Leadership and the Humanities Class Blog Posts

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. 

2 Comments

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.

6 Comments

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.

3 Comments

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.  

 

5 Comments

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.

5 Comments

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.

6 Comments

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.

2 Comments

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.

2 Comments

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.

3 Comments

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.

 

2 Comments

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.

2 Comments

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?

2 Comments

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.

5 Comments

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. 

1 Comment

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?

2 Comments

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?

2 Comments

In the chapter, “The Seventies: Under Control?” Zinn portrays a corrupt and dishonest government of which the American people needed time to regain trust. Zinn discusses the Watergate scandal, which involved president Nixon in the 70’s and led to him resigning. The scandal involved Nixon and other members of his administration, and the American society began to not trust Nixon. Zinn writes, “Watergate had made both the FBI and the CIA look bad – breaking the laws they were sworn to uphold, cooperating with Nixon in his burglary jobs and illegal wire-tapping” (554). Citizens of America were supposed to have faith in the government and the fact that the FBI and CIA are honest and doing good, but during this time, most felt the exact opposite. In response to the people losing trust in their system, Nixon resigned, Ford succeeded power and bad acts by the FBI and CIA were exposed. Zinn tells us, “even with these strenuous efforts, there were still many signs in the American public of suspicion, even hostility, to the leaders of government, military, big business” (556). The American people still needed more which might have been seeing changes to the system being done.

What stuck out to me most was that the government system did not really seem to do much in order for the citizens to trust them again; rather, Nixon resigned, which in a way is him just stepping back and not owning up to anything, and FBI and CIA acts were exposed, which just confirmed the American citizens suspicions. Not to mention, under Ford, 83% of Americans agreed that the people running this country are dishonest (550). This chapter allowed for me to see the distrust the people had in the government and the bigger problems within the system itself.

2 Comments

In Zinn’s chapter, “The Seventies: Under Control?”, Zinn talks about the distrust that the public had in the government during the 1970s, and how the government tried to solve it. The beginning of the seventies saw the general public being very critical of government violence. Any trust that the people had in the government was thrown out with the Watergate scandal in 1972. I always thought that Nixon’s resignation was a step in the right direction for trust the people had in the government, but Zinn talks about how nothing truly changed in government. Nixon’s successor held the same political views as Nixon, so the public did not really see change happen in the administration. I was surprised to see such a lack of change in public view before and after Nixon’s resignation, which I thought to be a turning point in the relationship between the government and people. Towards the end of the chapter, Zinn talks about how the public belief in power stayed low throughout the 70s no matter the action taken by the government. There was a lack of trust with foreign policy and the economy was at a low too, both not helping the public gain trust in the government. This really shines a light on how much the Vietnam war divided the two.

The second part of the chapter that I wanted to talk about is how Henry Kissinger decided, through all of the public criticism, that the United States needed to declare itself as a world power. I was again surprised to see another military cover-up in the Mayaguez affair happen in the middle of the public having little to no trust in the government and foreign affairs already. Though this secured the United States as a dominating power around the world, it seems ironic that the government tried many different ways to gain the publics’ trust, but then decided to create another cover-up. I was very interested in how the tension between the public and the government not only continued after the Vietnam war but actually got stronger throughout the beginning of the 70s.

1 Comment

I was really looking forward to this chapter and I also am excited to watch the Nixon movie because one of my favorite films is All The President’s Men, which is about the two journalists at the Washington Post that were integral to exposing Watergate and the Nixon administration. However, the triumph I felt from the movie was kind of washed away by this chapter. Whenever I finish watching the movie I always feel so inspired and proud, however, now I realize that no actual progress or change what came out of Watergate. The astounding “restoration” and win for democracy that Watergate is depicted as is grossly exaggerated and seen from a very narrow scope. I felt feelings of disappointment towards The Post because even after they blew the lid off of all this corruption, they continued to be another government actor and a tool for propaganda. This deep hypocrisy is confusing to me, and I don’t which is worse- if this deception or misreporting is on purpose or if the media was also fooled by the government.

Another thing that struck me about this chapter was all the mention of “just a few bad apples, not the whole barrel” in regards to the federal government, the FBI, and the CIA. I couldn’t help but make a connection between Watergate and the current conversations about the police force and whether or not police brutality is just a consequence of a few bad, racist cops, or if it is the system as a whole that is deeply flawed. In the 70s, it was how the government operated as a whole that was corrupt, and just substituting the President out actually achieved no real change other than a surface level publicity stunt. The injustices regarding foreign policy and the extreme dishonesty to the American public still continued under Ford’s leadership. This shows a deeply systematic issue that the government and media alike didn’t want to address either out of pure laziness or to satisfy the needs of big businesses. In the 70s, the government was so set in their ways (hiding information from the public, trying to assert military and political dominance any chance they get, and profiting off of capitalism) that they could not imagine a system that operates differently. It looked extremely daunting and difficult for them to change course and try to solve these systematic issues that they thought it would be easier and more efficient to stay in this progress trap. Hopefully, we can learn from history and not repeat these same injustices when we talk about the police force and whether or not it is a few bad apples or the whole barrel.

1 Comment

TW: sexual assault

In the movie Platoon, we witnessed the battle experiences of an infantry platoon during the Vietnam War. The movie draws on specific themes of the Vietnam War, such as the vast violence and loss of life, the harrowing conditions and resulting PTSD faced by many of the soldiers, and the fact that many soldiers questioned the morality of the war they were fighting in, and why they were even at war in the first place. I personally found watching the movie to be difficult. I have learned a lot about the Vietnam War in this class as well as previous classes I have taken at Richmond, but watching such scenes of violence and shooting make me very uncomfortable. Obviously, my discomfort does not compare to the absolute horrors the soldiers themselves had to face, both in Vietnam and the lasting effects from when they returned home.

Two scenes that particularly stuck out to me, and that I thought summarized the main messages about Vietnam that the movie was trying to get across, were the scenes in the village and the final scene in the helicopter. The scene in the village showed how so many Vietnamese civilians were killed during the Vietnam war, whether it was due to VietCong suspicions or simply because some soldiers were ruthless and angry. The unnecessary violence, death, and aggression calls on questions of morality during the war, and of whether the number of lives being lost was truly necessary. Specifically the shooting of the Vietnamese woman, the chief’s wife, and the gang rape of another Vietnamese woman show the true violence and horror faced by civilians, and American soldiers also had to bear witness to their fellow soldiers committing such atrocities. The final helicopter scene also showcases the vast loss of life in the disturbing footage of the mass grave with countless corpses of American soldiers, and the PTSD that the war brought for many soldiers who had to bear witness to the atrocities committed. Additionally, the voice over mentions how the war will always stay with the main character, and that although it was supposed to be a war against the NVA, it ended up being a war against each other. I think these two final statements sum up the war well, and the movie as a whole does a good job showing the realities of the Vietnam War.

1 Comment