One of the common themes in this course is perception versus the reality of the past. Certainly, we all have ideas in our heads about what the 1960s was like. I have found that by focusing on the social, literary, musicological, and political history of the 1960s this course has allowed me to gain a more accurate understanding of what actually happened. I noticed that Professor Aberbach’s lecture on the Vietnam War further validated this idea. His lecture pointed out that that there is a difference between our modern-day perceptions, maybe even stereotypes, of the opposition to the Vietnam War and what actually occurred. For instance, when I think of the opposition to the Vietnam War, I think of unruly college students dressed like hippies causing chaos. Drugs, protests, peace signs, and long hair all come to mind. But as Professor Aberbach pointed out, there is more to the story. What about the other side of the opposition? A sizeable portion of the opposition to the war included people who wanted to increase the war in order to win or get out. Increasing the war is certainly not what the “anti-war” youth movement sought. Many even felt that although they disliked the war, they also disliked the “counter-culture” element of the protesting opposition. In addition, our Mueller reading taught us that although the opposition to the Vietnam War was more vocal, it was not more extensive than the opposition to the Korean War. I feel like the anti-war youth movement has been exaggerated. Do you agree or disagree? Why? It seems as if the way most Americans perceive the opposition to the Vietnam War fails to acknowledge other components to the opposition. Why is this?
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Vietnam War Opposition
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you definitely raise an interesting point that could really be tied to a lot of historical events being portrayed in a manner that does not provide an entirely accurate representation of what they were. One of the most glaring examples I can think of is that of the 1950's being portrayed as the "golden age" of domestic American culture. While the 1950's were undoubtedly a time of unprecedented prosperity and power for the United States, huge portions of society were left out of this advancement, most notably women and minorities. Regarding the anti-war movement for Vietnam, I feel like much of the protests on college campuses in the 1960's related to the free speech movement and the civil rights movement are sort of lumped in with the Vietnam protests in the popular perception of the 1960's to give civil unrest an over representation. Despite the common perception of the US being overrun with antiestablishment fever in the late 60's, in reality there was a large portion of the population who maintained conservative viewpoints as evidenced by Richard Nixon's victory in 1968. Nixon's "silent majority" can be seen as an important reminder that there are two sides to most stories throughout history
ReplyDeleteI think I feel the same. Even though I wasn't so inclined for politics prior to taking this course (and I'm still refreshing my memory on the significant sixties events as I go along), I like inquiring into the actualities of the events.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nicole and Matt about alternative incentives behind the participation in the anti-war movement, and an example could be Ann Charters's joining the Ed Sanders's procession in New York for the sake of her musical penchant at that moment.