Analyzing both Zinns interpretation and that of Roark, et.al., it can be argued that the authors diversify their focus in interpreting this event in American history. It conveys similar and contrasting approach in synthesizing the impact of the conflict and how it has been interpreted by scholars in the field. For the part of Zinn, he saw that the occurrence of conflict resulted not only to the humiliation of the American force but also balancing the challenges of international policy with that of public sentiment.
Looking at this idea further, it can be seen that the theme promulgated by Zinn his work conveys not only the impact of U.S. policy in Vietnam but also other key elements that have helped shape the outcome of the war. This inability to extend its scope and application of power both locally and abroad have indeed contributed to the defeat of American security policies. In addition, Zinn was clear to highlight how these have been supplemented by rising national clamor and the element of miscommunication within the place of conflict (Zinn, 2005).
Seeing this, Zinns depiction of history as it portrays to the Vietnam War corresponds to the value of elaborating the circumstances that shape the onset and end of the conflict. His accounts portray numerous factors that have been influential to its development and determined which all the actors that played an important part for its development and conclusion accordingly.
On the other hand, Roark et.al, definition of the Vietnam conflict revolved around establishing a timeline and associated themes. These themes then coincided with a particular trend shaping both local and international politics. Such dynamics then highlighted more of an analogy rather than incorporating interpretations for these events accordingly. Given these, their account of history is rather objective compared to Zinns work that seeks to illustrate a particular stance concerning what happened in Vietnam.
Similarly, there is also the trend towards finding the appropriate direction in allowing readers to make their interpretations accordingly. Rather than leading the readers to their specific goal and purpose, Roark et.al, elaborates on key issues happening in both the U.S. and Vietnam and allowed viewers to comprehend on what factors have either caused U.S. defeat or victory. These dynamics in turn instituted better and effective patterns of extending and responding towards available information.
Like Zinn, Roark et.al, also pointed out important actors and events that have helped shaped the conflict. It can be argued that it is their way of extending the relevance of these principles and provide a holistic interpretation of what really transpired and what affected the escalation of conflict in Vietnam. Seeing this, the point of divergence between the two texts corresponds to establishing the timeline accordingly and differentiating each one according to themes the idea explored and provided by Roark, Johnson and Cohen in their article.
In the end, the two texts indeed provide a different outlook in the Vietnam War. Though they may have varying styles in portraying this event, they share the same capacity to extinguish popular patterns of allowing readers to effectively analyze the context of the war in different spheres of thinking. It is through this that they can gain a thorough and concrete understanding of the event that transpired.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment