<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Comments by Anisha Hosadurga</title>
    <description>Most recent public comments by Anisha Hosadurga</description>
    <link>https://nowcomment.com/users/26696</link>
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://nowcomment.com/users/26696/comments"/>
    <item>
      <title>Who controls the narrative</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/36342?scroll_to=632399</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/36342?scroll_to=632399</guid>
      <description>    &quot;History is written by the winners&quot; is an all too familiar phrase when discussing the narratives accessible about war. This line is altogether abrasive and comforting to those of us that tend to be one the losing side of history. Here, however we have an exception to this generally rigid rule. A war where the losers got the control the narrative. The idea that history is written by winners is refuted here because it begs the question, when one group has been continuously oppressing everyone else for so long, is a victory enough to shift the narrative? With the precedent of white voices being prioritized over non-white, non-western, in this case specifically Southeast Asian voice, the losers will still be the ones able to control the perception of the war as they are western, percieved as white, and their voices have been allotted more weight.
    As stated in this essay, one key characteristic of the way this war has been remembered is the glorification of violence, as with other wars the United States has attempted to remember. In this aspect, it did not matter that America lost the war because, regardless, America still got to be the aggressor, still the victimizer, still the torturer.

Anisha Hosadurga
Kira Zarzuela
Sarah Watkins
Phyllip Cho
Claudia Griffiths
AASt233</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2016 18:43:38 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
