Please look at this dbq!!! I have a test this thursday!!!!

<p>PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me what you think. its not very good. i had to write about the conflicts between vietnam and france and vietnam vs. the u.s right after ww2. please help!!!</p>

<p>After reviewing these documents, it is clear that one of the main causes of conflict in Vietnam against the French and then later against the United States was primarily due to different forms of government-- Vietnam being a communist regime, and France and the United States being democratic. This split of beliefs of government became prominent during the Cold War- when the United States and the Soviet Union had a standoff about their differing veiws of the world (communism vs. democracy)- and Vietnam clearly sided with communism. There was also still some colonial moments, especially from France, and the Vietnamese were very much anti-colonial. To better understand the differences and source of conflict between Vietnam, the United States, and France, one must first look at the differing beliefs of non-communists as well as communists, and then move on to the source of conflict between France and Vietnam as well as between the United States and Vietnam.
During this time, there was a lot of disagreement and conflict between how one should run one's government. Many European countries as well as the United States were united against communism and its revolutionary and nationalistic stance (document 5). People who followed Marxist's policies were communist and believed that everyone should have the same status, pay, way of living, etc. There would be one person in charge to dictate it, as well as pulling up a large peasant class. This side was Vietnam, as well as China, the Soviet Union, and others. The United States, France, and Great Britian, just to name a few, were democratic, meaning that the government represents the people, and that people can rise through society.
There was a lot of tension and conflict between France and Vietnam. The French believed that democracy was best and tried to promote it, claiming that the hate for them was because of the illiterate population in Vietnam (document 6). There was tension especially at Geneva, but the Vietnamese won and said that they could now enjoy their rights and freedoms. It is important to remember, however, that much of this conflict was in North Vietnam. Much of South Vietnam was tied with the United States and regarded by the North as a "puppet state." The South, therefore, was less communist, and less opposed to the France and the United States (document 4).
The relationship with Vietnam and the United States was less icy. The United States did not try to push for a democracy as much as the French. During this time, the United States and Great Britain tried not to get involved in the affairs of Vietnam. They stated that they did not want their land, to make land changes, and respected the right of the people to chose their own government (document 1). Vietnam in response, however, tried to get the United States involved, and asked for the United States to interefere with negotiations to prevent France from responding to Vietnam's succession of Cochinichina with military aggression (document 2). This relationship between Vietnam and the United States was important because they did not fight or have as much military agression as did France and Vietnam.
After reviewing these documents, there are a few author points of view that should be addressed. The first is from document 1, written by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. This article states that they do not want to subjective. They may have taken this point of view, because it was just after World War II, so their governments were still recovering. The U.S. was also focusing on the Soviet Union, so that would have been their main focus. It is also important to remember, that they supported democracies, and the U.S. was playing a large role in South Vietnam at the time. The second document worth looking at is document 4. This was writen by Ngo Dinh Diem, a non-communist leader of South Vietnam. Diem would have been greatly influenced by the United States and their democratic views, leading him to be non-communist. He is, therefore, not agressive in his article towards European countries and the U.S.
Some additional documents would have been useful to aid this writing assignment. I would have liked at least one more from France to show their point of view in more depth. Another point of veiw from a country that was not in the conflict would have been useful to see what was going on from a subjective point of view. An article from a regular citizen would have been helpful as well, to show the point of view from the life of a normal person, instead of a government leader or historian. In addition, a picture of an ad campaign to fight against the different sides could have helped to portray the feelings.
In conclusion, though South Vietnam was supported by the U.S. and tended to be more democratic, North Vietnam seemed to have much conflict with France, and some with the United States. A key player in this conflict was the difference in views about their government: communism versus democracy. This led to small wars and cold fronts between the nations.</p>

<p>please!!! i know its long, but just tell me what you think. i dont really know what people are looking for, so id be really helpful for some advice and what grade you would give me!</p>

<p>Is this your actual essay??</p>

<p>yes. is it bad?</p>

<p>sorry to bug you, but what do you think of it?</p>

<p>Hey again Rachel!</p>

<p>For the DBQ you need to make sure that you group the documents. The focus of the essay is NOT what you know about Vietnam and the United States, it's what the documents say about them. Your thesis needs to directly answer the prompt (it'd be good if you posted the exact wording) and the body paragraphs should be document groupings. You can't just have a random thesis, make your points, and reference the documents. You have to really group the documents and make it clear how/why you're grouping them. I think the best way to do this is, at the start of each paragraph, say "Topic sentence blah blah blah... as can be seen in Documents 1, 2, and 3." Then you individually discuss the documents, including a discussion of point of view and how they relate to one another, and relate them back to your topic sentence and in turn your thesis statement.</p>

<p>I was always taught that the documents are support for the information you already know, not the other way around. Anyone can summarize a few documents, but if you apply them to facts that all work together to support your thesis, that's when you get a a really good essay.</p>

<p>Also, I personally don't like referring to the documents as A, B, or C. I feel like saying, "In Lincoln's Inaugural Address he said blah blah blah" sets a more professional tone than saying document A states...</p>

<p>To me, your essay seemed more like an outline or really rough draft. It had great points and well thought out examples, but it was missing that final oomph, if you know what I mean.</p>

<p>I hope I helped :)</p>

<p>zero cero nil
wutwut</p>

<p>I think you missed the point of the DBQ my friend. The point of the DBQ is not to flaunt your outside knowledge but to ANALYZE (NOT SUMMARIZE!!!!!!) the documents. Outside information might get you an expanded core point but it's unnecessary otherwise. You can have absolutely no idea about the prompt and easily get a 9. (@ Readytolearn)</p>

<p>About your essay I agree with what has been said before. And the "After reviewing the documents" seems really unprofessional. The best way to cite the documents is "Document 5, Lincolns Address (or whatever)" Some readers like the number and others like a short title, it's easier to just do both. I doubt they would dock you for doing it either way though.</p>

<p>@readytolearn:
I believe that you are supposed to analyze the documents, not summarize, and then use your background knowledge to support your analysis. What the test makers want to see is that you can analyze documents correctly, not necessarily that you know a lot about the topic. If you take a look at the rubric you'll see that there are no points given for "knowing the topic," its all about analysis. There is however a point given for outside knowledge in the "expanded core requirements." But to get points from the expanded core requirements, you need to have all the points from the basic core rubric first.</p>

<p>Take a look at the rubric if you're confused. If you meet all the criteria on the rubric, they can't take points off, unless your handwriting is illegible or something (like mine lol).</p>

<p>thanks! so do i group the arguments and then discuss it? im a bit confused as to analyze them</p>

<p>Its not so much grouping and discussing, but rather grouping and analyzing. They don't just want a summary of the documents; you need to answer the question asked. What my AP teacher recommends is that when you first read the DBQ question, you write down a list of what they are asking for.</p>

<p>Example: (using the 2010 FRQs <a href="http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap10_frq_world_history.pdf):%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap10_frq_world_history.pdf):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The question asks for:
1. Similarities in cotton industry in Japan and India
2. Differences in cotton industry in Japan and India</p>

<p>Then when reading the docs, you write 1 and 2 next to each of them and quickly jot down how each doc answers each question asked. </p>

<p>Some question may also ask for continuities, responses, etc., so when doing your DBQ, make sure you answer everything, and read the question very carefully.</p>

<p>so would i write, in the context of something, japan the cotton had blah blah... as shown by documents 1,2 3....
and then say, in contrast india had.... as shown by 4, 5, 6.
and in after saying each one, explain what they said?</p>