May 15, 1965 - The Vietnam War Teach-In
(The Teach-Ins - 1965 - a decided lack of shrillness)
May 15, 1965 started the first large scale Teach-In on the Vietnam War. Basically it was a debate with pro and con sides arguing various points on our foreign policy and what was our purpose in Southeast Asia. The debate originated in Washington D.C. with a group of 3,000 students and professors and the proceedings were broadcast via closed circuit to over 100 college campuses throughout the U.S. McGeorge Bundy was scheduled to represent the Johnson Administration, but canceled at the last minute citing "official duties". Professor Ernest Nagel of Columbia University presented premise for the debates.
Prof. Ernest Nagel (Columbia University): “This meeting has come into being because of widespread doubts among many academic communities as well as elsewhere concerning the wisdom of current United States policy in Vietnam. It needs to be emphasized however, that the meeting has been sponsored by University teachers throughout the country, and organized by the Inter-University Committee For A Public Hearing on Vietnam, on the basis of two assumptions: The first is that, whether or not those doubts are well founded there has been insufficient responsible debate in public of the grave issues raised by our actions in Southeast Asia. The second assumption is, since a thorough airing of these issues by competent students is a condition for an enlightened public opinion on them, in a liberal democracy such as ours in which governmental policies require the ascent of its citizens, students who possess knowledge pertinent to those issues have a special duty to discuss them openly and critically. In short, the primary aim of this meeting, an aim that surely merits the strong endorsement of all who are committed to the ideals of liberal democracy, is to contribute to public enlightenment through responsible discussion of a serious problem confronting all of us.”
History has been rewritten of late to portray the Antiwar movement of the 60s as violence based, that it was all about avoiding the draft and turning college campuses into battlegrounds. That is completely false. There were those elements, to be sure. Every movement, however noble, is going to have its fair share of malcontents whose only purpose is to stir up shit and destroy in order to derail the original message.
Objection to the War in Vietnam was legitimate, and by 1965 it was growing.
It's too bad that people didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam and apply them to Iraq, and realize that the corporate media wasn't reporting the news, but instead, was marketing the war in Iraq, much as the war in Vietnam was marketed. In particular, I'm very disappointing with the baby boomers that couldn't recognize a pack of lies when they heard and saw it.
The problem is MUCH WORSE. We have a national political party (R's) who is not interested in TRUTH, JUSTICE, or THE AMERICAN WAY. They are only interested in protecting their own political skins... and their own industrial and religious partners in crime. They STACKED the SUPREME COURT and STOLE A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, took us into a WAR that was not necessary which cost us a TRILLION DOLLARS, and handed over 700 BILLION DOLLARS to Wall Street Bankers! I KNOW... a lot of people will say Obama and the Democrats are no different; but they would be wrong (maybe wrong only by degree... but wrong, never the less.)
Are the people who benefit from the profits from the various 'wars', its always a case of 'follow the money' and see who owns the stock in the MIC companies and investment funds. War is the largest industry and endeavor that humanity does (or at least in America/Europe), it is multitudes above all other pastimes and occupations. 50% of US tax spending goes to the MIC.
Regarding the 'violence' surrounding anti-war protests, you will find if you research properly the subject, it was always the 'for profit' establishment that started the violent events, then the compliant MSM report dutifully on the 'violent' anti-war protesters.
Even the BBC News back in the 80s 90s were loyal to PM Margaret Thatcher when they reported the govt news slant on protests surrounding strikes and policy protests.
There was a reason most all the protesters were young , The biggest reason for the protests , people hitting the streets and taking action , was the draft , by the mid to late sixties people were fully aware of what a sham the war was , how senseless , useless and what a terrible waste it was . I was in the 1969 draft , a couple of my friends went but several said "F this !" and got the hell outta dodge , headed north to Vancouver BC and Stanley Park . I knew more than one who took drugs specifically so they wouldn't pass the physical and one nit wit shot himself in the knee ... screwed himself up for life to avoid going . The main reason the American people do not care about Iraq and Afghanistan is because they and or their kids are not being drafted , people only " care " and are willing to take action when they are directly , blatantly affected . Sad but true and the politicians and war mongers at the pentagon know it .
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
Since I'm not old enough, can anyone tell me what the MSM was saying about Vietnam at the time? Was it all cheerleading from the usual suspects? Gotta go kill those Commies or more dominos will fall?
I think up to a point, they were pro-war.
I believe it was Walter Cronkite that was the first national anchor to speak out against the war.
And to their credit, the MSM at that time actually showed pictures of the dead and brought the war into the living rooms of Americans.
The Vietnam War was called the Television War because the graphic view of the war was hard to deny, and it was the media that helped light a fire under people.
That's why you don't see the same coverage now. Out of sight, out of mind.
"When profit comes up against morality, it's rare that profit loses."~Shirley Chisholm
I wasn't alive either, but chomsky has argued pretty conclusively (plenting of primary sources, quotes) that the liberal opposition at the time (the "doves") largely didn't criticize the Vietnam Conflict as being immoral (the US public by the mid 1970's, according to polls, thought the war was fundamentally immoral), they said that the us government's goals were wonderful, lofty and humane. The took the rhetoric of us fighting for freedom and democracy for granted, didn't point to obvious facts that undermined those claims (sound familiar?) and simply said that the war wasn't winnable, and that strategic mistakes were made.
Cronkite is a good example. He was a strong supporter of the war, so much so that he flew with soldiers on a air bombing in 1965, got off the plane and talked about how wonderful this type of warfare is. It's in the documentary "War Made Easy", pretty sure it's free on youtube. One quote from that same year by this strong critic of the war, "It seemed clear that, having made the courageous decision that communism's advance must be stopped in Asia and that guerrilla warfare as a means to a political end must be finally discouraged, we had fully committed ourselves to a war to the finish...". When he talked about Tet in 1968 (about 20 years into our involvement there) he called the war "unwinnable", not immoral or anything near it. He was the strong opponent of the Vietnam War though, anything to his left is crazy world.
There was a period where I was frequently off at demonstrations and the like. Then I'd sit down and watch the news for more horrors. There were plenty that were shown, though there were many omitted. That was the constant background of the '60s. Every night, there was the war for a half an hour.
The strangest moment was one demonstration I went on, about the third or fourth event where we went to the Oakland draft board, this time by bus, because they had stopped us from making a big march. So 6:30 in the morning, we get in place next to about 3,000 cops, and there were speeches, and then the cops rolled in. The day before, the crowd had gone wild, trashing cars and starting fires. The vow was to stop that this time, and we did. But they still chased people and beat them in the streets. I ducked into a coffee shop. The guy behind the counter put a coffee down in front of me, and winked. The cops looked in, and saw a bunch of people drinking coffee.
That night, I watched and realized we were one of the main stories on the CBS Evening News. I had, for the first time in my life, the feeling that a reporter was just making stuff up, characterizing things unfairly-- like he'd never been there. Like the story had been written in some office in Washington. It was more scary than getting chased by billy clubs.
And if you take out the local, state and fed police infiltrators, there probably was not to many real "agitators".
It was a much different landscape. The government line was the default, but the facts were presented as well. There were no Fox News type of sheer propaganda. But a lot of times, people would simply say, "Well, this is part of containment. The communists are invading a free people, and here we go again." World War II hadn't been met with dissent; the doubts came first, from the Isolationists (Republicans). For Korea, too, there was the usual de facto support. We were the good guys. We wore the white hats. First Hitler and Tojo, now these Koreans. MacArthur was leading the troops, and sweeping up to the border. What could go wrong? It was almost over. The entry of the Chinese brought McCarthyism to its height. We must have been sold out by traitors.
Vietnam seemd to be more of the same. But in 1965, I heard the first glimmers of doubt. We heard about the teach-ins. These were basically school events, heavy with the academics and so on, analyzing the war, giving the history of the conflict... which was kind of off-putting... I went to one at McGill College in Montreal. It was a student international from the beginning. But the initial round of "demonstrations" were informative only. News of them appeared in the press, but they were often belittled, not taken seriously. Of course, there was talk radio, and call-in programs, and you could tell some people didn't like it.
The first actual demonstrations were very polite and non-violent. Kids, you know. Folk music. Drives them crazy.
The dividing line, in my mind, was the Berkeley Free Speech movement, which was really over the campus tables manned by various groups, especially antiwar. That was loud and raucous, and people were arrested. Then was the Draft Board Demonstration, with the large crowd marching towards the Oakland Draft Board and being turned back by the cops. Some kids got their skulls cracked. There was lots of tear gas and kids tossed in paddy wagons. Then there were draft card burnings, including one where many, many people joined in. The resistance was on.
Comments are closed on this entry