Patriotism is supposed to be a grand thing. It is the love of and willingness to defend one's country. The problem with patriotism arises when the government uses patriotism to blind its citizens to the truth of its actions. The enemies of the country are reduced to subhuman villains, and the heroes of the country are turned into gods. All of this is an attempt by the government to bend the minds of its citizens to its will.
Wilfred Owen, an officer in the British army during WWI, wrote strongly on the subject of patriotism. One of the major flaws he found in patriotism is the theme of this poem, "Dulce et Decorum Est." In this poem he reveals that dying for one's country is not an honorable or glorious affair, but rather a horribly painful and humiliating process. He describes soldiers dying of gas attacks and the long torturous marches they had to make. Owen feels that people who describe dying for your country as a glorious affair have either never seen it or are looking for some sort of personal glory.
Dwight Okita, a poet of Japanese descent who's mother was forced into a relocation center during WWII, points out another flaw in patriotism. If the country is doing something immoral patriotism can cause people to blindly follow orders and not think about the consequences. During WWII the US government forced over 100,000 Japanese Americans into relocation centers to prevent sabotage and spying. Okita's poem, "In Response to Executive Order 9066," is about a young girl who is being forced to move into one of these relocation centers. Her best friend turns on her and accuses her of spying for the "enemy." Because of patriotism the President of the USA convinced the American people that locking away 100,000 of its own citizens simply because of their ancestry was a good idea. Because of patriotism a little girl lost her best friend and her normal way of life. Patriotism blinded a whole country to its own atrocities while it fought the evils of others across the seas.
Patriotism is an emotion, an ideal. It is neither good nor evil. It simply exists. Patriotism depends on the country that spawns it for its moral fiber. If the country is just, then its patriots will be just. Likewise, if the country is unjust, then its patriots will be unjust. Living, killing, and dying for one's country are only good things if the country is just and free. Living, killing, and dying for an unjust country gives rise to horrors like the holocaust.
This paper can be commended for its good thesis (although it becomes disappointing when the topic sentences do not agree with it) and for the writer's lack of major grammatical errors (except for the one in the concluding paragraph). Occasionally the writer uses a mix of sentence structures, although he tends to use a lot of simple sentences, which is common for inexperienced writers. The structure of four paragraphs is acceptable because the assignment calls for a discussion of the two poems. A stronger paper might have listed three issues that were common in the two poems and expounded on these similarities. The writer also correctly uses present tense when discussing the literature and past tense when using historical examples. However, notice the lack of transitional words between the sentences to allow the reader to move from one thought to another.
Introduction: The writer starts with two sentences that are essentially verbal "throat-clearing." The sentences fail to give much meaning to the paper. Even though the thesis is good, the introduction lacks an "attention grabber." Nothing in the five sentences catches the attention of the reader. The writer could have used an apt quotation or a quick anecdote about war or patriotism. Also, the entire paragraph starts the paper off slowly because of the writer's overuse of simple sentences, creating a monotonous tone.
First topic paragraph: The topic sentence is not a reason why patriotism "is an attempt by the government to bend the minds of its citizens to its will." The topic sentence should introduce the topic as a reason for the thesis. Nevertheless, the paragraph does eventually describe indirectly how leaders try to convince citizens that dying for one's country is noble, when in fact it is not. The writer overuses the pronoun as subjects. Also, the writer again uses a lot of simple sentences, suggesting a lack of mature writing. Another lack in this paragraph is the absence of specific examples from the text. The writer does point out general ideas, but does not refer to direct statements, which would strengthen his position.
Second topic paragraph: The topic sentence again does not answer the question why. At this point the reader will realize that the writer should have written a thesis that centered on the flaws of patriotism, rather than how the government bends citizens to its will. The paragraph has a good organization by discussing immoral actions by leaders and then providing a general reference to the poem. Still, the writer uses no specific support from the poem in order to create a deeper impact. The writer can be criticized for using language imprecisely. "Country" is incapable of doing anything; yet the writer has the country committing immoral acts, fighting, and being blinded. Citizens, leaders, or soldiers certainly are capable of doing something. The writer would have been more precise had he used specific nouns for his subjects. The writer uses more complex sentences in this paragraph, but fails to correctly use commas after the subordinate clauses, suggesting not carelessness on the part of the writer, but a problem with his logic. The student needs additional help with mechanics concerning commas. The writer has a spelling mistake with "who's" instead of "whose."
Conclusion: The writer fails to restate his thesis very well. Perhaps the reason for this failure is because he was fuzzy about his thesis in the first place. The writer uses no clincher which leaves the reader with a memorable moment or a challenge. In fact, the writer seems to be introducing a new idea in the conclusion—patriotism as an amoral concept where its ethics is supplied by the citizens themselves. The grammatical error in the last sentence (Subject-Verb agreement) is unfortunate and probably is merely carelessless by not having enough time to proofread thoroughly.
This paper does deal with a central idea, which redeems this written assignment. The writer does struggle with the concept of patriotism, he does use the two poems to provide some continuity to the assignment, and he uses a fairly good organization, even though he certainly could have expressed himself better.