Blog #47 - Oral Interview about 9/11/01

Next Monday, we will commemorate the 22nd anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history.  Many adults remember where they were when they first heard about this traumatizing event and have vivid memories of watching the events unfold.  But since you were born after the attacks, you’ve only heard about it in stories and learned about it through videos.  However, one of the ways historians learn about recent events that they haven’t lived through is through oral interviews of people who lived through the events either directly or indirectly.

Link to digital exhibitions for the 9/11 Memorial and Museum found here: https://www.911memorial.org/learn/resources/digital-exhibitions 

Subject: The 9/11/01 terrorist attacks and the days afterwards.

Interviewee: A person preferably aged 30 or above.  

Suggested equipment: paper and pen or pencil for notes; suggest that you use a phone to record the interview.

Procedure:

1. Get permission to take notes / record interview.
2. You can use the questions below or add more / different questions – try to make questions that elicit more than a “yes” or “no” answer. You can always ask follow-up questions for clarification, explanation.
3. Keep eye contact, nod and smile at appropriate times.
4. Thank them for their time after you’re done. Also, ask them if they’d like a written transcript of the interview. Provide them w/ one if they say yes.  (For this assignment, you can direct them to the blog website: grovesapush.edublogs.org).

Potential questions

1. What is your name? How old were you on 9/11?
2. What is your first memory of when you first heard about the attacks? What kind of conclusions did you come to about the planes crashing into the buildings (did you at first think it was an accident or was it something worse)? Why?
3. Where were you when the attacks happened? What were other peoples’ reactions to the attacks?
4. Have you ever been to New York City or Washington D.C.? If so, how did that affect your reactions to the attacks?  If not, how did the attacks alter / change your views of the cities and their inhabitants?
5. Did you know anyone in the cities? If so, did you try to contact them to see if they were o.k.?  What was the conversation like?
6. If you were stranded in another city after 9/11, how did you cope with being away from family?
7. What were other peoples’ reactions like in the days after the attacks?
8. Could you describe your most vivid memory of that day, 9/11?
9. How did life change for you in the immediate aftermath of the attacks?
10. What do you remember of the media coverage of the attacks?
11. What did you think of President Bush’s address later that night? (Show them the transcript here or video below.)
12. How did life change for you and your family in the weeks and months immediately after 9/11?
13. What are your opinions about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?  Explain.
14. Now that it’s been over 20 years since the attack, how do you think America has changed since that day?  Why?  Has America stayed the same since then?  In what ways?  

Your job:

Share a minimum of five questions and answers on Blog #47 (300 words minimum) and include your personal reaction to the interview and the shared memories of 9/11/01 (100 minimum).  If you interview more than one person for this blog, please indicate the persons’ names.

Blog due by Tuesday, Sept. 12 by class.

Link to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum interactive timeline of events – https://timeline.911memorial.org/#FrontPage

Learn more about the 9/11 attacks, what came before, survivors' stories, the clean-up, and the debate over how to commemorate the attacks and honor the victims -  - https://www.911memorial.org/learn/resources/911-primer

Blog #32 - Vietnam Debate Blog

This week, we debated America's fate in 1965 - should America escalate the war in Vietnam or withdraw?  There were several nuanced options within the debate: 1. Escalate fully; 2. Escalate slowly and control the risks; 3. Withdraw slowly, negotiate and provide aid to SV; 4. Pull out completely. 

Each option stated their main points vigorously and defended them well.  When the votes came in, 2nd hour had a tie between option 2 and 3; 3rd hour had a tie between option 1 and 2.  Interestingly enough, option 4, the pull-out of Vietnam now choice, only received a couple of votes in each class (but not for lack of trying).  I don't know if this is b/c of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the backlash vs. an Iraq pullout.  But well done to all involved. 

In the film, Fog of War, that we've been watching recently, former Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara asked the following question when reflecting thing when analyzing America's use of chemical weapons like Agent Orange on Vietnam to defoliate the jungles and make it "easier" for our soldiers to fight and win against the Viet Cong. 

"How much evil must we do in order to do good?"
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara

A couple things to consider when answering this question:  if we're doing evil in order to do good, is that good really a good thing?  If it is a good thing, then at what point do the evil means (that you are using, for instance, Agent Orange) become so heinous that it negates the good that you are doing? 

This is an optional question to answer if you feel like tackling it for 4 extra credit points. 

On a different angle, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has been exposed has having misrepresented his time during the Vietnam Era as he runs for the U.S. Senate spot in this upcoming election.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html?src=me&ref=general  It seems that some members of the Baby Boom generation, especially those who serve in the military can't really come to terms with what they did during this time period, Mr. Blumenthal included. 

When talking to a group of veterans, he talked about the "days that I served in Vietnam" when talking supporting our troops unconditionally.  He never served and actually went out of his way to obtain five deferments so that he didn't have to serve like less fortunate soldiers who didn't go to college or have connections like Blumenthal.  His father worked with the Washington Post, and somehow young Dick received the deferment 2-A, one of the most coveted deferments, which meant that his job or role was so important that he needed to stay in the U.S..  This allowed him to finish up his Harvard grad work, go to Britain for more grad work, get a job at the Post, and then worked for the Nixon White House.  Only after the war looked like it was wrapping up did Dick join the Marine Reserves. 

Former president Clinton went overseas during the war while on a Rhodes scholarship and protested the war in Britain, while George W. Bush spent his service time in a cushy Air National Guard post protecting the Alabama skies from Communists. 

Here's an article that examines why politicians lie about their war service: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/politicians-and-their-fake-war-stories/?ref=nyregion  It makes for some very fascinating reading. 

Your three questions:

1. Why do you think some of the Baby Boom generation have such a difficult time with what they had done (or not done) during the Vietnam War? 

2. Which of the four options in your class (please identify 2nd or 3rd hour) argued the best case and why?  Please include specifics.

3. Why do you think the debate was set up like this (four different views, working in teams, debate, using primary resources)?  Explain. 

18 points (+4 extra if you choose to

answer McNamara's evil/good question). 

300 words minimum - due Monday, May 24, 2010