Metis was the Greek god of wisdom and or prudence
mètis was also the Greek word for a quality that combined wisdom and cunning, In an age of corrupt governments and unreliable media this qualities are becoming necessary this blog is designed to make a place that people can share thare wisdom and knowledge. A place to let those who are willing to find the truth.
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
Ok. Here is my roughroughrough draft. It's basically me attempting to free write because I didn't feel like making an outline, even though I need to make one to submit. It should be easier to write an outline after you have the rough draft, right? :) So since it's my first random scribblings, the brackets are notes to add details and check my facts. Tell me: what needs more elaboration? What needs to be taken out? What other stuff could I add (it's looking really short)? What other sources or views would you incorporate? Anything else to get the wheels in my brain turning :) Thanks for your thoughts!
Okay, here tis:
[untitled essay]
During the Korean War, President Truman relieved General MacArthur of his position as supreme commander in the Far East. The news hit the American public—and indeed, the world—like the newly-discovered atomic bomb. The public was outraged, and the newspapers were full of editorials decrying Truman’s action. But was the public reaction completely indicative of the American people, or was it affected by the news media? And did Truman’s action deserve such a reaction? I believe that the news media did indeed impact the reaction, and that Truman’s action did not deserve such a negative reaction.
General MacArthur was a great general—nobody would ever dispute that. His leadership, charisma, clear thinking, and ability to direct his military strategies made him an invaluable military leader through his [x years] of service. His daring Inchon landing in Korea had been just [x years] before. What reasons could a president have for firing a more-than-competent general?
There were several reasons, according to [McCullough?]. Communication between the general and Washington DC had been strained for [so long]. Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as other advisors [be specific] were increasingly concerned over MacArthur’s cavalier attitude toward instructions from Washington. [give an example] [expand on this paragraph…add more reasons]
MacArthur’s interpretation of these events was to attribute it to [incompetence?] [quote from his auto bio, etc]
Thus, in a decision that was soon known around the world, General MacArthur was fired from his position as [supreme commander in the far east?] via telegram. General Matthew Ridgeway replaced him immediately, but [what’s his name…Dutch dude] then served [for the rest of the war?].
“Well Jean, I guess we’re going home,” was MacArthur’s reaction to the news, according to Reminisces [check quote and source]. And indeed, the MacArthurs went home. They flew to Washington DC, where they were met by [JCS, state people, but not Truman]. From DC, they visited cities like Chicago and New York where the news media provided coverage of their welcome to eager observers.
The reception in Chicago on [date] was dubbed “MacArthur Day” and included a parade and a short ceremony. [a study by the Langs] analyzed MacArthur Day, specifically the news media angle. They concluded that the media coverage inaccurately portrayed the crowds as being bigger and more excited. According to the study [quote?]. The news media is very important. They can control they way a lot of people think about issues and events, and even what issues and events people hear about. Thus, the reaction by the news media had a definite impact on the way the public viewed the situation. [get reaction from Truman and describe how the media reacted]
In the Lang’s study, several discrepancies were found between the way the MacArthur Day was portrayed and how it really happed. [Summarize main points. Use a quote or 2]
[stick a good conclusion here. Media over-dramatized a tough decision. They made it appear to be a terrible catastrophe, but we survived, so it obviously wasn't. I don't even know what my main point in this essay is.]
(Just a few thoughts) you might find some interesting angles form the UN political things happening at this time. For instance I have heard that MacArthur being fired was connected to a treaty we sined That said in UN Militarily operations top general had to be chosen or approved (I don't remember which)by the Russians. I have never confirmed or dined this. I do Know that some of the polices forts on the troops during operation line backer were absolutely intolerable. For a main point you could do some thing about not taking things a face value or seeing thins from others perspective before passing judgment on them but warning agents the dangers of being manipulated by the media is good to. :) hope this gave you some Ideas.
Oh...that would be interesting. The UN was theoretically involved in the Korean War, wasn't it? How involved was it? What leadership was involved in the firing MacArthur incident?
Sorry it took me so long to comment,but the real world was being oppressive again.
The UN angle is interesting.At the time of the Korean War the Soviets were boycotting the Security council, because mainland China(communist China)was not being acknowledged as a viable member of the Security council.It was due to this fact that Security Council was able to pass Resolution 83 recommending that the United Nation signatories send troops to repel the North Koreans. If the soviets had leaned on the UN(as they invariably did),the UN would NOT have wanted a all-out war with China;for the simple fact that the Soviet Union already had a 'Far East Plan' in case they had to 'safeguard' their Chinese communist brothers. Now this is where the history books make a contradictory statements.The books say that an all-out war with China and the Soviets would have consumed both of us.I respectfully disagree. The devastation of World War 2 was only five years past.The Soviets had taken more civilian casualties than any country;they had lost an enormous amount of processing and manufacturing ability.The communist Chinese had just gotten control of the country only one year ago,and their lands were ravaged from a bloody civil war. America's power base on the other hand was unmolested,and had even grown.My belief is that we could have overpowered any of the other countries at this time,simply for the fact that we were the only people in the world with a intact/flourishing infrastructure.(of course none of these factors were known in the Americas;the Chinese's Great Leap Forward was an economic miracle,and the Soviets were equal to our power,that was what was believed back then.) Through all of that I am trying to point out that the firing of MacArthur had more to do with international pressure than any mistake of his,(not to mention that the Republicans were making noises about having MacArthur run for Presidency.)in fact I would say that he was right.
I would agree with you,Erika, in your purporting that the media indeed manipulated public affection. (unfortunately that has become more common as the Media has become more of an institution.)
Well okay,I have gone and written a whole bunch of useless stuff,but hopefully you can get some insight from this Erika.
I posted the rough draft in my first comment below...just found out that it is due tonight at midnight, instead of sometime next week like I thought. So I'm gonna be working on it tonight, and I will post it as soon as it's done!
Yes this is an authorized thread
ReplyDeleteOk. Here is my roughroughrough draft. It's basically me attempting to free write because I didn't feel like making an outline, even though I need to make one to submit. It should be easier to write an outline after you have the rough draft, right? :) So since it's my first random scribblings, the brackets are notes to add details and check my facts. Tell me: what needs more elaboration? What needs to be taken out? What other stuff could I add (it's looking really short)? What other sources or views would you incorporate? Anything else to get the wheels in my brain turning :) Thanks for your thoughts!
ReplyDeleteOkay, here tis:
[untitled essay]
During the Korean War, President Truman relieved General MacArthur of his position as supreme commander in the Far East. The news hit the American public—and indeed, the world—like the newly-discovered atomic bomb. The public was outraged, and the newspapers were full of editorials decrying Truman’s action. But was the public reaction completely indicative of the American people, or was it affected by the news media? And did Truman’s action deserve such a reaction? I believe that the news media did indeed impact the reaction, and that Truman’s action did not deserve such a negative reaction.
General MacArthur was a great general—nobody would ever dispute that. His leadership, charisma, clear thinking, and ability to direct his military strategies made him an invaluable military leader through his [x years] of service. His daring Inchon landing in Korea had been just [x years] before. What reasons could a president have for firing a more-than-competent general?
There were several reasons, according to [McCullough?]. Communication between the general and Washington DC had been strained for [so long]. Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as other advisors [be specific] were increasingly concerned over MacArthur’s cavalier attitude toward instructions from Washington. [give an example] [expand on this paragraph…add more reasons]
MacArthur’s interpretation of these events was to attribute it to [incompetence?] [quote from his auto bio, etc]
Thus, in a decision that was soon known around the world, General MacArthur was fired from his position as [supreme commander in the far east?] via telegram. General Matthew Ridgeway replaced him immediately, but [what’s his name…Dutch dude] then served [for the rest of the war?].
“Well Jean, I guess we’re going home,” was MacArthur’s reaction to the news, according to Reminisces [check quote and source]. And indeed, the MacArthurs went home. They flew to Washington DC, where they were met by [JCS, state people, but not Truman]. From DC, they visited cities like Chicago and New York where the news media provided coverage of their welcome to eager observers.
The reception in Chicago on [date] was dubbed “MacArthur Day” and included a parade and a short ceremony. [a study by the Langs] analyzed MacArthur Day, specifically the news media angle. They concluded that the media coverage inaccurately portrayed the crowds as being bigger and more excited. According to the study [quote?].
The news media is very important. They can control they way a lot of people think about issues and events, and even what issues and events people hear about. Thus, the reaction by the news media had a definite impact on the way the public viewed the situation. [get reaction from Truman and describe how the media reacted]
In the Lang’s study, several discrepancies were found between the way the MacArthur Day was portrayed and how it really happed. [Summarize main points. Use a quote or 2]
[stick a good conclusion here. Media over-dramatized a tough decision. They made it appear to be a terrible catastrophe, but we survived, so it obviously wasn't. I don't even know what my main point in this essay is.]
(Just a few thoughts)
ReplyDeleteyou might find some interesting angles form the UN political things happening at this time. For instance I have heard that MacArthur being fired was connected to a treaty we sined That said in UN Militarily operations top general had to be chosen or approved (I don't remember which)by the Russians. I have never confirmed or dined this.
I do Know that some of the polices forts on the troops during operation line backer were absolutely intolerable. For a main point you could do some thing about not taking things a face value or seeing thins from others perspective before passing judgment on them but warning agents the dangers of being manipulated by the media is good to. :)
hope this gave you some Ideas.
Oh...that would be interesting. The UN was theoretically involved in the Korean War, wasn't it? How involved was it? What leadership was involved in the firing MacArthur incident?
ReplyDeleteYep, it gave me ideas...thanks!
Good luck and best speed.
ReplyDeleteSorry it took me so long to comment,but the real world was being oppressive again.
ReplyDeleteThe UN angle is interesting.At the time of the Korean War the Soviets were boycotting the Security council, because mainland China(communist China)was not being acknowledged as a viable member of the Security council.It was due to this fact that Security Council was able to pass Resolution 83 recommending that the United Nation signatories send troops to repel the North Koreans.
If the soviets had leaned on the UN(as they invariably did),the UN would NOT have wanted a all-out war with China;for the simple fact that the Soviet Union already had a 'Far East Plan' in case they had to 'safeguard' their Chinese communist brothers.
Now this is where the history books make a contradictory statements.The books say that an all-out war with China and the Soviets would have consumed both of us.I respectfully disagree.
The devastation of World War 2 was only five years past.The Soviets had taken more civilian casualties than any country;they had lost an enormous amount of processing and manufacturing ability.The communist Chinese had just gotten control of the country only one year ago,and their lands were ravaged from a bloody civil war. America's power base on the other hand was unmolested,and had even grown.My belief is that we could have overpowered any of the other countries at this time,simply for the fact that we were the only people in the world with a intact/flourishing infrastructure.(of course none of these factors were known in the Americas;the Chinese's Great Leap Forward was an economic miracle,and the Soviets were equal to our power,that was what was believed back then.)
Through all of that I am trying to point out that the firing of MacArthur had more to do with international pressure than any mistake of his,(not to mention that the Republicans were making noises about having MacArthur run for Presidency.)in fact I would say that he was right.
I would agree with you,Erika, in your purporting that the media indeed manipulated public affection.
(unfortunately that has become more common as the Media has become more of an institution.)
Well okay,I have gone and written a whole bunch of useless stuff,but hopefully you can get some insight from this Erika.
well were is your article Erika?
ReplyDeleteI posted the rough draft in my first comment below...just found out that it is due tonight at midnight, instead of sometime next week like I thought. So I'm gonna be working on it tonight, and I will post it as soon as it's done!
ReplyDelete