Vietnam and the Antiwar Movement - Essay Example

Vietnam and the Antiwar Movement The presentation of Bloom and Brienes’ focus on the antiwar movement was, in the researcher’s opinion, very well presented. This primary source is a fantastic illustration of its thesis. It also matches well with the arguments about the peace movement in David Faber’s volume The Sixties Collection. This argument focuses on the many different groups that made up the anti-war movement. This antiwar movement during the Vietnam War is probably one of the most remembered instances in the last 100 years, along with the Civil Rights movement. The antiwar movement was not in itself one movement, but actually consisted of several different groups attempting to participate in antiwar campaigns (Bloom and Brienes 68). People of all classes and backgrounds were attracted to the antiwar movement, including people that were going to college, those in the middle-class, those in the upper-class, people that worked for government institutions, and many more individuals. This movement was recognized in 1965 and by 1968 was at its highest acclaim (Bloom and Breines 69). The groups, while many of them had the same concepts in mind, still all served and worked within their own ideals Therefore, the point of this essay will be to argue the fact that the “antiwar movement” was not just the work of one movement in general, but that of several groups, each that had their own agendas, and something in that agenda contributed to the antiwar movement. Faber also presents a similar reflection in his section reflecting on “Vietnam.” There is a strong feeling that, through his analysis, there also were many groups active in this movement, not just one common group. The researcher agrees with the concept presented by Bloom and Breines as well as Faber that the antiwar movement was made up of several different groups with different agendas, and was not just one blanket movement moving toward one common goal, which is often a misinterpretation of what was really going on with the protest movements. For instance, one of the first peace core groups to develop actually spurned not just from political ideals, but from religious ideals as well. Thus, we see the agendas of these groups in particular, and not all the agendas of all antiwar groups were following the beliefs of religious ideas. Quaker and Unitarian beliefs had always existed as a core peace movement, and there was reaction to the Cold War and nuclear arms race of the 1950s. Because of this, Norman Cousins and Clarence Pickett (of the Quakers) started the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) in 1957 (Bloom and Breines 70). Faber also reflects that the start of interest groups came mainly from religious and moral movements. The group was mostly middle class and had a focus in ending the arms race by reducing the nuclear weapons present in the world. In comparison to this group, another college group also came to be early in, and played a part in the peace movement. This was the Student Peace Union (SPU) (Bloom and Breines 70). They were not a radical group, and they were focused on the need for peace and communication in order to avoid a nuclear war and any further was in Korea or Vietnam (Bloom and Breines 71). They also wanted to see a restructuring of American society. However, they failed to last, and by 1964, they had disappeared (Bloom and Breines 71) The examples of these two associations demonstrates that each group, although considered an antiwar group, had its own agenda, and therefore helps to prove the point of Bloom and Breines. Faber also brings this point up, as he points out that students were a very large part of the anti-war movement, and many students performed protests and other actions to express their discontent. Civil Rights leaders would also began speaking the message of peace in Vietnam, although they clearly also had agendas that were different than other antiwar protestors. While they all had their own set of agendas for their peoples, they still shouted for peace. For instance, Martin Luther King Jr. praised the antiwar movement, because he felt that the war itself was immoral (Bloom and Breines 75). King felt that the war was an unnecessary and immoral distraction, taking the lives of young men and useful resources into a country where the United States should ordinarily have no business invading (Bloom and Breines 75). He also had a focus on the young African American men who were dying in the war, and he wondered about the fairness of their service (Faber 34). Many Civil Rights leaders were against the war because of the fact that they were against their own minority groups being sent out into Vietnam and a possible military death. Thus, Civil Rights leaders were also able to use antiwar messages in order to serve their own notions and ideologies and apply them toward their own focused movement. This again helps to support Bloom and Breines’ argument, because it provides yet another example of another group going against the war with its own agenda in mind. Faber also agrees with this concept, as his analysis of the Civil Rights leaders and the anti-war movement presents many similar comncepts as well. As the 1960s progressed, even more groups, with their own initial focuses, would develop and become a part of the antiwar movement. These groups, as the groups already mentioned, would continue to act under their own ideals and notions. An example of this is the group SDS, which re-started In 1960 (it had been an old club with recognized and famous people like Upton Sinclair as members, but had not been active for many years) (Bloom and Breines 75). Two years later, college student radicals became the leaders of the club. At a meeting in 1962, the group formed its collective ideals (Bloom and Breines 75). A thesis was put together by members of this organization, expressing their disturbance and anger towards the Cold War, and the fear many people experienced because of the expectations of a possible nuclear war (Bloom and Breines 77). Yet another group would also form in the 1960s and again, this group would also have its own ideologies, although again, this group figured its ideologies would help to focus on peace. The Free Speech Movement, started at UC Berkeley, started its movement at the end of 1964 (Bloom and Breines 79). This group had a focus on both academic and military concepts. This group also had contact with SDS and FSM, as these groups realized they had the goal of peace in common, as well as the goal of Civil rights. Faber also tells readers about the interactions between the different groups, and their different goals. He presents and argument that supports Bloom and Breines’ argument. The main focus of this group was peace, and they continued their antiwar messages for many months. Therefore, this provides us with further examples of a group that would be defined as antiwar, but yet having its own agenda, thus helping to prove that Bloom and Breines, as well as Faber, have a solid argument and a solid point. This is not to state that these antiwar groups did not share common factors, and these common factors may be one of the reasons why people tend to blend the “antiwar movement” together as one movement and one ideal. Faber tells us that there were, in fact, many groups that did have a similar goal in mind (38). Many of the movement leaders were students, and many of these groups and students were looking to find more allies, and to expand their base of operations. A “Vietnam Day” occurred at Berkeley in 1965, and thousands of individuals came, interested in discussing the topic of the war. Protest methods were also discussed, and in 1967, Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense, would receive thousands of letters from people who attended Vietnam Day, writing against the war on the basis of morality (Bloom and Breines 82). Another protest movement occurred in 1967, when a march that lasted for two days took place at the Pentagon (Bloom and Breines 82). First and foremost, all of these groups did share the desire to end the war, but their desires and goals often splintered from there, as demonstrated in the previous paragraphs. Thus, the argument that the antiwar movement was made up of a set of groups with several different ideologies, not just one group with one ideology, is a solid point presented by Bloom and Breines as well as Faber. Both authors use their arguments to positively support their concept. While many of these groups did have the similar focus of arguing against the war, they all had different agendas for doing so. Regardless, many of them did work together to attempt to achieve a common goal—that of ending the war. By providing examples of the various groups and their various agendas, Bloom and Breines and Faber do a fantastic job of backing up their arguments, and proving their points overall. Therefore, the researcher agrees with their argument that different antiwar movements did have different agendas, and the anti-war movement needs to be seen in the light of this, not just as one similar blanket movement. By taking a fresh look at the antiwar movement from this perspective, the real desires of the various groups becomes obvious. Works Cited Bloom, Alexander and Breines, Wini. Taking it to the Streets. New Jersey: Prentice Hall 2004. Faber, David. The Sixties Collection. North Carolina Press: North Caroline, 1994. Read More