For each question, answer the question completely using proper English and make sure to proofread! You must also respond to at least one other student post to receive full credit.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Chapter Eight-Numbering: "How Many, How Many?"
According to Faust, what were the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience? Of the two modes, which one do you agree with more? Why?
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. “Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers, against the statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals.”(264) However, irony emerged from the “almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter.”(264)
I personally agree with the sentimentality mode of understanding more. This is because I believe that the idea that irony poses, that individuals simply do not matter in mass warfare, is morally wrong. In my opinion, every individual death that occurred during the war was a tragedy. I think it is wrong to dismiss he fact that each and every man who fought and died over the course of the Civil War made the ultimate sacrifice.
Faust described the ways of understanding in two processes. The two understandings are listed as Sentimental and Irony. "the Sentimental drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death by focusing on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss."(264). Irony, on the other hand, emerged from acknowledgment of this fundamental tension, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter." (264).
I find that I agree with the idea of Sentimentality more so then the Ironic one. The Irony focused on the idea of individual deaths not truly mattering in the massive war. The lives of those taken in the war mattered. Every single one. It doesn't matter whether or not they disagreed with me, they had a live too. In this entire book you read that every life had a purpose. They should always be recognized.
I agree, that the idea of Sentimentality made more sense then Irony. Irony seemed less caring then Sentimentality. Even Faust described such an idea as 'unspeakable'. The thought of each live not mattering was unspeakable. Sentimentality taught that each life was just as important as the next. And that each contributed to outcome and gains of the war. You cant merely gloss over the death of so many men.
Faust believed in two ways that the Civil War was understood. Sentimentality emerged by realizing the importance of each individual that was lost. It was the idea that each person’s death was significant because each had his own story and ensured there was no “erasure of individuals” (264). Irony occurred when one noticed that in the heat of the battle, one loss was nothing compared to 100,000 fallen. It made each man merely a statistic, a “tally” instead of an individual. As Faust states, the United States “managed… to be at once sentimental and ironic in its treatment of the dead soldier who was simultaneously all and ‘nothing’” (264).
I agree more with the sentimental concept of war. Each man killed had a life, a family, an identity before they were killed. Such an individual loss is horrible, but realizing that hundreds of thousands of these men had stories as well makes such carnage incomprehensible. I think the sentimental understanding made one’s loss realized while an ironic understanding made one realize that thousands of others have felt that same sense of loss as well. I can relate to the sentimental ideals better, but I can also see why it was important to realize the irony of war to see the overall loss.
I agree with you- every life should be recognized. Each person was their own being. Every single loss mattered because that's the loss of an individual identity. It is important to see this war sentimentally: that there were hundreds of thousands of people killed, each who had their own purpose and goals in life. Very good way of putting it.
Larissa- Your entire statement was very well put. I especially love how you pointed out that" Each man killed had a life, a family, an identity before they were killed." This is an excellent point! Each person did have a purpose in this world, even. Excellent job!
According to Faust, two modes of understanding emerged from the Civil War experience: sentimentality and irony. "Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers." Sentimentality was the recognition of each life that had been lost. It focused on the tragedy of each casualty from the war. "Irony, by contrast, emerged from the acknowledgement of this fundamental tension." Irony looked at the big picture and how one loss, although a misfortune, was minute compared to the total of lives lost. I agree more with the sentimentality, of the two modes. Each life lost should be recognized, as Sarah pointed out. Any life lost was affecting much more than just one person. The family was affected by the loss of a loved one. The town was losing someone who probably had a job and was giving back to the community. And a part of our great country was lost. Also, in war, the men who die give everything, including their lives. Therefore if a man dies for his country then I believe that he deserves recognition.
Faust’s two modes of understanding were sentimentality and irony “Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers." "Irony, by contrast, emerged from the acknowledgement of this fundamental tension." While I believe that each soldier is important and deserves recognition the vast effect is what historians are more likely to learn from. Knowing that john smith was killed by a Minnie ball through the head matters to Smiths family. But we learn little from it. However knowing that 2,000 soldiers were killed by headshots with Minnie balls lets us know the value of an accurate and deadly round. So we have soldiers wear steel helmets from now on. John smith did teach us something but only with the help of another 1,999 men. Sentimental feels good, Irony saves lives.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience was sentimental and irony. These were the two because there was this in the book “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness.”(264). Sentimentality was one because “Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers, against the statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals.”(264). Irony was one because in the book this was said “Irony, by contrast, emerged from acknowledgment of this fundamental tension, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter.”(264). Those are the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience.
Personally I agree with the idea of sentimentality more than I do irony. I think this because the thought in my opinion that the big thing in a war is mass is ridicules. You don’t need the most mass to win you need the best strategy. I believe that it is good because when it goes against the force of numbers is good because if there are less people in the war the death tolls will be less and when there are fewer deaths it is always a good thing. Saying that all the deaths were for the cause is the wrong thing to say in my own opinion. This is why I believe in the idea of sentimentality more than I believe in the idea of irony as a bigger understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience.
I agree with your comment for this question. I agree with the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience. In both sentimental and irony were the two you picked. The two quotations you wrote were very good, in the Sentimental drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death by focusing on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss."(264) and “Irony, on the other hand, emerged from acknowledgment of this fundamental tension, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter." (264). Also I agree with you with the idea of sentimental. Saying that every single person’s life counts was a good saying. Good job.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness.” (264) This feeling of grief or sorrow came from the deaths of thousands of young men and boys who died for what they believed in. Irony was the acknowledgement of war that not every death mattered.
I would have to agree that the feeling of sentimentality was a greater mode of understanding than the irony of war. Relating back to chapter 7, if a general charged into battle, won, and lost only ten guys, he would consider that a small price to pay for a good victory. The actuality of it is that it was a large price to pay for the win. Every death counts and is very important. Even one death during a battle should have been considered a high price to pay.
Well said. You are right in saying that every soldier deserves recognition when he dies. I mean, he is giving his life for what he believes in. Doesn’t that matter? Any sacrifice made for the benefit of the country should be acknowledged in my book.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that cam out of the war were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality was gained by many. People were able to see the significance of each and every person that was lost in the course of the war. With sentimentality, each person, known or unknown, was recongnised for the bravery and risks he took by fighting in the war. Irony, on the other hand, looked at the big picture. With irony, death was seen as a whole, and not as the loss of each individual. Irony represented the grand total of deaths, and notthe parts that made up the total.
I agree more with sentimentality. Although the big picture is important, I think it is important that the little details in the picture are recognised. People were hurt by the total number of lives lost, but I think individuals were more hurt about losing a husband, father, or son. Sentimentality represented the pain that each and every person felt from the war. Irony was a little bit more of a statistic.
I agree with your beliefs. I think you put it perfectly when you said "when there are fewer deaths it is always a good thing". I also believe that it is wrong to look at all deaths as part of the cause. Some people may have a different view about this, but I feel that less death is always the better way to go. Strategy is more important, like you said.
The two modes of understanding that emerged form the Civil war were sentimentally and irony. According to Faust, sentimentality served almost as a weapon against numbers, and the homogenization and erasure of most individuals during that period of time. Irony emerged form almost unspeakable possibilities that an individual might had not actually matter.
Out of the two modes of understanding, I agree more with the sentimentally mode for understanding. Because the irony idea poses that most individuals don’t matter in a mass of warfare. Every individual’s death that had occurred during the war, was a tragic loss. It is wrong to overlook most of the men who had died because they were fighting for what they believed in.
I agree with what Nick had said. Most people overlooked most soldiers, but they don’t understand how every single soldier had died for what they believed in back in the mid 1860’s.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. To fully understand the war, citizens’ embraced these two modes used them to focus on the dead. Sentimentality was said to be served as a weapon against the force of numbers. In other words, sentimentality focused on the deaths of individuals. To set these two modes apart, irony was said to say that individually each soldier did not matter, but the deaths of many soldiers did.
I simply agree with sentimentality more. I wouldn't be able to look past every soldier's name and say they 'don't matter'. Every man's death is heartbreaking and every man should be accounted for.
I also believe that “every man's death is heartbreaking.” I can not see how someone can dismiss the pain and suffering of all those who love an individual soldier feel after his death. Despite the amount of death that was taking place during the Civil War, I think that the passing of each soldier was its own unique tragedy.
You bring up really good opinions in your second paragraph. I liked how you said that you agree with sentimentality ideas better, but you can also see the importance of the irony. I can agree with you, because both modes are very important in understanding the war. Of course all of us agree that every man's death is important. But if you look at the big picture, every man's death is included with that. The irony of it all is that each soldier's efforts are recognized when you look at the overall death numbers. Yes, there may not be a name for each person in the big number, but still, most everyone would be accounted for.
Sentimentality and irony were the two modes of understanding according to Faust. Sentimental was the focus "on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss."(264) It was about the importance of every death even in mass deaths. Irony was the belief that "the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter."(264) Irony was the focus that each death didn't matter; they were just a fraction of the total number.
I agree with the sentimental understanding more. It focused on the fact that all the soldiers who fought and died did matter. And they did. They gave their lives for their side and what they believed in so they should matter. Just because many men died does mean we should forget about them.
I agree that the sentimental understanding was better. You made a nice point when you said "It is wrong to overlook most of the men who had died because they were fighting for what they believed in." That is very true. They fought for a good reason and died for what they believed so they should be thought of as a tragic loss. Just because there were many soldiers who died in battle does not mean we should overlook them and think of them as unimportant.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were Sentimentality and Irony. "Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers, against the statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals. Irony, by contrast, emerged from acknowledgment of this fundamental tension, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter."
I agree with sentimentality because each life should matter and be important. Irony gives the idea that in mass warfare individual lives don't matter. All lives matter to someone somewhere and should be acknowledged even in mass warfare. They all fought and they all died for something that we believed in, they died for us and I believe that makes every individual very important.
Thank you for relating back to chapter 7 because that helped me get a better understanding when it was connected to something I did understand. Relating to something that was in the same book made it much easier. Going back to chapter 7 made the concept less difficult for me to write about. Thank you.
Faust believed the two processes of understanding that erupted from the Civil War were Sentimentality and Irony. An both of these processes are very different. Sentimentality recognized individual deaths rather than making those who have died forgotten. It made everyone a hero in their own way and also remebered for what they did for their nation. Irony does not recognize the indivual deaths of so many. It made all those who gave their lives seem like they weren't important at all.
I believe sentimentality was the better of the two because it recognized all who died for their nation and family. It didn't put all the deaths into one big Death.
Tanner i agree with your opinion on how all of the soldiers should have been remembered and accounted for. They all died for their nations and family, even more. And all the soldiers did matter in many ways. Also great comment on how you said even though many men died they should be remembered.
I agree with you, I think the sentimentality was better because each life meant something and was important. Each person fought for something they believed in, and they all mattered. I don't agree with irony as much because every single life that was lost mattered, and we should never forget that.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. Faust stated it "reinforced two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience. Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans' war-born consciousness." Sentimentality focused on each individual death, not completely on the "unintelligibility of mass death". It focused on "the tragedy of each loss. Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers." (page 264). Irony, however, was almost the complete opposite. It "emerged from acknowledgment of this fundamental tension, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter" (page 264).
Of the two modes, I tend to agree with sentimentality more. I can understand why irony makes sense because out of mass numbers, one in hundreds of thousands may not seem like much at all, but each life lost matters. Each and every soldier fought for their country and what they believed in, and each person should be honored for their patriotism.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were Sentimentality and Irony. "Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness."
Of the two, I agree with sentimentality because each man killed should be respected and not just classified as just another death.
I agree with you when you said that irony makes sense because out of mass numbers, one in hundreds of thousands doesn't seem like much, but each life lost matters. Each person should be honored for what they did for the country.
According to faust there were to modes of understanding that emerged. Irony and sentimentality were these two modes. Irony; "almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter.”(264)This made families worry that there son or loved one actually did not matter to the war.“Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers, against the statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals.”(264)This was a weapon for the people to believe that there lost loved one actually mattered.
I believe sentimentality to be the best mode of understanding. Because irony is saying that in war no individual matters which is hardly true. Men in war matter as much as the cause of war itself. Every man who lost their life during this war was a severe blow and trasgedy to the family and the commanders of this god awful war. These men all mattered to holding this country together and that is what they fought and died for.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. In the book Faust says “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness.”(264)Sentimentality was the grief for the hundreds of thousands of young men that died in the Civil War. Whereas irony was the “almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter.”(264)
Like many others, I have to say that I agree with sentimentality rather than irony. I understand what she is saying about how to the individual of that time not every death mattered, but to me if you give yourself, the ultimate sacrifice, on the battlefield then your life matters. Each death was important, and should forever be appreciated, honored, and remembered.
Excellent job Matt. I really liked what you said here, "if a general charged into battle, won, and lost only ten guys, he would consider that a small price to pay for a good victory." That is an excellent point, and I definitely agree that those ten lives were not a small price. Like you said each death mattered, because a death is the taking of a life, and each and every living being on earth is important. Really well done.
The two understandings that appeard as a result of the war were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality wastheunder standing of each idividual life. Each person that died was a life that mattered. Each person that met their grave left family and friends alike behind. The ironic understanding is that one death was not that mjuch compared to the total number of deaths. The soldiers became nothing but statistics. I agree with the sentimentality side because every life matters and has a meaning.
Two modes of understanding that emerged form the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality was a way of observing each death, each casualty, as a meaningful tragedy of its own. It was a way of fighting “against the force of numbers, against the statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals,” (264). Irony was acknowledging that one individual death, in the scheme of war, might not matter so much, that it was just another statistic. I agree with the concept of sentimentality wholly. A life is the existence of a human being, a life cannot be simply written off as “just another statistic” when it meets death, especially in the face of war. A soldier should be guaranteed the right to maintain his individuality, even after he meets death.
In response to jerimiah mulloy: It is true that, as you said, "every life matters and has a meaning." Every life has a family, a home, a destiny, a past, and a purpose. All of those very important aspects to someone's individuality and identity should not be written off as a statistic. To write one death off as a statistic and feel nothing of it would be ethically wrong.
The two modes of understanding the civil war were sentimentality, and irony. Sentimentality was recognizing each person that died as an individual loss, and understanding the tragedy of each death. Irony was looking at all the deaths in the civil war and realizing that one death among all of them really isn't very important in the grand sceme of things. I personally think that it was a good thing to recognize that each life lost was a tragedy, but to understand the civil war better, one would have to look at all the deaths as a whole. I agree with the irony way of understanding the civil war.
According to Faust the two modes of understanding are “the Sentimental drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death by focusing on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss."(264). These two modes of looking at death are slightly contradictory in there nature. ."It is easy to imagine one man killed; or ten men killed: or< perhaps, a score of men killed....but even..[the veteran] is unable to comprehend the dire meaning of the one hundred thousand, whose every unit represents a soldier’s bloody grave. The figures are too large".(261). I agree with parts of both the modes of understanding. One death is a tragedy, and a hundred thousand is a statistic.
In response to pstidwell I agree with everything you said in your post. We can’t learn very much by examining soldier’s deaths individually. We have to look at everything as a whole. Sure, for the Smith family, it is important to recognize how their soldier died, but for understanding the war, you have to look at the majority.
According to Faust, both of the modes of understanding that emerged from the war were 'sentimentality' and 'irony'. The Sentimental part was uncovered when the significance of each life lost in the war was acknowledged. The Irony part surfaced when the sentimental part was given thought and people realized that one individual was not of mere importance when compared to the total number of fatalities. It seemed that one out of a few hundred thousand mattered in only a diminutive way and when thought of like this his true worth appeared to diminish and it failed as it "sought to preserve the meaning of the individual amid the multitude" (264).
I agree with the mode of sentimentality more because this seemed to give each individual more importance while irony made them seem like "nothing"(264). It seems to me that after the sacrifice thses soldiers proportioned it seems unjust to think of them as merely a part of a statistic and not honor them like they deserve.
I have the same opinion about how "Even one death during a battle should have been considered a high price to pay" and agree with the fact that the general who won but lost ten of his men being wrong about considering it a small price to pay for victory. Like you said,"Every death counts and is very important.
Larissa, I agree that the sentimental mentality made more sense. I agree that every life that was given in the Civil War was important and that not one of them should be forgotten. Every man had a family that was grieving and a story. Every life was a huge sacrifice.
According to Faust, sentimentality and irony were the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience. "Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers." It's purpose was to see passed the millions of deaths and focus "on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss." (264) Irony, on the other hand, was that an individual death did not matter in the war and it was just adding to the statistics. The two modes are completely opposite of each other, but they "grew side by side in Americans' war-born consciousness."
Like others, I agree more with the sentimentality mode of understanding. I personally believe that every person matters in the world, and irony is saying that they don't. Each man who fought and died during the war tried their hardest and served their country so they deserve the honor and mourning from Americans.
I understand what you mean when you say "it was a good thing to recognize that each life lost was a tragedy, but to understand the civil war better, one would have to look at all the deaths as a whole." It does help to look at the big picture, but I think you should also honor each soldier. It seems the least they, and us could do since they sacrificed their life.
The two different modes of understanding that came from the Civil War were irony and sentimentality. “The sentimental drew its strength from…focusing on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss” (264). Irony was the concept “…that the individual might not, in the juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter” (264). The sentimentalist looked at each lost life as a tragedy and irony made one life not seem like anything.
As everyone else stated, I agree with the sentimentality. Every life that was given was a sacrifice and important. One life might not have made a big difference in the numbers and statistics, but it was enough to destroy families and shatter homes.
The two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness. The sentimental drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death by focusing on the singularity of each casualty” (264). The sentimentalists believed in the importance of every single person affected by the war. While those who believed in irony believed in the “admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter.” (264).
Although I can understand why one could see how a single death is petty and insignificant compared to over 600,000, I strongly agree with the sentimentalists more. They recognized soldiers for the heroes they were. Charles Lewis said it perfectly, that ‘Had a million been slain, it would have been only one in a million homes.’(264).
I agree with your statement that “Every individual’s death that had occurred during the war was a tragic loss.” How could any human being not care about human life when they and their family are also living? Even with hundreds of thousands dead, every single death is a horrible misfortune.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that grew from the Civil War were sentimentality and irony. She supports this by writing "the sentimental drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibly of mass death," (264). The sentimentality considered each death in the war a tragedy. Sentimentality helped fight against "the force of numbers... the statistical homogenization and the erasure of individuals,"(264). Irony, focused on the "possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter,"(264).
I agree more with sentimentality. It is hard for me to say that each individual soldier didn't matter. To say that, is almost disrespectful to each soldier. On the other hand, sentimentality honored all the sacrifices a soldier made. It's easy to say most soldiers did not make a difference, but their death had such a large effect on families and towns everywhere.
The modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were "sentimentality" and "irony". "Sentimental drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death by focusing on the singularity of each casualty, the tradegy of each loss"(264)." So sentimental understands every single death. Irony, on the other hand, doesn't acknowledge a single death. This type of understanding looks at each death as if it doesn't matter. They just look if they are winning the war.
I like sentimentality the best. I think every life matters and that every death is very tradgic.
I agree with Chris Huth. I like sentimentality over irony. It is hard for me to say too, that a life doesn't matter. I like the statement that Chris makes, "Sentimentality honored all the sacrifices a soldier made."
Faust categorizes understanding into two modes of understanding that grew from the Civil war, sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality is the belief that every life loosed is a tragedy and focused on "the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death." (264) This way of understanding helped divert attention from the numbers into a more singular view. Irony on the other hand, focused on the whole rather than the individual. One life loosed matters naught of the group could succeed in fulfilling their goals so to say.
As with many others, i agree with sentimentality. I believe it is morally wrong to deem someone’s death not worthy when people are fighting for a cause. Irony ignores the effect the soldier had on his surroundings and loved one. To disregard a soldiers ultimate sacrifice greatly dishonors him.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding were sentimentality and irony. "Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers, against the statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals." (264) However, irony "emerged from the acknowledgement of this fundamental tension, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter." (264)
Personally, I agree with sentimentality more. Ever soldier out there had a family, people who loved them. They were people and they mattered. To even suggest that they did not is outrageous. Therefore, I would have to agree with sentimentality more.
Irony really does seem to make the soldiers out to "nothing". You are right; the soldiers who fought and died in the civil war should be honored and respected.
In response to Chandler Cerveny- I agree with your post. I perfer sentimentality over irony because of the belief every death is tragic and matters. I like the way you said sentimentality understands every single death. Based on that, Irony would only be able to understand death as a whole, rather than giving honor and respect to the individual apart of the whole.
Sentimentality and irony were two modes of understanding that came from the Civil War. Sentimentality served to illustrate the role of the individual soldier in making the "ultimate sacrifice" whereas the irony came in when looking at how the death of a soldier really didn't matter. I'm not really sure which mode that I agree more with because these two modes are basically just positives and negatives. They are two different ways at looking at the same thing and they in turn both make sense.
Faust tells us that “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in American’s war-born consciousness.” (264) These were the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War. Sentimentality’s focal point was the individual soldier. It was against the “unintelligibility of mass death” and instead, focused on the grief of every solitary death. Sentimentality fought against the force of numbers and the “statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals.” (264) Unlike sentimentality, irony had its spotlight on the “unspeakable possibility that the individual might not. . . actually matter.” It justifies the belief of the unimportance of a lone soldier by saying that it is in the “juggernaut of modern mass warfare.” (164) The poem “All Quiet Along the Potomac” holds both a sentimental and an ironic line of reasoning within its stanzas:
'T is nothing-a private or two now and then Will not count in the news of the battle;
These lines display the understanding of irony when they explain the unimportance of the death of a private.
As he mutters a prayer for the children asleep, For their mother; may Heaven defend her!
These lines show how the private has a life of his own, and a wife and children that will mourn the loss of it.
Of the two modes revealed to us by Faust, I correspond more with the sentimental mode. I am able to correlate with the views of the sentimental mode of understanding over irony’s. The sentimental mode has as sense of caring for each person sympathetically and dotingly. This mode of understanding is able to see that even though there are thousands of soldiers out there, all of them have their own families that fret over them, and recognize them as individuals. Sentimentalists did not want each soldier to suffer his own scrupulous pain only to be thrown back into the pot of common statistics. Irony assumes that one lone individual doesn’t matter, doesn’t affect the statistic; but he does. The lone private out dying all alone on the battlefield not only affects the statistic, he is the statistic.
I agree with the comments in your post. It is not only morally wrong to say that someone's death is unworthy of recognition, but it is very disrespectful. The soldiers lived in terrible conditions. They were not always well fed or clean. But still, they fought for what they believed in. To dishonor them by saying they don't matter, is just terrible.
Emily, I like how you pointed out that every soldier meant something to someone. These two modes I believe are used in two ways. Sentimentality is used when thinking more about someone familiar to you, whereas irony is used when something is not well understood.
RE: Kendra LaFonte “I think individuals were more hurt about losing a husband, father, or son.” I agree with what you said about how although the big picture is of some importance, it is really all of the little details that count. Details paint the picture; without them there wouldn’t be anything to look at. You also said, “Irony was a little bit more of a statistic.” With this, I couldn’t agree more. Irony is absolutely a statistic that doesn’t recognize all of the things that created it! Great job on explaining the two.
According to Faust the two modes of understanding that came from the Civil War were sentimentality and irony. “Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers, against the statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals.” (264) Oppositely, irony meant that the death of a single soldier wasn’t too big of a deal when compared to the rest of the wars losses.
Of the two modes presented by Faust, I agree with sentimentality. It is wrong to think the death of a soldier in a war doesn’t matter or that it is just a statistic. Each soldier that died was very important to the overall picture.
According to Faust, two modes of understanding came from the American Civil War, sentimental and irony. This is shown, "Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in American's war-born consciousness."(264)The sentimental understanding,"... drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death by focusing on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss."(264) On the other hand, "Irony, by contrast, emerged from acknowledgement of this fundamental tension, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter."(264)
Of the two modes Faust displays, I agree with Sentimentality, because every soldier, no matter how poor or great a soldier mattered. The idea that not one of them mattered is absolutely appalling.
I understand where your coming from with this statement, "these two modes are basically just positives and negatives." They sort of balance each other out so that a soldier is recognized invividually but also as a group.
Thw two modes of understanding that emerged from the civil war were sentimentality and irony. "Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers." "irony, by contrast, emerged from the acknowledgement of this fundamental tension."
I agree more with sentimentality because of the high death tolls. I agree with Sevan when he says that each and every soldier mattered. No matter how great or small the soldier, he meant something to someone out there and to think that not every soldier mattered is unimaginable.
Brian- I can not say I agree with your statement, "They are two different ways at looking at the same thing and they in turn both make sense." They have sub-principals that make them greatly different. The irony mode made it seem as if soldier's deaths didn't matter in the war. Each and every soldier's death counted for something.
In response to all those who chose sentimentality, Seeing the individual may sound good but it doesn’t work in the real bad world. A single man can change history but most don’t. General Patton of WWII fame once said "An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of bulls*%#." General George Patton Jr. Rather coarsely put but true none the less. The only goal in the aftermath of the war is to save lives afterward. That is Irony
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality focused on the loss of each solider alone. Irony had then focused on the death of one soldier was not as big of a cause when compared to the rest of the war's losses.
I agree more with the mode of sentimentality. It goes more in depth and shows the how important each and every solider mantter. The soliders were reconized as an individual and not as a whole with the rest of the fallen. Irony does not take apart the idividual of the whole mass. It only focuses on a group in which not the whole group is not as important as a person itself.
I agree with Lauren. She comments that "all of them have their own families that fret over them, and recognize them as individuals." I completely agree because the family will not look at the whole mass of the fallen of the Civil War. They will look at the individual, their father, grandfather, or son.
Faust’s two modes of understanding were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality emerged from the war because “Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers.”(264) Irony however, said that “almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter.”(264) Which explained that the individual might not actually matter. I agree more with sentimentality because irony says that no one individual is important which in my mind is wrong because it is saying that the individuals in the war did not matter. Throughout the book Faust talks about how every single life is important. I think that every man in the war was just as important as any other aspect of the war and contributed equally as much.
Nick Burns I agree that the idea of individuals in mass warfare do not matter is morally wrong and that every death was a tragedy. Also that every single man that died in the war made the ultimate sacrifice and that we should never forget all the individuals that fought in the war.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. “Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers, against the statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals.”(264) However, irony emerged from the “almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter.”(264)
ReplyDeleteI personally agree with the sentimentality mode of understanding more. This is because I believe that the idea that irony poses, that individuals simply do not matter in mass warfare, is morally wrong. In my opinion, every individual death that occurred during the war was a tragedy. I think it is wrong to dismiss he fact that each and every man who fought and died over the course of the Civil War made the ultimate sacrifice.
Faust described the ways of understanding in two processes. The two understandings are listed as Sentimental and Irony. "the Sentimental drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death by focusing on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss."(264). Irony, on the other hand, emerged from acknowledgment of this fundamental tension, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter." (264).
ReplyDeleteI find that I agree with the idea of Sentimentality more so then the Ironic one. The Irony focused on the idea of individual deaths not truly mattering in the massive war. The lives of those taken in the war mattered. Every single one. It doesn't matter whether or not they disagreed with me, they had a live too. In this entire book you read that every life had a purpose. They should always be recognized.
Nick
ReplyDeleteI agree, that the idea of Sentimentality made more sense then Irony. Irony seemed less caring then Sentimentality. Even Faust described such an idea as 'unspeakable'. The thought of each live not mattering was unspeakable. Sentimentality taught that each life was just as important as the next. And that each contributed to outcome and gains of the war. You cant merely gloss over the death of so many men.
Faust believed in two ways that the Civil War was understood. Sentimentality emerged by realizing the importance of each individual that was lost. It was the idea that each person’s death was significant because each had his own story and ensured there was no “erasure of individuals” (264). Irony occurred when one noticed that in the heat of the battle, one loss was nothing compared to 100,000 fallen. It made each man merely a statistic, a “tally” instead of an individual. As Faust states, the United States “managed… to be at once sentimental and ironic in its treatment of the dead soldier who was simultaneously all and ‘nothing’” (264).
ReplyDeleteI agree more with the sentimental concept of war. Each man killed had a life, a family, an identity before they were killed. Such an individual loss is horrible, but realizing that hundreds of thousands of these men had stories as well makes such carnage incomprehensible. I think the sentimental understanding made one’s loss realized while an ironic understanding made one realize that thousands of others have felt that same sense of loss as well. I can relate to the sentimental ideals better, but I can also see why it was important to realize the irony of war to see the overall loss.
Sarah-
ReplyDeleteI agree with you- every life should be recognized. Each person was their own being. Every single loss mattered because that's the loss of an individual identity. It is important to see this war sentimentally: that there were hundreds of thousands of people killed, each who had their own purpose and goals in life. Very good way of putting it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLarissa-
ReplyDeleteYour entire statement was very well put. I especially love how you pointed out that" Each man killed had a life, a family, an identity before they were killed." This is an excellent point! Each person did have a purpose in this world, even. Excellent job!
According to Faust, two modes of understanding emerged from the Civil War experience: sentimentality and irony. "Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers." Sentimentality was the recognition of each life that had been lost. It focused on the tragedy of each casualty from the war. "Irony, by contrast, emerged from the acknowledgement of this fundamental tension." Irony looked at the big picture and how one loss, although a misfortune, was minute compared to the total of lives lost.
ReplyDeleteI agree more with the sentimentality, of the two modes. Each life lost should be recognized, as Sarah pointed out. Any life lost was affecting much more than just one person. The family was affected by the loss of a loved one. The town was losing someone who probably had a job and was giving back to the community. And a part of our great country was lost. Also, in war, the men who die give everything, including their lives. Therefore if a man dies for his country then I believe that he deserves recognition.
Faust’s two modes of understanding were sentimentality and irony “Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers." "Irony, by contrast, emerged from the acknowledgement of this fundamental tension." While I believe that each soldier is important and deserves recognition the vast effect is what historians are more likely to learn from. Knowing that john smith was killed by a Minnie ball through the head matters to Smiths family. But we learn little from it. However knowing that 2,000 soldiers were killed by headshots with Minnie balls lets us know the value of an accurate and deadly round. So we have soldiers wear steel helmets from now on. John smith did teach us something but only with the help of another 1,999 men. Sentimental feels good, Irony saves lives.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience was sentimental and irony. These were the two because there was this in the book “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness.”(264). Sentimentality was one because “Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers, against the statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals.”(264). Irony was one because in the book this was said “Irony, by contrast, emerged from acknowledgment of this fundamental tension, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter.”(264). Those are the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience.
ReplyDeletePersonally I agree with the idea of sentimentality more than I do irony. I think this because the thought in my opinion that the big thing in a war is mass is ridicules. You don’t need the most mass to win you need the best strategy. I believe that it is good because when it goes against the force of numbers is good because if there are less people in the war the death tolls will be less and when there are fewer deaths it is always a good thing. Saying that all the deaths were for the cause is the wrong thing to say in my own opinion. This is why I believe in the idea of sentimentality more than I believe in the idea of irony as a bigger understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience.
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment for this question. I agree with the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience. In both sentimental and irony were the two you picked. The two quotations you wrote were very good, in the Sentimental drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death by focusing on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss."(264) and “Irony, on the other hand, emerged from acknowledgment of this fundamental tension, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter." (264). Also I agree with you with the idea of sentimental. Saying that every single person’s life counts was a good saying. Good job.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness.” (264) This feeling of grief or sorrow came from the deaths of thousands of young men and boys who died for what they believed in. Irony was the acknowledgement of war that not every death mattered.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree that the feeling of sentimentality was a greater mode of understanding than the irony of war. Relating back to chapter 7, if a general charged into battle, won, and lost only ten guys, he would consider that a small price to pay for a good victory. The actuality of it is that it was a large price to pay for the win. Every death counts and is very important. Even one death during a battle should have been considered a high price to pay.
Re: erin
ReplyDeleteWell said. You are right in saying that every soldier deserves recognition when he dies. I mean, he is giving his life for what he believes in. Doesn’t that matter? Any sacrifice made for the benefit of the country should be acknowledged in my book.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that cam out of the war were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality was gained by many. People were able to see the significance of each and every person that was lost in the course of the war. With sentimentality, each person, known or unknown, was recongnised for the bravery and risks he took by fighting in the war. Irony, on the other hand, looked at the big picture. With irony, death was seen as a whole, and not as the loss of each individual. Irony represented the grand total of deaths, and notthe parts that made up the total.
ReplyDeleteI agree more with sentimentality. Although the big picture is important, I think it is important that the little details in the picture are recognised. People were hurt by the total number of lives lost, but I think individuals were more hurt about losing a husband, father, or son. Sentimentality represented the pain that each and every person felt from the war. Irony was a little bit more of a statistic.
Golight,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your beliefs. I think you put it perfectly when you said "when there are fewer deaths it is always a good thing". I also believe that it is wrong to look at all deaths as part of the cause. Some people may have a different view about this, but I feel that less death is always the better way to go. Strategy is more important, like you said.
The two modes of understanding that emerged form the Civil war were sentimentally and irony. According to Faust, sentimentality served almost as a weapon against numbers, and the homogenization and erasure of most individuals during that period of time. Irony emerged form almost unspeakable possibilities that an individual might had not actually matter.
ReplyDeleteOut of the two modes of understanding, I agree more with the sentimentally mode for understanding. Because the irony idea poses that most individuals don’t matter in a mass of warfare. Every individual’s death that had occurred during the war, was a tragic loss. It is wrong to overlook most of the men who had died because they were fighting for what they believed in.
I agree with what Nick had said. Most people overlooked most soldiers, but they don’t understand how every single soldier had died for what they believed in back in the mid 1860’s.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. To fully understand the war, citizens’ embraced these two modes used them to focus on the dead. Sentimentality was said to be served as a weapon against the force of numbers. In other words, sentimentality focused on the deaths of individuals. To set these two modes apart, irony was said to say that individually each soldier did not matter, but the deaths of many soldiers did.
ReplyDeleteI simply agree with sentimentality more. I wouldn't be able to look past every soldier's name and say they 'don't matter'. Every man's death is heartbreaking and every man should be accounted for.
Danielle,
ReplyDeleteI also believe that “every man's death is heartbreaking.” I can not see how someone can dismiss the pain and suffering of all those who love an individual soldier feel after his death. Despite the amount of death that was taking place during the Civil War, I think that the passing of each soldier was its own unique tragedy.
Larissa,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up really good opinions in your second paragraph. I liked how you said that you agree with sentimentality ideas better, but you can also see the importance of the irony. I can agree with you, because both modes are very important in understanding the war. Of course all of us agree that every man's death is important. But if you look at the big picture, every man's death is included with that. The irony of it all is that each soldier's efforts are recognized when you look at the overall death numbers. Yes, there may not be a name for each person in the big number, but still, most everyone would be accounted for.
Sentimentality and irony were the two modes of understanding according to Faust. Sentimental was the focus "on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss."(264) It was about the importance of every death even in mass deaths. Irony was the belief that "the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter."(264) Irony was the focus that each death didn't matter; they were just a fraction of the total number.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the sentimental understanding more. It focused on the fact that all the soldiers who fought and died did matter. And they did. They gave their lives for their side and what they believed in so they should matter. Just because many men died does mean we should forget about them.
Evan H,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the sentimental understanding was better. You made a nice point when you said "It is wrong to overlook most of the men who had died because they were fighting for what they believed in." That is very true. They fought for a good reason and died for what they believed so they should be thought of as a tragic loss. Just because there were many soldiers who died in battle does not mean we should overlook them and think of them as unimportant.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were Sentimentality and Irony. "Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers, against the statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals. Irony, by contrast, emerged from acknowledgment of this fundamental tension, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter."
ReplyDeleteI agree with sentimentality because each life should matter and be important. Irony gives the idea that in mass warfare individual lives don't matter. All lives matter to someone somewhere and should be acknowledged even in mass warfare. They all fought and they all died for something that we believed in, they died for us and I believe that makes every individual very important.
Matt Coen-
ReplyDeleteThank you for relating back to chapter 7 because that helped me get a better understanding when it was connected to something I did understand. Relating to something that was in the same book made it much easier. Going back to chapter 7 made the concept less difficult for me to write about. Thank you.
Faust believed the two processes of understanding that erupted from the Civil War were Sentimentality and Irony. An both of these processes are very different. Sentimentality recognized individual deaths rather than making those who have died forgotten. It made everyone a hero in their own way and also remebered for what they did for their nation. Irony does not recognize the indivual deaths of so many. It made all those who gave their lives seem like they weren't important at all.
ReplyDeleteI believe sentimentality was the better of the two because it recognized all who died for their nation and family. It didn't put all the deaths into one big Death.
In response to Tanner
ReplyDeleteTanner i agree with your opinion on how all of the soldiers should have been remembered and accounted for. They all died for their nations and family, even more. And all the soldiers did matter in many ways. Also great comment on how you said even though many men died they should be remembered.
Tori Kelly-
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, I think the sentimentality was better because each life meant something and was important. Each person fought for something they believed in, and they all mattered. I don't agree with irony as much because every single life that was lost mattered, and we should never forget that.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. Faust stated it "reinforced two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience. Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans' war-born consciousness." Sentimentality focused on each individual death, not completely on the "unintelligibility of mass death". It focused on "the tragedy of each loss. Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers." (page 264). Irony, however, was almost the complete opposite. It "emerged from acknowledgment of this fundamental tension, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter" (page 264).
ReplyDeleteOf the two modes, I tend to agree with sentimentality more. I can understand why irony makes sense because out of mass numbers, one in hundreds of thousands may not seem like much at all, but each life lost matters. Each and every soldier fought for their country and what they believed in, and each person should be honored for their patriotism.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were Sentimentality and Irony. "Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness."
ReplyDeleteOf the two, I agree with sentimentality because each man killed should be respected and not just classified as just another death.
Jenni-
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you said that irony makes sense because out of mass numbers, one in hundreds of thousands doesn't seem like much, but each life lost matters. Each person should be honored for what they did for the country.
According to faust there were to modes of understanding that emerged. Irony and sentimentality were these two modes. Irony; "almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter.”(264)This made families worry that there son or loved one actually did not matter to the war.“Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers, against the statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals.”(264)This was a weapon for the people to believe that there lost loved one actually mattered.
ReplyDeleteI believe sentimentality to be the best mode of understanding. Because irony is saying that in war no individual matters which is hardly true. Men in war matter as much as the cause of war itself. Every man who lost their life during this war was a severe blow and trasgedy to the family and the commanders of this god awful war. These men all mattered to holding this country together and that is what they fought and died for.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. In the book Faust says “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness.”(264)Sentimentality was the grief for the hundreds of thousands of young men that died in the Civil War. Whereas irony was the “almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter.”(264)
ReplyDeleteLike many others, I have to say that I agree with sentimentality rather than irony. I understand what she is saying about how to the individual of that time not every death mattered, but to me if you give yourself, the ultimate sacrifice, on the battlefield then your life matters. Each death was important, and should forever be appreciated, honored, and remembered.
Mark
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statment about sentimentality. Irony did make all these deaths seem like one big death. Which is wrong morally.
In Response to Matt
ReplyDeleteExcellent job Matt. I really liked what you said here, "if a general charged into battle, won, and lost only ten guys, he would consider that a small price to pay for a good victory." That is an excellent point, and I definitely agree that those ten lives were not a small price. Like you said each death mattered, because a death is the taking of a life, and each and every living being on earth is important. Really well done.
The two understandings that appeard as a result of the war were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality wastheunder standing of each idividual life. Each person that died was a life that mattered. Each person that met their grave left family and friends alike behind. The ironic understanding is that one death was not that mjuch compared to the total number of deaths. The soldiers became nothing but statistics. I agree with the sentimentality side because every life matters and has a meaning.
ReplyDeleteTwo modes of understanding that emerged form the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality was a way of observing each death, each casualty, as a meaningful tragedy of its own. It was a way of fighting “against the force of numbers, against the statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals,” (264). Irony was acknowledging that one individual death, in the scheme of war, might not matter so much, that it was just another statistic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the concept of sentimentality wholly. A life is the existence of a human being, a life cannot be simply written off as “just another statistic” when it meets death, especially in the face of war. A soldier should be guaranteed the right to maintain his individuality, even after he meets death.
In response to jerimiah mulloy:
ReplyDeleteIt is true that, as you said, "every life matters and has a meaning." Every life has a family, a home, a destiny, a past, and a purpose. All of those very important aspects to someone's individuality and identity should not be written off as a statistic. To write one death off as a statistic and feel nothing of it would be ethically wrong.
The two modes of understanding the civil war were sentimentality, and irony. Sentimentality was recognizing each person that died as an individual loss, and understanding the tragedy of each death. Irony was looking at all the deaths in the civil war and realizing that one death among all of them really isn't very important in the grand sceme of things. I personally think that it was a good thing to recognize that each life lost was a tragedy, but to understand the civil war better, one would have to look at all the deaths as a whole. I agree with the irony way of understanding the civil war.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Faust the two modes of understanding are “the Sentimental drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death by focusing on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss."(264). These two modes of looking at death are slightly contradictory in there nature. ."It is easy to imagine one man killed; or ten men killed: or< perhaps, a score of men killed....but even..[the veteran] is unable to comprehend the dire meaning of the one hundred thousand, whose every unit represents a soldier’s bloody grave. The figures are too large".(261). I agree with parts of both the modes of understanding. One death is a tragedy, and a hundred thousand is a statistic.
ReplyDeleteIn response to pstidwell
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said in your post. We can’t learn very much by examining soldier’s deaths individually. We have to look at everything as a whole. Sure, for the Smith family, it is important to recognize how their soldier died, but for understanding the war, you have to look at the majority.
According to Faust, both of the modes of understanding that emerged from the war were 'sentimentality' and 'irony'. The Sentimental part was uncovered when the significance of each life lost in the war was acknowledged. The Irony part surfaced when the sentimental part was given thought and people realized that one individual was not of mere importance when compared to the total number of fatalities. It seemed that one out of a few hundred thousand mattered in only a diminutive way and when thought of like this his true worth appeared to diminish and it failed as it "sought to preserve the meaning of the individual amid the multitude" (264).
ReplyDeleteI agree with the mode of sentimentality more because this seemed to give each individual more importance while irony made them seem like "nothing"(264). It seems to me that after the sacrifice thses soldiers proportioned it seems unjust to think of them as merely a part of a statistic and not honor them like they deserve.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteI have the same opinion about how "Even one death during a battle should have been considered a high price to pay" and agree with the fact that the general who won but lost ten of his men being wrong about considering it a small price to pay for victory. Like you said,"Every death counts and is very important.
Larissa,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the sentimental mentality made more sense. I agree that every life that was given in the Civil War was important and that not one of them should be forgotten. Every man had a family that was grieving and a story. Every life was a huge sacrifice.
According to Faust, sentimentality and irony were the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience. "Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers." It's purpose was to see passed the millions of deaths and focus "on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss." (264) Irony, on the other hand, was that an individual death did not matter in the war and it was just adding to the statistics. The two modes are completely opposite of each other, but they "grew side by side in Americans' war-born consciousness."
ReplyDeleteLike others, I agree more with the sentimentality mode of understanding. I personally believe that every person matters in the world, and irony is saying that they don't. Each man who fought and died during the war tried their hardest and served their country so they deserve the honor and mourning from Americans.
Mary Harris,
ReplyDeleteI understand what you mean when you say "it was a good thing to recognize that each life lost was a tragedy, but to understand the civil war better, one would have to look at all the deaths as a whole." It does help to look at the big picture, but I think you should also honor each soldier. It seems the least they, and us could do since they sacrificed their life.
The two different modes of understanding that came from the Civil War were irony and sentimentality. “The sentimental drew its strength from…focusing on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss” (264). Irony was the concept “…that the individual might not, in the juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter” (264). The sentimentalist looked at each lost life as a tragedy and irony made one life not seem like anything.
ReplyDeleteAs everyone else stated, I agree with the sentimentality. Every life that was given was a sacrifice and important. One life might not have made a big difference in the numbers and statistics, but it was enough to destroy families and shatter homes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness. The sentimental drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death by focusing on the singularity of each casualty” (264). The sentimentalists believed in the importance of every single person affected by the war. While those who believed in irony believed in the “admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter.” (264).
ReplyDeleteAlthough I can understand why one could see how a single death is petty and insignificant compared to over 600,000, I strongly agree with the sentimentalists more. They recognized soldiers for the heroes they were. Charles Lewis said it perfectly, that ‘Had a million been slain, it would have been only one in a million homes.’(264).
In response to Evan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement that “Every individual’s death that had occurred during the war was a tragic loss.” How could any human being not care about human life when they and their family are also living? Even with hundreds of thousands dead, every single death is a horrible misfortune.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that grew from the Civil War were sentimentality and irony. She supports this by writing "the sentimental drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibly of mass death," (264). The sentimentality considered each death in the war a tragedy. Sentimentality helped fight against "the force of numbers... the statistical homogenization and the erasure of individuals,"(264). Irony, focused on the "possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter,"(264).
ReplyDeleteI agree more with sentimentality. It is hard for me to say that each individual soldier didn't matter. To say that, is almost disrespectful to each soldier. On the other hand, sentimentality honored all the sacrifices a soldier made. It's easy to say most soldiers did not make a difference, but their death had such a large effect on families and towns everywhere.
The modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were "sentimentality" and "irony". "Sentimental drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death by focusing on the singularity of each casualty, the tradegy of each loss"(264)." So sentimental understands every single death. Irony, on the other hand, doesn't acknowledge a single death. This type of understanding looks at each death as if it doesn't matter. They just look if they are winning the war.
ReplyDeleteI like sentimentality the best. I think every life matters and that every death is very tradgic.
I agree with Chris Huth. I like sentimentality over irony. It is hard for me to say too, that a life doesn't matter. I like the statement that Chris makes, "Sentimentality honored all the sacrifices a soldier made."
ReplyDeleteFaust categorizes understanding into two modes of understanding that grew from the Civil war, sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality is the belief that every life loosed is a tragedy and focused on "the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death." (264) This way of understanding helped divert attention from the numbers into a more singular view. Irony on the other hand, focused on the whole rather than the individual. One life loosed matters naught of the group could succeed in fulfilling their goals so to say.
ReplyDeleteAs with many others, i agree with sentimentality. I believe it is morally wrong to deem someone’s death not worthy when people are fighting for a cause. Irony ignores the effect the soldier had on his surroundings and loved one. To disregard a soldiers ultimate sacrifice greatly dishonors him.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding were sentimentality and irony. "Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers, against the statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals." (264) However, irony "emerged from the acknowledgement of this fundamental tension, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter." (264)
ReplyDeletePersonally, I agree with sentimentality more. Ever soldier out there had a family, people who loved them. They were people and they mattered. To even suggest that they did not is outrageous. Therefore, I would have to agree with sentimentality more.
Erick
ReplyDeleteIrony really does seem to make the soldiers out to "nothing". You are right; the soldiers who fought and died in the civil war should be honored and respected.
In response to Chandler Cerveny-
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post. I perfer sentimentality over irony because of the belief every death is tragic and matters. I like the way you said sentimentality understands every single death. Based on that, Irony would only be able to understand death as a whole, rather than giving honor and respect to the individual apart of the whole.
Sentimentality and irony were two modes of understanding that came from the Civil War. Sentimentality served to illustrate the role of the individual soldier in making the "ultimate sacrifice" whereas the irony came in when looking at how the death of a soldier really didn't matter. I'm not really sure which mode that I agree more with because these two modes are basically just positives and negatives. They are two different ways at looking at the same thing and they in turn both make sense.
ReplyDeleteFaust tells us that “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in American’s war-born consciousness.” (264) These were the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War. Sentimentality’s focal point was the individual soldier. It was against the “unintelligibility of mass death” and instead, focused on the grief of every solitary death. Sentimentality fought against the force of numbers and the “statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals.” (264) Unlike sentimentality, irony had its spotlight on the “unspeakable possibility that the individual might not. . . actually matter.” It justifies the belief of the unimportance of a lone soldier by saying that it is in the “juggernaut of modern mass warfare.” (164) The poem “All Quiet Along the Potomac” holds both a sentimental and an ironic line of reasoning within its stanzas:
ReplyDelete'T is nothing-a private or two now and then
Will not count in the news of the battle;
These lines display the understanding of irony when they explain the unimportance of the death of a private.
As he mutters a prayer for the children asleep,
For their mother; may Heaven defend her!
These lines show how the private has a life of his own, and a wife and children that will mourn the loss of it.
Of the two modes revealed to us by Faust, I correspond more with the sentimental mode. I am able to correlate with the views of the sentimental mode of understanding over irony’s. The sentimental mode has as sense of caring for each person sympathetically and dotingly. This mode of understanding is able to see that even though there are thousands of soldiers out there, all of them have their own families that fret over them, and recognize them as individuals. Sentimentalists did not want each soldier to suffer his own scrupulous pain only to be thrown back into the pot of common statistics. Irony assumes that one lone individual doesn’t matter, doesn’t affect the statistic; but he does. The lone private out dying all alone on the battlefield not only affects the statistic, he is the statistic.
In response to Jordan Farmer XD
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments in your post. It is not only morally wrong to say that someone's death is unworthy of recognition, but it is very disrespectful. The soldiers lived in terrible conditions. They were not always well fed or clean. But still, they fought for what they believed in. To dishonor them by saying they don't matter, is just terrible.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEmily,
ReplyDeleteI like how you pointed out that every soldier meant something to someone. These two modes I believe are used in two ways. Sentimentality is used when thinking more about someone familiar to you, whereas irony is used when something is not well understood.
RE: Kendra LaFonte
ReplyDelete“I think individuals were more hurt about losing a husband, father, or son.” I agree with what you said about how although the big picture is of some importance, it is really all of the little details that count. Details paint the picture; without them there wouldn’t be anything to look at. You also said, “Irony was a little bit more of a statistic.” With this, I couldn’t agree more. Irony is absolutely a statistic that doesn’t recognize all of the things that created it! Great job on explaining the two.
According to Faust the two modes of understanding that came from the Civil War were sentimentality and irony. “Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers, against the statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals.” (264) Oppositely, irony meant that the death of a single soldier wasn’t too big of a deal when compared to the rest of the wars losses.
ReplyDeleteOf the two modes presented by Faust, I agree with sentimentality. It is wrong to think the death of a soldier in a war doesn’t matter or that it is just a statistic. Each soldier that died was very important to the overall picture.
According to Faust, two modes of understanding came from the American Civil War, sentimental and irony. This is shown, "Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in American's war-born consciousness."(264)The sentimental understanding,"... drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death by focusing on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss."(264) On the other hand, "Irony, by contrast, emerged from acknowledgement of this fundamental tension, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter."(264)
ReplyDeleteOf the two modes Faust displays, I agree with Sentimentality, because every soldier, no matter how poor or great a soldier mattered. The idea that not one of them mattered is absolutely appalling.
In response to Brian Bower
ReplyDeleteI understand where your coming from with this statement, "these two modes are basically just positives and negatives." They sort of balance each other out so that a soldier is recognized invividually but also as a group.
Thw two modes of understanding that emerged from the civil war were sentimentality and irony. "Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers." "irony, by contrast, emerged from the acknowledgement of this fundamental tension."
ReplyDeleteI agree more with sentimentality because of the high death tolls. I agree with Sevan when he says that each and every soldier mattered. No matter how great or small the soldier, he meant something to someone out there and to think that not every soldier mattered is unimaginable.
Brian-
ReplyDeleteI can not say I agree with your statement, "They are two different ways at looking at the same thing and they in turn both make sense." They have sub-principals that make them greatly different. The irony mode made it seem as if soldier's deaths didn't matter in the war. Each and every soldier's death counted for something.
In response to all those who chose sentimentality,
ReplyDeleteSeeing the individual may sound good but it doesn’t work in the real bad world. A single man can change history but most don’t. General Patton of WWII fame once said "An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of bulls*%#." General George Patton Jr.
Rather coarsely put but true none the less. The only goal in the aftermath of the war is to save lives afterward. That is Irony
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality focused on the loss of each solider alone. Irony had then focused on the death of one soldier was not as big of a cause when compared to the rest of the war's losses.
ReplyDeleteI agree more with the mode of sentimentality. It goes more in depth and shows the how important each and every solider mantter. The soliders were reconized as an individual and not as a whole with the rest of the fallen. Irony does not take apart the idividual of the whole mass. It only focuses on a group in which not the whole group is not as important as a person itself.
I agree with Lauren. She comments that "all of them have their own families that fret over them, and recognize them as individuals." I completely agree because the family will not look at the whole mass of the fallen of the Civil War. They will look at the individual, their father, grandfather, or son.
ReplyDeleteFaust’s two modes of understanding were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality emerged from the war because “Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers.”(264) Irony however, said that “almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter.”(264) Which explained that the individual might not actually matter. I agree more with sentimentality because irony says that no one individual is important which in my mind is wrong because it is saying that the individuals in the war did not matter. Throughout the book Faust talks about how every single life is important. I think that every man in the war was just as important as any other aspect of the war and contributed equally as much.
ReplyDeleteNick Burns
ReplyDeleteI agree that the idea of individuals in mass warfare do not matter is morally wrong and that every death was a tragedy. Also that every single man that died in the war made the ultimate sacrifice and that we should never forget all the individuals that fought in the war.