Armed with Abundance consumerism and soldiering in the Vietnam War / Meredith H. Lair

HIS 0847 Book Review
This semester, you must complete TWO book reviews of no more than 1,000 words each, choosing from the following books:
→ Jack Kirby Martin and Mark Lender, A Respectable Army: The Military Origins of the Republic, 1763-1789
Due Friday, February 4th at 11:59pm
→ Barbara Gannon, The Won Cause: Black and White Comradeship in the Grand Army of the Republic
Due Friday, February 25th at 11:59pm
→ Meredith Lair, Armed With Abundance: Consumerism and Soldiering in the Vietnam War
Due Friday, April 8th at 11:59pm
→ Kara Dixon Vuic, Officer, Nurse, Woman: The Army Nurse Corps in the Vietnam War
Due Friday, April 8th at 11:59pm
The purpose of this assignment is to review a book that directly coincides with themes we are discussing in class. You only need to complete two
reviews, but if you choose to complete more, the highest two grades will be kept. You are limited to 1000 words, so you must be able to accurately
summarize while being economical with your word choice.
Use the following categories of analysis to help you guide your review. Many of these sections can be addressed quickly (in a sentence or two), but
you should address all categories:
Topic: This should be your brief introduction where you introduce the author’s (full) name and topic of the book (while expanding on the
title). What is the scope of the book geographically and chronologically?
Thesis and Argument: This should be the longest part of your review: what is the thesis of the book and its major arguments? What is the
“main question” that the author is attempting to answer? What evidence is provided to support his or her argument? This information
typically appears in the introduction in a well-organized book.
Organization and Themes: How are the chapters laid out and categorized? By theme or chronologically? How does the organization of the
book relate to the argumentation of the book? Is it well-organized? Are there any major themes that are recurring throughout, such as race,
gender, or something else? This does not to be a long section, and can usually be dispensed with in two or three sentences. There’s no need to
go chapter by chapter, but you should be looking at the overall arc of the book.
Historiography: Historiography is the section where a historian argues how they contribute to their field of literature. The question you want
to answer: How does this historian attempt to differentiate themselves from what others have done? (SEE BELOW FOR GUIDANCE)*
Evaluation and Conclusion: Give your criticism, positive and/or negative: what do you think about the arguments, use of evidence, writing
style, and organization? Provide your overall assessment.
You do not necessarily need to use quotations, but if you do, make sure that they are purposeful and are properly contextualized and analyzed. Don’t
just drop a random quote in the middle of a paragraph and never address it. Since you are only working with one source, you only need to cite the
page number in the text.
For example: (20).
Historiography
The notion of “historiography,” or the study of how historians write, can often be inaccessible or tough to glean out of the works for those unfamiliar
with it. I have provided you the exact places to look in each book. In most cases, the historian lays out how the story is usually told by other
historians, and then set up their argument up as new. This is the information you want to summarize.
A Respectable Army: There is an entire section dedicated to this in the appendix, beginning on page 219. Reading through the section and see
why Martin and Lender believe they fit into so-called “New military history,” which is more than just “guns and battle.”
The Won Cause: Near the middle of page 3, beginning with “Previous studies of GAR have not…”
On Armed With Abundance: The introduction is titled “Reframing the Narrative of the Vietnam War,” hinting that Lair wants to change
what/where/who we might normally focus on. The historiography begins at the bottom of page 5: “The landscape of the Vietnam War has
become familiar terrain” (we tend to only think about a few things when we think about the Vietnam War). On page 6: “In the following
chapters, I will…”
Officer, Nurse, Woman: Near the bottom of page 10: “This book considers the conflux of…” While Vuic doesn’t specifically point out other
historians in this section, her novel interpretation involves bringing two “events” together. Two processes that are normally treated as separate
are put together into one history. This is what you want to focus on.
Rubric
Criteria Excellent Good Fair Poor
Evaluating
the Author’s
Topic and
Purpose
The review clearly identifies and
succinctly communicates the
central argument and thesis of
the book and demonstrates a
sophisticated understanding of
the author’s argument.
Reviewer provides a limited
discussion of the book’s
central argument and thesis:
argument and thesis are not
fully detailed.
Reviewer provides little
evaluation of the author’s
topic and purpose, or one of
the categories is missing.
Evaluation of the author’s
topic and purpose is missing
Evaluating
the Book’s
Structure
Demonstrates a thorough
understanding of the book’s
themes, organization, source
base, and where the author sees
themselves in the broader field of
scholarship.
Reviewer provides a limited
discussion of the book’s
organization/themes, source,
and historiography, or one of
the categories is missing
Reviewer provides little
discussion of the book’s
organization/themes, source,
and historiography, or two of
the categories are missing.
Understanding of the book’s
organization/theme, source
base and historiography are
missing.
Critical
Analysis
Critique is a succinct and
thoughtful response that properly
analyzes the author’s aims, the
subject of the book, and how
well the book is written.
Reviewer’s critique provides
some analysis of the book,
but overall is lacking: does
not address the core
arguments of the book.
Critique is superficial or
limited; Does not fully
address arguments, evidence,
writing style, or organization.
Critical analysis of the book
is missing.
Review
Organization
Reviewer’s thoughts are wellorganized, and the structure of
the review is clear and
effectively communicates its
ideas. Transition between ideas is
clear. Introduction and
conclusion are clear and
compelling.
The reviewer’s thoughts are
well-organized, but there is
some difficulty in
transitioning between ideas or
there may be some illogical
order in the sequence of
topics.
Structure of the review does
not follow a logical order,
making it difficult to follow;
Either intro or conclusion are
missing.
Review does not follow a
logical order; paragraph
transitions are absent; Intro
and conclusion are absent
Syntax and
Mechanics
Written in clear and concise
language and style
commensurate with
undergraduate-level work with
no spelling or grammatical
errors.
Language communicates
ideas; errors are present but
not distracting; basic
organization is apparent;
minor grammatical or
mechanics errors.
Language is sometimes
confusing; errors are
distracting; lack of
organization makes review
difficult to follow.
Language is confusing;
frequent errors make review
unreadable; lack of
organization.
Points 2 1.5 1 0.5