey McNally 4/1/09 5:42 PM
I thought to myself that I better get back and make contact with the others. I didn't know whether to crawl back or walk back because there was danger both ways. We'd been told what to do in these cases. I acted without even thinking. I decided to stay on my feet. It was pitch dark. I was walking a little bit, and all the sudden I heard something behind me and along comes a grenade right through the air and the fuse is burning! Before I knew what I was doing, I fell on my face away from it. As I was going down, I turned to see where the grenade was falling; it fell in between my feet. I had sharpnel between my feet and legs. I was a little stunned but got up. I was in shock, and nothing was bothering me. I'm walking along slowly and heard a Japanese voice behind me and he was talking to me. He must have thought I was a Jap going up in front of him. I had a .03 rifle and I swung around and shot, and he dropped as I kept on going.In this situation i think he did the right thing, because if he and not jumped to his face and tried to take cover the jap may not of thought he was a jap, and with that he had the chance to blast him and return to the CP safely. -Kacey McNally 4/1/09 5:49 PM I finally got back [to the CP], and one of the first people I ran into was Horse Collar Smith, who was wounded.
1942.. web page
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dmbz337_25dz98dhf6&hl=en
this is the web page on the axies of the war
this is the web page on the axies of the war
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)