Hijacking The Good War Analysis
Journal Article Critique-“The Presence of the Present: Hijacking ‘The Good War’?” In the journal article critique “The Presence of the Present: Hijacking ‘Hijacking ‘The Good War’?” the authors, V. William Balthrop, Carole Blair, and Neil Michel, critique the WWII Memorial, which was opened up to the public in 2004. They state clearly in their thesis that “[They] contend that the Memorial’s rhetoric affirms contemporary U.S. imperialism under the revered sign of World War II, ‘speaking’ more about the present than about the past. [They] argue that this interpretation forwards important issues for memory studies, about assessing the ethical and political legitimacy of particular renditions of the past in the present”(Balthrop, Blari, Michel
…show more content…
Although they didn’t us a multitude of rhetorical theories to support their critique (or at least that I could see), they made a strong case for why one must look at the present and the rhetoric of the dedication ceremony to understand the monument. From the lack of foreign speakers helping to interpret the lack of any real mention to the other nations that fought in the war, showing how America was at odds with many of its western allies over the Iraq War at the time, to the symbolism of America as an imperialist empire policing and ruling the world with the imposing emotionless memorial standing above the waters symbolizing the world. Not to mention the fact that George Bush was running for reelection that year with an ever-decreasing popularity, and somehow his name appears blatantly described on the memorial in obvious and clear sight. One of the most profound points made by the authors though, or the one I was most shocked to have pointed out, was how the government at the time under the Bush presidency, tried to use the dedication ceremony of the WWII Memorial to compare the War on Terror to WWII, by calling it “the good fight” just like WWII, making comparisons to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 along with others, blatantly turning the whole event into one big government propaganda campaign, thus in a way sullying the WWII effort as a whole by trying to bring it on the same level as the War on Terror. This list of all the ways the symbolism of the monument connect to the dedication ceremony and the present time are seemingly endless. The structure of the article was definitely one of the strong points as well. Even though the article was on the long side, the structuring of the article made it easy for the reader to clearly separate arguments, and seemed to divide the
Although they didn’t us a multitude of rhetorical theories to support their critique (or at least that I could see), they made a strong case for why one must look at the present and the rhetoric of the dedication ceremony to understand the monument. From the lack of foreign speakers helping to interpret the lack of any real mention to the other nations that fought in the war, showing how America was at odds with many of its western allies over the Iraq War at the time, to the symbolism of America as an imperialist empire policing and ruling the world with the imposing emotionless memorial standing above the waters symbolizing the world. Not to mention the fact that George Bush was running for reelection that year with an ever-decreasing popularity, and somehow his name appears blatantly described on the memorial in obvious and clear sight. One of the most profound points made by the authors though, or the one I was most shocked to have pointed out, was how the government at the time under the Bush presidency, tried to use the dedication ceremony of the WWII Memorial to compare the War on Terror to WWII, by calling it “the good fight” just like WWII, making comparisons to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 along with others, blatantly turning the whole event into one big government propaganda campaign, thus in a way sullying the WWII effort as a whole by trying to bring it on the same level as the War on Terror. This list of all the ways the symbolism of the monument connect to the dedication ceremony and the present time are seemingly endless. The structure of the article was definitely one of the strong points as well. Even though the article was on the long side, the structuring of the article made it easy for the reader to clearly separate arguments, and seemed to divide the