Because I will be busy this weekend and because next week is a short one, I’m posting this assignment early. It won’t be due until Friday night, April 2. There will be no assignment over spring break.
As we’ve discussed in lecture and earlier homework assignments, the Vietnam era was a difficult time for the US in many ways. In addition to the war the economy was bad for a very long time – but we’ll talk more about that later. It truly was a time of “culture war” within our country and there seemed to be no end to the anger and mounting violence. By 1960, due to the “Baby Boom” nearly 50% of the US population was under the age of 18, allowing for widespread revolt against the status quo (perhaps you’ve heard that modern Arab countries, hotbeds of terrorism, share the same statistic today). As we’ll discuss later in our study of the Civil Rights Movement, racial tensions boiled over into massive riots that engulfed entire communities in flames and turned inner cities into war zones.
As time went on and patience grew thin, there were occasions when law enforcement officials took the law into their own hands or acted in ways that failed to meet the high standards and expectations of a police force in a democracy. One such instance, as we discussed in lecture, was the “police riot” at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968; another, also in Chicago involving the city police force, was the shooting deaths of two members of the Black Panthers (a radical civil rights group) in December of 1969. These relatively rare events were used by domestic (American) terrorists as justification for criminal violence.
It seems difficult to comprehend how things got so far out of hand, but perhaps current events demand that we do our best to understand the past. As I write this assignment there are news stories online concerning responses to the recent health care legislation. Members of both parties have been targeted; the office of one member of the House of Representatives was shot at and a coffin was left in front of another’s family home, to name a couple of extreme instances. In the 1970s every cause seemed to be radicalized and many believed that the worst was yet to come.
Although the followers of Charles Manson are epitomize the evil forces at work in that era and the Symbionese Liberation Army gained much more public attention, for our assignment this week we’ll focus on politically motivated homegrown terrorists. I’d like you to read about the Weather Underground Organization (WUO), a group that continues to be important today because some of the members are still politically active, having mostly avoided long prison sentences due to legal technicalities. As you read, consider the following questions and respond to them in your post: 1) what part (if any) of the story surprised you? 2) What fueled the anger of this group, and how should people act to bring about change they believe in? 3) How were these violent enemies of the status quo different from George Washington and our founding fathers?
Because memories of these events are still fresh for many people I found it difficult to locate a document that accurately shared the story without being politically skewed. Ironically, the best appeared at Wikipedia.org, which I have checked for accuracy and fairness. You may locate it at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_(organization) .
The parameters of this assignment are exactly the same as all those that preceded it.
^ Dude, I think you need to make your essay a little longer, cuz Mr. Akers is gonna take a lot of points off for an essay that short. Even if you do compliment the assignment.
ReplyDelete1.) Nothing surprising me about this conflict. Extreme left or right groups all will take things into their own hands and make it violent. They always go as far as to say that the world is 'evil' or corrupt, some even saying that it needs to be torn down and rebuilt from ashes. As I've previously said, protests change nothing; noone listens, noone cares. It's all about the group making a scene and drawing attention to themselves.
ReplyDelete2.) The group was angry over the Vietnam conflict (imagine that: liberals upset over war.) and the Civil Rights movements. So, they protested. The right way to get a change in my opinion? Elect officials that support your cause in office. Is it glamerous? Nope. Does it work? Yep. And it doesn't draw unneeded attention to yourself.
3.)The Weather Underground stemed from a seemling harmless idea: the right to protest. However it obviously got out of hand. The fact that they supported the black panthers and other violent groups that had racist roots. (Yeah, believe it or not, hating and killing white people is racist too.) And they were WAY off base when they declared war on the United States government. Seriously what the heck? Who declares war on their own country? I guess the main reason that organizations like this one and protests again the goverment or government action in general irritates me is that it THIS government that gives you the RIGHT to be able to protest. Yet people feverently oppose it. Seems sort of liek circular reasoning to me.
This is my comment #1
ReplyDeleteI wrote the essay strongly opinionated and worded on purpose. If you oppose go ahead and give me reasons why I'm wrong. I'm pretty open minded I feel like. The Weathermen were an example of Americans taking the rights the government gives to them and going wild. It reminds me of a dog that was given too much slack on its leash. Personally, I do not feel that protests actually make a difference. Rather, they far too often end in violence. Also, they almost always represent a minority group that is trying to change the face of America by being loud or even destructive. I think if people could gather and peacefully (and quietly) stand in mass to show sheer numbers. However, I can think of many more examples of protests going bad than making a difference.
This one is to Jon and the asian dude:
ReplyDeleteJon, I like your essay, however it is almost as short as the asian dude's and isn't really related to the topic at all. I fear that Mr. Akers might deduct some serious point because of length and content. So if I were you, I would considder re-writing.
Asain dude, you freaking suck. You stole my first post, and you keep posting those worthless links. NOBODY CARES! All of us are underaged anyway, last thing we need to do is be on a sleezy asian webcam sight. Now I doubt you'll read this, but if you do, do us all a favor and stop. I don't want this to be an ongoing theme. Thanks/
Based on a perspective some forty years later, it doesn’t surprise me much at all that people got together to bomb those places in order to make a statement and to overthrow the government. In more recent times, bombings have occurred such as the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. Surprise is not really the reaction I had when I read this, it was more like disgust.
ReplyDeleteWhat fueled their anger was that there was prejudice against blacks and women, injustice against lower classes, and the decisions made about the Vietnam War. The way they reacted was definitely not a good way to try and affect change. An example of someone who went about affecting change in the right way was Martin Luther King, Jr. with the nonviolent sit-ins and marches. When I think of protesting I figure the way he did it was the best way because it was effective without causing harm to others in the process.
These violent protestors were pretty darn different than our founding fathers. Though our founding fathers did use violence, it was retaliation against the British who fired first and were using military force. They didn’t do it so much for selfish means, they did exactly what they believed was best for our country, with a mandate from Americans. These other protestors were kind of on the their own, and they should have known that what they were doing probably wouldn’t amount to anything but killing innocent people. Our founding fathers also did try to use diplomacy first with England, before they went to war.
Weather Underground Organization
ReplyDelete1) what part (if any) of the story surprised you? Well, I was not really surprised by the story, i mean there are lots of crazy and extreme people out there, who would do stuff like this. I had not ever heard of this organization before, though.
2) What fueled the anger of this group, and how should people act to bring about change they believe in? Their anger was fueled by their hate for the US government and the way it was running the country, especially in more recent events during that time, such as the Vietnam War and Civil Rights movement. They were very anti-imperialist. When you are a small group or minority like these people, there is not much you can do to bring about large-scale changes like that. You can riot and protest, which draws attention, and might gain a few more followers, but it does not really bring about change as much as it ticks people off. And when you are such a smaller group of people, it is very difficult to elect people into government positions to represent you, because the vast majority disagrees with you. If you are a very small group you might have the option of relocating to a different country, but that does not work well if you have many followers with established lives. Probably the most effective option that I can think of is to shoot to make a compromise or only slightly change the system slowly. There will become more people that agree with you as a result of it not being so extreme, and people will be more willing to give a little than a lot.
3) How were these violent enemies of the status quo different from George Washington and our founding fathers? The difference is the mostly the situation. The founding fathers were mostly trying to unite the states under one common government, while nowadays everything is established, not messy and open to change as it was then. The founding fathers had an opportunity and a chance to bring about the change that they believed in, while the WUO did not. The founding fathers also were not so extreme as the WUO, and as a result had more followers and people were more open to accepting it.
Jake, I think you brought up an interesting point when you said that these protestors were really just wanted to draw attention to themselves. I think you’r right, they went about it the wrong way and usually protesting from what I know of it does end up in violence and unnecessary drama. There are better ways to bring about change, definitely, and these people most likely had selfish ambition. I don’t know if protesting has never worked though, in some circumstances it may.
ReplyDeleteJ Byrd, when you said that the protestors were fueled by hate, it reminded me that nothing good comes from hate being the cause of what you’re doing. Those who plan wickedness will bring about destruction. Your suggestion for another way to bring about change was different than anything I would have thought of, also. Maybe when things aren’t as extreme and you bring things about gradually it would be more effective.
1) actually im kinda of suprised but at the same time not at all. allow me to explain, radicals of all movements usually turn to force when their point is either ignored or denied. obviously i am suprised by the fact that many of these TERRORISTS are still active in polotics and even have a influence on our president.
ReplyDelete2) their anger was fueled by hatred of authority and the status quo set down by the older generation that had honestly provided a breading ground within acedemia for libral thinking and irrational reasoning. obviously everyone, conservative or libral, believes he/she is correct; however, in our world there are absolute truths and laws by which are neccessary for the existance of peace within the human race....people will always disagree, but do to the atmosphere avaliable through democracy, we can peacefully disagree and voice our opinions, but when some crazy crosses the line things must balance. Newton was right in that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. i mean think about it every 4 to 8 yrs we have a bloodless revolution! that has NEVER happened in all of human history, it is incredible the level of peace and security we enjoy, we must always remember that our freedom is not free, without our armed forces and foundational principles are wat provide our freedom! (though washington seems to imagine that the constition and our rights are no longer our choice but that of the state, not just crazy talk radio states it, a gallup pole shows that 56% of Americans disapprove of washington)
3)ok obviously they were way different from George Washington. our founding fathers fought and died for freedom and a chance for a democratic republic that could be "for the people" and "by the people." somehow i doubt bombing innocent people within the united states qualifies as fighting and dying for the people and freedom. our founding fathers wanted freedom not death and examples to try to force the Gov't (great Britain) to be scared and run. independence was defined in a completely different by each party. the decleration does say that we the people are responsible for our country and that we are responsible for removing those who abuse power, however u do that at the voters box, not with a gun and causing anarchy.
1) What part (if any) of the story surprised you? Well it didn't really surprise me very much at all. From what we saw at Kent State and Jackson State, people will almost do anything to get a point across even if it leads to the death of other people. I am like Jon on this one though. I have honestly never heard of the Weather Underground Organization.
ReplyDelete2) What fueled the anger of this group, and how should people act to bring about change they believe in? What I think fueled the anger of this group is the capitalist government. They literally hated it with a passion. Their goal was to violently overthrow the U.S. government and create a dictatorship of the proletariat which was actually an idea of Marxism. Instead of using violence to push something that you believe in, you should use something like the Montgomery Bus Boycott which did not use violence to put a point across, or you could use something that makes people agree with the idea and want to join.
3) How were these violent enemies of the status quo different from George Washington and our founding fathers? The difference is that our founding fathers went to England first to negotiate about their ideas, but because England started attacking them and using violence to punish them, the founding fathers had to defend themselves by fighting back. They did not choose violence as the solution which gained them more followers when England started attacking. England was the one that chose to use violence. This is how our founding fathers are different than the Weather Underground Organization. Plus they weren't as extreme and radical as organizations during the Vietnam War, such as the "Weathermen."
Jake, I totally agree with you. Protests really don't change anything, but in some cases there have been times when protesting has made a difference. When people protest, they are really just trying to get their idea of the subject across to whomever is running things. Most of them usually end up with lots of violence, people going to jail, and many angry people. That is why protesting is sometimes not a good idea, but if it makes a difference than it can be very useful. You just want to keep violence out of it. Good essay, Jake.
ReplyDeleteJon, you are right. Protesting can sometimes be helpful when it's not radical and extreme, but most of the time it usually just ticks people off. That is why protesting is never really a good way to make people follow and support your group. In the end, it makes people dislike your group. So good essay, Jon.
ReplyDelete1.)Well, I guess I am always surprised at how far people will go with their opinion and protests. After all of the terrible things that have happened through protesting in response to war or major change, we should not be surprised when extreme measures are taken to prove a point we believe in. But that is what gets me. The extremity of the actions taken.
ReplyDelete2.)First of all, the Vietnam War was a very prominent cause for the protests these people participated in. They did not agree with this war. They wanted“sameness”. When I read about this group, it did not make sense to me exactly why or what they believed. They wanted the different classifications of people to be diminished. As for what fueled their protests, I guess anything that would exalt one particular group or party, but their methods of protests did just that.
3.)We can say that both the founding fathers and these people had a strong passion, but their individual passions were completely different. The founding fathers wanted what was best for the nation and the people. They longed for a unity within the country as a people. The WUO wanted to destroy the government, our foundational center for society. They wanted a communism while the founding fathers of this country wanted what would be most beneficial for the people while giving them the proper rights they deserved, not a communistic institution.
Anna, you make the point about them being so prejudice against race and women, and that confuses me. Maybe I do just not understand their beliefs, but I read it as they wanted an extermination of the classes, but if they were prejudice then they are the ones creating these classes. If anyone understands this better, I’d appreciate comments helping to clarify. Maybe that’s the just the point we should make. Even though they fought and struggled, they were really against any form of authority(government). So by saying they desired a form of communism and “classes” they were just getting rid of the authority of the government.
ReplyDeleteJake, in your last paragraph, you made it a point that they declared war on the government. When that happens, it creates a complete sense of rebellion. When the country divides within itself, there is no way it can possibly continue in an authoritative or even functional manner. That was a very good point to bring up Jake.
What part (if any) of the story surprised me? I think that the most surprising part of the story is that an organization like the Weather Underground Organization is so unheard of. You would think that some thing like this would be taught in schools. this just goes to show that the education system in our country is lacking in some areas. Another surprising thing is that the president of the united states is good friends with one of the founding members. That’s right one of the founding members. this person is Mr. Bill Ayers. This man is also one of the most highly regarded professors of education. Yes, this crazy person teaches our future teachers how to teach. This all bothers me greatly.
ReplyDeleteWhat fueled the anger of this group, and should people act to bring about change they believe in? This group was fueled by nothing more than rage and hate. Now, should people act to bring about change they believe in? Yes, people should act to bring about change. However, there is a right and a wrong way to do this. The wrong way is bombing government buildings. The right way is by non-violent protest and voicing your opinion to the right people.
How were these violent enemies of the status quo different from George Washington and our founding fathers? The difference is that our founding fathers tried to make the change that they wanted the right way and when that did not work then and only then did they resort to violence.
1) Nothing at all surprises me about this story. Mr. Akers I found it interesting that over 50% of the American population was under 18 at this time in American history. And this means that the majority of these younger voters, who were in opposition of Vietnam, bought into the WUO's beliefs. So they would do whatever to stop Vietnam, whether it was ethical or not.
ReplyDelete2) Well what fueled the anger of this group was undoubtebly the anger of Vietnam and the American gov't. I found the purpose that the WUO believed in, the overall destruction of imperialism, to be extremely dumb. Their belief that communism should be the only gov't in the world is just so weird. And that their philosophy was based on Lenin doesn't surprise me a bit.
3) Wow, there couldn't be a bigger difference between the Founding Fathers and these WUO Anarchists. The Founding Father's had a central belief in forming One Nation Under God with Him at the center of gov't. The WUO wanted to institute communism, which believes in no God. The Founding Father's wanted everyone in the country to have their own voice and speak for what they believed in. The WUO just wanted to cause trouble and kill innocent Americans. And the worst part is they thought they were doing some good!! It's just awful.
1) It kind of surprised me where they got their name. The Weather Underground Organization, or the Weathermen, got their name from lyrics off a Bob Dylan song called Subterranean Homesick Blues. “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” By that, they apparently were saying that the government should see it the way the Weathermen see things already. The Weathermen definitely believed they were right. It seemed to them as obvious as which direction the wind blows. They considered the violence necessary because the government needed (in their opinion) a weatherman. By the way, I’m pretty much assuming that this is why the Weathermen chose their name.
ReplyDelete2) These people were crazy radical. They were against the war in Vietnam, and they wanted to overthrow the US government and destroy imperialism. The Weathermen wanted to establish a classless, communist America. That’s just dumb. What made them mad was US escalation of the Vietnam War. The WUO justified several violent bombings they instigated by saying it was in protest to US invasions and bombings in Hanoi and Laos. Unlike the WUO, people trying to bring about change they believe in should do so respectfully and avoid violence altogether.
3) The WUO has nothing in common with our founding fathers except for the fact that both of these groups tried to accomplish something. The WUO failed in reaching their ultimate goal; the founding fathers succeeded. Our founding fathers were in touch with reality; the WUO was an insane bunch of people. Our founding fathers desired capitalism; the WUO sought to destroy it.
Sam, your essay is very good. I agree with you that it’s interesting that so much of the population at the time was people under 18. Like you said, a lot of those younger voters bought into the WUO’s beliefs. I also agree with you that their purpose is extremely dumb. You’re right in saying that a huge difference between the founding fathers and the WUO is one nation under God vs. no God.
ReplyDeleteI liked your essay a lot, Pope. I am also disturbed that some of these guys are still active in politics. I don’t like that one bit. I liked your answer for number 2. I think it’s cool that you mentioned hatred of authority. Well, I basically agree with you on all of this, everything from there being absolute truths to the fact that Washington ignores reality today. Good essay, Pope.
ReplyDelete1) What part (if any) of the story surprised you? This really didn’t surprise me. I mean, I’ve said it before. If you believe in something, and you support it enough, then you will do pretty much whatever you need to do to keep that belief safe. And if you believe strongly enough that the government is completely wrong, then I guess you’re going to think it’s alright to blow it up.
ReplyDelete2) What fueled the anger of this group, and how should people act to bring about change they believe in? These people were mad because of Vietnam. They wanted all of the US soldiers home, and they thought it was wrong to still be in that war. Now, violence never really solved anything, it just made everyone else mad too. So I think they should have kept it peaceful, and silently protested.
3) How were these violent enemies of the status quo different from George Washington and our founding fathers? They are different from our founding fathers because they were using their right to protest in the wrong way. George Washington and the other founding fathers were fighting for our freedom and independence from Great Britain. These protestors were just doing whatever they wanted to get back at our government.
Sam,
ReplyDeleteI liked your essay. Especially the first paragraph, when you noticed that most of the voters during that time were about 18. I must say, us young people can be convinced of about anything. And once we are set on our views being the right views, we want to keep it that way. At least I am. But the Weather Underground Organization (WUO) was a bit intense. And the fact that they based their facts on Lenin’s beliefs didn’t help much. With Communism, and hence no God, they wouldn’t have to feel bad for anything they did, even if they did realize it was bad. And with them thinking they were doing good for the American public, they were obviously not going to stop.
I used the following sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_(organization)
ReplyDelete1) what part (if any) of the story surprised you?
* I couldn't believe all that happened. I read some of the Chicago Seven [originally 8] and the "Days of Rage" and I was extremely surprised. I couldn't believe that people acted this violently to the war in Vietnam. I know that it wasn't right but it's also bad to cause turmoil at home. Causing the govrenment to work hard on both fronts [home and away]; thus making it harder to bring the troops home sooner.
According to Bill Ayers:
"The Days of Rage was an attempt to break from the norms of kind of acceptable theater of 'here are the anti-war people: containable, marginal, predictable, and here's the little path they're going to march down, and here's where they can make their little statement.' We wanted to say, "No, what we're going to do is whatever we had to do to stop the violence in Vietnam.
I don't believe that this is the best way to get people to agree with you... I mean are you going to listen to the rational people or those that have no self-control?
Personally, I'm going to listen to the rational ones in my opinion.
2) What fueled the anger of this group, and how should people act to bring about change they believe in?
This group wanted to "bring home the war" and the were angry that the government kept sending more and more troops over seas. And as I was reading the article I found this-- "For the bombing of the Pentagon on May 19, 1972, they stated it was "in retaliation for the US bombing raid in Hanoi." in my opinion I don't know why they would stand up for the people that were killing our solidiers regardless of whether or not we were right I don't think that we should support the North Vietnamese when at the same time we are standing up for them they are blowing up our soldiers in South Vietnam. Also, civil unrest sends out the message that you have a weak government that goes against those that are in power and in our case we have an opinion in who we want as our leaders; so what we need to do is elect people that stand up for Godly morals and those that will do right regardless. And to insure that we will have people that will do this job we need to petition instead of riot. So when you disagree, tell your leaders rationally, making your thoughts clear and respectful.
3) How were these violent enemies of the status quo
different from George Washington and our founding fathers?
George Wahington and our founding fathers were fighting the opression of the British. But they only did this after trying many times to create a treaty with Great Britan. but when that didn't work they went to war.
In this instance the American protestors went to war with their treaties. Instead of peaceful protests the burned cities and vandalized public/private property As in all cases there are exceptions and I am sure that not all of the protestors were violent but the ones that were got the media time.
As you can see the 'status quo' is much different. One is more rational and one is more drastic. And in reality George Washington and our founding fathers accomplished more.
Camden,
ReplyDeleteYou made a good point in your essay. Yes, our education systems are lacking greatly in the truth of American History. I had never even heard of the Weather Underground Organization before doing this assignment. But hey, we could be studying more, if we really cared about our educations that much. And when these people protested, they went a little overboard. I honestly think that violent protest is stupid because it just makes the other party angry and the ones that are protesting. But how do you know who the ‘right people’ are? We don’t have connections to anyone in our governmental system. You can write all the letters you want, but eventually you will have to act out. I’m not saying we should bomb a gov’t building, but you are going to have to have a march, or some picket signs, or something. And our founding fathers were using the force needed to get us all where we are today: free from the British.
What part of the story surprised me:
ReplyDeleteWhat surprised me the most is how much like terrorist the Weather Underground were. I also wonder, because of the association with the Black Panthers and what we have learned about the president, why he is still in office.
What fueled the anger and how should people act to bring about a change that they believe in:
Well people were upset about pretty much everything at that point in time. The decisions made about Vietnam, the discrimination of blacks and women, and I also think that they had a rebellious nature that most likely didn’t do them much good. Now, as to how we should go about getting what we want/believe in. It can be done a number of ways, but most, and in a lot of cases the more effective, are illegal. Some say that you should elect the person that you think will uphold the values that are important to you and will do what is best, NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!! But, as we all that doesn’t always work ether because some people want other things and there is nothing you can do about it after it happens, or so they say.
How were these people different from George Washington and our other founding fathers:
These people got what they wanted out of violence. Yes, although you can get a lot with violence you can also get a lot of bad. As the Bible says there is a time and place for everything.
1.) I will be honest, nothing surprises me about this. People who are as passionate (or as mentally out there) about something will fight to the end for it. I mean, situations such as the WUO are not incredibly common things, but radicals are well radical. Radical people do radical things.
ReplyDelete2.) What fueled these people? Well, first, I am going to be harsh, so if you disagree let me know. But, people such as these, do not think clearly. They can't be. Anyone thinking logically would not go to the point they did. So, I believe the issues sparked their anger i.e. Vietnam, racism, etc. But it was the almost insanity inside of them that kept it going.
3.)How were they different from George Washington? Okay, our founding fathers were fighting for a good cause. They wanted their independence from a cruel, oppressive country. The WUO just wanted attention, and they did it in a violent way. The leaders of the Revolutionary War did not declare all out war on Great Britain at first. Remember? They tried to make peace with Great Britain. After much ridiculous taxing and oppression they then declared war. There was a clear logical reason for why they did what they did.
Sam,
ReplyDeleteI love, love, love your third paragraph. That is a great point. Our founding fathers did, obviously, form this country on the basis of Judeo-Christian principles. And, just as you said, Communists form their government around the central idea that "they are their own god", that humans are all there ever is, was, or will be. The most terrifying thing about all this is-there are people who actually agree with things the WUO were a part of, and those people are leaders in our country!
Jake Anderson, I enjoyed your entire essay, but I loved your answer to the second question. Protesting is great (if done in the correct manner), things like "Town Hall Meetings and "Tea Parties" are wonderful. They are expressing freedoms that we are granted in our country, but, you are right. They BEST way to make a difference is get the people you TRULY want in office. The people who Really are who they say they are, and who will actually do what they say they are going to do. You can donate money to their campaigns, you can campaign for them. People need to research their candidates before they just cast a ballot based on their party affiliation. We have learned that labels do not mean anything any longer. Anyways, good job Jake. Loved it.
ReplyDelete1) Like many others have said, I am not too surprised by them, but it's, well, different none the less. I mean there are people who do these types of things and I am sure there are still people to day who want to overthrow the US government (Can't say I blame them in a way =/).
ReplyDelete2) The group was mostly angry over the situation with the war in Vietnam. The WUO wanted it to be stopped, as did many others, but of course as we know the government has other plans including an even larger assault on the North Vietnamese. They also were upset with the Civil Rights Movement and they protested to show their beliefs.
3) The WUO wanted to completely change an established government; the United States Government. This wasn't the best idea. Now the founding fathers established a government from scratch in hopes of new freedoms like religious and it worked out very well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Nothing greatly surprised me.” This is exactly what I would expect from a communist group. This is what communism does; it destroys. This group wanted only one thing and that was communism. They didn’t care about the people they were running over to accomplish this goal. Political power and wealth was what they wanted. Communism only benefits the government, and it squashes everybody else. This group was an extreme Liberal group or left group. They were also entirely communist. They saw an opportunity to help them over through the government. They used Vietnam to gain support from the general population. They turned people against their country. They used every single incident for their cause. This is not the fruit of a group who wishes to do good, but to do evil. Our founding fathers were their when they drafted the constitution shaping America with their ideas. They wrote down exactly what they meant and don’t let any person tell you something that is not written down clearly because our forefathers wrote the constitution exactly the way it was meant to be read. People will try to manipulate the constitution to agree with what they believe. This is why I am a conservative.
ReplyDelete1) This story didn’t really surprise me. I know there are all kinds of evil out there that I can’t begin to imagine, such as this incident. But when bacon and eggs are half price, there is a monkey that doesn’t tell lies. And keep in mind in the end only the three legged will survive. Except for of course the fudge dragon, chocolate covered peanuts, and raisins. By the way, do you like waffles?
ReplyDelete2) What fueled this group’s anger is simply part of man’s sinful nature. Man is naturally evil since the fall. Now for some more random crap hoping Akers doesn’t read this. By the way, is it time for the last brick yet? Or did Switzerland invade them? Oh wait, Switzerland is neutral nevermind. Let’s see, 131 words, what other random stuff to say? How bout those teddy bears, huh? Oh wait, Grandma Jenkins needs her peanut juice, be right back.
3) the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968; another, also in Chicago By 1960, due to the “Baby Boom” nearly 50% of the US population was under the age of 18, allowing for widespread revolt against the status quo As we’ve discussed in lecture and earlier homework assignments, the Vietnam era was a difficult time for the US in many ways. In addition.
“You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blow,” Bob Marley sang. I wonder if he knew the meaning this song’s lyrics would eventually take. The Weather Underground Organization, or the weathermen, was a group that shot off from the Students for a Democratic Society another New Left group for students, but the main difference was the Weather Underground Organization reached out to students, workers, unemployed, and even some soldiers. The group stood for feminism, black-power, and most of all anti- war efforts. The organization’s goals were all Communistic and Socialistic, but the ultimate goal was world communism. The group was believed to be in league with China, Cuba, and North Vietnam. The group was spread over the entire country so they created Cadres, or professional revolutionaries, to stir up revolution in our country. The term is originally Leninist and it’s definition is a group of Communists who spend most of their time working up enough of a force to throw a complete revolution.
ReplyDeleteThe main part of the group’s story that stuck out to me was all the violence. To me it seems entirely ridiculous to be so violent to stop violence. Bill Ayers said, "The Days of Rage was an attempt to break from the norms of kind of acceptable theater of 'here are the anti-war people: containable, marginal, predictable, and here's the little path they're going to march down, and here's where they can make their little statement.' We wanted to say, ‘No, what we're going to do is whatever we had to do to stop the violence in Vietnam.’” This was referring to the Days of Rage a violent string of events in Chicago based on the slogan, “Bring the War Home.” The weathermen often tried to justify violence by comparing it to a recent event in the war. When we bombed Hanoi they bombed the United States Department of State Building when we invaded Laos they bombed the capitol…etc. Even saying they were doing whatever it took to stop the war doesn’t make sense to me. Surely there were better ways to protest. Now it seems each step we took into Vietnam gave the group just a little more anger to push with. I also think by showing support to women and African Americans they reached a group of people who were sick of oppression and naturally violent. I think the biggest difference between the Founding Fathers and the Weather Underground Organization is that our Founding Fathers had to resort to violence because they had no representation. They had no way to try and make a change in the government, but even though the weathermen had the ability to try to do things democratically they went straight to violence, which, in my opinion, should ALWAYS be a last resort.
1) what part (if any) of the story surprised you? It truly surprised me how they acted towards the war. They were wild and crazy I know that seems to describe almost all of them those days but when you start grouping people together that is when even more get mad. They seemed to think what they were doing was for a good cause but what they were really doing was changing the face of America a little at a time. The more they did the more people changed and did different things it changed peoples actions. It also really affected the way people thought about the war what people thought about the war already was that it was bad. I think as the WUO continued people truly believed that this war was something they wanted out of NOW! Truthfully they were right we wasted a lot doing nothing. 2) What fueled the anger of this group, and how should people act to bring about change they believe in? Well of course the way they acted could never be justified by any means except for in their own minds. The fuel to the fire was the HATE that people had for this war. They wanted this to change and others wanted it just as much as them, but they weren't willing to be as radical. They wanted out and we took our time and then increased bombing time and time again and people looked at it as escalating the war. When we wanted out Nixon heavily increased the bombing until they were willing to negotiate. Now this didn't make sense to anyone and truly it doesn't make sense to me even though it kind of worked. 3) How were these violent enemies of the status quo different from George Washington and our founding fathers? They wanted to make the nation a communist nation. They wanted the opposite of what the founding fathers wanted. Also though they wanted something the people were screaming to get out of Vietnam. The government should have done something sooner and made an escape strategy before we ever went in so we were ready for anything. This is one thing the WUO and the founding fathers might agree on if the people want something as a whole you give them what they want.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI wrote this by using the Wikipedia source you gave
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_(organization)
Anna, you had a really good essay.I agree with you that it's disgusting that our nation was in such turmoil at that time. And even though they had a good reason to be mad they shouldn't have acted out so violently. And i agree that protesting should be peaceful like what Martin Luther King Jr did.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your last paragraph, I believe that our founding fathers did try a little harder to be diplomatic without starting a war. While these people simply jumped in and said they were right and that we were wrong.
Madyson, you had a good essay. Personally I was really shocked about this. Though not at their passion for what they were standing up for but that they would send their country into such a violent uproar and create such turmoil. And I agree with you that these people do not htink clearly. The founding fathers did try to be diplomatic; while these people just jumped into this and didn't look back at what they were destroying.
ReplyDeleteColby, you had a great essay. Especially the third section. The WUO thought that they would just be able to adjust the USA Gov't as they wanted. Yeah nice try. As much as we want too today, we can't just barge into the Oval Office and demand for change. And especially not bomb gov't offices and buildings.
ReplyDeleteGreat Essay Colby.
Josh, you also had an awesome essay. I especially liked the 2nd section. An American society without classes is extremely dumb. And communists think that "sharing the wealth" with everyone in the country is the solution. Well what use is there of getting a good job and making alot of money? Knowing that you'd have to give most of it up? CRAZY!!
ReplyDeleteGreat Essay Josh.
I liked what Emily Cox said. I find that violent protest actually degrades the cause being fought for. Essentially this group wanted to destroy the government for just one war that wasn’t going so well and replace it with something that the government was fighting against. Really, was this just about the current issues? Their goal was not justified for their reason. Vietnam was just an excuse for violence. America may have been against Vietnam, but the citizens still hated communism. This wasn’t done to help people; it was meant to benefit only those in power. Power is the political drive for almost every politician.
ReplyDeleteI liked what David said. Our founding fathers had no choice whether or not to go to war. Also, they were not trying to over through a government, but to escape it. Plus, they were not even near Great Britain to begin with. The weathermen tried to destroy a government inside the country, not on a separate island across the sea.
ReplyDeleteNone of the story really surprised me. Whenever a large enough group of people are discontent for long enough they will turn their words and thoughts into actions, especially when you add psychoactive drugs and the angry confusion of youth into the equation. These were as so many have said “turbulent times”, which has become cliché yet remains accurate. The political and social scenes were in chaos, with every extreme type of person coming out of the woodwork. As we’ve seen in the horrific examples of the Nazis, or even more peaceful examples such as Mahatma Gandhi, whenever people are in need and sick of the status quo, any charismatic extremist can gain their attention and obedience.
ReplyDeleteThe terrorist activities of the Weathermen were unfortunate, to say the least. Their frustration had become channeled into a specific focused group, mad with rage and with more of a feel of direction than other riotous groups. Would-be peaceful disgruntled young people with no sense of direction found a roadmap toward purpose; in short, they had found a cause. Like a child with a new toy, these young people for the first time had a directive purpose, which was unfortunately ill begotten and dripping with youthful arrogance.
Revolutionaries. The Weathermen viewed themselves as revolutionaries. They would protect their ideology, they would institute their beliefs, they would impose their will on the government; the will of the people. Part of the assignment was to address how these men and women who have gone down in history as dangerous rebels were different than the Founding Fathers, who themselves rebelled against the standing government for their ideas. In truth, I believe it is hard to say. It would take a book to portray the reasons. What would we think of men like George Washington today if the British Empire had won? How would we view the Weathermen if they had won? Maybe differently. However, aside from all partiality, I would say that the tactics used by the Founding Fathers were, as far as I know, less destructive. Who knows? It is difficult to determine objectively sometimes. This is why we study the past, but forge our own futures.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSam,
ReplyDeleteAmazing answers. Very basic, to the point, and well thought out. It is definitely true that there were major moral differences between the Founding Fathers and the Weathermen. No doubt about it. Also, the destruction of Imperialism for Communism is pretty ridiculous. True equality is impossible among imperfect man. I agree with the lack of surprise. Overall though, good report. Thanks for sharing, Sir.
Hannah,
It is a good point that it is shocking how much like terrorists these people were. It is important to remember in a post-911 society that terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, classes, and races. Even when we think of home-grown American terrorists, we think of extremist individuals such as Timothy McVeigh, the exception, the nut, the dangerous madman. It is odd to imagine an “organized” group of terrorists living within the United States, born here, raised here, and committed to changing the world as we know it. The Taliban is not alone, we would do well to remember that.
1) This conflict was not really surprising to me in any way. Nothing about it stood out as something that was farfetched or mind blowing. I mean what happened that could be surprising. An extreme radical group becoming angry enough to become violent? Not very unusual. Radical groups don’t always seem to think very clearly. They are out to do what they want and get it done how they want and when they want, by any means necessary, including violence.
ReplyDelete2) The group themselves were angry about two main subjects. They were angry with the war in Vietnam, and they were upset by the Civil rights movement. Going back to point one, does it surprise you that a radical left group is upset over war?? But due to these disagreements they protested. In my opinion the way to get done what you want in our governmental setup you elect the leaders that agree with what you agree with. Elect the people that have the countries best interest at heart. And elect people that actually know what they are doing.
3) I believe that this group is different than our founding fathers for obvious reasons. They tried to overthrow the government, a system setup by those very founders. Also, they became violent to get what they wanted, George Washington and others setup our system for a reason and by trying to overthrow that system, they are set apart from our founding fathers.
Camden,
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed reading your essay. I didn’t find out that the leader of this organization was close to the President when I read, so I stand corrected, there was one surprising thing. And I also agree our education system sometimes is lacking, but well save that for another day. I like your answer to the last question as well, short simple and to the point. Our founding fathers were right, the WUO was wrong. Bottom line.
Emily C,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your essay. Obviously, question one is a matter of opinion, and our opinions differ from each other but I do see where you are coming from. The extremity of the actions should sometimes be surprising, but after all actions taken in the past it just doesn’t surprise me. I did like the way you looked at question three. They were both similar and different. They both had passion, but it was towards different things. I liked that view on the subject.