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?
The two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were "...how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands."(261) The significance decreased, however the meaning was nearly incomprehensible. "On one hand, counting equalized...but at the same time numbers undermined the individuality..."(264) of the soldiers. The soldiers were equalized - the rank and distinction completely disappeared. However, the rank and distinction made a soldier unique. "Naming individualized the dead; counting aggregated them..."(264) Both were needed to comprehend the numbers and the physical death of the war. Sentimentality and irony also grew side by side after the Civil War. The sentimentality came from the focus on one death, an individual soldier. However, the irony came from the fact that the individual might not really matter. I do not have a side for this question. Neither of these modes of understanding could exist without the other. If every death was individual, there would be no need for counting the numerous deaths. If there was absolutely no individuality, there would be no names and no personal graves. "Had a million been slain, it would have been 'only one' in a million homes."(264)
According to Faust, the two ways of understanding that came from the Civil War were one grave versus the 600,000 that all put together were approximately the death toll of the Civil war. “One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic”. [261] “It is hard’ he [William Fox] wrote ‘to realize the meaning of figures… 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 soldiers bloody grave. The figures are too large’” [261] I agree with the understanding of one soldier more than the understanding of a million soldiers because of how reality comes beginning on a smaller scale. “Even as he [Walt Whitman] tried to imagine these countless dead- ‘The Million Dead,’ he designated them-he claimed each one as his own”. [262] In order to understand the incomprehensible numbers of dead on both sides, he imagined each one as his own, thereby taking the numbers down to a more easily comprehended one by one basis.
“…how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands”. [261] Jamie made an excellent observation when she said that: “Neither of these modes of understanding could exist without the other”. Though I agree with this I believe that it is more important to look at individual deaths more often. When we think of the amount of deaths as a whole, the value of one life is diminished and he becomes a mere battle statistic. Thinking about deaths individually shows a respect for human life and keeps us from thinking that one person cannot make a difference.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were “how to grasp the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands.” This is a good point. If you hear a story of one person being killed in the news, you are likely going to feel sad or depressed about it. You heard the actual story, and therefore, you almost feel connected to that one person’s death. As Stalin would say long after the conclusion of the Civil War, “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.” It is easier to understand a smaller scale of deaths, where as thousands of death is hard to picture. I’m not sure that I agree with either one more than the other. There is a place for both. You can’t measure a whole war on individual, personal deaths. Therefore, there has to be the measure of thousands of deaths. There is a place for both stats during any war; therefore I can’t say that one is better than the other.
In response to McKenzie Hamilton: I agree with McKenzie and her opinion that she likes the single death mode of understanding. She says, “I agree with the understanding of one soldier more than the understanding of a million soldiers because of how reality comes beginning on a smaller scale.” It makes sense, because you can’t picture thousands, or millions of deaths for that matter. If you picture every death as if it was a close family member, as Walt Whitman did it, then it is much easier to picture the war as a whole. I think that this is the proper way to picture battle. It lets the average citizen, who never saw the carnage of the Civil War, actually feel its magnitude as a whole.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience are "understanding the vastness of what had happened in those four years of war." [pg. 261] Grasping the meaning of one death and understanding the meaning of thousands is something that the people of America had to do once the war was over. The second mode is understanding "the rhetoric of Civil War mortality statistics provided the language for a meditation on the deeper human meanig of the conflict and its unprecedented destructiveness, as well as for the exploration of the place of te individual in a world of mass-and increasingly mechanized-slaughter." To understand this is to understand that that is what made a world transform. With this I agree with Jamie. I don't side with either of these modes. One can not work without the other.
Response to McKenzie Hamilton Neither way could exist without the other. Of course when there are 600,000 deaths, the sentimental value of one life disappears. However, if you look at each individual life, the statistic disappears. When counting during the war, statistics were what they depended on. Therefore, one can not exist without the other. That is where I disagree with you. One life may be important, but so it the statistic.
Response to Jamie Baumgarten, Of course neither mode could exist without the other but the question asked what mode to you agree with more. So even though both modes are important you can make an opinion upon which mode is more important. To me, a statistic is a number that really has little power by itself. Grasping a single death brings out emotion and understanding of the Civil War.
According Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War include the "significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands."(261) A single death could show the sorrow, result, and price of the civil war. The statistic of 600,000 deaths could also show the result and price of the war but not really the sorrow. The statistic also showed the important historic data of the Civil war. Even both modes are very important in understanding the war, one is more important. "Josef Stalin would later remark that one death is a tragedy; a million a statistic." I agree with this statement because a single death brings out emotion, sorrow, and true understanding of the war. Humans could simply never truly comprehend 600,000 deaths.
In this book Faust talks about modes of understanding, “ sentimentality and irony grew side by side in American’s war-born consciousness” (264). While trying to understand the vast number of soldiers that had been lost and trying to still focus on, “the tragedy of each loss” (264), people used these two methods to accept their losses. Irony allowed the people to not focus on the individual but look at the dead as if, “ the individual might not…matter at all”(264). Sentimentality on the other hand allowed a person to grieve each loss individually. The two modes of understanding “served opposite yet coexisting needs”(264), and to choose one over the other would be pointless because one alone serves no purpose. Sentimentality was more of a respectful thing to do for those who had been lost, and an emotional way to deal with it. Irony on the other hand detached the emotion from the deaths and the dead soldiers themselves were equal. The two modes could not exist without one another. Sentimentality personalized the deaths, while irony made it more bearable, and to completely seize the idea of their losses both needed to be used.
During the Civil War the two modes of understanding that developed were a single death in contrast to hundreds of thousands of deaths. “It is hard,” he wrote, “to realize the meaning of the figures… 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 (261).” To separate a soldier as an individual, a single identity versus one number out of thousands is significant. Together each of these individual deaths becomes a single massive death and the value of life is diminished. Of the two modes neither is more significant or less important than the other. They balance each other so each soldier who died as well as the group as a whole is recognized. War is measured in numbers but loss is recognized individually.
In response to Jamie B: “Neither of these modes of understanding could exist without the other.” I agree with Jamie’s statement that without each mode neither could exist. If there were not individual deaths there wouldn’t be thousands of dead soldiers and if there were not dead soldiers there would be no individual deaths. Irony came with the mass death that an individual had no importance. Value of life came with an individual death and was lost when it became thousands of deaths. It is difficult to comprehend, “how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands (261).”
The two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience was the difference in how people treated a single death compared to the thousands of deaths that occurred during the civil war. The two modes of understanding were supported when Fox said, "how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands." In this one quote he showed what the two modes of understanding were."(161) He also stated, “it is hard to realize he meaning of the figures... It is easy to imagine one man killed; or ten killed or, perhaps, a core of men killed... but even it is unable to comprehend the dire meaning of the one hundred thousand who’s every unit represents a soldier's bloody grave." Even Joseph Stalin hundred years later said, "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." I agree with both Tanner and Jamie that "neither one of these modes could exist without the other."
You said that a single death brings out more sorrow therefore it is more important. I agree it brings out more sorrow, but it isn't more important. If you hear about a deadly tragedy, by the amount of people that die, you can tell how it was bad. Which tragedy would make more news, 4 die in car crash, or thousands die during terrorist attack. Don't get me wrong I think that a single life that is taken is important, but the statistic seems even more important to me.
According to Faust sentimentality and irony were the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War. On page 264 she says, “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness.” Sentimentality can be related to naming the dead; it focuses on each and every death, and opposes the erasure of individual deaths. Opposing sentimentality irony can be related to counting the dead; it came from the idea that “the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter.” (264) I think a balance of both modes of understanding creates the best result when counting the dead, but if I had to pick one over the other I would pick sentimentality. It just seems wrong to me to turn a soldier who died for his country into just a number in part of a statistic, and then forget about his life. I think it’s important to remember, when counting death tolls as large as the Civil War’s that every one of those deaths was a person, and everyone of them should be remembered as one.
The two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality focused more on the individual and irony focused more on the whole. Sentimentality came from recognizing the impact one death can have on the community, whereas irony came from realizing the many deaths of soldiers. I feel that sentimentality holds the more important role. Death on a large scale without sentimentality is only a statistic. One death without irony still creates a huge impact in the community around it.
Response to Orion: You make a good point when you say that "A single death could show the sorrow, result, and price of the civil war. The statistic of 600,000 deaths could also show the result and price of the war but not really the sorrow." The death of one soldier had a huge impact on the whole community around it and showed the sadness of the death in the war. Six hundred thousand deaths could not show the sorrow in any way. It is simply a number, and it is impossible for humans to assign this large of a number to a name and a face.
The two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality focused “on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss,” (pg 264). It “served as a weapon against the… statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals,” (pg 264). Irony “emerged from acknowledgement of…fundamental tension,” (pg 264). It suggested that “the individual might not, in [that] juggernaut of modern warfare, actually matter,” (pg. 264). On this one, I side with the principles of sentimentality, not so much because I agree with it, but rather because I disagree with the principles of irony. I think that few people actually recognize the difference between 618,000 and infinity when it comes to the number of deaths in the Civil War. 618,000 deaths is a lot, but that does not make it acceptable to skip recognition of the soldier. Each one of the 618,000 stands for “the pale, upturned face of a dead soldier,” (pg 260); each “possessed a human face,” (pg 260). To say that the death of the individual doesn’t matter is completely wrong. Each of the 618,000 deaths was a death of an individual. There was nothing else. It’s like saying that water has nothing to do with an ocean. That’s all an ocean is: just a whole lot of water in one place. To ignore the water would be an insult to any ocean. While soldiers were fighting for a universal cause, they were humans. Each person who died lost their life, nobody else’s. They deserve to be treated as individuals. Although just comprehending the death of a few individuals doesn’t fully honor everybody, it is the most many human minds can genuinely conceptualize, and a little understanding is better than a whole lot of no understanding.
Two modes of understanding that emerged from the civil war were sentimentality and irony. “Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers.” (264) Feeling sentimental about things they still had after the war was over helped the people in America feel better about how much they had lost. “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) the war produced irony because so many deaths came from a country fighting against each other. I agree with sentimentality more than Irony. I think it would have been better to feel happy about the things they had left after the war instead of feeling sad about what they lost. In chapter five we read about how Reverend Robinson believed it was better to remember the dead for their accomplishments instead of their mistakes. I think in a way this is the same situation. I think it’s better to feel happy during sad times instead of just being sad.
The two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were, no matter how much documentation there was, there would still be the significant word unknown, and through numbers, one just might try to grasp the entirety of the loss of people (259). I do agree with her because no matter how many times someone tells you your loved one is gone, there is still that little part of you that will never let go. I also agree with the second one but not all the way because the bigger the number, the more shocking it is, therefore the more hopeful doubt there is. Meaning that if somebody saw a headline saying, ‘1million soldiers died today,” they would think, “that has to be a typo.” I agree with the first one more because memories can never be erased, and if the person is in one of those memories who is now gone, they will never be truly gone from your soul.
I like how you said “War is measured in numbers but loss is recognized individually.” That statement is quite true: it is impossible to deal with mass death individually. I agree with your statement that “neither is more significant or less important than the other.” One cannot be complete without the other. Each one only gives one viewpoint to the death and each is only used in a certain case. A single death is found commonly in a family mourning the loss of a dead soldier. The massive numbers are used when talking about the war in general: when you talk about a war, you usually don’t focus only on one person’s death.
I agree that “sentimentality holds the more important role.” I disagree that “Death on a large scale without sentimentality is only a statistic.” I think that the sheer size of death lessens the understandability of the situation, but I think that it is more than a statistic. A man can understand one death, but multiplying that by 618,000 doesn’t make that feeling a statistic, but rather an abstract concept. I agree that “one death without irony still creates a huge impact in the community around it,” but two deaths make more of an impact. And three deaths make more of an impact than that. The impact keeps on growing, regardless of what the human mind can conceive.
Response to Cameron: “618,000 deaths is a lot, but that does not make it acceptable to skip recognition of the soldier,” I completely agree with that point. Dying for your country is one of the most honorable things any person could do in my opinion, and it would be a disgrace if any of those 618,000 soldiers became just numbers, and no longer lives. I also agree with you that “a little understanding is better than a whole lot of no understanding.” No human alone could truly honor and remember 618,000 dead soldiers, and if any person attempted this they would have, as you put it “a whole lot of no understanding.” If each person remembered and honored a couple of soldiers, it would provide some understanding which is better than no understanding.
The two modes that emerged from the Civil War experience were "...how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands." (pg 261)I agree more with the meaning of hundreds of thousands of deaths. It wasn't just one person, one man or woman, who fought in the Civil War, it was hundreds of them, thousands even. They left their homes to go fight for what they believe in but why did it all have to happen that way" Couldn't there have been another way around it? Could there have been less bloodshed?
According to Faust two modes that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness.” (264) These two modes showed how the nation grieved. Through sentimentality one is, “focusing on the singularity of each casualty the tragedy of each loss.” (264) However through irony one acknowledges the “unspeakable possibility that the individual might not…actually matter.” (264) Irony focuses more on the thousands of people that gave their lives rather than the individual whom may be a father, brother or son. As Joseph Stalin said, “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.” I believe neither of the modes could exist without each other. However, it is hard to choose one over the other but; I believe sentimentality is more important. With sentimentality, the death is more personal to survivors whereas irony is a statistic. Irony just shows a number of how many people died, without any emotion. It is just a number that doesn’t show how these deaths impacted the survivors.
In response to Jordyn: I like how you showed the two different aspects of sentimentality and irony. You said, “Feeling sentimental about things they still had after the war was over helped the people in America feel better about how much they had lost.” I completely agree. Feeling sentimental was part of the grieving process that helped Americans move on after so many people were lost. You also mention Reverend Robinson. I like how you brought him up to make your point. It made me think about his preaching’s and how they taught the survivors to “remember the dead for their accomplishments instead of their mistakes.”
Sentimentality and irony were the two modes of understanding which emerged from the Civil War experience. Sentimentality focused on "the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss" (264). People who understood loss in this way believed that, as William Fox said, the numbers were "'statistics every unit of which stands for the pale, upturned face of a dead soldier'" (260). They viewed each individual number which made up a statistic as a person; they grieved each loss individually, not all losses as a whole. Irony, on the other hand, was a more detached mode of understanding. Those who used irony in their perception of the war believed that numbers told the story best, and that no individual was more important than another, but rather that the amount of death as a whole was most important. Irony was ". . . the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter" (264).
I agree with both modes of understanding; I don't think one is better or more correct than the other, because we all grieve loss and understand death in different ways. One mode is more compassionate, one more detached, but I don't think either is wrong. They are both effective ways to comprehend the incredible amount of death our country suffered, and I think that whichever method a person chooses to deal with such tragedy is acceptable.
In response to Kristina: In your post, you agree with the ironic mode of understanding, and you say, "Couldn't there have been another way around it? Couldn't there have been less bloodshed?" Are you saying that this was part of the ironic mode of understanding? If so, I think that whichever way a person chose to comprehend the situation, they all wished that there had been a way around it, and that it didn't have to happen; this was not necessarily a view of one side or the other.
You make a valid point about the vastness of 600,000 deaths. It is hard for one person to comprehend all of that death and destruction. But it is easy for one person to comprehend the death of one person. While death in and of itself is hard to understand, the one death is more personal, and therefore more easily understood. 600,000 deaths, especially in that time, was almost impossible to imagine because "an equivalent proportion of today's population would be six million." "A single death brings out emotion..." 600,000 is just to big to comprehend.
Faust believed that the two kinds of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were "how to grasp the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands." A single death meant mourning for a family, most of it done by the mother and sisters for prolonged amounts of time. "Hundreds of thousands" of deaths meant that a large portion of the country had been given up in the fight for unity of country and for the freedom of thousands of slaves. But as Joseph Stalin would later state, "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." Fifty years later, William Fox would make an observation that was along similar lines. "It is hard to realize the meaning of figures... 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 to comprehend the dire meaning of the one hundred thousand whose very unit represents a soldier's bloody grave. The figures are too large." He makes a very important point. For one person to imagine a few people dead is possible, but for them to imagine hundreds, even thousands, or more, dead, is nearly impossible. While both are important, and Jamie did make a valid point of saying that neither can exist without the other, I agree more with the understanding of a single death. A single death is easier to mourn, and when it becomes several rather than one, the mourning can be shared. But trying o comprehend 600,000 deaths is so vast that i can't agree that it would be easier, because there is nothing to relate to. It becomes nothing more than a number, that has little significance and even less sentimentality.
Faust explained the two modes of understanding as "how to grasp the both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands." (pg. 261) For one to think about a single death, it is not hard to imagine. Stories are told about the death and it is imaginable. However, when tens of thousands of men die, the meaning is incomprehensable. As Fox said, "It is hard to realize the meaning of the figures...It is easy to imagine one man killed;or ten men killed...but even...[the veteran] is unable to to comprehend the dire meaning of the one hundred thousand, whose every unit represents a soldier's bloody grave." (pg. 261) Both modes are true and therefore equal. One mode cannot be complete without the other consequently I can not choose which mode is better.
In response to Abbey: I agree with your views on sentimentality and irony and neither is supreme to me either. However, I don’t agree that a person chooses which mode they use. I think sentimentality and irony are used together to completely understand the loss of the Civil war.
The two modes of understanding dealt with “how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands.” (p. 261) It is more common and ordinary to hear about a single death than you do hundreds of thousands of deaths. A single death is easy to follow and comprehend, while thousands of deaths are not so. “It is hard…to realize the meaning of figures … 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.” (p. 261) The vastness of hundreds of thousands of dead can simply overwhelm the mind. In my opinion, neither mode is better than the other. Each one can only represent one aspect of the dead, whether it is individuality or scale. Both modes complement each other and would be diminished in value without the other.
The two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were grasping the idea of a single person's death versus comprehending hundreds of thousands of deaths. Most people after the war were preoccupied with the losses of their husbands, brothers, sons, etc. They grieved for either a single person or just a few. Meanwhile, the rest of the country was also mourning for lost soldiers. The whole entire nation had lost hundreds of thousands of men. It was hard for many people to understand a loss that huge- 300,000+ soldiers. According to Joseph Stalin, "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" pg. 261. Sometimes people could barely grip the fact that their loved one had died, much less that loved ones from every family in the nation were also gone. "It is easy to imagine one man killed..." but it is very difficult "to comprehend one hundred thousand. The figures are too large" pg. 261. Defining a whole war by one single, personal death is impossible. Therefore, the mode of understanding thousands of deaths emerged from the war. I would have to say that I do not "agree" with either mode more than the other. Both came from the war, and both are ideas that many people had to understand. They happened to the country, so I don't think that one is better than the other.
According to Faust, "how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands"(261 pg) emerged from the Civil War experience. Single deaths occur everyday. Singles deaths are common and are not hard to understand. But if there are hundreds of thousands of deaths, the mind wonders. The mind has a hard time understanding the power the significance of all these deaths. Single deaths that occur during a war mount up to the hundreds of thousands of deaths that are incomprehensible.
You said that single deaths are easy to understand and that hundreds of thousands of deaths are herd to understand. But can a single death be as significant as hundreds of thousands? If an important figure is killed can it mean as much or more than hundreds of thousands of dead? Can it "overwhelm the mind" in the same way?
Response to Blake- I like how you said "Both modes complement each other and would be diminished in value without the other." That is very true because without understanding one single death, you can't possibly understand hundreds of thousands. One death and many deaths go hand in hand, especially when trying to comprehend the meaning of this. Death is a complicated thing, particularly when trying to imagine thousands of people.
The two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War is how you grasp a single death and how you grasp the death of thousands. A single death we all hear of everyday but that of thousands we do not. One death is a number, 600,00 is a stastitic, this gives us the magnitude of the war. As many were trying to deal with the loss of a brother, husband or son the government is dealing with the loss of a nation. I would have to say I do not agree with either mode as neither mode is greater than the other because one death can be just as great as many especially if its your loved one.
In response to Orion Yes it is hard for one to grasp the death of 600,000 people. This number is just uninmaginable. The loss of one we all can come to grasp and deal with. Its easier to know that we have lost one person we love than to lose thousands its just not comprehendable. But I would have to say the either would bring out sorrow not just a single death.
You are absolutely right when you say we all grieve in different ways. They Civil War was an extremely difficult time. It makes sense that both methods of sentimentality and irony would work for different people. I picked sentimentality because I would rather feel happy about what people had accomplished in their life time instead of thinking of the ironic number of deaths. But like you I do see how people could use both sentimentality and irony to get through the incredible depressing time.
Sentimentality and irony are the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience accordidng to Faust. The sentimentality of the situation comes from the massive amount of deaths that occored and focousing on still but one death. "How could the meaning of so so many deaths be understood? And conversely, how could an induvidual's death continue to matter amid the loss of so many?" (pg.262) This question is one that many faced after the Civil War, it expresses both the sentimentality and irony of the war. The irony is seen when you think about "fundamental tention, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not in this juggernaut of modern mass welfare, actually matter." (pg.264) I think it was important at the time to have a good understanding of both of these modes of understanding. They go hand in hand and neither is more important than the other. Therefore I do not agree with either one more, they are equally important.
In response to David White: Although it is easier for a person to understand one death over hundereds of thousands. I believe that all deaths are equal, and every death out there was someones father or brother or son. So each death is just as significant as the other. Death is dificult to understand no matter how many people were involved.
Faust writes about the two modes of understanding, “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness,” (264). Sentimentality focused on individual death and how each death was a tragedy. “Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers,” (264). Irony, the opposite of sentimentality, focused on the whole rather than individual. “…possibility that the individual might not…actually matter,” showed how irony opposed to sentimentality. I agree more with the sentimentality. It respects the soldier more and would help me understand Civil War death better. Irony seems disrespectful to the soldiers who died. They were fighting for what they believed in, but according to the understanding of irony, they didn’t actually matter. This seems wrong to me and I agree way more with sentimentality.
In response to Ben: I agree with you that sentimentality and irony were the modes of understanding. I also agree that irony seems wrong. The soldiers were risking their lives, fighting for what they believed in, but seen as a number rather than a person. It seems very wrong and disrespectful. Like you, I agree more with the sentimentality side since every death was a tragedy to family members. Understanding the tragedy helps to understand how much of an impact the Civil War really was.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were "how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands" as she stated on page 261. Of the two modes, I cannot really chose which is more significant. Both are incredibly significant. The death of one is significant and better comprehendable but then again the death of many does show that whatever was fought for was fought by many so therefore there was a lot of significance.
I agree with you fully. I think that both modes are equal. They both had a significance in some way. I also do agree that one mode cannot be complete without the other. Both modes go kind of hand in hand and therefore cannot be compared with each other as to which is better or more agreeable.
The two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were,"how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands."(261) I agree with the second mode because even though one death is bad hundreds od deaths is just horrible."One death is a tragity; a million is a statistic."(261)
I disagree with you. Yes i agree that both modes are significant but one death is very different than hundreds or thousands of deaths. Im not saying that one isnt important but mant deaths is alot worse."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 souldier's bloody grave. The figures are too large".(261)
The two modes of understanding that Faust was speaking about were very unique in a sense of how to deal with a death of a nation, "How to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands."(261) This meant that while some were dealing with the one or two deaths of loved ones, others were bereaved about the multitude of deaths widespread across the country. While seeing that one death isn't enough to worry about, helpful people such as Whitman and so many more sought out to see what the meaning of the war was just by a number. A number that came to concluded a long stretch of deaths of not only one man, but hundreds of thousands dead.
I believe that the sentimental value of one soldier can compare not with that of the raw horror of the large number that grasps a hold of the tragedy being the Civil War. These hundreds of thousands dead is just a picture that no officer, mother, or father can compare to a single death. The overall death toll in itself creates a marking in every heart and soul that every man who died fought for something they believed in. This, in my mind, is why the meaning of hundreds of thousands is more significant than a single death.
I agree with you that a single death cannot compare with that of thousands of deaths. To mother or father a single death is just a tragedy, but to a nation, the many deaths are what represent how far we again have come. But Alfrado, you have to realize that you’re quote at the end does not quite sum up what you have telling us. It actually takes the other point of view.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality was focused more "on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss" (page 264). People who mourned in this way grieved each loss individually and didn't mourn for the whole tragedy. They looked at each number rather than all of the numbers as a whole. So therefore it had a more personal touch to it. Irony was a more detached sense of mourning, because it focused more on the thousands of people who died rather than the individual. Some even believing that there was “…possibility that the individual might not…actually matter.” I personally agree more with sentimentality because it is more personal and it honors each soldier individually. With the idea of irony, it almost feels disrespectful because it's as if it ignores each soldiers role in the war. Therefore, I agree more with the idea of sentimentality.
You make a great point, when thousands of soldiers die compared to just one it is devastating for not just a single person but for thousands of people."The overall death toll in itself creates a marking in every heart and soul that every man who died fought for something they believed in." When people grasp the idea that thousands of people have died they use the mode of sentimentality to honor each soldier. I liked how you mixed the idea of sentimentality into the situation of thousands of soldiers dying compared to a single death without saying that irony was the better mode.
When you used the quote, "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic." (pg. 261) I believe you are contradicting yourself because a statistic is a guess, an estimate, it's not always correct. Therefore, in a statistic every death counts because there may be too many estimated deaths or too little. People tried so hard to honor every soldier by counting bodies and I don't believe a statistic is exactly honoring. Overall, I do not agree with you.
The two modes of understanding during the civil war were the significance of one death versus the death of hundreds of thousands. I think that one death is much more significant than the death of thousands because to individuals, the individual death makes much more of an impact than the thousands. Although many deaths is sad, I would be much more upset about the death of one lost person who is very close to me.
I agree with you when you say that it is more important to honor each soldier individually. When you look at the big picture, the 600,000 that died, it kind of numbs the sting of each individual death. Although many people did die, and that is important, i think it is more important to focus on the individuals.
Faust believed that the two modes of understanding were the, “significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands"(pg. 261). I think that finding the meaning of the hundreds of thousands of deaths is correct. I think that one should look at the thousands that died for a cause they believed in and that someone should be humbled in the presence of so much loss. It is easier to comprehend one death; however it is more significant to me to see how many died to protect their ideals and beliefs. One death is terrible, but the true significance comes from the thousands who died for their cause.
Faust states the two modes of understanding were the “significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands" personally i think the significance of a hundred thousand deaths is more pronemnant than one death no matter the situation. When hundreds thousands of deaths occur its a momentous occasion usually a war that people will remember no one will remember one death over hundred of thousands.
I agree when you say "Although many deaths is sad, I would be much more upset about the death of one lost person who is very close to me." You might find it more significant but the majority of people wont care they will look at the hundred of thousands.
That’s a good way to put it. “One mode cannot be complete without the other” because it’s important to both recognize the significance of the death of many, but that is impossible without understanding the significance of the individual death.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. "The sentimental drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death, focusing on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss," (pg. 264). In other words, sentimentality focused on each and every soldier that died in the war, rather than the sum of deaths. Irony, on the other hand, is the complete opposite, where death from the Civil War was looked at as a whole. I agree with sentimentality more because of how much more sincere it was. Each soldier should be remembered individually, rather than along with other fighters. As a result, I support sentimentality more.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that came from the Civil War experience were that "...how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands."(261) and "Naming individualized the dead; counting aggregated them..."(264). I believe that neither one of these modes of understanding could exist without the other. If their was no individuality or no need for counting the numbers of deaths, then their would be no difference.
You had said “even though one death is bad hundreds of deaths is just as horrible." This is true, although without individualizing, then the numbers wouldn’t be as significant since you would know who or where they were from.
Faust believes that sentimentality and irony both emerged from the Civil War experience. Sentimentality was the force that aloud people to focus one a single death and avoid numbers of mass dead and to lessen the focus on the magnitude of the war. Irony came from the idea that the individual didn't matter in a mass war. That the numbers of dead far outweighed the individual story of a single death. It was hard to accept but must be. I agree with irony more. I believe that the single death isn't as important in the big picture. There will be loses on both side of every war and the important thing is the right side winning the war in the end.
Jonah- in response to ben norton: I disagree. A single death which is a close loved one is sad. I feel that one life should not be valused more than another though. All lives are equal no matter their race, religion, relation, status, or inteligence. I think that two people dieing is worse than one and that a thousand is a thousand times worse than one death with no exceptions.
Faust believes that the two modes of understanding the Civil war produced are of honoring a single man and realizing that hundreds of thousands of men died in the conflict. One must see the tree in the forest, in all its splendor, and the forest, for all of its trees, at the same time. The two points are hard to understand together, for one must see the soldier as more than a number but also see a number as more than a few soldiers. A soldier's sacrifice must be magnified by the many that made it but still retain its personal feel. The shear number of deaths can't desensitize someone to the death of an honest private.
I believe that neither the thousands of deaths or the single death should be more important or meaningful. The point Faust was trying to make was that they both are meaningful in their own ways. One must see them simultaneously and with the same intensity to truly appreciate the vast affects of the war.
I completely agree with your response, and I admire your reasonings. Although sentimentality and irony are two completely different modes, they were both extremely effective to the deaths of the Civil War. Sentimentality viewed each death individually, and with more compassion. Irony, on the other hand, wanted to focus on the number of deaths overall, and giving each soldier as much attention as the next. None are more important than the other. I think you brought out both reasonings very well. Good job.
In response to Samantha: I agree with you on how they were equally important because it helped everyone move on from the loss. And neither of them were more important because of how they represented each other in a time of loss like the Civil War.
The two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were "...how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands."(261) The significance decreased, however the meaning was nearly incomprehensible. "On one hand, counting equalized...but at the same time numbers undermined the individuality..."(264) of the soldiers. The soldiers were equalized - the rank and distinction completely disappeared. However, the rank and distinction made a soldier unique. "Naming individualized the dead; counting aggregated them..."(264) Both were needed to comprehend the numbers and the physical death of the war. Sentimentality and irony also grew side by side after the Civil War. The sentimentality came from the focus on one death, an individual soldier. However, the irony came from the fact that the individual might not really matter.
ReplyDeleteI do not have a side for this question. Neither of these modes of understanding could exist without the other. If every death was individual, there would be no need for counting the numerous deaths. If there was absolutely no individuality, there would be no names and no personal graves. "Had a million been slain, it would have been 'only one' in a million homes."(264)
According to Faust, the two ways of understanding that came from the Civil War were one grave versus the 600,000 that all put together were approximately the death toll of the Civil war. “One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic”. [261] “It is hard’ he [William Fox] wrote ‘to realize the meaning of figures… 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 soldiers bloody grave. The figures are too large’” [261] I agree with the understanding of one soldier more than the understanding of a million soldiers because of how reality comes beginning on a smaller scale. “Even as he [Walt Whitman] tried to imagine these countless dead- ‘The Million Dead,’ he designated them-he claimed each one as his own”. [262] In order to understand the incomprehensible numbers of dead on both sides, he imagined each one as his own, thereby taking the numbers down to a more easily comprehended one by one basis.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jamie Baumgarten
ReplyDelete“…how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands”. [261]
Jamie made an excellent observation when she said that: “Neither of these modes of understanding could exist without the other”. Though I agree with this I believe that it is more important to look at individual deaths more often. When we think of the amount of deaths as a whole, the value of one life is diminished and he becomes a mere battle statistic. Thinking about deaths individually shows a respect for human life and keeps us from thinking that one person cannot make a difference.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were “how to grasp the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands.” This is a good point. If you hear a story of one person being killed in the news, you are likely going to feel sad or depressed about it. You heard the actual story, and therefore, you almost feel connected to that one person’s death. As Stalin would say long after the conclusion of the Civil War, “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.” It is easier to understand a smaller scale of deaths, where as thousands of death is hard to picture. I’m not sure that I agree with either one more than the other. There is a place for both. You can’t measure a whole war on individual, personal deaths. Therefore, there has to be the measure of thousands of deaths. There is a place for both stats during any war; therefore I can’t say that one is better than the other.
ReplyDeleteIn response to McKenzie Hamilton:
ReplyDeleteI agree with McKenzie and her opinion that she likes the single death mode of understanding. She says, “I agree with the understanding of one soldier more than the understanding of a million soldiers because of how reality comes beginning on a smaller scale.” It makes sense, because you can’t picture thousands, or millions of deaths for that matter. If you picture every death as if it was a close family member, as Walt Whitman did it, then it is much easier to picture the war as a whole. I think that this is the proper way to picture battle. It lets the average citizen, who never saw the carnage of the Civil War, actually feel its magnitude as a whole.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience are "understanding the vastness of what had happened in those four years of war." [pg. 261] Grasping the meaning of one death and understanding the meaning of thousands is something that the people of America had to do once the war was over. The second mode is understanding "the rhetoric of Civil War mortality statistics provided the language for a meditation on the deeper human meanig of the conflict and its unprecedented destructiveness, as well as for the exploration of the place of te individual in a world of mass-and increasingly mechanized-slaughter." To understand this is to understand that that is what made a world transform. With this I agree with Jamie. I don't side with either of these modes. One can not work without the other.
ReplyDeleteResponse to McKenzie Hamilton
ReplyDeleteNeither way could exist without the other. Of course when there are 600,000 deaths, the sentimental value of one life disappears. However, if you look at each individual life, the statistic disappears. When counting during the war, statistics were what they depended on. Therefore, one can not exist without the other. That is where I disagree with you. One life may be important, but so it the statistic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Jamie Baumgarten,
ReplyDeleteOf course neither mode could exist without the other but the question asked what mode to you agree with more. So even though both modes are important you can make an opinion upon which mode is more important. To me, a statistic is a number that really has little power by itself. Grasping a single death brings out emotion and understanding of the Civil War.
According Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War include the "significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands."(261) A single death could show the sorrow, result, and price of the civil war. The statistic of 600,000 deaths could also show the result and price of the war but not really the sorrow. The statistic also showed the important historic data of the Civil war.
ReplyDeleteEven both modes are very important in understanding the war, one is more important. "Josef Stalin would later remark that one death is a tragedy; a million a statistic." I agree with this statement because a single death brings out emotion, sorrow, and true understanding of the war. Humans could simply never truly comprehend 600,000 deaths.
In this book Faust talks about modes of understanding, “ sentimentality and irony grew side by side in American’s war-born consciousness” (264). While trying to understand the vast number of soldiers that had been lost and trying to still focus on, “the tragedy of each loss” (264), people used these two methods to accept their losses. Irony allowed the people to not focus on the individual but look at the dead as if, “ the individual might not…matter at all”(264). Sentimentality on the other hand allowed a person to grieve each loss individually. The two modes of understanding “served opposite yet coexisting needs”(264), and to choose one over the other would be pointless because one alone serves no purpose. Sentimentality was more of a respectful thing to do for those who had been lost, and an emotional way to deal with it. Irony on the other hand detached the emotion from the deaths and the dead soldiers themselves were equal. The two modes could not exist without one another. Sentimentality personalized the deaths, while irony made it more bearable, and to completely seize the idea of their losses both needed to be used.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Civil War the two modes of understanding that developed were a single death in contrast to hundreds of thousands of deaths. “It is hard,” he wrote, “to realize the meaning of the figures… 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 (261).” To separate a soldier as an individual, a single identity versus one number out of thousands is significant. Together each of these individual deaths becomes a single massive death and the value of life is diminished. Of the two modes neither is more significant or less important than the other. They balance each other so each soldier who died as well as the group as a whole is recognized. War is measured in numbers but loss is recognized individually.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jamie B:
ReplyDelete“Neither of these modes of understanding could exist without the other.” I agree with Jamie’s statement that without each mode neither could exist. If there were not individual deaths there wouldn’t be thousands of dead soldiers and if there were not dead soldiers there would be no individual deaths. Irony came with the mass death that an individual had no importance. Value of life came with an individual death and was lost when it became thousands of deaths. It is difficult to comprehend, “how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands (261).”
The two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience was the difference in how people treated a single death compared to the thousands of deaths that occurred during the civil war. The two modes of understanding were supported when Fox said, "how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands." In this one quote he showed what the two modes of understanding were."(161) He also stated, “it is hard to realize he meaning of the figures... It is easy to imagine one man killed; or ten killed or, perhaps, a core of men killed... but even it is unable to comprehend the dire meaning of the one hundred thousand who’s every unit represents a soldier's bloody grave." Even Joseph Stalin hundred years later said, "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." I agree with both Tanner and Jamie that "neither one of these modes could exist without the other."
ReplyDeleteIn response to Orion
ReplyDeleteYou said that a single death brings out more sorrow therefore it is more important. I agree it brings out more sorrow, but it isn't more important. If you hear about a deadly tragedy, by the amount of people that die, you can tell how it was bad. Which tragedy would make more news, 4 die in car crash, or thousands die during terrorist attack. Don't get me wrong I think that a single life that is taken is important, but the statistic seems even more important to me.
According to Faust sentimentality and irony were the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War. On page 264 she says, “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness.” Sentimentality can be related to naming the dead; it focuses on each and every death, and opposes the erasure of individual deaths. Opposing sentimentality irony can be related to counting the dead; it came from the idea that “the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter.” (264) I think a balance of both modes of understanding creates the best result when counting the dead, but if I had to pick one over the other I would pick sentimentality. It just seems wrong to me to turn a soldier who died for his country into just a number in part of a statistic, and then forget about his life. I think it’s important to remember, when counting death tolls as large as the Civil War’s that every one of those deaths was a person, and everyone of them should be remembered as one.
ReplyDeleteThe two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality focused more on the individual and irony focused more on the whole. Sentimentality came from recognizing the impact one death can have on the community, whereas irony came from realizing the many deaths of soldiers. I feel that sentimentality holds the more important role. Death on a large scale without sentimentality is only a statistic. One death without irony still creates a huge impact in the community around it.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Orion:
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point when you say that "A single death could show the sorrow, result, and price of the civil war. The statistic of 600,000 deaths could also show the result and price of the war but not really the sorrow." The death of one soldier had a huge impact on the whole community around it and showed the sadness of the death in the war. Six hundred thousand deaths could not show the sorrow in any way. It is simply a number, and it is impossible for humans to assign this large of a number to a name and a face.
The two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality focused “on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss,” (pg 264). It “served as a weapon against the… statistical homogenization and erasure of individuals,” (pg 264). Irony “emerged from acknowledgement of…fundamental tension,” (pg 264). It suggested that “the individual might not, in [that] juggernaut of modern warfare, actually matter,” (pg. 264). On this one, I side with the principles of sentimentality, not so much because I agree with it, but rather because I disagree with the principles of irony. I think that few people actually recognize the difference between 618,000 and infinity when it comes to the number of deaths in the Civil War. 618,000 deaths is a lot, but that does not make it acceptable to skip recognition of the soldier. Each one of the 618,000 stands for “the pale, upturned face of a dead soldier,” (pg 260); each “possessed a human face,” (pg 260). To say that the death of the individual doesn’t matter is completely wrong. Each of the 618,000 deaths was a death of an individual. There was nothing else. It’s like saying that water has nothing to do with an ocean. That’s all an ocean is: just a whole lot of water in one place. To ignore the water would be an insult to any ocean. While soldiers were fighting for a universal cause, they were humans. Each person who died lost their life, nobody else’s. They deserve to be treated as individuals. Although just comprehending the death of a few individuals doesn’t fully honor everybody, it is the most many human minds can genuinely conceptualize, and a little understanding is better than a whole lot of no understanding.
ReplyDeleteTwo modes of understanding that emerged from the civil war were sentimentality and irony. “Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers.” (264) Feeling sentimental about things they still had after the war was over helped the people in America feel better about how much they had lost. “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) the war produced irony because so many deaths came from a country fighting against each other. I agree with sentimentality more than Irony. I think it would have been better to feel happy about the things they had left after the war instead of feeling sad about what they lost. In chapter five we read about how Reverend Robinson believed it was better to remember the dead for their accomplishments instead of their mistakes. I think in a way this is the same situation. I think it’s better to feel happy during sad times instead of just being sad.
ReplyDeleteThe two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were, no matter how much documentation there was, there would still be the significant word unknown, and through numbers, one just might try to grasp the entirety of the loss of people (259). I do agree with her because no matter how many times someone tells you your loved one is gone, there is still that little part of you that will never let go. I also agree with the second one but not all the way because the bigger the number, the more shocking it is, therefore the more hopeful doubt there is. Meaning that if somebody saw a headline saying, ‘1million soldiers died today,” they would think, “that has to be a typo.” I agree with the first one more because memories can never be erased, and if the person is in one of those memories who is now gone, they will never be truly gone from your soul.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tanner:
ReplyDeleteI like how you said “War is measured in numbers but loss is recognized individually.” That statement is quite true: it is impossible to deal with mass death individually. I agree with your statement that “neither is more significant or less important than the other.” One cannot be complete without the other. Each one only gives one viewpoint to the death and each is only used in a certain case. A single death is found commonly in a family mourning the loss of a dead soldier. The massive numbers are used when talking about the war in general: when you talk about a war, you usually don’t focus only on one person’s death.
Response to Kaylie:
ReplyDeleteI agree that “sentimentality holds the more important role.” I disagree that “Death on a large scale without sentimentality is only a statistic.” I think that the sheer size of death lessens the understandability of the situation, but I think that it is more than a statistic. A man can understand one death, but multiplying that by 618,000 doesn’t make that feeling a statistic, but rather an abstract concept. I agree that “one death without irony still creates a huge impact in the community around it,” but two deaths make more of an impact. And three deaths make more of an impact than that. The impact keeps on growing, regardless of what the human mind can conceive.
Response to Cameron:
ReplyDelete“618,000 deaths is a lot, but that does not make it acceptable to skip recognition of the soldier,” I completely agree with that point. Dying for your country is one of the most honorable things any person could do in my opinion, and it would be a disgrace if any of those 618,000 soldiers became just numbers, and no longer lives. I also agree with you that “a little understanding is better than a whole lot of no understanding.” No human alone could truly honor and remember 618,000 dead soldiers, and if any person attempted this they would have, as you put it “a whole lot of no understanding.” If each person remembered and honored a couple of soldiers, it would provide some understanding which is better than no understanding.
The two modes that emerged from the Civil War experience were "...how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands." (pg 261)I agree more with the meaning of hundreds of thousands of deaths. It wasn't just one person, one man or woman, who fought in the Civil War, it was hundreds of them, thousands even. They left their homes to go fight for what they believe in but why did it all have to happen that way" Couldn't there have been another way around it? Could there have been less bloodshed?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Faust two modes that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness.” (264) These two modes showed how the nation grieved. Through sentimentality one is, “focusing on the singularity of each casualty the tragedy of each loss.” (264) However through irony one acknowledges the “unspeakable possibility that the individual might not…actually matter.” (264) Irony focuses more on the thousands of people that gave their lives rather than the individual whom may be a father, brother or son. As Joseph Stalin said, “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.” I believe neither of the modes could exist without each other. However, it is hard to choose one over the other but; I believe sentimentality is more important. With sentimentality, the death is more personal to survivors whereas irony is a statistic. Irony just shows a number of how many people died, without any emotion. It is just a number that doesn’t show how these deaths impacted the survivors.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jordyn:
ReplyDeleteI like how you showed the two different aspects of sentimentality and irony. You said, “Feeling sentimental about things they still had after the war was over helped the people in America feel better about how much they had lost.” I completely agree. Feeling sentimental was part of the grieving process that helped Americans move on after so many people were lost. You also mention Reverend Robinson. I like how you brought him up to make your point. It made me think about his preaching’s and how they taught the survivors to “remember the dead for their accomplishments instead of their mistakes.”
Sentimentality and irony were the two modes of understanding which emerged from the Civil War experience. Sentimentality focused on "the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss" (264). People who understood loss in this way believed that, as William Fox said, the numbers were "'statistics every unit of which stands for the pale, upturned face of a dead soldier'" (260). They viewed each individual number which made up a statistic as a person; they grieved each loss individually, not all losses as a whole. Irony, on the other hand, was a more detached mode of understanding. Those who used irony in their perception of the war believed that numbers told the story best, and that no individual was more important than another, but rather that the amount of death as a whole was most important. Irony was ". . . the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not, in this juggernaut of modern mass warfare, actually matter" (264).
ReplyDeleteI agree with both modes of understanding; I don't think one is better or more correct than the other, because we all grieve loss and understand death in different ways. One mode is more compassionate, one more detached, but I don't think either is wrong. They are both effective ways to comprehend the incredible amount of death our country suffered, and I think that whichever method a person chooses to deal with such tragedy is acceptable.
In response to Kristina:
ReplyDeleteIn your post, you agree with the ironic mode of understanding, and you say, "Couldn't there have been another way around it? Couldn't there have been less bloodshed?" Are you saying that this was part of the ironic mode of understanding? If so, I think that whichever way a person chose to comprehend the situation, they all wished that there had been a way around it, and that it didn't have to happen; this was not necessarily a view of one side or the other.
Response to Orion:
ReplyDeleteYou make a valid point about the vastness of 600,000 deaths. It is hard for one person to comprehend all of that death and destruction. But it is easy for one person to comprehend the death of one person. While death in and of itself is hard to understand, the one death is more personal, and therefore more easily understood. 600,000 deaths, especially in that time, was almost impossible to imagine because "an equivalent proportion of today's population would be six million." "A single death brings out emotion..." 600,000 is just to big to comprehend.
Faust believed that the two kinds of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were "how to grasp the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands." A single death meant mourning for a family, most of it done by the mother and sisters for prolonged amounts of time. "Hundreds of thousands" of deaths meant that a large portion of the country had been given up in the fight for unity of country and for the freedom of thousands of slaves. But as Joseph Stalin would later state, "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." Fifty years later, William Fox would make an observation that was along similar lines. "It is hard to realize the meaning of figures... 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 to comprehend the dire meaning of the one hundred thousand whose very unit represents a soldier's bloody grave. The figures are too large." He makes a very important point. For one person to imagine a few people dead is possible, but for them to imagine hundreds, even thousands, or more, dead, is nearly impossible. While both are important, and Jamie did make a valid point of saying that neither can exist without the other, I agree more with the understanding of a single death. A single death is easier to mourn, and when it becomes several rather than one, the mourning can be shared. But trying o comprehend 600,000 deaths is so vast that i can't agree that it would be easier, because there is nothing to relate to. It becomes nothing more than a number, that has little significance and even less sentimentality.
ReplyDeleteFaust explained the two modes of understanding as "how to grasp the both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands." (pg. 261) For one to think about a single death, it is not hard to imagine. Stories are told about the death and it is imaginable. However, when tens of thousands of men die, the meaning is incomprehensable. As Fox said, "It is hard to realize the meaning of the figures...It is easy to imagine one man killed;or ten men killed...but even...[the veteran] is unable to to comprehend the dire meaning of the one hundred thousand, whose every unit represents a soldier's bloody grave." (pg. 261) Both modes are true and therefore equal. One mode cannot be complete without the other consequently I can not choose which mode is better.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Abbey:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your views on sentimentality and irony and neither is supreme to me either. However, I don’t agree that a person chooses which mode they use. I think sentimentality and irony are used together to completely understand the loss of the Civil war.
The two modes of understanding dealt with “how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands.” (p. 261) It is more common and ordinary to hear about a single death than you do hundreds of thousands of deaths. A single death is easy to follow and comprehend, while thousands of deaths are not so. “It is hard…to realize the meaning of figures … 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.” (p. 261) The vastness of hundreds of thousands of dead can simply overwhelm the mind. In my opinion, neither mode is better than the other. Each one can only represent one aspect of the dead, whether it is individuality or scale. Both modes complement each other and would be diminished in value without the other.
ReplyDeleteThe two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were grasping the idea of a single person's death versus comprehending hundreds of thousands of deaths. Most people after the war were preoccupied with the losses of their husbands, brothers, sons, etc. They grieved for either a single person or just a few. Meanwhile, the rest of the country was also mourning for lost soldiers. The whole entire nation had lost hundreds of thousands of men. It was hard for many people to understand a loss that huge- 300,000+ soldiers. According to Joseph Stalin, "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" pg. 261. Sometimes people could barely grip the fact that their loved one had died, much less that loved ones from every family in the nation were also gone. "It is easy to imagine one man killed..." but it is very difficult "to comprehend one hundred thousand. The figures are too large" pg. 261. Defining a whole war by one single, personal death is impossible. Therefore, the mode of understanding thousands of deaths emerged from the war.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that I do not "agree" with either mode more than the other. Both came from the war, and both are ideas that many people had to understand. They happened to the country, so I don't think that one is better than the other.
According to Faust, "how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands"(261 pg) emerged from the Civil War experience. Single deaths occur everyday. Singles deaths are common and are not hard to understand. But if there are hundreds of thousands of deaths, the mind wonders. The mind has a hard time understanding the power the significance of all these deaths. Single deaths that occur during a war mount up to the hundreds of thousands of deaths that are incomprehensible.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Blake:
ReplyDeleteYou said that single deaths are easy to understand and that hundreds of thousands of deaths are herd to understand. But can a single death be as significant as hundreds of thousands? If an important figure is killed can it mean as much or more than hundreds of thousands of dead? Can it "overwhelm the mind" in the same way?
Response to Blake-
ReplyDeleteI like how you said "Both modes complement each other and would be diminished in value without the other." That is very true because without understanding one single death, you can't possibly understand hundreds of thousands. One death and many deaths go hand in hand, especially when trying to comprehend the meaning of this. Death is a complicated thing, particularly when trying to imagine thousands of people.
The two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War is how you grasp a single death and how you grasp the death of thousands. A single death we all hear of everyday but that of thousands we do not. One death is a number, 600,00 is a stastitic, this gives us the magnitude of the war. As many were trying to deal with the loss of a brother, husband or son the government is dealing with the loss of a nation.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say I do not agree with either mode as neither mode is greater than the other because one death can be just as great as many especially if its your loved one.
In response to Orion
ReplyDeleteYes it is hard for one to grasp the death of 600,000 people. This number is just uninmaginable. The loss of one we all can come to grasp and deal with. Its easier to know that we have lost one person we love than to lose thousands its just not comprehendable.
But I would have to say the either would bring out sorrow not just a single death.
In response to Abbey B
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right when you say we all grieve in different ways. They Civil War was an extremely difficult time. It makes sense that both methods of sentimentality and irony would work for different people. I picked sentimentality because I would rather feel happy about what people had accomplished in their life time instead of thinking of the ironic number of deaths. But like you I do see how people could use both sentimentality and irony to get through the incredible depressing time.
Sentimentality and irony are the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience accordidng to Faust. The sentimentality of the situation comes from the massive amount of deaths that occored and focousing on still but one death. "How could the meaning of so so many deaths be understood? And conversely, how could an induvidual's death continue to matter amid the loss of so many?" (pg.262) This question is one that many faced after the Civil War, it expresses both the sentimentality and irony of the war. The irony is seen when you think about "fundamental tention, the admission of the almost unspeakable possibility that the individual might not in this juggernaut of modern mass welfare, actually matter." (pg.264) I think it was important at the time to have a good understanding of both of these modes of understanding. They go hand in hand and neither is more important than the other. Therefore I do not agree with either one more, they are equally important.
ReplyDeleteIn response to David White:
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is easier for a person to understand one death over hundereds of thousands. I believe that all deaths are equal, and every death out there was someones father or brother or son. So each death is just as significant as the other. Death is dificult to understand no matter how many people were involved.
Faust writes about the two modes of understanding, “Sentimentality and irony grew side by side in Americans’ war-born consciousness,” (264). Sentimentality focused on individual death and how each death was a tragedy. “Sentimentality served as a weapon against the force of numbers,” (264). Irony, the opposite of sentimentality, focused on the whole rather than individual. “…possibility that the individual might not…actually matter,” showed how irony opposed to sentimentality. I agree more with the sentimentality. It respects the soldier more and would help me understand Civil War death better. Irony seems disrespectful to the soldiers who died. They were fighting for what they believed in, but according to the understanding of irony, they didn’t actually matter. This seems wrong to me and I agree way more with sentimentality.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ben:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that sentimentality and irony were the modes of understanding. I also agree that irony seems wrong. The soldiers were risking their lives, fighting for what they believed in, but seen as a number rather than a person. It seems very wrong and disrespectful. Like you, I agree more with the sentimentality side since every death was a tragedy to family members. Understanding the tragedy helps to understand how much of an impact the Civil War really was.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were "how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands" as she stated on page 261. Of the two modes, I cannot really chose which is more significant. Both are incredibly significant. The death of one is significant and better comprehendable but then again the death of many does show that whatever was fought for was fought by many so therefore there was a lot of significance.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Celina:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you fully. I think that both modes are equal. They both had a significance in some way. I also do agree that one mode cannot be complete without the other. Both modes go kind of hand in hand and therefore cannot be compared with each other as to which is better or more agreeable.
The two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were,"how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands."(261) I agree with the second mode because even though one death is bad hundreds od deaths is just horrible."One death is a tragity; a million is a statistic."(261)
ReplyDeleteIn responce to Justine
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you. Yes i agree that both modes are significant but one death is very different than hundreds or thousands of deaths. Im not saying that one isnt important but mant deaths is alot worse."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 souldier's bloody grave. The figures are too large".(261)
hank hammond
ReplyDeleteThe two modes of understanding that Faust was speaking about were very unique in a sense of how to deal with a death of a nation, "How to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands."(261)
This meant that while some were dealing with the one or two deaths of loved ones, others were bereaved about the multitude of deaths widespread across the country. While seeing that one death isn't enough to worry about, helpful people such as Whitman and so many more sought out to see what the meaning of the war was just by a number. A number that came to concluded a long stretch of deaths of not only one man, but hundreds of thousands dead.
I believe that the sentimental value of one soldier can compare not with that of the raw horror of the large number that grasps a hold of the tragedy being the Civil War. These hundreds of thousands dead is just a picture that no officer, mother, or father can compare to a single death. The overall death toll in itself creates a marking in every heart and soul that every man who died fought for something they believed in. This, in my mind, is why the meaning of hundreds of thousands is more significant than a single death.
hank hammond
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alfrado
I agree with you that a single death cannot compare with that of thousands of deaths. To mother or father a single death is just a tragedy, but to a nation, the many deaths are what represent how far we again have come. But Alfrado, you have to realize that you’re quote at the end does not quite sum up what you have telling us. It actually takes the other point of view.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War were sentimentality and irony. Sentimentality was focused more "on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss" (page 264). People who mourned in this way grieved each loss individually and didn't mourn for the whole tragedy. They looked at each number rather than all of the numbers as a whole. So therefore it had a more personal touch to it. Irony was a more detached sense of mourning, because it focused more on the thousands of people who died rather than the individual. Some even believing that there was “…possibility that the individual might not…actually matter.” I personally agree more with sentimentality because it is more personal and it honors each soldier individually. With the idea of irony, it almost feels disrespectful because it's as if it ignores each soldiers role in the war. Therefore, I agree more with the idea of sentimentality.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Hank Hammond:
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point, when thousands of soldiers die compared to just one it is devastating for not just a single person but for thousands of people."The overall death toll in itself creates a marking in every heart and soul that every man who died fought for something they believed in." When people grasp the idea that thousands of people have died they use the mode of sentimentality to honor each soldier. I liked how you mixed the idea of sentimentality into the situation of thousands of soldiers dying compared to a single death without saying that irony was the better mode.
In response to Alfredo:
ReplyDeleteWhen you used the quote, "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic." (pg. 261) I believe you are contradicting yourself because a statistic is a guess, an estimate, it's not always correct. Therefore, in a statistic every death counts because there may be too many estimated deaths or too little. People tried so hard to honor every soldier by counting bodies and I don't believe a statistic is exactly honoring. Overall, I do not agree with you.
The two modes of understanding during the civil war were the significance of one death versus the death of hundreds of thousands. I think that one death is much more significant than the death of thousands because to individuals, the individual death makes much more of an impact than the thousands. Although many deaths is sad, I would be much more upset about the death of one lost person who is very close to me.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sophia:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say that it is more important to honor each soldier individually. When you look at the big picture, the 600,000 that died, it kind of numbs the sting of each individual death. Although many people did die, and that is important, i think it is more important to focus on the individuals.
Faust believed that the two modes of understanding were the, “significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands"(pg. 261). I think that finding the meaning of the hundreds of thousands of deaths is correct. I think that one should look at the thousands that died for a cause they believed in and that someone should be humbled in the presence of so much loss. It is easier to comprehend one death; however it is more significant to me to see how many died to protect their ideals and beliefs. One death is terrible, but the true significance comes from the thousands who died for their cause.
ReplyDeleteFaust states the two modes of understanding were the “significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands" personally i think the significance of a hundred thousand deaths is more pronemnant than one death no matter the situation. When hundreds thousands of deaths occur its a momentous occasion usually a war that people will remember no one will remember one death over hundred of thousands.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ben,
ReplyDeleteI agree when you say "Although many deaths is sad, I would be much more upset about the death of one lost person who is very close to me." You might find it more significant but the majority of people wont care they will look at the hundred of thousands.
In response to Celina Roy
ReplyDeleteThat’s a good way to put it. “One mode cannot be complete without the other” because it’s important to both recognize the significance of the death of many, but that is impossible without understanding the significance of the individual death.
According to Faust, the two modes of understanding that emerged from the Civil War experience were sentimentality and irony. "The sentimental drew its strength from the need to resist the unintelligibility of mass death, focusing on the singularity of each casualty, the tragedy of each loss," (pg. 264). In other words, sentimentality focused on each and every soldier that died in the war, rather than the sum of deaths. Irony, on the other hand, is the complete opposite, where death from the Civil War was looked at as a whole. I agree with sentimentality more because of how much more sincere it was. Each soldier should be remembered individually, rather than along with other fighters. As a result, I support sentimentality more.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Faust, the two modes of understanding that came from the Civil War experience were that "...how to grasp both the significance of a single death and the meaning of hundreds of thousands."(261) and "Naming individualized the dead; counting aggregated them..."(264). I believe that neither one of these modes of understanding could exist without the other. If their was no individuality or no need for counting the numbers of deaths, then their would be no difference.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alfredo:
ReplyDeleteYou had said “even though one death is bad hundreds of deaths is just as horrible." This is true, although without individualizing, then the numbers wouldn’t be as significant since you would know who or where they were from.
in response hank and celina
ReplyDeleteyes i did just contradict my self
Faust believes that sentimentality and irony both emerged from the Civil War experience. Sentimentality was the force that aloud people to focus one a single death and avoid numbers of mass dead and to lessen the focus on the magnitude of the war. Irony came from the idea that the individual didn't matter in a mass war. That the numbers of dead far outweighed the individual story of a single death. It was hard to accept but must be. I agree with irony more. I believe that the single death isn't as important in the big picture. There will be loses on both side of every war and the important thing is the right side winning the war in the end.
ReplyDeleteJonah- in response to ben norton: I disagree. A single death which is a close loved one is sad. I feel that one life should not be valused more than another though. All lives are equal no matter their race, religion, relation, status, or inteligence. I think that two people dieing is worse than one and that a thousand is a thousand times worse than one death with no exceptions.
ReplyDeleteFaust believes that the two modes of understanding the Civil war produced are of honoring a single man and realizing that hundreds of thousands of men died in the conflict. One must see the tree in the forest, in all its splendor, and the forest, for all of its trees, at the same time. The two points are hard to understand together, for one must see the soldier as more than a number but also see a number as more than a few soldiers. A soldier's sacrifice must be magnified by the many that made it but still retain its personal feel. The shear number of deaths can't desensitize someone to the death of an honest private.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Ryan Lynch,
ReplyDeleteI believe that neither the thousands of deaths or the single death should be more important or meaningful. The point Faust was trying to make was that they both are meaningful in their own ways. One must see them simultaneously and with the same intensity to truly appreciate the vast affects of the war.
In response to Abbey Borchers,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your response, and I admire your reasonings. Although sentimentality and irony are two completely different modes, they were both extremely effective to the deaths of the Civil War. Sentimentality viewed each death individually, and with more compassion. Irony, on the other hand, wanted to focus on the number of deaths overall, and giving each soldier as much attention as the next. None are more important than the other. I think you brought out both reasonings very well. Good job.
In response to Samantha:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on how they were equally important because it helped everyone move on from the loss. And neither of them were more important because of how they represented each other in a time of loss like the Civil War.