In his book, The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide, Gary J. Bass depicts the horror and political nature of the massacre of East Pakistani citizens in which Nixon and Kissinger did nothing to try to prevent the deaths of thousands, instead, they keep good relations with the dictator and continued to supply Pakistan with American weaponry. Bass supports his explanations by illustrating the events using copious amounts of quotes. The author’s purpose is to clarify this confusing period and show Nixon’s role in it. The author writes in an objective tone. Bass clarifies the events surrounding the infamous genocide and reactions. Bass receives automatic ethos because of his occupation as a professor of international affairs and politics at the University of Princeton. While he does not state any of his beliefs or opinions, he builds a case against Nixon by the …show more content…
foreign policy. He claims that the U.S. government failed to “denounce the suppression of democracy… [and] atrocities. (77 and 78.) Furthermore, he emphasizes the paradox of the democratic U.S. trying to appease Pakistan by not taking any action to stop them while the totalitarian USSR sends a message to Pakistan defending democracy, condemning the bloodshed, and calling for it’s end. While discussing the “moral bankruptcy”of the U.S. government, he explains the consul’s disgust at the government’s lack of intervention in what the White House has concluded to be a “purely internal matter.” There is a noticeable shift in tone in Blood’s reports. As the consulate continued to send messages to the White House, he grows more frustrated in the lack of change in the U.S. foreign policy and changed his diction. While initially he tentatively noted that the Hindus were “undeniably [a] special focus of army brutality,” he later bluntly calls it a “genocide.”
In Blood In Blood Out is a drama directed by Taylor Hackford, and starring Damian Chapa (Miklo), Benjamin Bratt (Paco), and Jesse Borrego (Cruz), produced by Hollywood Pictures. The film was based off everyday life in East Los Angeles, from the 1970’s through the 1980’s. Damian Chapa stars as Miklo in the film, a Mexican-American who wanted to be accepted, not by his skin but for the Mexican within him. Benjamin Bratt (Paco) was the older cousin of Miklo, who learned his lesson throughout the movie and changed his ways. Jesse Borrego (Cruz) is the step-brother of Paco who was a talent artist, who ended up turning to drugs because of back problems caused by a rival gang incident.
Another strength of this book is Prochnau's treatment of the central characters. These journalists were often reviled and criticized for their caustic and searing articles about the Vietnamese situation. These popular opinions undermined the legitimacy of their work and the truthfulness of their reportage of the deterioration of South Vietnam. Prochnau's accounting of these individuals runs contrary to these opinions, and in effect, reaffirms the validity of these journalists' work. For example, the David Halberstram has often been portrayed as an antiwar hero, yet the author stated that Halberstram was quite the opposite. "But not once during his Vietnam years or well afterward, did he (Halberstram) question America's right, even her need to be there (Vietnam). His criticisms were of methods and foolishness, lying and self-delusion, of a failure to set a policy that could win."(pg 141) These depictions exonerate the image of this hardy "band of brothers."
...nure there are individuals who cultivate a positive change in the lives of the people in Sarkhan and Southeast Asia. These individuals are able to win friends for America and improve the living conditions of those who desperately need it. Unfortunately, Ambassador MacWhite failed to do the same. The full responsibility for the failure of his mission in Sarkan falls on MacWhite. Although dedicated, he was unprepared for the realities of Southeast Asia. Among all the mistakes he made, in each one he failed to start with the smaller things. He was reminded throughout his tenure both by the examples of individuals making a difference and direct suggestion from respected officials. Had he established a feeling of genuine concern for the population and a set of principles to combat the problems in Sarkhan, he may have succeeded in shaping foreign policy in the region.
[1] Watching Oliver Stone’s Nixon (1995) and the director’s earlier film JFK (1991), it is difficult to have kind thoughts about Richard Nixon. Stone’s investment in the figure of the president manifests itself in two ways: first, in the director’s fixation on Nixon as a symbol of the corrupt political landscape after President John Kennedy’s assassination, and, second, his fixation on Nixon as a symbol of a failed patriarch or an ineffective father figure who led the country into further turmoil. Stone has argued that he hoped to elicit sympathy for Nixon, but I will show that the director’s emphasis on Nixon as an epic tragedy, especially in conjunction with the Beast thesis, does not allow for sympathy or understanding of the man or his politics.
While it is unknown as to what occurred with every hostage during the crisis, one retired diplomat on a special assignment in Tehran, Robert C. Ode, kept a journal detailing his experience: “I strongly protested the violation of my diplomatic immunity, but these protests were ignored…Some students attempted to talk with us, stating how they didn’t hate Americans—only our U.S. government, President Carter, etc.” Ode’s description of his captivity and his captors beliefs led to an insight into the motives of the Iranians. This valuable source allows historians to understand that President Carter and the United States government were responsible for the Iranian hatred. However, Ode’s journal is limited in it’s credibility due to possible alterations of the story in response to fear or pain. In addition to the declared state of hate for the Carter Administration, the government’s poor decisions throughout an attempted rescue attempt of the hostages displayed the weakness of the United States. According to
David Reynolds has written and enlightening book named “From Munich to Pearl Harbor” discussing three main objectives dealing with World War II. The first of the three objectives is to provide a detailed and clear narrative story from the years between Munich to Pearl Harbor. The second of the three purposes or objectives of the book is to analyze and show how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the American people into a new perspective on international relations that were different from anything Americans had known. The last of the three objectives of the book is to show the developments between the years of 1938 through 1941. Many of these developments were very important later for the foreign policy of the United States not only during the Second World War but also during the Cold War complications with Russia and today with President Bush’s war on terror currently taking place in Iraq.
Wallace Terry has collected a wide range of stories told by twenty black Vietnam veterans. The stories are varied based on each experience; from the horrific to the heart breaking and to the glorified image of Vietnam depicted by Hollywood. Wallace Terry does not insinuate his opinion into any of the stories so that the audience can feel as if they are having a conversation with the Vietnam Veteran himself. Terry introduces the purpose of the book by stating, “ Among the 20 men who portray their war and postwar experiences in this book. I sought a representative cross section of the black combat force.”(p. XV) Although the stories in this book were not told in any specific order, many themes became prominent throughout the novel such as religion, social, and health.
This book takes place sometime during the 1960s after the Second World War. Some Germans would rather forget it ever happened than acknowledge the disgraceful events that took place during World War II “Adolf Eichmann's trial began on April 11, 1961 in Jerusalem, Israel. Eichmann was charged with 15 counts of crimes against the Jewish people, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in a hostile organization” (“Eichmann Trial”). “The 1960s saw an upsurge in civil rights and other organizations promoting freedom and equality for blacks and women” (“Social Movements and Organizations”). Along with the war on poverty during this time, a war in Vietnam progressed as well. “Unfortunately, the War on Poverty was expensive–too expensive, especially as the war in Vietnam became the government’s top priority” (“The War in Vietnam”). The war on poverty was almost completely disregarded as the war in Vietnam continued. Funding the war in Vietnam was the main priority of the American government rather than helping the poor people of America become financially stable.
...rime of Genocide." "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide. New York: Perennial, 2003. 62-63. Print.
...NATO aggression and occupation and the West’s expedient support of one or another oppressive indigenous or regional force. “The United States,” RAWA commented on this occasion, “wants the world to know that it is responsible for the establishment of order in the world and [that] nothing in the world changes without its will so it can extend its presence in the region by bringing together our enemies of different species and tightening their leashes in its hands.” The group went on to say that the United States “can create a regime that is much more mafia, dependent, corrupt, anti-people and more ridiculous than the current one in our homeland; and after the expiration date of its dirty creations, it will take each by the tail and throw them aside like mice. … These “insultingly painful games,” RAWA said, “are played with our suffering nation.…” However, they said,
After reading three separate accounts of the crisis in Angola (U.S. Senate hearings led by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a personal memoir by 1975 Assistant Secretary of State Nathaniel Davis, and a biography entitled In Search of Enemies: A CIA Story by John Stockwell), I have come to several conclusions. Although these three men all held important positions in the U.S. government, multiple contradictions exist in their chronologies of events. Of the discrepancies I found, all of them put Stockwell in opposition with Kissinger and Davis. I believe this is due to his position in the Central Intelligence Agency, where the greater availability of information was his advantage. Moreover, since all three accounts agree that the U.S. involvement was essentially a covert operation led by the CIA, I feel the account written by Stockwell was the most valid of the three.
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
The Cambodian Genocide took place from 1975 to 1979 in the Southeastern Asian country of Cambodia. The genocide was a brutal massacre that killed 1.4 to 2.2 million people, about 21% of Cambodia’s population. This essay, will discuss the history of the Cambodian genocide, specifically, what happened, the victims and the perpetrators, and the world’s response to the genocide. The Cambodian Genocide has the historical context of the Vietnam War and the country’s own civil war. During the Vietnam War, leading up to the conflicts that would contribute to the genocide, Cambodia was used as a U.S. battleground for the Vietnam War.
Hello, I am Johnny S. Mini Jr O. My full name is Johnnythonationousgorgison Secretituswannabe Minithorwannahammer Joshedreader Oheeriotiswamis but of course everybody calls me John.
until recent days. The author says that “when the Soviet tanks and troops moved into Kabul” (Wolpert 2010) and placed their puppet Amir Babrak Karmal as a ruler it was an act that alarmed the U.S. and Islamabad. But India, on the other hand, was ambivalent because of a signed “treaty of friendship with Moscow” (Wolpert 2010). After the Soviet invasion, Pakistan’s Zia, who was a fundamentalist Muslim, welcomed the four million Afghan refugees that came to Pakistan and procured them with food, shelter and arms from Islamabad’s leaders with the massive U.S. military aid and money. India knew that all these arms were aimed “to do as much damage as they possibly could to Indian Kashmir.” (Wolpert 2010) This action was of course considered as part of the Cold War that was ongoing between the U.S. and the