As I'm sure many of you thought when you listened to Dave Dudley's "What We're Fighting For" (if you did actually listen to it), the song's message is essentially flawed. In sum, Dudley argues that the Vietnam War is justified and necessary for a variety of reasons. This is a valid opinion; it is his reasoning that raises some red flags. In the song, he responds to peace protesters, asking "Did they forget Pearl Harbor and Korea?" Although this line would definitely appeal to the audience's emotions (pride, patriotism, etc), it does not really make sense. This could certainly be considered an argument to the people, a non sequitur, or even a bandwagon claim. It does not make much sense to fight a war in Vietnam because we were involved in other conflicts in the previous decades with other nations. This is not to say that there are no valid reasons to fight in Vietnam, but the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor certainly isn't a logical justification. Dudley's thought process here "does not follow," but it definitely appeals to the patriotic sentiment that the majority of the country was feeling at the time.
Later in the song, Dudley stresses the importance of having the world know that Americans "will protect [their] shore." This quite literally is an irrational claim; fighting a proxy war on the other side of the planet is entirely different from protecting your land. This war was not a war of self-defense, but rather a move to contain the spread of Communism in other areas of the world. This is another blatant example of a non sequitur within the song. When looked at objectively, even though it inspired and appealed to a majority of the American people, the song's main argument is fallacious.
Agustin Aguerre
Excellent comments, and well in the spirit of logical fallacy. Regardless of Dudley's claim regarding the war's validity, that reasoning itself is certainly problematic.
ReplyDeleteI was very interested by your post because I never really considered that there could be logical fallacies in a song, although I can really see where you are coming from. I thought you made a very good point that Dudley attempted to rationalize the war with completely unrelated events that were simply considered patriotic. Overall, I thought your post was both interesting and effective.
ReplyDelete~Micah Plotkin
Interesting and articulate post, you did a great job of supporting your points with specific quotes and examples. Dudley appeals to pathos in the guise of an appeal to logos which you were able to expose and explain by pointing out that his lyrics don't logically follow but rather use emotion and patriotism to manipulate the listener.
ReplyDelete-Chris Burns