Counterculture Versus Anti-Counterculture

Many of the anti-war groups that formed were ones with college students and young adults. One of the largest student anti-war groups was the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The SDS believed that “It is the responsibility of the city administration to see that an effective agency is created to handle the problems of the poor. Such service is becoming increasingly essential to the city of this size [New York].” The Kent State protests, later called the Kent State Massacre, took place on May 4, 1970, “when twenty-eight guardsmen opened fire on a crowd, killing four students and wounding nine… Almost five hundred colleges were shut down or disrupted by protest in result.” The shooting took place during an anti-war rally that was organized in response to President Nixon announcing that the United States had invaded Cambodia, trying to defeat the Viet

The counterculture and hippies are becoming extremely popular in our society today. The hippie culture focused on outward signs of nonconformity. The counterculture promoted rock music, free love, and the use of psychedelic drugs. Haight-Ashbury is the place is if you want to be a part of the culture, and go to San Francisco and be a part of love. The counterculture is about new ideas, and going against the social norms. The bright colors, feathers, leather, and hair. There are pop art and rock music. Go have fun, and be a part of the

On May 4, 1970 at approximately 12:24 PM members of the Ohio National Guard shot at and killed several unarmed Kent State University students. These students were protesting President Nixon’s decision to invade Cambodia. While some of the students who were shot at were actively protesting at the time of the shooting, others were simply walking by or casually observing the protest from a distance. How could an appalling incident like this occur? What possessed the members of the Ohio National Guard to shoot at unarmed students?

In response to the tragedy and the Cambodia invasion, mass rallies were held in almost every major city in that month. The elite demographic, which includes doctors, lawyers and other professionals also flooded into Washington to display their opposition not only to the war but the increasing domestic violence. The incident dramatically affected Americans and it was further indicated through public opinion polls, which pointed blame towards the National Guard. To many Americans, the domestic upheaval following Cambodia and Kent State suggested that the country was becoming unhinged according to Melvin Small. Newspapers such as the New York Times suggested that the United States was as divided as it had been since the Civil War. Individuals that would identify themselves as pro-war now felt that the war’s cost in terms of domestic consequence outweighed the benefits of continuing the war. The White House was now in full damage control following the Kent State shootings. Public opinion polls showed a 31 percent approval for the war following the Kent State massacre. In response, White House officials anxiously discussed how to contain the uproar. According to David Anderson and John Ernst in their book titled, “The War That Never Ends: Student Opposition to the Vietnam War,” White House officials agreed that it was important to avoid steps that would further

The student body at Kent State numbered about 20,000 and had been considered conservative, but not overly political. In fact they were thought of as rather passive politically. The shootings were a culmination of four days of demonstrations by members of the student body. The students were protesting the invasion of Cambodia by American forces.

At this point in time, the Vietnam War was in progress; young people were getting drafted left and right, and the troops overseas were getting absolutely slaughtered. There was a multitudinous amount of protest surrounding the war, and when tensions started running too high, protests became dangerous and violent. After extreme aggression through assault on police officers, bonfires, and looting was shown during a student protest at Kent State on May 1, 1970, the Kent mayor was forced to declare a state of emergency the very next day. The National Guard started to arrive on May 2 to keep the peace, but when they got to the scene, they found the Kent State ROTC building on fire. No one knows who started the fire, but there were many protesters around the building cheering. When first responders arrived, they were yelled at, and some people even destroyed their water hoses. The National Guard was forced to use tear gas to disperse the

There is not one American identity. There is not a single consistent plan for what American policy is, should, or will be. Sure, this political scientist might present a plan for a specific crisis, but there is always a politician in the wings with another plan to counter the first. Every politician’s opinion is different, just as every citizen’s is. Our experiences shape our identities, as does the information we are fed in school, by our families and friends, as well as the media. The view I have of the United States and its place in the world is quite different than most because I am a first generation American. Moreover, my family comes from Venezuela, where their international policy is starkly different than America’s. The United States of America’s international role has unquestionably shaped my opinions, outlook, and behavior.

In her article, Page first demonstrates how American citizens believe they are the last people to blame for America’s separation and division of people. She then outlines how American citizens are truly the ones to blame for polarization due to their

The shooting of Kent State University on May 4, 1970 marked a point in the war that divided the nation and brought attention to the war on a scale never seen before. Fighting on the battleground was brought to America’s soil through the power of television and as the battle continued, emotions on the homefront intensified. The executive decision of President Richard Nixon initiated the protests and swung the opinion of the use of military force in Vietnam by his “April 30 announcement that he had sent American forces into Cambodia” (Reichard). President Nixon’s decision of sending forces into Cambodia sparked the protests on many campuses, one of them being Kent State, leading to the shooting and killing of four students, however only two of the students shot and killed were involved in the protests. “The killing… was another important turning point for many GI and veteran activists” (Moser 108).

The Kent State shooting played a major role in Nixon’s resignation from presidency and the public’s opinion of the Vietnam War. The students that were protesting started when Nixon announced intervention into Cambodia. Outraged students met on campus the very next day to show that they didn’t agree with the presidents decision. During the shooting students threw containers of tear gas back at the guardsmen. Some students threw rocks as the soldiers left. Protestors would shout “Pigs Off Campus!” (Axelrod et al. 256) Many of the soldiers sent to settle the frustrated protestors were weekend warriors who chose the guard to avoid ending up in Vietnam. Mandy soldiers lacked training for combat and crowds. Most soldiers were confused by the actions of the students and weren’t sure how to react. The student protestors refused the guards orders to disperse which resulted in the guardsmen throwing tear gas toward the rioting protestors. The protestors consisted of upper class and middle class residents.

Life was never the same on the campus of Kent State University after May 4,1970, when riots and protests led to shootings by guardsmen, which killed four unarmed college students and wounded nine others. How could this be justified while Guardsmen carrying rifles go up against protesters. I have always believed that the fight is not equal if both sides do not have weapons. As a result the Guardsmen were not justified in firing in self-defense. Things start days before by student political groups and quickly escaladed as upset students wanted their opinions heard by administrators, but were denied a meeting. Therefore, violent confrontation between armed National Guard and a mob of students occurred.

We live in a country that is often faced with violent and devastating events that forever stay cemented into our minds. Most stories on the news inform us about the most recent robberies, assaults, frauds, etc. However, one of the most shocking and disastrous types of stories the news updates us are those about shootings. One of the most infamous shootings happened almost 50 years ago in a small town in Ohio where U.S troops attacked protesters on the grounds of Kent State University, killing four students and leaving nine others wounded .

The anti-war protests of the 1960s was a response of resentment by minorities and young educated college students against the nation’s desire to participate in war against Communism in Vietnam and conduct a military draft. The protests, originally began with peaceful public demonstrations by activists, who were nonviolent; however, the peaceful demonstrators were frequently attacked and victimized by the police and other citizens, who did not share their same opinion. Throughout the peaceful protests the activists suffered many beatings in the hands of the police and as a result, many of the activists claimed the right of self-defense and turned to taking offensive actions against their oppressors including the police and other citizens. Later, the scene of violence and mayhem quickly shifted to college campuses, to which college students began protesting the draft (Gurr, 1989, pp. 183-185). At the time the average age of an American soldier serving in Vietnam was 19 and students quickly rebelled after realizing that young Americans were legally old enough to be drafted to fight and die, but were not yet legally allowed to vote or drink alcohol (UShistory, nd.).

I believe that McClay and Zinn provide a persuasive argument elaborating their notion of the validity of America’s “unique” mission. However, I am inclined to agree with Professor McClay in his assertion in the mythical nature of American exceptionalism that has promoted social cohesiveness and propelled America as the “beacon of liberty and democracy” (McKenna & Feingold 2011, 14). The existence of present-day America developed after a period of empirical practices that allowed us to incorporate the positive qualities of democracy and make note of the negative aspects of wrongfully enforcing democratic ideals internationally (McKenna & Feingold 2011). Since our inception, the “invisible hand” of “divine providence” has directed America to propagate freedom and democracy to all peoples of the world (McKenna & Feingold 2011, 2-3). The majority of American Presidents

In their book American Foreign Policy since World War 2, Steven W. Hook, and John Spanier take a historical look at American foreign policy. Since its independence, all through to the start of the 20th century, the United States had a policy of detachment. This was rooted in the believe that Europe, the only other meaningful powerful in the world in the 18th and 19th century, had intrinsic issues related to feudism that kept the continent in a constant state of war (Hook & Spanier, 2015). The U.S on its part was far away from Europe and had a unique chance to chart a different course, one free from the troubles of Europe. As a democracy free from the class systems of Europe and hence maintain peace and stability (Hook & Spanier, 2015). To maintain this peace and stability, it was in the United States interests to maintain detachment from Europe. In fact, Monroe wrote that Europe and its flawed system was evil and America should strive as much as possible to stay away from it (Hook & Spanier, 2015). However, in the 20th century, this policy of detachment was put to the test when the United States was drawn into the first and second world wars by external factors. This led the United States to get more engaged in global affairs. The idea behind engagement was to promote the ideals of democracy which, the U.S believed were the pillars of peace, as well as to protect itself from aggressors like Japan in the Second World War. After the