During the First World War, Britain introduced conscription for the first time to massively increase the input of power of their army had and forced men aged 16-19 to serve in the army. However, a group of roughly 16,800 men refused to serve. These groups of people were called Conscientious Objectors; sometimes called COs or Conchies; and many were very religious and believed that thou shall not kill as it is a sin in the Bible. This was a main point that most Conscientious Objectors did not take any part during the First World War as they believed it would result in pointless bloodshed. The Government’s and general public’s view on Conscientious Objectors was that Conscientious Objectors were unpatriotic cowards and the Government used propaganda to manipulate the general public’s view on Conscientious Objectors by showing that they would not aid the Britain and were weak. As a result they were treated harshly. The Government made being a Conscientious Objector very hard and difficult as they would enforce tribunals which consisted of ex- military officials who were biased as they were for the First World War. Therefore, these people gave huge prison sentences to Conscientious Objectors as a scare tactic to reduce the number of Conscientious Objectors. Historians use interpretations to show the message behind each source to see it’s reliable or useful. Also this is done to see if the source itself is a primary or secondary interpretation which shows if the source’s view and meaning is from the author of sources (primary interpretation) or giving a generalised views on people who were there at the time (secondary interpretation).
However, in this extract from a history book published in 1928, it explains the “white feather” ...
... middle of paper ...
...e into explaining if COs were courageous or not. This also affects the usefulness making it incredibly useful as it explains why COs were courageous not cowards as they “were individuals who were confident that they must not employ violence or war”; this also meant that were put in “jeopardy” as the general public knew that they were COs. This meant that they were rejected from society” therefore, meant that their beliefs were so strong that they were courageous in the own way. This primary interpretation is that COs were courageous due to the fact they were treated badly in society yet they still stood up for what they believed in. Overall, this affects the reliability as it makes it very reliable as it has the benefit of hindsight. Overall, this affects the usefulness as it makes it very useful as it shows the side of COs that they weren’t cowards but, heroes.
Overall McPherson’s reasons for the soldiers motivations were clear and concise, easy to follow and understand allowing for easy interpretation of the book. McPherson also includes multiple quotes from various letters and diary entries to support his statements which gives his statements credibility. The reasons for motivation presented in the book were convincing and were supported by numerous quotes.
...it may help us arrive at an understanding of the war situation through the eyes of what were those of an innocent child. It is almost unique in the sense that this was perhaps the first time that a child soldier has been able to directly give literary voice to one of the most distressing phenomena of the late 20th century: the rise of the child-killer. While the book does give a glimpse of the war situation, the story should be taken with a grain of salt.
A characters courage is not measured by how an action will be accepted by others, but by how their actions stay true to themselves even in the face of a pressured surrounding. Colin McDougall’s The Firing Squad a story about a young soldiers attempt at redemption and George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant an essay about Orwell’s days in a British colony where he was called to handle the situation with an aggressive elephant are two pieces of literature that demonstrate the effects of courage. Courage takes many forms and in these two great pieces of literature it can be measured by looking at the characters and how they use courage and lack of courage as a driving factor in different ways throughout their story’s.
...orical records were done by the government and therefore are aimed at encouraging more men to join and the remaining population to be supportive of the acts of war.
They just escaped death at the battle but then end up having 9 men injured when they thought they were safe. I think they were just exhausted of never feeling safe and constantly living in fear. Their anger showed when they burnt down the village.Then men are sent into the middle of a battle instead of having some of their men only injured this time some were killed. The men were furious once again. They burnt down another village leaving it to ashes. This act is the point when I believe they have lost themselves. At the beginning of the war I would highly doubt they would burn down a village. The author did a good job of showing how these men changed mentally and physically. I can tell that they are not the same person as when they first stepped onto the battle field. He is not saying they changed but he shows that they have. At the end Caputo is faced with charges of murder. He was never charged with the murder but was honorably discharged and sent back to the States. When he is put on trial I felt a somber tone as he was being tried for murder during war. After all the things this soldier has done for the country his own country was trying to convict him. I feel like Caputo was trying to relate this on a smaller scale to the overall way that the veterans were treated when they returned from the war. Like he said at the beginning he expected to return home to parades and be regarded as a
...of two marines, to perform a code red on Santiago, the learner. Although no harm was intended, the life of an ailing soldier was brutally taken due to the respect of an order. From Fromm’s outlook on the situation, obedience may sometimes be right, but unfortunately might lead to an unwanted outcome, similar to the circumstances portrayed in A Few Good Men. A person with hateful and self conceited characteristics is someone that most people don’t want to be around. This can impact society by causing less appreciation among people.
The option of volunteering to fight for freedom was placed before these young men. They didn’t have to come together and choose to fight. Courageous actions can happen by saying hello to someone. Saying hi to someone might be really hard. If talking to someone frightens you and you defy that fear, by definition you are courageous. Courage is also part of growing up. Going throughout life without facing challenges makes it hard to progress. Writing essays may be your fear. If you never face your fear of writing essays, you won’t learn to write them. Morals are also a factor in being courageous. Not swearing might be a challenge, but strong morals can make difficult choices easy. Courage comes from choices, and strong morals and standards can help you make good choices. Loyalty and respect are a few of moral values. The 2000 Stripling Warriors had moral values because they were loyal to their
By the end of the war, about 5,000 men and 500 women had been charged
Courage is something that is not integrally human, particularly in times of war where one’s existence is in peril. During the time of war, this is conveyed when one’s integrity is being tested the most: there are few who desire to conserve this integrity and their humanity through selfless acts in the time that generosity is a fantasy. When most individuals are occupied of thoughts of their own self preservation, selflessness preserves and fortify one’s integrity and humanity when one risks their life for others. In the novel The Cellist of Sarajevo, Steven Galloway emphasized the moral crisis that people faced when they were challenged with their own mortality and the hardship of those worse off. He
“The war correspondent is responsible for most of the ideas of battle which the public possesses … I can’t write that it occurred if I know that it did not, even if by painting it that way I can rouse the blood and make the pulse beat faster – and undoubtedly these men here deserve that people’s pulses shall beat for them. But War Correspondents have so habitually exaggerated the heroism of battles that people don’t realise that real actions are heroic.”
“This story is neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped its shells, were destroyed by the war...”
Everyday individuals face decisions in which they must choose whether to do what is appealing to them or to choose a more suitable and compliable choice. In the fictional work of ‘The Things They Carried’ by Tim O’ Brien, certain characters such as Tim O’ Brien himself must face decisions similar to these. The novel demonstrates that when an individual is faced with a decision in which there is a choice that he may have to conform, the individual tends to conform due to not wanting to embarrass themselves or to not be portrayed as a coward to others. However when the individual is challenged with these types of decisions, the choice does not matter since the outcome will be what the individual was trying to avoid. That is to say that in the excerpt “The Rainy River” Tim O’ Brien was going through a conflicting decision on whether or not he should go to the war. Yet, as we see it turns out that either choice will lead to either shame or cowardice. If he goes to the war he feels that he will be a coward and that he gave up his own morals and values and accepted something he does not believe in, but if he does not go to war he will be shunned by society and will be labelled as a coward because he will not fight for his country.
A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain ...
...had stopped him from joining the war, he would not have suffered his tragic losses. Owen seems to suggest that they would have had the knowledge and experience to act with integrity, but they fair the young recruits. Underlying this idea, Owen also condemns the society as a whole, as he attempts to use this example to criticise how the society at that time only cared about the numbers of those fighting, rather than the humanistic perspective of each individual young man, and the everlasting impact on their lives. Moreover, Owen deliberately spares the use of personal names here. The protagonist is only referred to “he”, rather than given a name. This parallels with the previously suggest idea regarding the fact that the recruitment officers did not take individuals into account, and that they were only concerned about the numbers of soldiers on the battlefields.
...nd embarrassed with their true desires not to fight. There is no freewill at this point because they feel obligated to be the patriotic men. They are confused not knowing the reason for this war but that it is “to stop the Communists, plain and simple” (O’Brien 45). Unfortunately is it not plain and simple, even a million words would not be able to express the experiences that these young men endure. Unlike the Lone Ranger, the soldiers would rather flee due to the natural human instincts toward a dangerous situation. Yet, they suppress their true feelings and fight with all they have. As we can see, the ones that fight to help people that they hardly know are indeed the regular, normal, and everyday human beings. With this in mind, we cannot count on the Lone Ranger to come to the rescue; rather, the heroes are right before our eyes. They are an “everyman.”