Anti War Movement Vietnam Essay

Anti War Movement Vietnam Essay It is generally acknowledged that the antiwar movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s shortened the Vietnam War; how that is interpreted may depend on whether the person doing the interpretation supports or does not support the war itself. Thus, some see the antiwar effort as having prevented America from winning, while others see the antiwar effort as preventing America from continuing a wasteful and unwinnable war. The primary role of the antiwar movement was not one that caused change in and of itself but that kept the issue before the public. The public might have accepted the official version of events far longer if that version were not being questioned constantly by antiwar activists. When certain events occurred that suggested that the antiwar protesters were at least partially right, the public paid attention. Although there was ever growing dissent from citizens in America, did their actions actually help end the war in Vietnam? The Vietnam situation was one that developed and escalated so slowly in the mind of the American people that it was not until the war had grown to massive scale that the majority of American people could actually sit down and ask to themselves what they were pulled into. American involvement in the war had been going on since 1954 when the French were forced to pull out after the battle of Dien Bien Phu.  [1]  There had always been people against the war, but it was not until more than a decade later that full scale protest groups emerged. Although Kennedy believed that military involvement in South Vietnam would never achieve their intended goal, the Kennedy administration essentially followed the course that would be continued by subsequent administrations- to maintain a military presence because to do otherwise would make America appear weak, and to fight against communist aggression based on the domino theory that if one country fell, more would follow.  [2]   Democratic as well as Republican presidents continued the war because of the belief that it showed American weakness to withdraw. In addition, there is clearly some feeling that once committed, America could not withdraw without achieving victory. President Lyndon Johnson let this fear of negative public opinion influence his policy in the war: Haunted by fears of personal inadequacy, profoundly shaped by cultural norms of courage, honor, and manliness, and determined never to allow the right wing to use his policies in Vietnam as an excuse for a new McCarthy era, Johnson approached the horrible dilemma of Vietnam already wrapped in a straitjacket  [3]   The war went largely unexamined by the public until the Johnson administration. The war seemed to have no end in sight and the American public was finally starting to realize this. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution publicized doubts about the war and raised questions about the policy. Opposition to the war increased as the war escalated thereafter, and certainly the more troops that were sent into Vietnam in the late 1960s, the more opposition solidified. Images of the war on television created uncertainty in the U.S. and contributed to the development of the counter-culture. Some have claimed since that time that the dissension at home is what lost the war, but it is not at all certain that the opposition at home had that much to do with the loss. It may have deepened the resolve of the communists, but nothing the U.S. had done prior to the beginning of opposition at home had been effective, raising the question of why it would have been any more effective in the late 1960s. Several events changed the way the public saw the war, and one was the My Lai Massacre. The My Lai Massacre occurred on March 16, 1968, and saw almost 500 unarmed civilians, the majority of which were women and children, murdered by the U.S. Army.  [4]  To make things worse, some bodies were found to be sexually abused and mutilated. It wasnt until a year later that the American public found out about the murders which sparked a storm of controversy throughout the United States. Another event which turned public opinion against the war was the self immolation of a Buddhist monk in October 1963 in an act of protest under South Vietnams President Ngo Dinh Diems corrupt regime.  [5]   While the antiwar movement had no single iconic leader to act as a face of the movement, many people from all walks of life participated. Martin Luther King declared his opposition to the war in 1967 in a speech where he outlined seven major reasons he was against the war. He felt that the war was diverting resources away from issues that actually needed attention and was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population.  [6]  Another famous figure who opposed the war was Muhammed Ali, who was stripped of his heavyweight title for refusing to serve in the military. Even those people unlikely to be a part of a protest movement were involved such as doctors, lawyers, housewives, and religious leaders. Anyone who knew someone who was likely to be drafted in the war was a candidate for the antiwar movement. The most active participants in the antiwar movement may very well have been students. Students from around the nation participated in protests during the Vietnam War. Many colleges had formed chapters of Students for a Democratic society, an activist organization which strongly opposed the war. SDS expressed that the war is immoral at its root, that it is fought alongside a regime with no claim to represent its people, and that it is foreclosing the hope of making America a decent and truly democratic society.  [7]   A monumental event that elevated concern about the war occurred on May 4, 1970 at Kent State University in Ohio. National Guard troops were called in to quell a protest led by Kent State students to oppose the ever escalating war by President Nixon. The event ended in disaster as four students were killed and nine were injured, one of which suffered permanent paralysis from the attack.  [8]  Those injured in the attack were not only protesters but also innocent bystanders who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. For some, the event was proof not only that the American social and political systems were failing but that they knew it and were willing to kill young people to protect the status quo. The incident was a direct response to President Richard Nixons speech made on television on April 30, 1970 which announced what he called an incursion into Cambodia by U.S. troops fighting in Vietnam. This was perceived as a widening of the war and generated protests on campus es at colleges and universities across the country. Students at Kent State University in Ohio took part in a series of actions over the weekend following that Thursday night speech, and among the actions taken were the breaking of windows in the business district and the burning of the Army ROTC building on the campus. The governor ordered the Ohio National Guard to the campus as a police action on Monday, and it was this which would lead to the shooting by National Guardsmen of several students.  [9]   Student uprisings in the two years before 1970 saw an increase in confrontations. In 1969 there were two large-scale, national demonstrations against the war, and there were also moratoriums on many campuses throughout the country. In Kent, 4,000 people marched through the downtown area. In Washington, D.C., a demonstration attracted some 500,000 people.  [10]  The Kent State killings could be seen as the culmination of a decade of campus protest, and the response of the government demonstrated how little it understood the depth of sentiment against the war and other issues that existed at that time. It also showed how paranoid the leadership could be when confronted with any opposition. With events like the My Lai and Kent State massacres burned into peoples minds, the idea of a war with no purpose to the common person made less and less sense as time went on. Although antiwar activists cannot receive all the credit for the ending of the war in April of 1975 as the North Vietnamese sacrificed everything for their cause, the antiwar movement kept the issue alive and raised public consciousness in the Western world. While governments may routinely act against the wishes of its people, there will always come a point in time when enough people dare to oppose the government to bring about real change. This happened in the 1960s and the 1970s due to the efforts of Americans who had enough sense to admit America was wrong in its actions in Vietnam and enough courage to stand up and oppose it. Schulzinger, Robert D. A Time For War: The United States and Vietnam, 1941-1975. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Robert D. Schulzinger, A Time For War: The United States and Vietnam, 1941-1975 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) 399 McMahon, Robert. Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008. Robert McMahon. Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008) 399 Gosse, Van. Rethinking The New Left. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Van Gosse. Rethinking The New Left (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005) 399

Feasib Rationale of Restaurant Essay

Since the members of our group do like Philippine native foods, we decided to come up with a native restaurant business, the â€Å"Probinsyana†. The purpose of this native restaurant is supports the middle class to low class people. Being able to deliver great customer service, great food, and great atmosphere. A hit that will surely be loved by the masses is what this is all about. Probinsyana cuisines have its influences from different countries. This is due to the fact that traders and colonizers have visited the Philippines for centuries. The American and Spanish colonizers, and the Chinese and other Southeast Asian traders influenced and brought a twist on the Filipino cuisine. Chinese is one of the contributors of the Filipino cuisine. Chinese influences the Filipino on making noodles or what we call pancit. For many years Chinese people interact with the Filipinos and some of them stay and live in the Philippines. They teach their wife on how to cook some Chinese delicacy but using ingredients found in the Philippines. When the Spaniards came to Philippines, they introduced the Spanish culture. The Spanish colonies often influenced the Philippines in many different ways. As much as 80 percent of Filipino food originates from Spain. Tomatoes and garlic, for instance, both staple Filipino foods, were introduced from Spain, as was the cooking method of sautà ©ing using olive oil. For example, Adobo, Adobo means marinated sauce for pork. Spain can also lay claim to the delicious range of Filipino desserts and pastries. Baked goodies such as pan de sal and ensaymada are of Spanish origin. When American defeated the Spaniards and colonies the Philippines, they introduce a little American cuisine. Although Americans didn’t make that much of an influence in Philippine cuisine, they certainly changed the way Filipinos dine. They introduce the fast-food chain that and can goods which is until now available everywhere. Native Filipino cooking is not too spicy despite the fact that spices are plentiful and readily available in the islands. The basic staple is rice of which hundreds of varieties are cultivated. Main source of protein is fish which abound in oceans, lakes, rivers, streams and ponds. Meat, especially pork and poultry, is also commonly eaten. Beef is readily available but is more expensive; the cattle industry not being well developed in the country. Veal and lamb are not too popular but goat meat is considered a delicacy in some parts of the country as are frogs, rabbits and deer. It is often when sampling native Filipino dishes that one appreciates the regional variations in the country. For while it is true that Filipino culture is homogeneous, there are specific differences in cooking and food preferences that readily identify the regional origin of many dishes. Although these differences are not as pronounced as in the regional variations of Chinese cooking, for instance, they are widely recognized in the country where regionalism plays an important role because of its geographical division into many island-groups. Foreign Study The word restaurant was unknown until 1765. At that time a Frenchman called Boulanger opened such an establishment in Paris to serve meals and light refreshments. It was so successful that it was quickly imitated by others, and many new establishments with the same idea and calling themselves restaurants opened in France. The ward restaurant was not generally used in England until the end of the 19th century. In England, the restaurant idea spread more slowly than in France. At first there came the tea shops, and in 1873 the first restaurant was opened in London.

Theological Justifications Of Violence In Relation To Jesus.

Theological Justifications of Violence in relation to Jesus Introduction The history of religion has been pervaded by offensive and aggressive wars even before the birth of Jesus Christ as the messiah of Christian eschatology. Yet, Jesus brought another dimension to the faith that was more pacifist as evident in his preaching and examples. Looking at the Gospels and the interpretation of Jesus’ teachings in the letters of Saint Paul to the different churches, there exist numerous references of justified violence in relation to Jesus and the expansion of the church on earth. This evidence represents a paradox, since it presents a messiah who is predominantly pacifist but condones or incites violence in some cases. The problem is therefore†¦show more content†¦Some theological justifications of violence in relation to Jesus The contradictions that put into question this message of peace and nonviolence are numerical both in the words and deeds of Jesus. In Matthew chapter ten, he expounds â€Å"do not think that I have come to bring peace, but a sword. I came to set sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-laws; a man’s worst enemies will be the members of his own family† . Metaphorical or literal, this is advocacy for violence. By insisting that he is not a harbinger of peace but one of hostility, as represented by the sword, it goes without saying that performing acts of violence as a means to getting the desired effect is appealing. The fact that these violent occurrence will start from within the nuclear family is equally abhorrent. This assertion nevertheless supports the view that Christian religion is based on the premise of bloodshed and violence which Jesus Christ himself condones. The upheaval of families perceived in this message is directly oppositional to the message of love that Jesus himself articulates. In consideration of the message that preaches the love of the enemy and non retaliation in cases of aggression to outrightly insisting that he is bringing a message of discord, one is bound to question the agenda of goodwill. This juxtaposition of peace and violence is furtherShow MoreRelatedHistory Of South American Poverty And The Development Of Liberation Theology1451 Words   |  6 Pagesmovements accelerated into demonstrations and militant type activism. The dictatorships responded with a strong military response in reaction to the militants exerting extreme control over all demonstrations, which escalated into widespread acts of violence from both sides. The cries for change among the growing largely impoverished sections of society in South America, a revolutionary atmosphere developed. Armed uprisings appeared in many of the countries in hopes to overthrow the ruling dictatorsRead MoreChristian Ethics in a Postmodern World Essay example6531 Words   |  27 PagesChristianity by secularism (Bruce 1996; Turner 1994). Yet Christianity survives the assault well and even shows signs of revitalization in many parts of the world. How will Christianity face the challenge of postmodernity? There are many different theological responses. Some accept its central premises and write a/theologies (neither theologies nor nontheologies but something from the interstice of the two) (Taylor 1984); Some adopt the total paradoxical presence of the opposite (thus rejecting theRead More ROMANS 9:6-13 Essay4798 Words   |  20 Pages THEOLOGICAL CENTRE FOR ASIA ROMANS 9:6-13 AN EXEGETICAL PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR CHUL WOO LEE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF BNT524 CONTEMPORARY HERMENEUTICS CONTENTS INTRODUCTIONnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;1 OVERVIEW OF ROMANS 9-11nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;1 TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 9:6-13nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;3 INNER TEXTUREnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;4 Repetitive Texture and Patternnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;4 Read MoreBible Versus the Toran12356 Words   |  50 PagesLIFE OF TWO AFRO-AMERICANS (1) MALCOM X - ISLAMIC MUSLIM/QURAN PAGE 35-43 8 (2) MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. - CHRISTIAN/BIBLE PAGE 44-48 9 (3) BOTH MENS POLITICAL VIEWS ON VIOLENCE AND PAGE 49-56 CHANGE IN SOCIETY (4) THE STRONG CONNECTION BETWEEN BOTH MEN PAGE 57 (1) I am writing this paper based on the comparsion of two religions; the Islamic faith and Christianity, also comparingRead MoreAn Analysis of Terrorism Essay9824 Words   |  40 Pagespolitical act against a government and it’s citizenry, secondly, it is viewed as a coercive means to change some policy through the application of violence upon society . Finally terrorism adheres to the unlawfullness of acts as a mode of political change. For the purpose of this study terrorism is defined as a strategy whereby violence is used to produce certain effects in a group of people so an to attain some political end or ends. Terrorism can be traced back in Iran since theRead MoreRastafarian79520 Words   |  319 Pageshave been my role models, mentors, and inspiration: Dulcie Roach from Hopewell Primary School, St. Elizabeth, Jamaica; Elaine Bortner and Philip Hirai from Jamaica Wesleyan Bible College, Savanna-la-mar, Jamaica; and Roger Ringerberg, Jamaica Theological Seminary, Kingston, Jamaica. Second, thanks to my professors and advisors at Drew University, Karen Brown, Jonathan Reader, and Roger Shinn, whose advice and insights have helped to shape the focus and hone the arguments of this book. Third, theRead MoreSources of Ethics20199 Words   |  81 Pagesshall not cover your neighbour’s house. You shall not covet your neighbours wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything else that belongs to him. Tradition in both cases- and reinforced for Christians y the teaching of Jesus – has come to view these commandments from God as ethical principles which forbid doing anything to destroy or harm another â€Å" person’s life or marriage or reputation of property† Via a rule exemplified by the Golden Rule (or its variations in

Which Art Historical Method I Would Use The Ideas of...

As an aspiring art historian who has been exposed to a variety of diverse methods for analyzing art, there are two techniques in particular that stand prominent amidst the others: the ideas of Erwin Panofsky and Adrian Piper. It is not invalid to say that both art historians share a similar view of interpreting works of art, however, they also manage to complement one another perfectly. An integration of both Piper and Panofskys points of view would result in an impeccable approach to delving into the minds of the artists and determining the significance of the works of art that they constructed. Erwin Panofsky introduced and labeled a tripartite structure of analyzing art; he argued that practicing this tripartite method would produce†¦show more content†¦By immersing oneself in material of the period, one is then able to recognize and trace connections, therefore revealing the intrinsic meaning of the painting. Defending Erwin Panofskys method to those who have doubts seem s as though it should be nonsensical, because it is clearly the path that art historians must take. One simply cannot eliminate his method while simultaneously retaining the title of art historian. The omission of Panofskys ideas transforms art history into art appreciation. By use of what other method should one endeavor to find the meaning of a work of art if not through the arts contemporary documents and artifacts? We cannot afford to ignore the clues that may provide us with an idea of the culture that surrounded the work of art—they are all we have. While approaching artifacts as a tool to explain the past to us, there will always be doubts of accuracy, however, until someone develops time travel, said artifacts are the most solid evidence in our possession. The moment we stop attempting to reveal what the artist was saying is the moment we do ourselves, as well as these great artists, a tremendous disservice. In Adrian