This is a very interesting article because of the time difference. Let me explain, now a days people believe that want more rights and get offended easily. So looking at this from a modern standpoint, the reader would take the side of Zepp. He has the right to choose if he wants to go overseas. Historically speaking the United States did not go into the war out of patriotism like we did in WWII. So is it cowardly to refuse to go overseas? From this standpoint most people would agree it is not. Now let’s look at the view of people in 1917. Think about your grandparents or great grandparents if you knew them. They are tough people who have many stories about hard times. Generally the population in the US were laborers. My grandpa grew up with no heat or running water in his house. He worked from sun up to sundown every day. These days very few people do that. So in a tougher generation, it is expected that you do what you are told and to not complain. Zepp’s Sargent pulled a gun on him. In those days that wasn’t frowned upon and you were expected to do what you were told.
The way this information was presented swayed the reader to take the side of Zepp. Why shouldn’t it? It is his narrative after all. I think the way the author wrote this leaned towards Zepp’s opinion of his discharge. The use of tone in this article was the key factor of how the reader took the information in. It is very powerful and I could almost picture myself as Zepp and how he was feeling.
Adam Manzoni 