Month: November 2020

The movie Just Mercy is a great depiction of how corrupt the legal system is and how it is so hard to change. It shows just how much is stacked against the black citizens of the United States. Although this movie is based in the 1980s, we still continue to see these issues and people fighting for them. The media has been able to expose more injustices in the legal system and police departments, making the whole country aware of it. The movie not only depicts racism towards criminals and people convicted of crimes, but Bryan, a lawyer from Harvard, too. Something sad to me was just how discouraged Johnny D (McMillan) was in the beginning of the movie, in his first conversation with Bryan. I can’t even imagine knowing I didn’t do something but feeling as if the odds were so stacked up against me that it wasn’t even worth it to fight. 

Something that stuck out to me was in the beginning of the movie when Eva and Bryan were talking about why they decided to go into this career. Eva states “a lot of the folks on death row either had shitty representation or none at all”. This was sad to me because it shows just how corrupt the legal system is. It is made so that if you get a good enough lawyer you have a better chance of getting a more favorable sentence, but good lawyers cost a lot of money. Not everyone can afford an expensive lawyer, and because of that they suffer and potentially get killed. This should not be how it is. A person should be judged based on the level of their crime, not how well their fancy lawyer argues for them. Johnny D, who was convicted of murdering a teenage girl, was only convicted because one man stated that he did it, and everyone believed it. The reasoning behind his conviction is completely unreliable and shows how if a white man said something about a black man, people were likely to believe it. I also just don’t understand the purpose of convicting a man of a crime he didn’t commit, because that leaves an actual criminal out on the streets. The logic makes no sense and shows the deep rooted racism in the justice system.

In the article “Four Decades and Counting: The Continued Failure of the War on Drugs”, the authors outline drug prohibition policies in the U.S. and the War on Drugs. Throughout our lives, we are constantly told how horrible illicit drugs are. Individuals who are caught with these drugs receive harsh punishments and jail time. Prohibition policies implemented by the United States are believed to reduce drug-related crime, decrease drug-related disease and overdose, and act as an effective means of disrupting criminal enterprises. Contrary to my belief, the article concludes that this is truly not the case. The prohibition of illicit drug use has created some harsh consequences. There has been an increase in overdoses and drug-related illnesses as the quality control mechanisms and information is weaker. There is no avid reporting of impure substances, as they would be breaking the law if they reported. This has led sellers to create more potent materials and switch to harder drugs as they want to increase their profits. Violence has also increased due to the fact that individuals can not resort to the police for their problems. 

Prohibition policies have also promoted and strengthened drug cartels. In fact, the U.S. War on Drugs led directly to the rise of the Columbian drug cartels and the creation of Super Labs. The authors then discuss why they believe we should consider legalizing drugs. They believe that there will be large positive effects with racial issues as well as counter ongoing trends of militarized police. As states continue to legalize Marijuana, it will be interesting to see how our government will respond in the future. Will the United States ever think to legalize drugs like Portugal has done? Will marijuana be legal everywhere? 

This movie is a good depiction of how a corrupt system operates and how it is very hard to dismantle it. Even using the law doesn’t always work the way it should because when the people in power are using the law on their terms, it’s even harder to fix these problems. Almost every system within the town was racist and in some way corrupt, and so it made it very hard to achieve anything. What made it even harder is that whenever someone didn’t submit to those in power, they were eliminated from the equation or threatened to comply. The reason McMillian was in jail was because of the testimony of that one man. He didn’t want to do it in the first place but he was put between a rock and a hard place because he was forced to choose between his life or McMillian’s. And then there was the police officer who knew McMillian was innocent but he was fired from the police force when he tried to prove that. When the only people left in the system are those that don’t care about achieving justice but their own agendas, how are you supposed to fight that? This leads me to a point that Stevenson was trying to prove to the district attorney. A conviction doesn’t mean justice and so defending a conviction isn’t always the right thing to do. The police department felt like just because they were able to get a conviction, that meant they had done their job. In reality, what they were doing was the furthest thing from justice.

I think an important character of this movie is the young officer who worked at the prison McMillian was being held. At the very beginning, it was obvious that he was no different from everyone else around him who were undeniably racist.  What took for him to change was watching the execution of Hebert Richardson. His character is representative of what complacency in a corrupt system looks like. Him being outwardly being racist was more than just feeding his ego because he was in a position of power, it was a lot more damaging than that. While he was not one of the people who put McMillian in jail, he was still a player in the corrupt system. Once he saw how damaging the system he worked for was, I think what caused his character change was recognizing that he played a role in it. Up until the execution, he would probably argue that his acts were just “harmless jokes,” but after seeing that racism being played out in a corrupt system was not at all harmless, it changed his behavior.

In Zinn’s chapter “The Seventies: Under Control?” in the period of 1970s, the system did not “hold loyalty to the public” sparking a series of events like the Watergate scandal and anti-war protests. We see that at the beginning of the decade people were not trusting the government as it was violent against its own people. Government officials wanted to reveal and speak up about Nixon’s fraud and crimes as people were all fed up with the situation and wanted Nixon to resign and as soon as he did and Ford took over, people thought he would provide more strength to the American democracy and improve the government. However, that did not happen; the Mayaguez affair happened where Ford acted without the approval of Congress.

I think this year in a certain aspect is similar to that specific period of time. Nixon has been accused of committing crimes and abusing his position as a president. Similarly, the (current) President Trump has been accused of lies such as providing advances to black Americans, meeting with Iran, Covid 19 pandemic, voting by mail, and much more. I see that people during that time have experienced a very similar feeling of distrust against the American government as some do right now. 

In today’s reading, Howard Zinn declares that during the 70s, the American public lost trust in the government. While this loss of trust is often depicted in the media as being crazy or radical hippies trying to fight the US government, I think looking at the actions of the US government, particularly the Nixon Administration would make the mistrust of the government and promotion of counterculture during the 70s a logical response to an increasingly unresponsive government.

Indeed, the Watergate Scandal revealed more than just the workings of a man trying to gain information on his opponent. Rather, Watergate revealed a plethora of illegal activities that the Nixon Administration — one that had defined law and order as one of its defining characteristics — had partaken in. Obviously, the hypocrisy of this news angered the American people; however, I believe the specifics of the crimes were more harmful to the relationship between Nixon and the American people. I found the illegal bombing of Cambodia to be a particularly interesting crime that was uncovered in the aftermath of Watergate. Nixon had thought that bombing eastern Cambodia would help the war effort in Vietnam by stopping Viet Kong troops from entering through Cambodia. While this logic may have been sound, Nixon knew that the American public would not approve. Thus, he kept the operation secret. Indeed, the bombing of Cambodia furthered the point that Watergate had suggested. President Nixon — and, therefore in the eyes of the public, the American government — had abused his power and lied to the American people about it in order to maintain favorable reelection conditions.

It is impossible to look at the Nixon Administration — as well as the 70s in general — and not see parallels with today. Indeed, the current President of the United States has been accused of many of the same things that Nixon has (illegal fundraising, campaign fraud, and election tampering). Thus, it is important that we all think about our own emotions right now when trying to understand the culture of the 1970s. Indeed, people then, as they do now, distrusted the government because the President seemed to care more about electoral gain than their job. I think the sign that many Americans no longer trust that the election results will be accurate echoes the feelings of Americans in the 1970s.

This chapter described striking similarities between the 1970s politics and culture and our modern-day cultures, like personal dealings with corporations in the government, tensions between the executive and congressional branch, but also described striking differences in party unification and government involvement. The movie, Frost/Nixon, helped make this time period, and the people listed in Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, more realistic as I am able to see their reactions, voices, and tendencies. One point that I thought was brought up more in the movie than in the book was the importance of the media to bring “truth” or coverage for the people, which helped mobilize social and political action. 

Although I feel like there is less direct corporate involvement in our government today compared to the 1970s or the 2010s, I still see it as a similar parallel between the 1970s and today. I thought the conspiracy with ITT and oil companies highlighted a huge problem that was not ultimately fixed with the resolvent of the Nixon administration which was the immense personal involvement individuals had while working for the US or for the president. I think this followed into the 1980s in government and in corporate it because it was decided not to dismantle the system around Nixon but just the people as explained on page 546. Theodore Sorensen stated, “Some structural changes are needed. All the rotten apples should be thrown out. But save the barrel.” To me, this continues to show the prioritization of individual desires in a job meant to be a public servant. 

As I was only born in 2002 and have only understood politics from approximately 2016 onwards, I was surprised to read about how the parties were a more unified government entity that was embedded in similar corruption against the people, rather than what we have today. I can never picture a situation in the United States where our two parties were unified probably because I have almost never experienced that phenomenon, as the parties today use corrupt methods to hurt each other instead which hurts all of the American people. One interesting difference in these fights is how international relations were utilized. Although I should not have been surprised, the amount of foreign “proxy-wars” and “proxy-violence” during these years was outstanding to me. The operations with the Chilean government, the plot to kill Castro of Cuba, the work with the Lai Massacre, work against national groups like the Socialist Workers Party, and the Black Panthers, and probably many more, were used as under-the-radar ways to establish American dominance after (and during) the failure of the Vietnam War. Today, our political parties will instead enlist international help to prove a national point rather than using international fights to prove an international point, which I think can be even more dangerous.

During the 1970’s Americans increasingly had a distrust in government.  A multitude of events like the anti-war movement, and the Watergate scandal caused trust in government to crater.  The, “National mood of hostility to government and business came out of the Vietnam war… political disgrace of the Nixon administration in the scandals that came to be known by the one-word label “Watergate,” and which led to the historic resignation… from Richard Nixon.”  By the end of Nixon’s Presidency people were fed up and just wanted to go back to normalcy.  When Nixon finally resigned people were very happy and thought Ford was the right answer to the problems we faced, “When Nixon resigned and Ford became President, the New York Times said: ‘Out of the despair of Watergate has come an inspiring new demonstration of the uniqueness and strength of the American democracy.’”  

Under Ford the Mayaguez Affair happened where a US cargo ship was taken by Cambodia.  Ford then acted to solve the problem without Congressional approval.  And, there were American casualties Zinn writes, “Why the rush to bomb, strafe, attack? Why, even after the ship and crew were recovered, did Ford order American planes to bomb the Cambodian mainland, with untold Cambodian casualties? What could justify such a combination of moral blindness and military bungling?”  If Ford would’ve waited for Congressional Approval they could’ve made a solid plan instead of being blindsided.  Or, the Cambodian’s may have actually returned the ship.  This along with Vietnam caused trust in military to drop as well as government, “Confidence in the military during that period had dropped from 62 percent to 29 percent, in business from 55 percent to 18 percent, in both President and Congress from 42 percent to 13 percent.”  Overall, people just wanted to be back to normalcy, yet Ford failed to do so and the public’s trust faded.  

Zinn’s Chapter titled “The Seventies: Under Control” talked a lot about the role President Nixon played in the US involvement in Cambodia. I was interested while reading for a number of reasons. The first thing that I found intriguing was how unwarranted the presence of US troops in Cambodia really was. The capture of US troops in some ways, could warrant retaliation. However, the fact that the US troops that were captured were not tortured, beaten, starved, or even really treated poorly, changes thing vastly. Once again I was given the impression that the United States does not always make the right decisions, especially regarding foreign affairs and our military involvement in them. The chapter goes on to talk about several other controversial events that unfolded during the 70s in America.

Similar to the current situation in American politics, there was great outrage in America after Nixons behavior in Cambodia. His successor, was not liked by the public either. In fact, some would say that Ford was even worse than Nixon. There are so many connections between this era in American politics, and the era we are currently living in right now. There will be outrage regardless of who wins this years election, and the trust that Americans have in their government officials is low. in the 70s, Americans had little trust in the federal government because they had a lack of understanding as to why the US once again was involved in a foreign affair that led to bloodshed and fear for American troops and citizens.

There are great parallels between the 70s and today, what brings me hope about that is the fact that we got through that era in America. Which has me believing that we will once again. Even though it feels like we just might not.

As described in Zinn’s chapter “The Seventies: Under Control?,” the decade had its fair share of controversies. The decade began with extreme hostility towards the government and the violence it had created. The Watergate Scandal did not help. Burglars linked to Nixon’s reelection campaign raided Democratic National Committee offices in theWatergate apartment complex. This prompted many government officials to speak out against Nixon and reveal more of his crimes, which included taking illegal bribes and plotting a secret attack on the southeastern Asian country of Cambodia. Ford, who took over after Nixon resigned, was not much of an improvement. The Mayaguez Affair and investigations into CIA plots did not restore the trust of the public.
The 1970s were a mess. People living through 2020 can probably relate to the emotions of those who lived through the 1970s. The government is a mess no matter who wins the election, we are suffering from a global pandemic that has killed both people and the economy, there are murder hornets and aliens, and Poland accidentally invaded the Czech Republic this past summer. We overcome crazy occurrences all the time. Despite how many may feel, the world is not, in fact, ending. We will get through it.

Zinn’s chapter, “The Seventies: Under Control?” highlighted several themes that can still be related to today’s political sentiments. The first idea presented is that after the Vietnam War, there was a general distrust and low approval of the government. Given the outbreak of protests that the United State’s involvement in the Vietnam War causes, this was not a huge surprise to me. However, the statistics that Zinn references were shocking and very drastic changes in not a long period of time. For example, from 1964 to 1972 the percentage of people who thought that the government operated by running on only a few big interests and only looked out for themselves, increased from 26% to 53%. This definitely seems to be a result of the US joining the Vietnam War because the government likes to show its dominance. As Zinn discusses later, the US seems to like to show its importance by getting involved in world affairs rather than keeping an isolationist ideology. In addition to the first poll, Zinn also included statistics of the percentage of independents increasing by 14% from 1940 to 1974. People of both ideologies were so upset with the government and had so much distrust in them that they didn’t want to be affiliated to a party at all. Although party polarization is increasing over time, I see similar sentiments of disapproval and distrust in the government nowadays as well. Thinking back to the 2016 election, there was such a low voter turnout because so many people disapproved of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I also know a lot of people who disaffiliated and became independent after that election because of disappointment in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Another idea that stood out to me was Zinn’s discussion of the Honeywell Corporation employee’s feeling about producing weapons for the Vietnam War. 131 employees of the corporation thought that they should stop producing these weapons while only 88 thought Honeywell should continue the production. Zinn includes an example of a response for someone who answered that they should stop as being, “‘How may we have pride in our work when the entire basis for this work is immoral?'” (Zinn 542). When we discussed this idea in class I only thought about the soldier who were actually fighting in combat against the Vietnamese and how they felt unmotivated to complete their tasks when they thought it was immoral. It is interesting to think about all the other people and workers who weren’t actually on the battlefront but still contributed to the war in one way or another. Also, given the discussion of low political approval ratings, it makes me wonder if a lot of the politicians at the time of the Vietnam War were actually against the US involvement, but didn’t have enough authority to stop it. I’m sure there were a fair amount of politicians who opposed this, but given the increased number of independents, it makes me think that neither party was particularly happy with the way politicians from their respective parties handled the conflicts.

Today’s reading shows us some of the behind the scenes factors that played into a gradual decrease in trust towards the government within American society. Zinn points out that Americans shifted from 26% to 53% ratings of agreeing with the statement “Is the government run by a few big interests looking out for themselves” from 1964-1972. Obviously the Vietnam war had a lot to do with this. Lack of true information conveyed to citizens, a disapproval of taking on the war in the first place by a majority of citizens, and an uneasiness about the United States’ true intentions behind the war all led to this diminishing patriotism and rise in distrust.

While, we have read and heard about this in class, and saw it in Platoon, I was particularly interested in the argument that “corporate influence is a permanent fact of the white house” (p. 547). I do find it strange that so much of each presidential candidate’s money comes from these private donors, back then and even today. Who could believe anything besides the fact that these corporations are essentially buying their hand in a say in government? I thought it was interesting that Zinn described Nixon “leaving” (really removed) office, and replacing him with Ford was like “getting rid of the apples, but saving the barrel”. I think this was not only an example of the way al ot of systems in American (especially political and economic) continue to just simply be passed down in new forms. If I were alive and educated well in this time, I absolutely would have questioned the intentions in rehiring someone so similar to a person who gravely misstepped. But it goes back to the same point: Nixon had to go, but the voice of the corporations did not. They just had to be spoken from a new mouth.

The last point I found interesting was that of the Mayaguez Affair in 1975. American soldiers were captured, but eventually released. However, the United States, coming right off losing to the smaller Vietnam in their recent war, felt it needed to assert itself. In doing so, it ignored messages of a likely freeing of these Americans, and sent troops and ammunition in order to save them heroically. I found ironic that more troops were killed saving those captured, than the initial amount of those actually captured. Zinn asserts that it was “necessary to show the world that giant America, defeated by the tiny Vietnam, was still powerful and resolute” (p. 552). This shows the ego that America had, and is a prime example of how sometimes our egos can bring more harm than good.

In his chapter, “The Seventies:Under Control?” Zinn emphasizes the distrust between the American people and the government during and after the Vietnam War. During the 70s something that unified people from every class and socio-economic background was their shared distrust in the government. This distrust only increased with Nixon’s scandal known as Watergate. For me, reading about Watergate was most interesting, because I had never actually learned what happened. Maybe that sounds crazy but I feel like many of my peers, specifically in highschool also had a lack of understanding for what Watergate truly was. We knew it was a scandal and that Nixon resigned because if it, but we never learned much else. Watergate exposed how corrupt Nixon and his administration truly were, as they were accepting illegal donations, interfering with the Democratic party, and illegally bombed places in Cambodia. Ford then became president however the American people were still restless because they had “cleaned” the government of corrupt people, but not of previous policies. There were no fundamental changes made to the system under Ford.

Another main point that Zinn discussed was what was happening in Cambodia and how the US interfered. Not only was Nixon illegally bombing some areas of the country, but Ford somewhat followed in his footsteps and entered Cambodia (legally) but in a horrible unnecessary manner. A ship of men from the US had been captured by the Cambodians, however they were not harmed; in fact, they were given food and beds to sleep on from the soldiers that captured them. Nevertheless, Ford demanded Cambodia let the men free and when they did not answer the US began bombing Cambodian ships and sending troops over. Chinese diplomats later stated that they were working with the Cambodians to get the men back however it was too late, and the day the troops arrived, the men were released (some of them killed in the attack). I found the American government needing to assert their dominance to be a reoccurring theme through many things we have read this semester. This was the same, Ford wanted the world to know that although we had lost in Vietnam, we were still a strong military force.

The point that Zinn constantly highlights throughout this chapter is that even after Nixon resigned from office, the corrupt systems that his administration abused remained largely intact. Even with the corrupt Nixon administration gone, American politicians would still largely be influenced by wealthy business owners. It seems that no matter how much polling reflected the American people’s dissatisfaction with and lack of trust of the governing bodies, no true change in the structuring of power took place. During this class we have learned that the government has almost always hoodwinked the public to some degree, but within this chapter the first tangible examples of presidential corruption were exposed to the public and in response the first prosecution of many government officials took place. After the atrocity of the Vietnam War, the American people were more astute at keeping the government in check than ever, and the Watergate Scandal proved the corruption that many Americans only thought to be true as completely certain.

In this chapter we learned about another military engagement committed without true justification known as the “Mayaguez Affair”. It seems the government was incapable of learning from its previous mistakes in Vietnam. Not only did President Ford break the law by taking action without congressional approval, but he also bombed an area where American Personnel may have been held. In the name of proving that America wasn’t a weak country after its loss in Vietnam, Ford reinforced the idea that the US would still risk its soldiers lives for little gain. Secretary of State Kissinger classification of the risking of the Mayaguez sailors lives as a “Necessary risk”(553) perfectly summarizes why America seems to always be engaged in wars. It is too easy for the powerful people in government to send soldiers who they don’t know into battle. To prevent the pride of the United States from being damaged, the elite risked the lives of seemingly innocent Americans and had the audacity to refer to it as a “Necessary risk”. This dangerous and irresponsible attitude seems to still exist in the minds of politicians today.

Today’s Zinn chapter focused on the Nixon administration and how trust between the people and the government began to diminish even more.  The American people were already on edge with the government due to the involvement in the Vietnam War, which proved time and time again that America should not have gotten involved.  The watergate scandal furthered distrust in the government and President Nixon.  Nixon could no longer lead the country due to the lack of trust, so he was removed from office.  I did not know Nixon executed an illegal bombing in Cambodia, and this news did not sit well with me.  This type of misuse of power makes me question the democracy within America.  Zinn continually exposes how America has failed to represent the people through its form of democracy, and as the examples pile up it makes me feel less and less confident in the American government.  I want to look deeper into how much power the president of the United States of America actually has.  I was under the assumptions that the checks and balances formed in the American government would prevent the president from doing things like bombing Cambodia without full support of congress.

The United States of America’s constant need to be seen as a world superpower causes problems.  Zinn states that Ford wanted America to be seen as a superpower once again, so he made some rash military decisions such as sending the American military to Cambodia quickly over a relatively calm issue.  The questions of trust in the government came into full swing when news of the CIA and FBI instituting a variety of things that ultimately kept American citizens in the dark.  Zinn describes a variety of things the CIA and FBI did without consent from American citizens and this once again questions the legitimacy of American democracy.  Zinn concludes the chapter by analyzing international business and corporate power.  It is interesting how Zinn brings the chapter full circle with this segment.  The themes of distrust and abuse of power filtered throughout this chapter, and Zinn, once again, brings to light so many of the stains on American history.

This chapter in Zinn highlights the chaotic nature of the United States government at times. The seventies was a time when we were trying to get control of ourselves, although we weren’t always successful. After the turmoil of the sixties, the Vietnam War, and the Watergate scandal the Americans trust in the government was not really there. As Zinn states a survey showed that “more than 83 percent agreed” that “‘the people running this country (government, political, church and civic leaders) don’t tell [them] the truth” (550). This anti-government sentiment around the US led leaders to perform some horrific acts as a way to regain control and their trust, as well as prove to the rest of the world that we were still powerful, especially after we lost the war. 

The Mayaguez affair was shocking to me. The US government seemed to act a bit out of control in this instance, only in an effort to seem powerful to the rest of the world. The casualties that resulted from this incident were saddening, especially because the government acted in a way that was supposed to help the country, but only did more harm. This feeling of the US needing to assert authority everywhere in the world throughout leaders in the country created a system that hurt the citizens at home. The American people still had low hopes for the future, as the economy was doing worse, their confidence in the government was decreasing. 

The seventies highlights once again the separation between the powerful leaders in the country and the actual citizens. Although, each seemed to feel as though things were out of control. It’s interesting to see how the government wanted to fix many of the same problems the American people did, but the way they wanted to handle it was very different. They were more focused on their global influence and the way the country looked, and the citizens didn’t seem to care about the rest of the world. But, then it brings in the question of what is more important, what should we be focusing on?

After the Watergate Scandal, President Nixon resigned from the White House. Due to President Nixon resigning, Gerald Ford, his Vice President has now become the president. Ford had a lot of rebuilding and cleaning up to do after Nixon’s actions. What strikes me the most is that Ford is still so caught up in making the United States a superhero and hold dominance over the other countries. Nixon tried to clean up the actions of President Johnson and the involvement in Vietnam. Ford had a lot and I mean a lot of cleaning up to do.

Both the Vietnam involvement and the Watergate Scandal had impacts on Ford as President. By the time Ford was president the United States was at a very low point. He tried to recover by sending American troops in as fast as he could. When he sent the troops to Cambodia, the Americans were then released the same day the troops arrived. Because Ford sent the troops, he ended up killing forty-one Americans. This idea that America must be the world giant—“giant America… was still powerful”(Zinn).  This is where I think Ford went wrong, he tried to become the ‘best’ and show Americans that America was still so powerful, but America was suffering and just needed time to rebuild itself.

Zinn’s chapter, “The Seventies: Under Control?” was very surprising yet interesting as it discussed Watergate, the Nixon administration, and American distrust and dissatisfaction with the government. I thought it was interesting how Nixon was pardoned after he resigned which saved him from possible criminal proceedings. The criminals involved also were not given harsh punishments which definitely raises questions about how internal government conflict has been handled. There was a great amount of national hostility towards the government after the Vietnam War and the world was exposed to government lies and atrocities creating distrust. An interesting statistic was that 84% of the American public (from a survey) agreed that the government and people in power don’t tell the truth. The chapter also emphasized how the entire government system is deeply flawed and there is not much that anyone can really do to change it. Many wanted Nixon to be removed from power, but they believed that his resignation would not change the issues within the system. 

A very shocking part of the chapter was the actions of the U.S on Cambodia because of the Mayaguez ship. They ordered bombings on Cambodian ships and invaded Tang Island for the main purpose of showing the world that America still held the power. They called it a “necessary risk” even though they risked the lives of the American seamen and innocent Cambodian lives. They continued even after hearing that the seamen were expected to be released soon. This shows how the loss of the Vietnam War took a large toll on the American ego, and forced the government to show their power by doing major destruction on Cambodia. This chapter opened up my eyes to the problems within the government system and how that has majorly contributed to national distrust towards the government that still exists today. 

In Zinn’s chapter The Seventies: Under Control?  Zinn illustrates the distrust that the public experienced with our nation’s government following the Vietnam War. Americans were finally becoming more vocal about how the government was flawed after hundreds of years of letting the system take its course, and only serving the self-interest of a large population of the wealthy elite. Despite this obvious public disapproval of how our government ran, the government continued to act with moral blindness and poor intentions.

The story regarding the Mayaguez, the American cargo ship that was captured by Cambodians illustrated America’s selfish nature of trying to constantly prove its dominance and strength by getting into unnecessary acts of violence against other counties. It was made clear that the Cambodians treated the Americans with grace and put them in no harm, yet President Ford bombed the Cambodian ships, causing a multitude of casualties. When the Secretary of State was asked why this action was taken, it was described as a “necessary risk” to protect American citizens. The people who deem what actions are “necessary risks” seem to be getting it wrong on multiple occasions, as seen with the Vietnam War. With a country that is so rooted in profits, capitalism, proving military strength, etc. how do we get our leaders to truly think morally and ethically when intervening with other countries? Can a nation act morally and politically at the same time and still remain a global power? What nations can we look to learn, since we clearly cannot learn from our own mistakes?

In this chapter Zinn discusses the 1970s in America, in particular the distrust the people had for its government. This distrust would be proven valid due to the Watergate Scandal that broke in 1972. Massive corruption in the government going all the way to the President was discovered. It was discovered that dirty tricks had been used against the Democratic Party (such as forging letters, stealing files, etc), illegal contributions in sums as much as millions of dollars were accepted by the Nixon campaign, illegal wiretaps, etc. This devastated an already skeptical public. When Nixon ultimately resigned most people were happy and ready to move on from the scandal. Claude Julien the editor of Le Monde Diplomatique wrote what no American paper would, “The elimination of Mr. Richard Nixon leaves intact all the mechanisms and all the false values which permitted the Watergate scandal” ( 545). No matter who held office the system was going to remain constant. This is due to our capitalist consumer culture that government officials and big cooperations took advantage of to generate more wealth for themselves.

I was shocked when I had read about what the U.S. government had done in Cambodia. I had never learned about this before. Americans (especially the government) were struggling to come to terms with the loss in Vietnam. When an American cargo ship was stopped and taken to port by Cambodians, even though they were treated kindly, President Ford had Cambodia bombed. Of the Cambodian invaders, “one-third were soon dead or wounded (this exceeded the casualty rate in the World War II invasion of Iwo Jima” (552). This was after the government had received a message from China that the crew was expected to be released soon. This was the result of a determination to show the world America was still a great power. It is just another atrocity by the American government.

Both of these events led to , ” unrest, shifting moral codes, the worse session in a generation…a new climate of questions and doubt” during the 1970’s. The 70’s was a period of change for the American population. The general population no longer supported the government blindly. This chapter was extremely enlightening for me and left me with a few questions. Do intentions matter in government actions? Was the government or any government officials ever held responsible for what happened in Cambodia? Did any government practices change due to the public skepticism in the 70’s?