RESPONSE TO ARTICLE
The opening sentences seemed to me somewhat crude and yet a realistic comparison of battles and camps. I felt it a good way to start out an article with such underlying significance [in history] as this topic.
First off, the idea of preserving a historic site to tell about a soldier’s lives seems to me a wonderful idea. War is oftentimes, as the article mention, depicted simply in the settings of battles—especially in our textbook, which only covers the general information (I’m not complaining) of wars. Although I am a pacifist, I believe that the horrors of war should be more entwined with general information. I’m not exploiting the article for my own beliefs in any way, but simply stating that the conditions of war are not pretty, which is common knowledge—just to let you know. Overall, I think that preserving a historic war camp site is a great idea.
The idea that the camp was considered the largest city in North America at the time seems to me an astonishing concept—much like my peers who have stated similarly.
I’m not whether or not I consider the Stafford Board of Supervisors decisions with the builder C.T. Park Inc. altogether beneficial; in one perspective, I see the preservation of a historic site, especially one entwined with such a large war, to be essential to the cultural growth of prosperity’s communities. Then again, it seems to me that all the “open space” will essentially be of no use. Maybe I’m thinking a little too much like an “expansionist”—I just think that the open space defies its purpose as carrying significant historical evidence, and could be put to better use. I feel I’m thinking in terms too B&W, but that’s just me.
First off, the idea of preserving a historic site to tell about a soldier’s lives seems to me a wonderful idea. War is oftentimes, as the article mention, depicted simply in the settings of battles—especially in our textbook, which only covers the general information (I’m not complaining) of wars. Although I am a pacifist, I believe that the horrors of war should be more entwined with general information. I’m not exploiting the article for my own beliefs in any way, but simply stating that the conditions of war are not pretty, which is common knowledge—just to let you know. Overall, I think that preserving a historic war camp site is a great idea.
The idea that the camp was considered the largest city in North America at the time seems to me an astonishing concept—much like my peers who have stated similarly.
I’m not whether or not I consider the Stafford Board of Supervisors decisions with the builder C.T. Park Inc. altogether beneficial; in one perspective, I see the preservation of a historic site, especially one entwined with such a large war, to be essential to the cultural growth of prosperity’s communities. Then again, it seems to me that all the “open space” will essentially be of no use. Maybe I’m thinking a little too much like an “expansionist”—I just think that the open space defies its purpose as carrying significant historical evidence, and could be put to better use. I feel I’m thinking in terms too B&W, but that’s just me.
1 Comments:
Sometimes people picture wars as all bloody with guns and soldiers dieing and everything, and they forget that there were camps. I think that in preserving the Civil War camp, people wil be able to see the other side of "war" that they would have never imagined of.
Post a Comment
<< Home