44th aniversary of the Kent State shootings

rugcat · May 4, 2014

bookmaker said:
I was wondering if people believe that if there was still a draft in the US we would have seen the same kind of revolt over the past decade or so we saw during the Vietnam War, and if those protests would have been met with the same kind of force.

I don't think it would have been exactly the same today, because the 60s was a much more activist generation.

Not that we were so special, but we were coming out of a long period of stultifying social conformity. Government and the police, who once were pretty much respected, (at least by white folks) became the enemy – in part because of the war, in part because of marijuana – remember, in those days you could go to jail for years simply for smoking a joint of dirt weed

And many of today's youth are a bit weary of the whole idea of activism – their parents have been there, done that, and not that much seems to have changed. They have other concerns.

But back then, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, even if you believed to the core of your being the Vietnam war was wrong and immoral, you still had to go fight it.

Or go to jail, or leave the country. Or be lucky enough to get a good draft number or a deferment for whatever reasons. So that war affected young people in a much different fashion. It wasn't just the military fighting it, it was everyone. And you were put in the position of having to kill people for what you considered no reason, or possibly be killed yourself.

And it wasn't just the kids. It was the parents as well. When middle America started to see their children forced to fight a war they didn't believe in and then saw them coming back from Vietnam in a box, the realities of war and the questions about whether it was worth it became more than theoretical. It became very personal.

Right before the Iraq invasion, there were huge street demonstrations against it. Tens of thousands of people, sometimes hundreds of thousands marching in the major cities. But then, after we invaded, that sort of opposition simply faded away for the most part. Because, I believe, the only people in this country it truly affected were those who chose to sign up for it.

Had young men and women bitterly opposed to the war been forced to go to Iraq and die there, I think you would've seen some very large demonstrations indeed and violence in the streets would not have been unknown. I also believe we would not have spent a decade there.

Vocal opposition and civilian activism, when large and determined enough can alter and affect governmental policy – as it should.

Haggis · May 4, 2014

Interestingly, rugcat's and my generation, as activist as they were, did not do a whole hell of a lot to promote women's rights at that time. Perhaps Shakey's post speaks to that to some degree. And while that generation, my generation, did seek to correct racial inequality, I don't much remember them treating their gay brethren and sistren any differently than did the mainstream at the time.

AncientEagle · May 4, 2014

bookmaker said:
My answer is "yes" to the latter question. Not so sure about the first. Interesting to me is that the Vietnam protests were largely by college students (right?) who weren't going to go anyway. One thing they both seem to have in common is wars are still fought by the poor.

College students were indeed going to go, if they let their grades drop. That this fact fueled much of the protesting is indicated by the almost instant drop in protesting once the draft was eliminated. So much for philosophical objection to war. (I don't mean to insult those who truly objected to the war on moral grounds, but I can't forget the large number who apparently objected only as long as their own butts were in danger.)
It's easy to say wars are fought by the poor. True, they are fought by the mostly young, and the young are more likely to be poor. And the rich can find ways to protect their young better than can the poor parents. But some fight wars because they believe in the cause. Some fight because they believe in dedicating their lives to the professional fighting force of their country. Some just think it's the right thing to do at the time. One of the best forward observers I ever saw (FO's are up forward with the Infantry, calling in artillery fire for the grunts) in Vietnam was my FO, a Harvard graduate, lieutenant, only member of his class in the Army, looked like a movie star, totally competent in his job, and there because he thought he should be.
Sorry to be so long-winded, but I tend to react verbosely at the ancient assumption that the only people in the Army are those who are too poor, too uneducated, or too stupid to do anything else. And that nobody really wants to be there.

ColoradoGuy · May 4, 2014

Haggis said:
Interestingly, rugcat's and my generation, as activist as they were, did not do a whole hell of a lot to promote women's rights at that time. Perhaps Shakey's post speaks to that to some degree. And while that generation, my generation, did seek to correct racial inequality, I don't much remember them treating their gay brethren and sistren any differently than did the mainstream at the time.

We men were actually quite sexist in a casual, unseeing sort of way. You can get a flavor of that in the movie Forrest Gump in the way that Jenny's activist boyfriend treats her. It's a short bit, but quite telling and well done.

Haggis · May 4, 2014

ColoradoGuy said:
We men were actually quite sexist in a casual, unseeing sort of way. You can get a flavor of that in the movie Forrest Gump in the way that Jenny's activist boyfriend treats her. It's a short bit, but quite telling and well done.

Exactly right, and a great example of it.

rugcat · May 4, 2014

ColoradoGuy said:
We men were actually quite sexist in a casual, unseeing sort of way. You can get a flavor of that in the movie Forrest Gump in the way that Jenny's activist boyfriend treats her. It's a short bit, but quite telling and well done.

Yes, there was a great deal of sexism and homophobia, but it was unthinking for the most part. Voices were needed to bring it to our attention, and for the most part, I think our generation listened more than dismissed when they did.

It's one of many ironies that the original Black Panther Party, so steeped in revolutionary lore and dedicated to freedom and justice, were incredibly sexist -- far more so than today's southern tea party folks would ever dream of being.

benbradley · May 4, 2014

I was 12 years old and ~~totally self-absorbed~~ not really following the news back then, so I don't recall the actual event, though I sure recall the CSNY song, and have a vague memory of TV pundit discussion about it.

Maryn said:
Sweet Jesus, how could anyone forget? Firing live rounds at college students for peaceful protests was unconscionable and immoral, then and now. I hate that the commanding officers denied having given the order, leaving the guard troops who obeyed that order looking like murderous liars.

When will we ever learn, huh?

Maryn, shaking her head at all the sad anniversaries

There's the Orangeburg Massacre that happened a couple years earlier, that seems to be a little-known event:

The Orangeburg Massacre refers to the shooting of protestors by South Carolina Highway Patrol Officers that were demonstrating against racial segregation at a local bowling alley in Orangeburg, South Carolina near South Carolina State University on the evening of February 8, 1968.[1] Of the 150 protestors in the crowd that night, three African American males were killed and twenty-eight other protestors were injured.[2]

I have an aquaintance who lived in South Carolina (though I think it was well after this event) who heard about it living there and told me about it in recent months, From the way he described life there, racial separation and tension is still very high, much worse than in Georgia (and presumably most other states).

But I suppose police or national guard shooting and killing WHITE college students in the North got a lot more attention back then.

patskywriter said:
I was 13. That photo of the young woman kneeling over one of the dead students is forever etched in my memory.

I recall seeing that image over the decades in news articles and writeups of the shooting. It's absolutely iconic.

rugcat said:
I don't think it would have been exactly the same today, because the 60s was a much more activist generation.
...
Had young men and women bitterly opposed to the war been forced to go to Iraq and die there, I think you would've seen some very large demonstrations indeed and violence in the streets would not have been unknown. I also believe we would not have spent a decade there.

Vocal opposition and civilian activism, when large and determined enough can alter and affect governmental policy – as it should.

While not nearly as many died in Iraq and Afghanistan, The US Military abused soldiers by increasing the length and number of tours they were sent on, well beyond previous wars. I heard a story about this on NPR maybe eight years ago (someone was suing the US Military), and maybe once or twice since.

Here are two related stories:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041100615.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-01-12-four-army-war-tours_N.htm

No doubt if these things had happened during the Vietnam War, it would have been a major outrage.

Maze Runner · May 5, 2014

rugcat said:
I don't think it would have been exactly the same today, because the 60s was a much more activist generation.

Not that we were so special, but we were coming out of a long period of stultifying social conformity. Government and the police, who once were pretty much respected, (at least by white folks) became the enemy – in part because of the war, in part because of marijuana – remember, in those days you could go to jail for years simply for smoking a joint of dirt weed

And many of today's youth are a bit weary of the whole idea of activism – their parents have been there, done that, and not that much seems to have changed. They have other concerns.

But back then, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, even if you believed to the core of your being the Vietnam war was wrong and immoral, you still had to go fight it.

Or go to jail, or leave the country. Or be lucky enough to get a good draft number or a deferment for whatever reasons. So that war affected young people in a much different fashion. It wasn't just the military fighting it, it was everyone. And you were put in the position of having to kill people for what you considered no reason, or possibly be killed yourself.

And it wasn't just the kids. It was the parents as well. When middle America started to see their children forced to fight a war they didn't believe in and then saw them coming back from Vietnam in a box, the realities of war and the questions about whether it was worth it became more than theoretical. It became very personal.

Right before the Iraq invasion, there were huge street demonstrations against it. Tens of thousands of people, sometimes hundreds of thousands marching in the major cities. But then, after we invaded, that sort of opposition simply faded away for the most part. Because, I believe, the only people in this country it truly affected were those who chose to sign up for it.

Had young men and women bitterly opposed to the war been forced to go to Iraq and die there, I think you would've seen some very large demonstrations indeed and violence in the streets would not have been unknown. I also believe we would not have spent a decade there.

Vocal opposition and civilian activism, when large and determined enough can alter and affect governmental policy – as it should.

I had a similar thought last night; you can only have your heart broken if you believe in something. Seems to me that the Vietnam Era was when a widespread cynicism set in. The Vietnam War was the (first?-- other than The Korean War) at least protracted war that most didn't believe in. And people still believed they could do something about it. And I guess they did, but it did take some time. But the general social lessons that came out of that era are largely forgotten today. Some things stayed, right? And some big changes at least took root, but the great equalizer in this country seems to be the need to make a buck, and when that is the case ideals are a luxury.

Maze Runner · May 5, 2014

AncientEagle said:
College students were indeed going to go, if they let their grades drop. That this fact fueled much of the protesting is indicated by the almost instant drop in protesting once the draft was eliminated. So much for philosophical objection to war. (I don't mean to insult those who truly objected to the war on moral grounds, but I can't forget the large number who apparently objected only as long as their own butts were in danger.)
It's easy to say wars are fought by the poor. True, they are fought by the mostly young, and the young are more likely to be poor. And the rich can find ways to protect their young better than can the poor parents. But some fight wars because they believe in the cause. Some fight because they believe in dedicating their lives to the professional fighting force of their country. Some just think it's the right thing to do at the time. One of the best forward observers I ever saw (FO's are up forward with the Infantry, calling in artillery fire for the grunts) in Vietnam was my FO, a Harvard graduate, lieutenant, only member of his class in the Army, looked like a movie star, totally competent in his job, and there because he thought he should be.
Sorry to be so long-winded, but I tend to react verbosely at the ancient assumption that the only people in the Army are those who are too poor, too uneducated, or too stupid to do anything else. And that nobody really wants to be there.

I didn't know that, about an instant drop in protests once the draft was eliminated. Though, I'm not sure I could blame them all that much. Sure, it would have been more admirable if their demonstrations were in protest of not just their own hides, but also the Vietnamese, but I'd guess it was too much of a live and present danger for them to have that perspective.

The young aren't poor if their parents are well off and can buy them a college education, which in those days kept them out of Vietnam. I agree there are those who enlist because they want to be part of a professional fighting force, or they believe in the cause (at the time). But I do have to wonder if they believed in the cause years and decades after the fact. I'm sure some do, always have and will, but others have a different take on it after the fact.

shakeysix · May 5, 2014

You have to remember that the public perception of the war was changing and after so many pr disasters like Kent State, the My Lai massacre, Chief of Police Nguyen Ngoc Loan publicly blowing a handcuffed prisoner's brains out in a picture the whole world saw, not to mention dead babies and napalmed children on the evening news, people didn't need to protest anymore. The tide of public opinion had turned against the war; losing the draft was a symptom, not a cause. Over the next decade protests demanding rights for other groups took the stage--bra burning, Latinos marching, ERA, migrant workers polarized by Chavez, Harvey Milk's campaigns, I can't even think of all of the leaders and protests. Some were actually silly, others, like equal rights for women, were lampooned and criticized beyond anything that would happen today. --s6

Maze Runner · May 5, 2014

shakeysix said:
You have to remember that the public perception of the war was changing and after so many pr disasters like Kent State, the My Lai massacre, Chief of Police Nguyen Ngoc Loan publicly blowing a handcuffed prisoner's brains out in a picture the whole world saw, not to mention dead babies and napalmed children on the evening news, people didn't need to protest anymore. The tide of public opinion had turned against the war; losing the draft was a symptom, not a cause. Over the next decade protests demanding rights for other groups took the stage--bra burning, Latinos marching, ERA, migrant workers polarized by Chavez, Harvey Milk's campaigns, I can't even think of all of the leaders and protests. Some were actually silly, others, like equal rights for women, were lampooned and criticized beyond anything that would happen today. --s6

I wonder if the two recent wars would have ended much sooner if there wouldn't have been a black-out of what I'm sure were equally horrible images. They even put an end to showing the caskets at the airport. If I recall there was a lot more footage coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan early on, when they thought those wars would be a walk in the park. But once it was clear that we had our hands full, and Bush's proclamation of a "mission accomplished" was embarrassingly premature I remember seeing less and less. No more on the ground live reporting, or damn little.

Interesting to me is that the draft was a crystallizing, unifying issue, and without it protests against war are all a bit vague. Almost though you can hear the answer coming, "You don't like it? Don't enlist."

cornflake · May 5, 2014

bookmaker said:
What a wonderful story, MaryMumsy, and what a beautiful thing for Barry Goldwater to have done.

Hard to understand why anyone would blame those who fought the war, who were drafted into the war, many of whom were only there because they too poor to go to college if no reason than to get the deferment.

I can understand this, on a number of fronts. I also get the opposite view. In a general sense - they were the people doing it. There were other choices. Simple as that.

bookmaker said:
But they were drafted for the most part, right? And the ones who were drafted only were so because they weren't in college. Hate the war, but not the soldier. I hate the two most recent wars we got ourselves into. Even Afghanistan, though we had to do something. about 911. But the scale of what we did, and the fact that early in that war we had Bin Laden cornered, and back-up was requested to finish the job, but that back-up never came. I would love to provide a link on this, but I've looked before and can't find the video interview I saw I believe on CNN, of a military intelligence officer- I'm pretty sure he was the one who made the request but for certain he was there- and he still looked incredulous that they had OBL and his not so merry men pinned down and no one seemed to be interested. I think the reason wars in recent history last as long as they do is because protracted engagement is exactly what the military industrial complex wants. The longer the war, the larger the profit. The cost? That's somebody else's kid, American or not.

And even though there's no longer a draft and those who fought in the two most recent wars volunteered for service, I'd suggest they did so under false pretenses, at least in Iraq- Bush, Wolfowitz and company so successfully tying Iraq to 911. That, or the dismal job market that gives men and women of a certain age and lack of education and opportunities so very few options.

I think the blowback from the way military personnel were treated post-Vietnam has pushed the pendulum entirely the other way, to where the bolded has become not just the bolded, but close to 'don't ever question or deride anything about, or anyone involved in the military, military decisions, funding, etc.'

bookmaker said:
I wonder if the two recent wars would have ended much sooner if there wouldn't have been a black-out of what I'm sure were equally horrible images. They even put an end to showing the caskets at the airport. If I recall there was a lot more footage coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan early on, when they thought those wars would be a walk in the park. But once it was clear that we had our hands full, and Bush's proclamation of a "mission accomplished" was embarrassingly premature I remember seeing less and less. No more on the ground live reporting, or damn little.

Interesting to me is that the draft was a crystallizing, unifying issue, and without it protests against war are all a bit vague. Almost though you can hear the answer coming, "You don't like it? Don't enlist."

There were such monstrously large, global protests against invading Iraq, that had no effect, that I really don't think not showing caskets did anything. I don't think it'd have generated more protests, as see above my previous comment, and I don't think protesting would have done anything regardless.

It's not as if there wasn't coverage of what went on. Seymour Hirsch hasn't stopped, and had a number of pieces, including the big-name expose. Did nothing, I think because of what I mentioned above.

shakeysix · May 5, 2014

My first boyfriend was killed in Vietnam. We weren't dating at the time. He was my eighth grade boyfriend, a shy, tall, gangly kid of Mexican descent. I was put next to him to help him with English and we had secret jokes. He gave me a ring. Turned my finger green but it was 8th grade so I had no great expectations.

We saw each other in the halls and said Hi, occasionally in high school, but he was taking different classes. I was in college bound classes. He was barely making it through the basics--no ESL help in those days for those who spoke another language at home. His parents were poor. He had no option after high school but the draft.

He had the most beautiful green eyes. He stepped on a landmine while I was most likely sitting in a boring class daydreaming about a dance or a dress or a boyfriend. It was so unfair, it still makes me tear up. I was against the war for Eddie--Marine Corp PFC Edward Saenz--look him up. He is worth knowing --s6

Maze Runner · May 5, 2014

cornflake said:
I can understand this, on a number of fronts. I also get the opposite view. In a general sense - they were the people doing it. There were other choices. Simple as that.

I think the blowback from the way military personnel were treated post-Vietnam has pushed the pendulum entirely the other way, to where the bolded has become not just the bolded, but close to 'don't ever question or deride anything about, or anyone involved in the military, military decisions, funding, etc.'

There were such monstrously large, global protests against invading Iraq, that had no effect, that I really don't think not showing caskets did anything. I don't think it'd have generated more protests, as see above my previous comment, and I don't think protesting would have done anything regardless.

It's not as if there wasn't coverage of what went on. Seymour Hirsch hasn't stopped, and had a number of pieces, including the big-name expose. Did nothing, I think because of what I mentioned above.

The other choices, I guess were going to prison or leaving the country, neither very attractive to an 18 yr old kid who'd never left his hometown.

yeah, I agree that the military is given a kind of carte blanche these days. And after 911, everyone can say, "see, you're in danger! We're the only thing between you and them."

If protesters are allowed to protest, without being shut down, roughed up, arrested, etc, then they can have effect. I alluded to this earlier, but I have seen English and French protests on TV and they don't seem to be put down with the same force.

cornflake · May 5, 2014

bookmaker said:
The other choices, I guess were going to prison or leaving the country, neither very attractive to an 18 yr old kid who'd never left his hometown.

yeah, I agree that the military is given a kind of carte blanche these days. And after 911, everyone can say, "see, you're in danger! We're the only thing between you and them."

If protesters are allowed to protest, without being shut down, roughed up, arrested, etc, then they can have effect. I alluded to this earlier, but I have seen English and French protests on TV and they don't seem to be put down with the same force.

No, not attractive choices perhaps. They did, however, exist. They're also compared to leaving the country to go to Vietnam, to war.

No pre- or post-invasion protests had any effect I can recall.

Don · May 5, 2014

cornflake said:
I think the blowback from the way military personnel were treated post-Vietnam has pushed the pendulum entirely the other way, to where the bolded has become not just the bolded, but close to 'don't ever question or deride anything about, or anyone involved in the military, military decisions, funding, etc.'

bookmaker said:
yeah, I agree that the military is given a kind of carte blanche these days. And after 911, everyone can say, "see, you're in danger! We're the only thing between you and them."

Colonel Nathan Jessup comes to mind. He ended up in jail, though, IIRC.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way.

cornflake · May 5, 2014

That demonstrates my point.

TerzaRima · May 5, 2014

We men were actually quite sexist in a casual, unseeing sort of way. You can get a flavor of that in the movie Forrest Gump in the way that Jenny's activist boyfriend treats her. It's a short bit, but quite telling and well done.

Mr Rima was a CO, was active in a Catholic antiwar group on the east coast at the time, and has always said this. The women were there to be worker bees and to have sex, not to make any of the decisions.

you can only have your heart broken if you believe in something.

and this is why I'm fascinated by the time period under discussion. I'm having trouble imagining that kind of optimism and innocence, but it seems like it existed.

shakeysix · May 5, 2014

That idea of females as "worker bees and to have sex" got a lot of men of my father's generation, some very important, in big trouble in later decades. I think maybe Al Capp was the first sexual harassment blow up I can remember. --s6

Haggis · May 5, 2014

There was some resentment of women who went on to college because they "were only there to find a husband" and also because "they were taking up place that otherwise a guy could have had."

shakeysix · May 5, 2014

Our high school counselor refused to help my sister get into pre-law. He said it was useless for a woman to study law because no jury would ever take a female prosecutor seriously. During the OJ Simpson trial my sister used to call me daily. She was livid and kept saying "I am a bigger bitch than Marcia Clark! I could be a prosecutor!"
Instead she is a teacher for kids with behavior disorders and believe me, she takes no shit from nobody. Strong lady--s6

MaryMumsy · May 5, 2014

Haggis said:
There was some resentment of women who went on to college because they "were only there to find a husband" and also because "they were taking up place that otherwise a guy could have had."

OMG! YES! I got that in grad school. Not the looking for a husband part, but the other. A man who would have to support his family. The only reason I didn't explode was that I needed the class. I was required to have 3 units of X discipline. I had to work twice as hard in that class to get the same grade as the men. It didn't help that I was the only woman in the class, little and had blonde hair a la Alice In Wonderland. I'd love to be able to tell that professor that I was the sole support of our household for 25 years.

MM

Maze Runner · May 5, 2014

I believe you, Shaky. My first wife is a lawyer, was in law school when we were married. She also takes not an ounce of shit from nobody. Haven't been in touch for a while, but I'm sure she hasn't changed...

Just kind of a lower rung fact of human behavior that those with the power more often than not take advantage of those who do not. Just an unfortunate trait that I think is in us all and therefore something for us all to be aware of and rise above, is really a result of fear the subconscious awareness - if I let you get up off the ground, you just might beat the hell outta me, especially since I've been bullying you, holding you down all these years. So best that I keep the sole of my boot wedged into your throat.

shakeysix · May 5, 2014

My first year of teaching. all women teachers who were pregnant had to meet with the superintendent every Friday. He would look them up and down like heifers in the show ring and tell them if they could teach another week. When they stopped teaching the paycheck stopped. No paid leave for pregnancy in those days. That was an equal rights struggle that I remember well. You cannot believe the sneering way our arguments were answered. It put me off old white men in ties and suits forever. To this day a certain type of authoritarian, supercilious male still makes me see hippie red.

Women teachers who were heads of households had to fight for equal pay with the male teachers a few years before I graduated. A 73 year old friend of mine was in on that struggle. In her day all male teachers always had higher pay than female teachers. When they passed the law requiring female heads of household to rec. the same pay as their male colleagues, single male teachers still received more than female single teachers. My friend questioned this and was told that the district had to pay men more because they would not work for what a woman would. That was not that long ago--s6

AncientEagle · May 5, 2014

cornflake said:
I can understand this, on a number of fronts. I also get the opposite view. In a general sense - they were the people doing it. There were other choices. Simple as that.

Yes indeed, very simple. Viewed from a distance, with superior knowledge, and if it involves faceless others.

44th aniversary of the Kent State shootings

Lost in the Fog

Evil, undead Chihuahua

Old kid, no need to be gentle.

I've seen worse.

Evil, undead Chihuahua

Lost in the Fog

It's a doggy dog world

blue eyed floozy

practical experience, FTW

blue eyed floozy

practical experience, FTW

All Living is Local

practical experience, FTW

Absinthe O'Malice

blue eyed floozy

Evil, undead Chihuahua

blue eyed floozy

the original blond bombshell

blue eyed floozy

Old kid, no need to be gentle.