Kent State University Shooting: What a government should do
[font=Arial Narrow][size=6]Why don't Americans recall and comdemn?[/size][/font][font=Arial Narrow][size=1][/size][/font]
[font=Arial Narrow][size=6]The Kent State shootings[/size][/font]
[font=Arial Narrow][size=4]Troops shot at university, not on the street.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial Narrow][size=4]Students protested, but did not kill soldiers as they did in Tiananmen Incident.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial Narrow][size=4]They were shot. [/size][/font]
[font=Arial Narrow][size=4]US government not accused today, but Chinese government is.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial Narrow][size=4]Why? [/size][/font]
[font=Arial Narrow][size=4][/size][/font]
[font=Arial Narrow][size=4]If you don't know about this, take a look. I'm not CNN'ing.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial Narrow][size=+2][/size][/font]
[font=Arial Narrow][size=+2]By Judith Willoughby[/size][/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] On April 30, 1970, President Nixon announced the invasion of Cambodia, triggering massive protests on American college campuses.[/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] Vietnam had already been a war that many Americans were against and this announcement added fuel to an already burning fire. President Nixon's announcement that 150,000 more troops would soon be drafted came at a time when many in the United States believed the war was drawing to a close. While the Pentagon quickly voiced its approval of the war's expansion, college students across the country organized strikes and protests against what the army had dubbed "Operation Total Victory."[/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] To some, the events leading up to the Kent State University shootings in 1970 indicate how our First Amendment rights are threatened in a society that continues to place margins on individuals and groups who do not agree with government policy.[/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] Politics and war has always been a dividing subject in America. Society considers and treats individuals and groups that are anti-war as "outsiders." War is a sensitive and serious subject. However, individuals whether opposed or for war are protected under the Constitution and do have a right to protest.[/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] According to several online articles about the events surrounding the Kent’s State shootings, there were a number of protest movements and riots that shook American college campuses during this decade. According to an article published by two thousand Princeton University students, Berkeley and Stanford were the sites of multiple clashes between antiwar protesters and police. At Yale, what had originally been a rally to protest the police harassment of the Black Panthers turned into a protest of the invasion of Cambodia, as well.[/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] According to "Four Random, Pointless Deaths," an article published in [i]Newsweek[/i], May 18, 1970, after some protesters set fire to Kent State's Army ROTC building, university administrators requested assistance from the Ohio National Guard. Governor James A. Rhodes went to the campus and promised to use "every force possible" to maintain order. Rhodes denounced the protesters as worse than "brown shirts," a reference to Nazi storm troopers, and vowed to keep the Guard at Kent State until protesters were silenced.[/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] According to the article "America Kills Its Children," published in [i]The Ethical Spectacle[/i], May 1995, ([url]http://www.spectacle.org[/url]) during the days of demonstrations guardsman had reportedly beaten two men, one of whom was a disabled veteran who allegedly had cursed at the guardsmen.[/font]
[img=300,238]http://www.jour.sc.edu/pages/wigginsweb/0204Kent.jpg[/img]
[font=Arial Narrow][size=-1]Famous photograph of Kent State University shooting[/size][/font][font=Arial Narrow][/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] Some have said these actions indicate the seriousness with which some guardsman took the subject of Vietnam War and its protesters or how the Ohio National Guard's prejudice toward war opponents. Then, during a demonstration on May 4, Ohio National guardsmen opened fire into a crowd of unarmed protesters. In 13 seconds, four students were killed and nine others were wounded.[/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] On July 23, 1970, key portions of a secret Justice Department memo were disclosed by the [i]Akron Beacon Journal[/i]. The memorandum describes the shootings as unnecessary and urges the Portage County Prosecutor to file criminal charges against six guardsmen. Attorney General John Mitchell said both the students and the guardsmen apparently violated federal laws and suggested that a federal grand jury may be convened if Ohio authorities did not act.[/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] After consulting with top Guard officials, Rhodes ordered that a special state grand jury be impaneled.[/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] The President's Commission on Campus Unrest concluded: "The actions of some students were violent and criminal and some others were dangerous, reckless, and irresponsible." The shootings were labeled as "unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable." An investigation was begun to determine the reason why the Guardsmen fired into a crowd of unarmed demonstrators.[/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] Some attempts were made to shift the blame to the victims, implying that because of their behavior they got what was coming to them.[/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] According to a Gallup Poll survey conducted one week after the shootings, 58 percent of the public blamed the students themselves, while only 11 percent blamed the National guardsmen. I believe an unarmed person, regardless of their beliefs, does not deserve to be killed for having opposing political views. So when society places the blame on innocent students for their own deaths, it only shows us how society can go to the absolute extreme when justifying such actions against "outsiders."[/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] Even before the Kent State incident, student movements were a major concern of the federal government. [i]Time[/i] magazine reported on May 11 that Vice President Spiro Agnew had described student radicalism as a threat to the American status quo.[/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] For years Americans have used protests and demonstrations as part of their First Amendment rights. Such protests were used in fighting for civil rights. Throughout the years, society has continually sided with individuals who in their mind pose no threat to mainstream society. However, the students at Kent State went from being a part of society to being “outsiders” when their political views were considered to outside the norm.[/font]
[font=Arial Narrow] I don't believe society has changed since this tragedy, especially now that America is involved in a war that many do not agree with. I believe that students who are committed to radical change may use destructive means to get their point across, however, killing them will not solve the problem nor stop others determined to voice their opinion.[/font] More and more I get the feeling that the US is more like a dictatorship. The difference with China is not that big. Once every 4 years people pretend they decide who will be the new dictator. The big frauds that have happened continually with the voting is something people hardly complain about and if complaining hardly anybody is listening. The candidates are carefully selected people and a few who have the own financial recourses but have no chance of winning. Maybe America is not a democracy but a dictatorship with an elected dictator.
Reply 2# Ronald's post
No, that's the British system you're thinking of! :lol so easy to make mistake between those two countries. But I think more and more western countries are becoming the same. Chosen dictatorships hidden behind a thin layer of what should be a democratic process. I hear people in the west constantly complain about how their countries are being run. But no one is doing anything about it. We just sit and grumble, then walk away.-Samtom This a very interesting part of western society you are mentioning Samtom. We have democracy on one side but the knowledge that it doesn't matter to much who we choose on the other side, because the end result will stay about the same. We also know that the alternative are in general people who are dreamers and can't be taken to serious. Why is it that we feel and also are so powerless? Trying to make real change in a democracy is really very difficult. Some examples:
The EU has two head offices every 6 months or so they move from one office to the other just because they can not decide where they should stay. This costs millions of euro's every year. People have complained about, made petitions but still we move every once in a while. So how come they can't decide or are able to let the people decide? What is also very questionable is that if leaders are not able to achieve compromise over where they make head office then how on earth are they able to make plans for the future of Europe?
Another nice thing of democracy is a referendum. Here the people are given a choice in what direction the government should go. This off course is not for every small thing but just for major events like the European constitution. How come most western countries don't have these referendum's? Just for the European constitution we had some countries make a referendum but other times you will hardly see it. I once heard a politician say that the people are not capable of making the decisions... So we are able to elect him to run the country but we are not good enough to know what is best for us, we should leave that up to him, Thanks for the confidence!
The same person was complaining about students only try to score 55 for the test to pass instead of 70 or 80. The government only needs 50,1% to pass a law or make any other decision. I don't think he will stop his law because he only got 50,1% of the votes, I think he will accept it with a big smile on his face. This is something which I feel is absurd. There should be a real majority when passing laws and making decisions for the future. I think 60% is the least. Otherwise the idea you are proposing is just not good enough! The only referendum I remember is when Quebec tried to separate from Canada. The vote was so insanely close in favor, but not enough for the province to break away. I am not saying that I want them to split form Canada, but 1% made the difference.
Sometimes I would really like to question the politicians in power, especially on their decisions with environmental issues. Experts in the field know much more about environmental conservation, and yet, the untrained expertise are making such hasty decision, which could have a huge impact on the future.
We are to the point now where we can not live the same luxurious life that the baby boomer's once lived. Time are changing, and the way in which a country is run and governed must also follow in step.
-Samtom I also always wonder why politicians think they know better then the experts. What I also question is how one time a person can be minister of law and 4 years later be minister of health or traffic or whatever. When you are a minister you should know something about the position you are about to work for. You need to be an expert or at least very knowledgeable about the issues in that field but we just put the first person who we can find there and we still wonder why every time they make a plan it fails or costs to much or works rather bad. If it would be a company then they would have gone bankrupt in a week.
The environmental issue is also something absurd. First of all western countries are very developed in clean energy, more then other countries so by making very strict rules we can boost our technology based economy and gain more because the competition is still low. Also often they say we need to think of our competitors position but the rules are the same for everybody so nobody is having an advantage over the other. And if your company didn't develop any technology to make the products more efficient and you think you can not cope with the new rules then it is just bad management. You could have seen this coming long time ago. Just checked this "incident" on the wikipedia. "The question of why the shots were fired is widely debated." is quite catching. You will never know whether the decision is made by the government or not. Ha...ha....ha... the western country has zoomorphize their democracy, may we call this an extreme ........western human rights...???? ha....ha....ha.....! This incident is highly condemned in the US. It'll be in any US history textbook used in our schools. The difference between the reactions of china and the US behind these incidents as I see it, is in the US every media organization jumped on it to publisize it to everyone but the Chinese government only tries to censor what happened in Tiananman.
[[i] Last edited by meiguoren at 13-7-2008 07:52 [/i]] And the fact of the matter is that the U.S government, however repulsive it maybe, does not massacre student protests anymore. Kent State was a grim example of what a large government can do, it has been widely condemned and acknowledged, and indeed like Meiguoren said, it is in the history books.
If it were TRULY a dictatorship, we would never hear about it.
Page:
[1]