A Tale of Two Wars & Two Marches (Reposted)
EDITOR’S NOTE: There has been a lot of comment on this post which ran earlier, so we’re moving it up for afternoon readership. There are NEWER posts underneath it so please SCROLL DOWN when you’re through.
In October 1967, I covered an anti-Vietnam War protest March on the Pentagon for my college newspaper. That historic event, considered a turning point in opposition to the war, is perhaps best remembered by photographs of protesters slipping flowers into the muzzles of the rifles of the Army troops who ringed the Pentagon.
On Saturday, some 40 years later, I retraced my steps at another March on the Pentagon, this time a protest against the Iraq War on its fourth anniversary and a commemoration of the 1967 march.
Please click here for a then-and-now report at Kiko’s House.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
21 Responses to “A Tale of Two Wars & Two Marches (Reposted)”
Very moving writing.
I think I spotted a heart on a sleeve, there.
I was so much older then. I’m younger than that now.
A very good piece, Shaun. While the Vietnam-era meme is often invoked these days, I don’t think I have seen a Then-Now article by someone who was there before yours. I was waiting for your post, curious as to your coverage/thoughts on the event, while reading news reports of the protests. Much more detailed, and contextualized, than the MSM reports.
You make a cryptic comment at one point, in reflecting on the differences:
“No, I decide, it’s not the weather. It’s the times.”
While you describe the protests in detail, I was wondering what you meant by this. What do you see as the broader “times” differences between protests now and then? It seems you are implying more than just the absence of the draft here?
A good piece. It is always interesting to see current events in a larger historical context. Thanks.
Marlowecan:
Thank you for the kind words.
What I mean by “It’s the times” goes something like this: Most Americans are apathetic (or shopping at the mall, as I have oft put it). There was a vibrant antiwar movement during the Vietnam Era. Today’s movement is a mere shadow of that. Finally, as a child of the Sixties, I and many of my peers were outward looking and concerned with how we could make the world a better place. Today’s youths are inward looking and concerned about how to attain a better place in the world.
I was looking forward to this, Shaun, and you did not did not disappoint. What a fantastically written personal account. Your juxtaposition with the ’67 march was brilliant.
I’m curious about your take on something, though. With having misgivings about ANSWER and Sheehan/Ramsey, did you not feel like a ‘useful idiot’ marching under their banner? To me, that various media reports noted that there were many who didn’t know anything about ANSWER is indicative of the larger problem of well-meaning people crawling unwittingly advancing the cause of some of the most radical groups and repressive regimes (the irony of the latter is just too rich) around.
What would happen if someone organized an anti-Iraq War march but stated up front “Anarchists stay home. This isn’t about Che Guevara. It has nothing to do with Haiti, the Palestinians, or US military bases in Stuttgart or Okinawa . Don’t even think of insinuating that our common opposition to the war means that we in any way support the likes of Achmadinijad or Assad. This IS simply about opposing a war that whether ill-conceived or mismanaged is just not worth additional sacrifice in lives, efforts and treasure.” Is anyone capable of organizing such an event? Would anyone show up? Would more people — and dare I say the right people — show up? Or maybe I’m just guilty of trying to do the same thing that many marchers at these things do — craft something in my own image.
I hope you enjoyed yourself even with the ANSWER commies and other far-left nuts who attended. (Loved that “IMPEACH BUSH” banner. *snicker*)
Fantastic post, Sean.
I think one of the big differences is the draft. If there were a draft now, those marches would be HUGE, and they would be filled with mainstream folks scared and angry, instead of people who just like to march against things. That would give less radical groups the opportunity to organize.
Idiosyncrat:
It is my sense that people really didn’t care if they were marching under an banner promoting a “cause” for which they had little affinity, if any. The DF&C and I knew going into this that we would be in effect “supporting” ANSWER and their ilk, but it was more important to us to be there physically and morally and we were not disappointed.
I’m not going to try to give a scientific breakdown, but I would say perhaps one in 100 marchers was there because of ANSWER. The rest were, as I wrote, an incredible range of people who wanted to send a message, however low key and non-confrontational.
Carpeicthus:
You are absolutely correct about the draft being a big difference.
But the all-volunteer Army is somewhat draft-like in that a disproportionate number of enlisted men in the combat arms are minorities and from less affluent families. And as we have read, with the lowering of Army recruitment standards, more so-called undesireables are ending up in uniform and in Iraq.
One of the things that struck me about the 2007 march was the relatively large number of African-Americans and Latinos. I spoke to one woman, and while she is not necessarily representative of African-Americans in general, she told me that was marching because her son is a Marine in Iraq and ended up there pretty much because there were no decent jobs back home.
Last week on 60 Minutes Andy Rooney said “for the first time” that he advocates instituting the draft as part of any declaration of war. On this issue I think the guy has some gravitas.
The argument that we have a better fighting force under an all-volunteer army is steadily weakening as standards are lowered to allow numbers to be achieved.
Great post, Shaun. The alternating of entries from 1967 and 2007 was a particularly good touch.
I think it’s unfortunate that socialist types like ANSWER dominate these events and try to use the Iraq War as an excuse to play up those parts of their agenda that have nothing to do with the war. I know of some libertarians who are vehemently against the Iraq War and have attended an anti-war rally or two, and they are completely turned off by all the pro-socialist/anti-capitalist rhetoric that comes from ANSWER.
The majority of the American people are against this war. It’s too bad that those on the far-left won’t work with moderates and libertarians in order to end it.
Shaun-
Great post, liked the juxtaposition of the 1967 and 2007 marches.
You seem to miss the radicalism of the 60′s, and I’m not sure I can agree with you on that point, though. It would seem to me that more could be accomplished, and less destructively, in the calmer atmosphere of today.
Though I wasn’t around in the 60′s so my impressions are based solely on history books.
I have seen polls that show the latest generation is both more involved in volunteer activities and more concerned with wealth, so I’m not sure if they’re any more or less materialistic than previous generations.
Alan:
You are incorrect that I miss the radicalism of the 1960s. What I miss is the intense involvement that comparatively more people had in society’s ills and issues and how to address them. Some of these people, of course, were radicals.
Not to suggest that you feel this way, but I do not buy into the view that the Sixties have been overhyped and little good came out of that era. What I do believe is that it was an enormously important time, the many lessons of which have been largely forgotten, including by some of the very people who taught them.
Shaun- I share your view of the sixties. I was a child but, do remember the intense hope and optimism of the beginning of the decade-symbolized by the birth of the quest for space exploration, the Peace Corps, Kennedy’s “ask not what your country can do for you” speech. The mid and latter sixties were turbulent as the war permeated every aspect of American life and culture, but there was also a sense of exhilaration (no I was too young and unsuited tempermentally to be a radical,lol) and a lot of experimental creativity that I remember about the era. The war did serve as a catalyst for tremendous political involvement on college campuses, and while I abhorred the violence, I do think that involvement was part of a necessary and healthy debate.
It definitely had to do with the draft and the large numbers of casualties that occurred around the time of the Tet Offensive.
BTW, DLS I think impeachment is a drastic step that should only be used as a last resort, but in Bush’s case it is only a bad idea because of Cheney waiting in the wings!
K. Ritter said:
> BTW, DLS I think impeachment is a drastic step
> that should only be used as a last resort, but in
> Bush’s case it is only a bad idea because of Cheney
> waiting in the wings!
Why not impeach both? (ha — beat you to it)
Why not impeach both? (ha — beat you to it)
Very tempting, but lets save the taxpayer a buck and wait them out. At least the hearings on this administration’s excesses will be entertaining for the next two years- fun to watch them squirm.
Shaun-
I can identify with missing edited parts of the ’60′s.
Personally, I miss the idealism, ill apllied as it often was. The symbolism of placing flowers on guns!
I think part of the answer why my generation is ‘shopping at the mall’ has to do with the fact that today, it is very hard for our voice to be heard. We are constantly co-oped by someone, be it ANSWER or a right wing group.
Mass protests may have worked well in the 60′s because everyone seemed caught up in the same social current, but they don’t seem to have enough nuance to keep up with our complicated world.
K. Ritter said:
> At least the hearings on this administration’s excesses
> will be entertaining for the next two years- fun to watch
> them squirm.
To the extent the charges are true, it will aid the Dems in 2008.
MAN OVERBOARD!: What did I just see elsewhere, something about the White House now saying “We hope Gonzales stays in his position”? Have they finished packing his parachute?
…
Q You said this morning that you hope that — the White House hopes that Alberto Gonzales stays as Attorney General. Your comment has been seen as a rather tepid endorsement. Has he —
MR. SNOW: No, I didn’t —
Q Has he offered his resignation?
MR. SNOW: No, he hasn’t. Let me — a couple of things. And the President has not spoken to him since he spoke to him in Mexico. What I was trying to do is, you ask a hypothetical question about things that are going to happen over the next two years. None of us knows what’s going to happen to us over the next 21 months, and that’s why it’s an impossible question to answer: Will somebody stay throughout? However, the reason I said, we hope so, is we hope so. He has the confidence of the President. But I do not — as a pure and simple matter, nobody is prophetic enough to know what the next 21 months hold.
Q And there’s backing away from him?
MR. SNOW: No.
Q There’s full confidence?
MR. SNOW: Yes.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070319-1.html
And the latest update, DLS, has GOP congressional leaders picking Gonzales’ replacement from three names submitted by Mr. “I have full confidence in AG Gonzales”, LOL. The WH must have known while the “Snow Job’ was proceeding that AG was already on his way out the door to “spend more time with his family”. Anyone in DC who has the full confidence of the president, should start packing. Remember how Rummy had Bush’s full confidence right before the midterms???
“It doesn’t matter what ANSWER is or how poor a job it has done. We are there to declare that we have had enough. No more killing. No more troops deployed. No more lying and deceit.”
This is a major error on your part. Would you feel the same if a fascist organization was organizing the protest? Both fascism and communism are responsible for the deaths of millions and by marching under the banner of an organization like ANSWER, you and the others who joined this protest continued the valiant leftist tradition of being the fellow travellers and useful idiots of totalitarians.