Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
The killings at Kent State in 1970 were outcome of a clash between the Ohio National Guard and Vietnam War protestors who had assembled at the University. Nixon had been elected to the White House in 1968 following the assassination of his opponent Robert Kennedy during the campaign. With the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, and MLK, Jr., still fresh in the public consciousness, students were very vocal and critical of the government. Plus, students were upset about the ongoing draft and as well as the recent Mai Lai Massacre, which had outraged Americans at home. Many were especially suspicious of Nixon, who had pledged to end the Vietnam War but seemed to be going against that pledge when the U.S. began bombing Cambodia in 1970. In response to Nixon’s announcement of a Cambodian Incursion, students across the U.S. engaged in walk-outs, sit-ins and protests on campuses. Kent State students had long been active in protesting the War. They were frustrated and rowdy.The day following Nixon’s televised announcement of the bombing of Cambodia, a rally was held at Kent State where hundreds of students demonstrated and protested Nixon’s actions. The crowds grew and turmoil hit the streets when a troublesome group began vandalizing the town. The Mayor of Kent called a state of emergency as the crowd clashed with police late into the night in the town. Police used tear gas...
There was a great deal of tension between student dissident groups and the townspeople.
Rumors ran wild that Kent State students were plotting against the tow (Means 48). A curfew was put in place by the Kent Police Department and Rhoades declared, “We are going to eradicate the problem. We are not going to treat the symptoms” (Means 47). It was an ominous pronouncement that foreshadowed the deaths to come. By the time a fire broke out in the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps building on the Kent State campus, the Ohio Army National Guard had already been called. Two days later on Monday, May 4th, 1970, “two thousand people had gathered in the vicinity of the Commons” and “many knew that the rally had been banned” by the University administrators who were anxious to disperse the growing crowds intersecting and merging on the campus from points all across the country (Kent State).
The college had become a focal point for a variety of activists, protestors, spectators and mischief makers. The Guard arrived to disperse the crowds…
Introduction The American Vietnam War (1965-1975) was a complex affair that encompassed many themes and issues—from the fight to contain Communism, which was very much on the minds of many Americans especially since Kennedy had been said to have been assassinated by one, to the problem of the draft and rising protests against the war. As perception of the war changed over time with the help of media interventions, both the
It did not help matters that America seemed to be floundering in Vietnam. Things were not good for the soldiers and there was no plan for things to get better. This state of affairs in Washington only made tension in America worse. As time went by, "key moderates within and outside the government became convinced that victory was beyond the resources of the United States" (1207). Davidson writes that student
" (The Wars for Vietnam) There was also in increase in bombing and the air war over North Vietnam. Conflict intensified and Nixon severely bombed targets in Hanoi and Haiphong in 1972. This action brought condemnation for the international community and further increased the problematics for America of pursuing the war. This was to have the effect of forcing the Nixon administration to reconsider its negotiation strategies. After fifteen years of
Student Unrest and the Vietnam War It is certainly a fact that the widespread and sometimes violent student unrest in the 1960s was largely based on young people's objections to the war in Vietnam. But it should be noted that the youthful rage against the American involvement was not driven exclusively by moral, political and social issues. But that rage was also fueled the fact that during the 1960s young people
In one sequence, O'Brien describes in poetic eloquence the same patterns which the research cited here above notes. Particularly, though all are exposed to the same terrors and opportunities in Vietnam, some are more prone than others to returning home with the dependencies formed at war. O'Brien tells that "you come over clean and you get dirty and then afterward it's never the same. A question of degree. Some make
As Vickers (1989) notes, "…the size and intensity of U.S. intervention was met by escalation in the size and intensity of opposition to the war here at home'. (Vickers, 1989, p. 100) Vickers and many other critics state categorically that the anti-war movement in the country was "…a critical factor in preventing the U.S. from achieving victory over communist forces in Vietnam…" and that, American public opinion indeed turned out