I learned a lot about the Vietnam War and the protests surrounding it in my APUSH class in high school and the violence and live footage of brutality still surprises me. At one point I knew the timeline of the actual war and each significant bombing in Vietnam but I think there more important information to get out of the Vietnam War era is the power of rhetoric from both sides of the conflict (the government and the citizens…not the US and North Vietnam).
One example of the powerful rhetoric used by the protester-side was the statistic shared by MLK Jr. He said something along the lines of ‘we have spent almost $230 on each enemy we kill abroad but only spend about $50 per person who lives in poverty in our own country’. I think this is extremely powerful because it demonstrates the power of aversion and diversion by the government that somehow labels international threats as more deadly than domestic ones. One thing I have learned about in this class and many of my other classes this year is that the US has a lot of work to do on its own before we can go trying to fix other places. Entering Vietnam was definitely the first mistake but mistake after mistake is what made people angry and dug the government into a deeper deeper hole of distrust.
From the other side however, the government, one part of the video that struck me as particularly powerful rhetoric was when Nixon said that the only people who can beat America are Americans themselves, not the North Vietnamese. At first I was perplexed by this comment, but then I realized it was a response to the protests across the country. I can definitely see how protesters felt they needed to resort to violence (for example throwing rocks at the National Guard at Kent State) but the response of deathly violence of guns to something like rocks is alarming to me.
Overall, I think the use of strong rhetoric from popular leaders on both sides of the protest conflict has shaped our countries views on the conflict as a whole as well as how the media can influence decisions almost too well. Now, it seems as if there is a “breaking news” story every five minutes on the news. We are lucky to live in a world where there are lots of ways to read about and view news, but if we are not careful, it is easy to get fed too much of one side of every story.
I was also very surprised with the fact that we spend $230 on an enemy while only $50 to someone in poverty. I agree with your overall statement saying it is easy to get caught up in one side of the story.
I also found Nixon’s comments to be interesting. At the time, I’m sure his words resonated with many people, and they give off sort of the same energy as “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” His words might have been immortalized if the Kent State shooting or Watergate didn’t happen.
I also think that it is important to make sure you aren’t getting fed too much of one side of the story. It is important to get al viewpoints and perspectives.
I also latched onto Nixon’s comments because they reminded me of Lincoln’s “United we stand. Divided we fall.” I think he understood that a winning war effort meant nothing if the turmoil on home soil did not stop.
I think its really interesting how the words that people use can change perceptions about an event. This is true for a lot of things not just the Vietnam war