A Climactic Year in the USA - Assignment Example

History Questions Question 1:How was 1968 a climactic year for the 1960s? The 1960s were one of the most tumultuous times in the history of the United States. More than any other decade this one seemed to redefine what it was to be American, and included some of the biggest shifts in both public and private discourses that had occurred to that period. While much of the later 60s were important in a variety of ways, 1968 was probably the climactic year, the capstone year that served as the ultimate expression of the decade. While there are many ways in which this year was a dramatic one that shaped American history, one of the most important was the people who did not manage to make it through this year alive. For America, the 1960s was a year of assassinations. Really the only time since the 19th century that political assassinations had been successful, these assassinations made a scar on the American psyche. Two of the most important of these assassinations occurred in the year 1968, very close to each other. The first was the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., the bold civil rights leader who had inspired millions of black Americans and help end segregation and vicious Jim Crowe laws in the south, especially with the passing of civil rights legislation in 1964. Shortly following Mr. King’s assassination, Robert Kennedy, then presidential candidate, was also shot dead. These assassinations changed the way public figures had to interact with the public, and, along with president Kennedy’s assassination earlier in the decade, caused a shift in which much greater barriers were put up between public figures and the general population, out of necessity. These assassinations were indicative of the social upheaval that climaxed in the year 1968. Many of the best known protest movements of the 1960s had major expressions in this year. For one thing, the year saw protest movements and civil disturbances at a number of universities, including “one of the largest” at Howard university, which built up to the eventual protest and massacre at Kent State two years later (Forner 884). These were based around a number of issues, but the biggest was the growing opposition to the Vietnam war. Vietnam War opposition may have peaked several years after 1968, but this was probably the year that shifted public perception to being almost entirely negative. Many factors caused this shift, including growing American casualties. Some of the most culturally important, however, may have been the massacres that occurred and became public knowledge over the course of 1968. The most famous of these may have been the My Lai massacre, in which American forces killed somewhere in the order of 500 civilian Vietnamese, while South Korean forces were also accused of massacres elsewhere in the country. These massacres were recorded and broadcast to America through photography at a rate unprecedented in former wars – photographs of these sorts would be essential at turning public opinion against wars in general, and against Vietnam in particular. Question 2: How did Vietnam and the Watergate Scandal effect trust in the government? Vietnam and the Watergate scandal were both devastating to public trust in government offices. Vietnam was a long and slow erosion whereas the Watergate scandal was something of an immediate drop in public perception of the government. Vietnam, over the long term, was probably the more damaging (from the government’s perspective) of the two. The fact is that the Vietnam war was seen as a debacle in nearly every front. It was expensive both monetarily in terms of lives lost, while providing almost no benefit. Worse, it made the United States seem like butchers and villains both on the international stage and to civilians back home – people saw the “realities of warfare” (991), which, especially with a conscripted force, involve things like massacres, rapes, and other brutalities that people were not able to handle. This war made Americans suspect of their own government, its competency, and more an anything its motives: they saw the Vietnam war as an attempt to exercise American colonialism rather than defend American interests. Watergate was more of a personal scandal for President Nixon. Though it definitely removed some of the lustre from the presidential office, by showing that Presidents could be corrupt, untruthful, suspicious and paranoid (just like anyone else) this was probably more a case of bringing public perception in line with reality, and making the president human. Overall, these erosions of trus were probably a good thing, as the population should be questioning and critical of their own government. Question 3: GHW Bush and Bill Clinton oversaw the shift of America to a Cold Warrior into a new role. While these presidents differed greatly on many areas of policy, they in fact agreed on the new role that America should take up on the international stage. This new role could have been many things, but the policies and practices of Bush and Clinton created America as the “world’s police” (934), almost a replacement for the United Nations in stopping companies from acting out aggression against each other. This policy can be seen very clearly in the case of Bush. The defining policy moment of his presidency occurred when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bush had the option of standing by, keeping America above the fray, or diving in. He chose to engage American forces in the conflict, making it clear that international aggression and violation of boarders would not be acceptable. When he drove Iraq out of Kuwait, he had another decision: to enter Iraq to punish the country further, or to simply walk away. He chose the latter route, making America more about defending borders than enacting regime change. Clinton had a similar moment with the war on Kosovo. South-Eastern Europe had been roiled by years of ethnic and sectarian conflict, and he chose to again assert the United State’s role as an international police force by entering into this conflict, and putting an end to it (to a degree). References Forner, Eric. Give Me Liberty! Vol. 2 3rd Edition. New York: Norton. 2003. Read More