Samples of Excellence

Click below for samples of excellent writing from history and humanities students at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.

Sample Reader Response Papers: for History 300, Spring 1998, War and Twentieth-Century American Society, Professor Paul Harvey

Elizabeth Curtiss, "Silence: The Chinese American Defense," paper prepared for Prof. Christopher Hill, Asian American History, Fall 1997. Good example of short (3-5 pp.) critical essay on a major text. An examination ofMaxine Hong Kingston's Woman Warrior.

Rob Culbert, "An Analysis of Leonard Moore's Citizen Klansmen"
Good example of short (3.5 pp.) analytical review of a controversial text. Paper demonstrates how to fairly summarize an argument while also challenging the central contentions of the argument.

Pam Cowen, "A Review of Sarah Deutch's No Separate Refuge: Culture, Class, and Gender on a Frontier in the American Southwest, prepared for Professor Paul Harvey, Hist. 666, Readings in Gilded Age and Progressive Era America, Graduate Readings Seminary, Fall 1997. Good example of a short (750 word) book review of a scholarly monograph. Using a highly professional writing style, the author details, analyzes, and assesses the major arguments of a scholarly text.

John Holtz, "Musui's Story," paper prepared for Christopher Hill, History 112, History of Japan, Fall 1997, UCCS. Good example of a short (3-5 pp.) review and analysis of a major historical source. The author explains the context and significance of an autobiography of a Japanese samurai.

Ladonna Gunn, "The Mythical American West on the Internet," prepared for Prof. Paul Harvey's Popular Culture in Twentieth Century America class, Spring 1997. A fine example of a "review essay" on Websites on a particular topic, showing how the resources of the Web tend to reinforce a certain older notion of the history of the American West which has long since been rejected by scholars.

Sally Johnson, comparative review of Nicholas Lemann's The Promised Land: The Great Black Migration and How It Changed America, and Jacqueline Jones, Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work and Family from Slavery to the Present. Prepared for Prof. Paul Harvey, African American History from the Civil War to the Present, History 300, Spring 1997. An excellent extended review essay of two major works in a field, showing how to elucidate the major themes of the books while also providing a critique of  both.

 Paul Harvey, "Sweet Homes, Sacred Blues, Regional Identities: Studying Religion, Race, and Culture in the American South." Article prepared for Religious Studies Review, Summer 1997 issue. Sample of how to do an extended review essay on multiple works in a field.

 SAMPLES OF EXCELLENCE FROM HISTORY 666, FALL-SPRING 1997-98:
Model research essays from Graduate Students in History at UCCS. Link includes both bibliographic essays for the fall semester and article-length research essays for the spring.

Student Web Projects

Perceptions of War

During the last century, America has been involved in many military crusades. The experiences of American soldiers who served in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and even the Persian Gulf War vary widely as perceptions of war arise out of myriad factors. Not only time and place but also the type of military strategies employed clearly have an impact on soldiers' wartime experiences. Furthermore, central questions, such as why are we here? and what do we hope to accomplish? intuitively affect long-lasting attitudes and emotions attributable to war environments. How did American soldiers react to their experiences in WWI, WWII, and Vietnam? David Kennedy, John Dower, and George Herring present compelling arguments regarding the effect of war on American soldiers. Was WWI really a "Grand Adventure?" Did racial hatred mobilize American soldiers in the Pacific theater? And Vietnam--disillusionment from the outset? By comparing and contrasting the basis of these arguments through an analysis of America's entry into each war, the purpose and nature of each war, and the length of involvement, it becomes apparent that the unique circumstances of WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War contributed to very different experiences for American soldiers and thus directly impacted their diverse conclusions about war in the twentieth century.

One of the ways to examine impressions of war is through personal narratives of soldiers in the field. Publications of diaries, memoirs, and autobiographies disseminate ideas and experiences to the general public; moreover, in popular culture, literature and movies frequently reflect these personal interpretations. Of course, it is impossible not to generalize about soldiers' attitudes and conclusions, nonetheless, generalizations allow historians and other scholars to make inferences about past attitudes, beliefs, and values. By using multiple genres, Kennedy identifies several outstanding characteristics that defined WWI experiences for American soldiers. Although America's entry into the war followed several years of acrimonious debates, soldiers who ended up in Europe had a clear sense of purpose based on President Wilson's moral platform. Ending the isolationist tradition, Wilson resolved to protect the rights of democracy and its inherent moral superiority by supporting European allies. Even though the war had been raging for several years, the Allies welcomed American reinforcements. Significantly, America's late entry into the war directly impacted fresh-faced American soldiers who arrived in Europe as champions of democracy. They did not labor under the sense of disillusionment that often accompanies war; consequently, WWI "experience[s] struck nearly all of them as an extraordinary moment in their lives--while they passed through it, and when they later remembered it." Like so many of his comrades, Alan Seeger, an American member of the French Foreign Legion, wrote prolifically, carefully recording not only his experiences but also his feelings. Deeply devoted to the WWI cause and imbued with the sense that he is on a noble mission, Seeger explains, "I hope you see the thing as I do . . . in taking upon my shoulders, too, the burden that much of humanity is suffering under and, rather than stand ingloriously aside when the opportunity was given me, [I am] doing my share for the side that I think right. . . ." Seeger's thoughts represent voices of many doughboys who believed in the primary purpose of the Great War--securing democracy.

Due to the unique nature of WWI, where trench warfare was the norm, American soldiers did not typically engage in hand-to-hand combat. Separated by fields and meadows, trench warfare dictated military strategies. Expecting to find glory on the battlefield like veterans from previous wars, soldiers' experienced helplessness and disillusionment over the nature of war in Europe. Seeger writes, "Continually under the fire of the opposing batteries, [the common soldier] is yet never allowed to get a glimpse of the enemy. Exposed to all the dangers of war, but with none of its enthusiasms or splendid élan, he is condemned to sit like an animal in its burrow and hear the shells whistle over his head. . . ." America's late entry into the war, the long delays in moving to the front, and trench warfare frustrated soldiers who were committed to the cause and so very eager to move to the front lines. Yet, despite widespread frustration, these components directly impacted the wartime perceptions of American soldiers because involvement on the front lines was limited, thereby significantly reducing the amount of time engaged in bloody conflicts. "Long idle behind the lines, and then only briefly exposed to battle, the great mass of the American soldiers in France were spectators in the theater of war." Instead of continual, direct contact with the enemy, soldiers watched and waited as the war unfolded in front of them, which directly reduced the number of American casualties. Thus, imagining themselves as instruments of victory and removed from the mind-numbing realities of a long war, soldiers defined the Great War through romantic imagery that pervaded American culture.

Multiple factors contributed to the tendency to romanticize their experiences, and for most soldiers, WWI represented a wonderful opportunity to defend democracy and enjoy new adventures while traveling in unfamiliar places. Approaching war with a heightened sense of purpose, Seeger recounts "how thrilling it will be tomorrow and the following days, marching toward the front with the noise of battle growing continually louder before us." Moreover, beautiful landscapes and Old World buildings captured the attention of American soldiers who were otherwise unoccupied with the realities of war. "In countless diaries and letters the soldiers dwelt on the quaint antiquity of this town, or that church or chateau, their imaginations especially fired by the evocation of names from the history books." The persistence of this theme also extends to the soldiers' enrapture with their natural surroundings. Making numerous references in his diary and letters, Seeger clearly expresses the sense of romanticism and wonder that fill him: "I shall never forget the beauty of this winter landscape, the delicate skies, the little villages under their smoking roofs. Am feeling perfectly happy and contented." Although not all servicemen expressed themselves in the same manner, Seeger's experiences allow readers to make general conclusions about the impact of WWI on American soldiers.

Symbolizing a rather carefree, wondrous time of a solder's life, far removed from day-to-day responsibilities at home, WWI also offered American soldiers a unique opportunity to live up to the heroic expectations of the old guard while embarking on a moral crusade to save Europe from tyrants. United by a common cause, American soldiers saw limited action that ultimately preserved their sense of idealism and romanticized concepts of war. "The winter in the trenches was certainly hard, but it is already far enough away for the miseries to fade out of the picture, and for the rest to become tinged with the iridescence of romance." Undoubtedly, the horrors of war manifest themselves in myriad ways; however, the prevailing perceptions of WWI remained positive as, for the most part, American soldiers reveled in their wartime experiences.

The sense of unity found in America's involvement in WWI repeated itself in WWII even though American soldiers entered the war under different circumstances. With the conflagration in Europe spreading, America's involvement came immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor. United by a sense of moral outrage against an easily identifiable enemy, Americans joined the fray with an unfailing determination to win, to win security for the American (and Western) way of life. Michael Sherry asserts, "Most Americans remembered the war as involving an almost universal experience of unity and common purpose." As Americans fought for the "Four Freedoms," they demonstrated a sense of unity similar to the commitments made in WWI; indeed, "Allied leaders rallied their people under the banner of combating tyranny and oppression and defending an ideal moral order. . . ." Knowing that their lives would be on the line, American soldiers again expressed their dedication to America's ideals by enlisting in military service. Even though a strong sense of unity existed--that the war must be won because it was right--there remained an underlying sense of vagueness about why Americans fought, partly due to the multiple causes, belligerents, and fronts of WWII. Former rifleman Leon Standifer explains that soldiers believed Hitler had to be stopped "but it was secondary to the fundamental motivation. We were ready to fight (in the abstract) because our country was in trouble." Lacking the "mobilization of emotion" common to WWI, Sherry suggests that "it was worrisome that the average veteran 'saw the war as a vague conspiracy conceived by men of whom he knew nothing and motivated by forces of which he had no comprehension.'" However, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, vagueness of purpose gave way to unity as time and place changed the nature of war and, more importantly, attitudes and perceptions about America's enemies.

Now committed to subduing the Japanese, American soldiers embarked on a campaign to eliminate the Asian threat. Dower argues that race and war became inextricably linked in the Pacific theater as Western Allies used sophisticated propaganda techniques to "substantiate the belief that the Japanese were a uniquely contemptible and formidable foe who deserved no mercy and virtually demanded extermination." Extending beyond the unflattering images of the enemy that stereotyped Germans, Japanese images were especially hateful, virulent, and dehumanizing. Furthermore, propaganda directed against the Japanese contained rhetoric that included the entire race rather than focusing on the actual combatants. Asserting that racial hatred revealed itself in the Pacific war as it took on an excessively brutal nature, Dower writes, "It was a common observation among Western war correspondents that the fighting in the Pacific was more savage than in the European theater. Kill or be killed. No quarter, no surrender. Take no prisoners. Fight to the bitter end. These were everyday words in the combat areas. . . ." Thus, racist imagery and perceptions of racial inferiority that demeaned the Japanese race not only pervaded American culture but also military strategies, thereby directly affecting soldiers' experiences in that war in the Pacific theater became exceptionally horrific.

Island warfare is another critical factor that contributed to the brutal nature of war in the Pacific. Certainly the war raging across Europe produced millions of casualties and untold atrocities, yet the topography allowed for retreat and restaging of military charges. In the Pacific, islands were either conquered or lost. Engaging in fierce combat and deploying the latest technological advances--bombs, American soldiers remained committed to the war as "animosity was stoked by the viciousness of fighting on Pacific islands where no retreat was possible [and] by revelations carefully timed by the American government about Japanese atrocities against American POWs. . . ." Although WWI relied on the "mobilization of emotions" to unite Americans, government involvement in the dissemination of propaganda, albeit vigorous and pervasive, was also fairly unsophisticated. In WWII, the government took an even more active role in spreading propaganda to sustain the emotions of Americans who supported the war effort, and, in each of these wars, the government role affected the attitudes and perceptions of American soldiers in the field.

Comparing the length of involvement in WWII with that of WWI reveals another component that contributed to different interpretations of war experiences. As addressed above, soldiers in WWI retained their sense of adventure and romanticism partly due to their limited time on the battlefields. This did not hold true for WWII soldiers; it was not months of battle but years. Long campaigns clearly took their toll on soldiers in the field as they endured years of war. No longer sustained by a sense of adventure but persevering nonetheless American soldiers pressed on--out of duty and loyalty to America. War correspondent Ernie Pyle explains:

A soldier who has been a long time in the line does have a look in his eyes that anyone who knows about it can discern--it is a look that is a display room for what lies behind it; Exhaustion, lack of sleep, tension for too long, weariness that is too great, fear beyond fear, misery to the point of numbness, and a look of surpassing indifference to anything anybody can do.

To draw conclusions about the impact of war on American soldiers is to again generalize. The long-standing attitudes that glorified war ended as "Americans who wrote about combat in World War II expressed a keener sense of the mindless, anonymous nature of war than had the soldiers of World War I." Personal narratives affirm these changes, and infantryman Bruce Zorns, in a letter to his wife, succinctly expresses his disillusionment: "There is no peace on the earth this Christmas Eve--only war. Nearly every nation on earth is fighting some other nation or nations. I do not and I cannot understand the insanity of it all." Nevertheless, soldiers consistently displayed their overall commitment to the ideals of democracy and loyalty to America through their tireless resolve to win the war. Following years of combat, overt racism, and the loss of idealism, American soldiers emerged from WWII combat victorious and with a clear sense of purpose intact as Western dominance assured the defeat of the Axis powers. Ultimately, their experiences perpetuated the strength and sovereignty of American and Western principles even though soldiers no longer regarded war as a great adventure.

WWI and WWII represent periods of involvement wherein American soldiers entered these wars with an overriding sense of unity, sparked by moral idealism and super patriotism. Unquestionably, the outcome of each war had worldwide implications that affected the perceptions of all combatants. Moreover, widespread public support for America's involvement in both WWI and WWII formed an integral part of how soldiers interpreted their experiences. With enthusiastic support from the general public, American soldiers embarked on innumerable missions with a profound sense of purpose. However, if one takes a giant step forward, the sense of unity, purpose, and idealism that provided the foundation for soldiers' experiences in past wars comes crashing down when considering the impact of the Vietnam War on American soldiers in 1960s and 1970s. The Vietnam era embodies a time in American history when the utter irrationality of U.S. involvement in a civil war in Southeast Asia forever changed the perceptions of not only American soldiers but also the American public regarding the nature and purpose of war and America's role in world affairs.

From the outset, the differences between America's presence in Vietnam and the European conflicts defy a simplistic explanation. Unlike the unifying experiences of moral idealism and Pearl Harbor, America's involvement in Vietnam gradually escalated without a widely accepted, definitive purpose. Yes, American advisors believed American soldiers must secure and stabilize the area to protect the world from the spread of communism. Nonetheless, that goal, admirable as it may have been, did not provide a single unifying experience for Americans that conveyed a sense of urgency thus requiring the presence of American soldiers in unfamiliar places far from home. Despite myriad uncertainties and ambiguous, ill-defined objectives, President Johnson "authorized a major commitment of ground forces and a new strategy for their deployment." This fateful decision signaled the beginning of an intensive military campaign in the jungles of Southeast Asia.

As seen in previous wars, similar psychological factors, such as patriotism and a prevailing sense of loyalty to America, provided the foundation for soldiers' initial attitudes about war. Infantry soldier Samuel Vance confirms, "Now it's my turn to help the nation. It's also my turn to offer my life in its defense." The optimistic expectations of engaging in a winnable war and all the inherent glory found in past wartime experiences disappeared as soldiers realized that a "political war" was vastly different from previous moral wars fought against easily identifiable belligerents. Caught in this unbridgeable chasm, American soldiers were thrust into untenable situations. Without clear objectives, "soldiers in Vietnam were often particularly sensitive to the absurdity of their actions and the loneliness of risking one's life for no obviously valuable end." Even traditional war strategies did not apply as Vietnam was not about conquering an enemy for complete control of the land; American soldiers were there, ostensibly, to support the South Vietnamese government. Furthermore, growing up in a technological age with movies that romanticized war, soldiers believed in the heroism of characters like John Wayne who, in popular culture, embodied the American fighting spirit. However, "The war in Vietnam was so unlike the war most soldiers expected. . . . [It] was no John Wayne movie, no heroic landings on enemy-held shores or daring charges up enemy-controlled mountains to plant the American flag." Indeed, as Vance stepped off the transport ship that carried him to Vietnam, he realized, "This was going to be a hell of a country to fight in, especially in a war we had been taught had to be fought like a cat trying to catch a bird in the grass." In this context, American soldiers and the American public had their perceptions of war shaped and defined by popular culture and romanticized imagery of the past, but the realities of Vietnam immediately confronted these beliefs and, for those in the field, disillusionment and distress set in.

As in previous wars, topography and the nature of combat directly impacted the soldiers' interpretations of war. Jungle warfare, extensive bombing runs, and, most significantly, sniper attacks characterized the nature of war in Vietnam. Although some American soldiers commented on the beautiful scenery and Vietnam's "postcard-like loveliness," there were no romantic illusions about the celebrated nature of war. In My Lai, James Olson and Randy Roberts report, "Instead of reliving the glorious engagements of World War II, ground troops in Vietnam spent days trudging through rice paddies, where the mud sucked at their feet, or through jungles, where heat and a fog of flies and mosquitoes made every moment uncomfortable." Soldiers in Vietnam did not march through rolling hills of verdant splendor nor did they charge exotic islands and "plant the American flag"; they crept, for years, through dense jungles forever on the lookout for land mines and the carefully hidden enemy. Frustrated by unproductive searches for the illusive enemy, American soldiers often felt defeated by the odds stacked against them and the little progress they made in securing South Vietnam. Vance's sense of disenchantment is obvious in the following passage: "We didn't make many contacts on our sweeps, but we had to fight the terrain and the climate every day. Hot sun, thick jungle, red ants, monsoon rains, mud up to our waists, these things picked away at us every waking moment." Topography again defined the nature of war as it did in the Pacific theater and WWI, and in Southeast Asia, the inability to clearly identify the enemy proved an unbeatable obstacle that directly affected American soldiers and their perceptions of war in Vietnam.

The inherent nature of war involves two or more combatants; consequently, at the heart of every war there is an enemy that must be defeated. In past wars identification of the enemy readily occurred thus American soldiers knew, without a doubt, whom they were fighting. In Vietnam, however, America's involvement in a civil war meant that allies and enemies shared similar physical characteristics and manners of dress. In this environment, soldiers faced possible belligerence from every quarter. If one is in a war to uphold the ideals of democracy, there has to be an enemy, but who is it? Faced with uncertainty and omnipresent threats, American soldiers concluded that all Vietnamese represented combatants. Despite U.S. initiatives committed to assisting South Vietnam, "for hundreds of thousands of American soldiers it was clearly a world of 'us' and 'them.'" The romantic illusions of war and its noble cause shattered as unconventional warfare, ambiguous policies, and an indistinguishable enemy prohibited victory in Vietnam.

Conditions in America exacerbated the difficulties endured by American soldiers. Well-publicized anti-war demonstrations in America over its involvement in Vietnam undermined public support for American troops. Already unpopular with a very vocal minority, Vietnam represented all that was dishonest about American institutions when the depth of America's involvement was finally revealed to the general public. Soldiers now had to fight a war with two fronts, in Southeast Asia and in America. Unable to justify their presence and purpose in Vietnam, soldiers who returned to America came back without a victory; good did not triumph over evil because the war remained unfinished--unwinnable. This caused tremendous problems for veterans who could not readily assimilate back into mainstream America. In the past, American's welcomed war veterans by upholding the innate value of their involvement and ultimate purpose of the war. In this acceptance, a soldier "'can connect his own actions with ultimately humane principles, and can come to feel that he had performed a dirty, but necessary, job.'" This did not happen for Vietnam veterans. Despised and denigrated, soldiers defined their experiences as a waste--a waste of inhumane proportions. "Indeed, many veterans returned bitter that their 'government's commitment was less than wholehearted, and that their lives and those of their friends were being wasted.'" The sense of unity and purpose that had shaped the meaning of war for American soldiers in WWI and WWII dissolved into a sense of purposelessness and disillusionment that continues to permeate perceptions of war for Vietnam veterans. Herring summarizes the ramifications of America's failure to prevail in Vietnam: "Vietnam's greatest impact was in the realm of the spirit. As no other event in the nation's history, it challenged Americans' traditional beliefs about themselves, the notion that in their relations with other people they have generally acted with benevolence, the idea that nothing is beyond reach." No single group in America felt the loss of America's innocence and optimistic spirit more keenly than Vietnam veterans.

Perceptions of war--irrefutably affected by time, place, and purpose. By examining these interrelated components, it becomes clear that each war had its own unique set of circumstances. In these situations, the impact of war on American soldiers was indelibly shaped by multiple factors and the resulting interpretations of war illuminate these differences. World War I, with America's limited involvement, represents a time of adventure and excitement in a country far from home. In World War II, racism defined the nature of war; nonetheless, clear objectives and ultimate victory preserved the fighting spirit of Americans. Conversely, the failure to win in Vietnam and all its interwoven complexities failed to sustain the romantic imagery of past wartime experiences. David Kennedy, John Dower, and George Herring present conclusive evidence that the impact of war on American soldiers is determined by multiple factors and that no war situation truly repeats previous conflicts. Even though each war begins with certain expectations, new conclusions result as the nature of war is redefined. Although similarities exist in every war, the distinctive experiences endured by American soldiers is revealed through eloquent voices of the past. Separated by time, place, and purpose, the unique nature of World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War profoundly impacted the diverse perceptions of war when American soldiers, who served their country with honor and loyalty, interpreted their war experiences.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dower, John W. War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War. New York: Pantheon Books, 1986.

Herring, George C. America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975, 3d. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1996.

Kennedy, David M. Over Here: The First World War and American Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Lifton, Robert Jay. Home from the War: Vietnam Veterans, Neither Victims nor Executioners. New York: Basic Books, 1985. Quoted in D. Michael Shafer, ed. The Legacy: The Vietnam War in the American Imagination. Boston: Beacon Press, 1990.

Olson, James S. and Randy Roberts. My Lai: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford Books, 1998.

Pyle, Ernie. Quoted in Bruce C. Zorns, I Walk Through the Valley: A World War II Infantryman's Memoir of War, Imprisonment and Love. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1990.

Seeger, Alan. Letters and Diary of Alan Seeger. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1917.

Shafer, D. Michael, ed. The Legacy: The Vietnam War in the American Imagination. Boston: Beacon Press, 1990.

Sherry, Michael S. In the Shadow of War: The United States Since the 1930s. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Standifer, Leon C. Not In Vain: A Rifleman Remembers World War II. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1992.

Vance, Samuel. The Courageous and the Proud. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1970.

Zorns, Bruce C. I Walk Through the Valley: A World War II Infantryman's Memoir of War, Imprisonment and Love. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1990.