Protestors during the 1960’s and early seventies were correct to protest against the
intentional killing of innocent civilians during the Vietnam war. Since that time, anti-war activists aided by the Hollywood machine have not grown tired of reminding us of these unfortunate events in our history.
What you will not hear is a comparison of the civilian casualty count during versus after America’s involvement in the war. It is estimated that roughly 587,000 Vietnamese civilians lost their lives (mind you, these were caused by both pro-South Vietnam troops (including America) and the North Vietnamese army. But according to R.J Rummel (Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii), here is what took place the final years during America’s involvement in Vietnam and beyond:
In proportion to its population, Cambodia underwent a human catastrophe unparalleled in this century. Out of a 1970 population of probably near 7,100,000 Cambodia probably lost slightly less than 4,000,000 people to war, rebellion, man-made famine, genocide, politicide, and mass murder. The vast majority, almost 3,300,000 men, women, and children (including 35,000 foreigners), were murdered within the years 1970 to 1980 by successive governments and guerrilla groups. Most of these, a likely near 2,400,000, were murdered by the communist Khmer Rouge. (more…)
With American and other anti-North Vietnam troops out of the way, the communist regime went on a killing spree that resulted in the loss of life of millions. Yet despite that fact, Martin Luther King Jr. (a man that spent many years denouncing oppression on ANY group) and others still considered Vietnam and “unjust war.” It is unfortunate that for years, the Civil Rights movement has avoided dealing with the real “casualties” of taking a anti-war stance.
The cost of King’s anti-war stance
Although I agree with Martin Luther King Jr.’s contention with America’s demand on our young black men to fight for a country that still did not see us as equal, I strongly disagree with his conclusion that the war in Vietnam was “unjust”.
King and others in the anti-war movement may have been successful in convincing the American government to pull out of Vietnam, but their movement offered no solutions to the millions of lives that were slaughtered under the newly formed communist rule over South Vietnam. King’s opposition to the war led to his formation of the Poor People’s Campaign believing that too much money was being spent on war and not enough on helping the poor in this country. With increased funding and the creation of more entitlement programs to address the needs of the poor, almost 40 years later many who share King’s ideas of the nation’s responsibility to the poor still believe that more money is needed (never mind not being forthright of all the years of gross mismanagement within these programs–both internally and with the individuals on the receiving end).
The gospel of Non-Violence (with an asterisk)
While King made it very clear that he was against any usage of violence to bring a desired resolution, to my knowledge he does not make mention of the fact that it took “violence” (better known as the Civil war) to destabilize the system of institutionalized slavery here in the United States. A different time period, yes, but the byproduct (regardless if the war was not just about the liberation of blacks or not) was the same as with World War I and II, Vietnam and currently Iraq–the liberation of an oppressed people.
Although racism still existed here in America for a number of years beyond the end of the Civil war, because of the great sacrifice of soldiers, black America was taken off the endless cycle of slavery and placed on a path (a bumpy one at that) that has ultimately led to path of much greater opportunity and success than that of our black brothers and sisters of yesteryear.
The quandary of the post-civil rights ideology
Although it was easy for the post civil rights movement to draw similarities between the plight of blacks under Jim Crow and the apartheid system of South Africa, those same individuals are very reluctant to see and denounce the same pattern of oppression that took place in Iraq under Saddam Hussein for numbers of years. To do so would mean that A. they are in agreement with a Republican president and B. believe that the war in Iraq was “justified”. So while millions of Iraqi citizens (free from state-sponsored oppression and tyranny) lined the street for the first time in years to take part in a fair election process, the old guard of the post civil rights movement as well as many in the black community gave a reluctant acknowledgement of this historical moment in time.
I guess the “dream” was conditional.
While it was the right thing to do for the civil rights movement to speak against the oppression against black Americans, history itself has proven that the move to take an anti-war stance proved to be very hypocritical. While the anti-war movement has been successful at painting the picture that blacks have always been this passive monolithic group who were able to achieve a desired result on just raw determination alone, our own history tells us a different story as it is full of examples where a non-violence approach was not enough.
Sphere: Related Content
February 20th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
The current civil rights movement is not the equivalent of its predecessor. The “Civil Rights Movement†of King was issue focused, not political. It used the political process for resolution, but did not defer to any political party. There was a certain amount of integrity the leaders had to have, from the perspective of the movement and politics, because they were outside of the political mainstream. The non-violence of the “movement†does not mean progress was made through the absence of violence. It just means one side did not meat violence with violence. I would compare the abuse of Blacks under Jim Crow and the watershed years of the movement to Sadaam’s Iraq. However, the country was embarrassed into confronting the treatment of Blacks that had fought in WWII and Korea, but were denied any quality of life at home. Throw in Viet Nam, and the US has 0 credibility in the eyes of the world, which is why one sees LBJ mollifying the civil rights leaders and Black community. As HE escalates the war in Nam, in which Blacks were a substantial portion of the troops, in addition to taking a hard-line against the brutal communist regimes (Which probably smiled in admiration of the techniques used against the “American Negro†to subdue/marginalize him at the hands of his own country). Being excised from political affiliation, meant that Democrats and Republicans had to provide resolution to a voting block that was a wild card.
Today’s civil rights movement is a caricature of itself. While King and his crew were middle class at best as professional pastors, most of the leaders today are affluent if not flat out wealthy. This is not a crime within itself, but it goes to address the perks that come with being the gate keeper to a people. This wealth is a result of being a rewarded political strategist of the Democratic Party. Even if the party is not writing the check, the influence of the association of the two is comparable to tangible currency. With that being said, the current task of the civil rights movement is to have Blacks voting for Democrats FIRST and FOREMOST. For example, when Joseph Lowry puts on a thousand dollar suit, climbs in and out of his limo and lectures the president in 3rd person (at a funeral no less) about his mistreatment of the poor, and yet ignores or is too lazy to pull a copy of the federal budget to see spending for the poor and education have both increased 40% in the last 5 years over that of his worshipped predecessor, you know the fix was in a long time ago. That funeral was not a referendum on the struggles of the poor and marginalized. It was an opportunity to humiliate the current president, while introducing the next “Black president†of the “American Negro communityâ€Â. The mission statement of “Encouraging the government to address the needs of the Black community†is disingenuous considering the outright hostility of the movement (at the behest of the Democratic Party) at the most fiscally liberal president since FDR. Bush’s social policies are a mixture of Regan’s budget deficit spending and FDR’s socially conscienced fiscal principles. So in essence, the leaders are saying, “You can’t buy us†and “Your policies are hostile to usâ€Â, out of both sides of their symmetrically designed mouths.
With that being said, the Black community, under the influence of said Democratically influenced Black leadership, does not stand a chance in truly assessing any position of significance, or insignificance for that matter objectively. Case in point, I listened to my Ivy Leagued masters degreed level uncle, who is the great-grandchild of slaves, lament about global warming and Bush’s malfeasance/stupidity to address the issue……..while sitting in his 300K beachfront house with added solarium and Jacuzzi, and the Lincoln suv in the garage. So, we went from slavery (Who really experienced global warming in the hot sun 13 hours a day, without the expense of AC) to being concerned about (liberals – running – around – screaming – “the sky is fallingâ€Â) global warming. Kind of like the line of deductive reasoning of “ Republicans are repulsive, so I have to be a liberal and champion every counter productive liberal policy in creation, and even deny every Republican initiated issues that address the core concerns of the fiscal provisions for the poorâ€Â. Like I said, no objectivity on the issues.
February 20th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
I still think that the creation of the idea of war even tying back into tribal days is a mental flaw no matter the reason we fight. If people didn’t give their power to these murderous wars and were able to understand crimes against humanity then war could not exist in a prosperous situation. Would there be room for opression if people weren’t so leader hungry and actually, even in forced situations, give this power to murderous governments ?
February 20th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
War isn’t always for the “leader-hungry”. There are many cases where war was conducted in the name of protecting those who could not protect themselves.
Let me pose this scenerio to you: You have a young daughter who you adore very deeply. Early one morning you are awakened by muffled screams coming out from her room. You open the door to find that she is being raped by some stranger.
Is there a non-violent way for you to resolve this issue?
(I admit this may be an extreme example, but it does happen quite frequently)
February 21st, 2006 at 7:36 am
Wow Duane, you really use tortured logic to come up with some justification to say that the civil rights movement is hypocritical when it comes to it’s ‘anti-war’ stance.
I seriously wonder if you…are you able to perform an analyis and use any critical thinking skills without framing them as some sort of left or right issue.
How you base your argument on the specious premise that every principled stand has something to do with this presidency is beyond me, especially when this administration has repeatedly shown it has no principles or values when it comes to being American or standing up for human values.
I am beginning to think that all you do is listen to talk radio and spew whatever shallow, insipid and just plain ignorant talking point you hear.
Can you think at all on your own, in terms of history and what happened.
If so, I have just one question for you…who was it that fought the Civil War in America? Did some foreign country come here and occupy America under the auspices of “freeing the slaves” or ‘importing democracy” or was it CITIZENS of America that fought for the principles of freedom and democracy?
In short, there is no way you can define this issue in left or right terms that will make the war ‘just’.
Americans founght the Revolutionary War and they fought the Civil War…not some foreign occupying military force.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:02 pm
No thanks!
After our last 60+ comment exchange, I do not have the time to be lectured by someone who, while accusing me of being partisan, will immediately shoot down any other point of view without challenging it factually–the epitome of one that is truly partisan.
February 25th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Let’s see, what do we have on the menu today?
just the usual soufflé of right wing revisionist history crapola. And I was so hoping for buttered scones with my tea.
It must be nice to live within the constructs of your own mind, rather godlike being able to play out historical events to fit your personal concept of a symmetrical universe where everything makes sense… at least to you. Kind of like having a terrarium inside your head.
Duane talks about the antiwar movement as if it were some kind of shadowy cabal which influence the US government instead of a popular movement of the American people, American patriots.
He also uses the phrase “…a country that still did not see us as equal,” to dismiss institutionalized racism designed to keep the soul of an entire people locked in bondage, the kind of bondage that destroyed the spirit of untold individuals who were condemned to live out marginal half-lives as second-class citizens in a land where everything was possible for everyone……but them and other minorities. And to know that their children would be subjected the same kind of eviscerating apartheid throughout their lives as well.
Yes I think that’s a better description, and at least accurate.
I could go on down this road but y’all know where I stand on these exercises in hyper convulsive neoconservative mutual masturbation
February 25th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
And while you’re looking at the menu, notice that YOU do not challenge ANYTHING that I have said in a factual manner. Just the usual name-calling, distortion of historical events–all emotion and no factual point.
Thanks!
February 25th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Duane
There’s nothing worth challenging because almost all your so-called facts and fanciful distortions can be disapproving by opening up any one of a hundred history books.
And as you would be aware if you’d ever bothered to open a history book, the vast majority of deaths in Southeast Asia were a direct result of US interference in a situation that at least four US administrations failed to grasp, just as you fail to grasp it today.
I guess that’s what it means to be an archaic conservative, the incessant need to repeat errors, in the vain hope that someday you’ll be able to recast those errors as part of some noble quest, that you alone are able to justify.
Only you and the Bush administration would attempt to cast the current Iraqi occupation as one of these noble quest to liberate an oppressed people. The people of Iraq are most definitely an oppressed people today, and we’re the ones doing the oppressing. But I’m sure in your mind the people of Iraq are free, perhaps you should go there and experience some of that freedom.
February 25th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
And as you would be aware if you’d ever bothered to open a history book, the vast majority of deaths in Southeast Asia were a direct result of US interference
Bring the numbers (as I did)
Beyond that…
…he still addresses NOTHING I have said in this post ladies & gentlemen.
Either come correct or reinsert your pacifier, ’cause its all whining.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:43 am
Thanks Aaron
for calling Duane out about his very very tortured logic and re-writing of history to fit his very partisan rightwing views
he no longer will engage in discourse with me, because I refuse to allow him to introduce tangential ‘facts’ which were nothing more than right wing guided talking points.
I am glad that someone else sees through his ‘pseudo-intellect’ as well.
February 27th, 2006 at 11:16 am
AMAZING!
And let me guess, you keep coming back because you feel obligated to help people to see “the truth”…