History Module 7 Portfolio Project: The Antiwar Movement

History Module 7 Portfolio Project The Antiwar Movement Name Institution The Antiwar Movement Background The 60s represent one of the most volatile decades in the American history. From the Civil Rights movement to the antiwar movement to the Feminist movement, everyone seemed discontented with the direction the country was going. People like Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and James Bevel lived fearless lives as they fought and tried to instill hope in the lives of the American people. These people believed in their dreams of a better and inclusive life and therefore, soldiered on in their quest. The civil rights movement could not be discussed without the contributions of these people. From all corners of the world, the speeches and marches organized by these people reverberated and their exploits motivated thousands more to stand for what they believed in. However, the civil rights movement was not the only movement that caused ripples in the United States. The Antiwar Movement was also another movement which not only helped to bring an end to the Vietnam War but also depicted the people’s resolve and dedication to their country and what it stands for. Aside from the above, it also helped to show the government that the people’s voice matter and that they should not be taken for granted. While most people talk and often get involved in antiwar discussions, few are aware of how the movement started as well as how it metamorphosized to what it became later. However, reading Mark Barringer’s article provides one with an in-depth understanding of the history of the movement. Apparently, the movement started with smaller movements like the Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) founded in 1957, the Student Peace Union founded in 1959, and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) founded in 1960 (Barringer, 1999). However, it is essential to note that these movements did not start as antiwar movements, but all were motivated by different issues. For example, SANE was inspired by the Cold War and the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. SPU, on the other hand, sought for much more than a sound nuclear policy and according to Barringer, its “goals went beyond that of SANE.” Apparently, the pioneers of SPU sought and desired “a wholesale restructuring of American society.” however, it slowly faded away but not before it had paved the way for SDS. Aside from these, there also existed the Free Speech Movement whose rhetoric was mainly against war and America’s participation in the Vietnam War. Having gained traction and with hundreds of students joining these movements, antiwar rhetoric spread in the campuses and by 1965, there was sound opposition. However, while campuses had shown resolve in their quest to stay vigilant and to stage protests against the war in Vietnam, the big question was how to generate as Barringer (1999) notes, “wider public acceptance.” SDS understood its informal mandate to the American people and was, therefore, working to make their stance known all over the country. In 1965, the group began organizing marches while “faculty members at the University of Michigan held a series of “teach-ins,” modelled after earlier Civil Rights seminars” (Barringer, 1999). Campuses all around the country adopted the teach-in format and used it as their way to support the antiwar rhetoric slowly taking root in the country. However, it was in April of 1965 that the movement peaked. After asking people to attend a march in Washington, the organizers were taken aback when a crowd of “between 15,000 and 25,000 people gathered at the capital” (Barringer, 1999). This was a sign that people were slowly buying into the movement’s rhetoric. The leaders, who were predominantly students started to spread their wings and to seek for allies who would help them expand and grow their reach. Campuses became more active in their participation in the movement. Campus editors were the busiest of all the allies especially the Liberation News Service and the Underground Press Syndicate which helped to disseminate intelligence across the campuses. While it started slow, the antiwar movement took a great turn, and from 1965 to 1968, major movements, marches, and protests were organized across the country. Other institutions as well became interested in the goals of the movement, and it was no surprise that a part of the military also joined in the movement as well. For example, the “Fort Hood 3” who gained popularity for their “refusal to serve in Vietnam. Underground railroads funneled draft evaders to Canada or Sweden; churches provided sanctuary for those attempting to avoid conscription.” People were starting to believe in what the movement stood for, and the opinions of influential personalities like Martin Luther King Jr. who openly “expressed support for the antiwar movement on moral grounds” (Barringer, 1999) brought with it thousands of supporters. From 1965, a new day dawned for the antiwar movement, and more was to come as people became more involved in the movement and sought for change. What Inspired the Movement? When the US government bombed North Vietnam in 1964, it was meant as a message to the Soviet Union and the spirit of communism altogether. However, the government did not expect the backlash it would receive from the public. The introduction of troops in 1965 further exacerbated the situation and led to the radicalization of the youth. From industrial sabotage to comical street theatre, the movement grew and soared in its quest to see the government’s decision to take part in the war overturned. Students across the country were heavily invested in the movement and took time off their studies to stand for what they believed in. Vietnam was always going to be a tough nut to crack, but the government moved in anyway. Several things inspired the movement chief of which was the simple fact that the public did not see any reason for the government to get involved in the affairs of Vietnam. The government had a difficult time justifying their involvement in the war, and a great number of people did not see a need in them being in the war. Growing opposition rocked President Johnson’s administration. Government officials and other leaders started coming out and condemning the war and the country’s participation in the war. Another motivation for the movement was the support from the likes of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr, Harry Belafonte, Dr. Benjamin Spock, and Robert Lowell. King had been a firm supporter of President Lyndon Johnson and had, therefore, steered clear of the war and the movement. His focus had solely been on the civil rights movement. However, his fearless and non-violent approach had fueled the movement as people drew inspiration from him and his speeches to speak out about any and all injustice. On the 4th of April 1967, everyone in the US woke up to the news that finally, King had joined the antiwar movement. According to Garrow (2017), on that particular day, King “delivered the most politically charged speech of his life at Riverside Church in Upper Manhattan.” He continues to note that “it was a blistering attack on the government’s conduct of the Vietnam War that, among other things, compared American tactics to those of the Nazis during the World War II.” This turn of events drew widespread support for the antiwar movement as well as condemnation for King. Other civil rights leaders started to distance themselves from him and his rhetoric Garrow (2017) notes that King’s speech simply meant that “civil rights was never a discrete problem in American society, and that racism went hand in hand with the fellow evils of poverty and militarism that kept the country from living up to its ideals.” The success of the civil rights movement can also be seen and described as an inspiration to the antiwar movement. According to Fairclough (1984), “both operated, for the most part, outside conventional channels, relying instead on marches, demonstrations, rallies, and other forms of nonviolent protest. And they were both movements of, primarily, young people.” Having seen firsthand how the civil rights movement worked and managed to gain widespread support, the antiwar movement leaders also sought for the same and hence the use of similar tactics. One could argue that the movement would have taken a different twist had the civil rights movement not existed and managed to succeed the way it had. Goals and Objectives of the Movement The ...