The United States; defeated in war by it's own public?

In the past two centuries The United States has emerged as an undisputed global superpower. America’s military might has proved unrivaled. There is an exception to this notion. The Second Indochina War, otherwise known as ‘Vietnam’. The conflict which waged from 1955- 1975 ended with what many consider a victory to the North Vietnamese ‘Viet Cong’ army.  Was the biggest enemy however the citizens of the United States itself? A strong argument could be made that defeat also came from the hands of its own people.

As with any conflict, there is no sole reason to a victory or defeat.  The effectiveness of the Viet Cong’s ability to instigate ‘Guerrilla’ warfare tactics played a central part. On the contrary, the lack of success of America’s ‘Search and Destroy’ missions demoralized its own troops and pushed people to Viet Cong sympathy. Despite this as will become apparent, domestic discontent was just as greater threat to success than the army the United States was fighting.

As a nation usually united at times of war, Vietnam stands as anomaly. The reality of war was now impossible to conceal due to media coverage. The siege of the US embassy was broadcast nationally. Atrocities such as Ben Tre, which saw an entire city flattened, and the Mai Lai massacre of 400 civilians were covered extensively. Rumours emerged from the later incident that women and children were raped[1]. For many citizens this undermined their belief of military intervention to uphold good. Disenchantment grew from an already widespread view that the conflict held no geographical importance or direct threat. Another reason for this was the rising death toll, announced nationally daily. By 1967 10,000 men had died.  People began to lose faith in a seemingly pointless war of attrition at the cost of their loved ones. Economic affects were also beginning to arise. Vietnam cost the American taxpayer an estimated $150billion[2]. Furthermore, money was being retracted from proposed poverty programmes in favour of war resources. It was even calculated that in 1968, an average of $322,000 was spent on every dead Viet Cong. In comparison to $53 on people in programmes[3]. Domestic discontent snowballed.  From many sectors of society an organised anti-war movement began.  Businesses, the church and students began denouncing the continuation of the conflict. One of the nation’s largest forms of information, The New York Times refused to support its military. It instead proposed immediate withdrawal. Students across the country occupied Universities in protest and burned military draft cards. In fact the 30,000 who attended ‘Stop Draft’s Week’ directly impacted President Nixon’s scrapping of ‘Operation Duck Neck’[4]. A campaign which would have lead to an invasion of the Northern territories.  Ultimately, high mortality rates and economic repercussions formed a widespread anti-war movement. A movement materialized of considerable magnitude impossible for the establishment to ignore.

 As a democratic republic the United States has a duty to listen to its public. The difficulties in maintaining a conflict without a democracies full backing are clear. On the flip side, if domestic voices encouraged the conflict, Vietnam may have had a different outcome. Instead the voice of dissent grew deafening. In 1975, The United States withdrew all troops. The evidence could suggest that it was the army of the anti-war movement which inflicted defeat upon their own military.

---

[1] Isserman and Kazin, ‘America divided, the civil war of the 60s’, 2004, Oxford University press

[2] Chafe. H, William, ‘The unfinished journey’, 1995, Oxford university press

[3] Isserman and Kazin, ‘America divided, the civil war of the 60s’, 2004, Oxford University press

[4] Joseph. L. Galloway, ‘who was at fault for America’s failure in Vietnam?’, online article, 1998

'Sgt' Pepper, Commanding the youth into a year of revolution

On the 1^st of June, 1967, The Beatles released their eight studio album ‘Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’. It is no coincidence that the same twelve months witnessed the birth of an infamous social phenomenon. The album had epitomized the ‘Hippie’ ideology which spawned the same year. A proportion of the Western Youth was lead into a cultural rebellion against the mainstream. ‘Sgt Pepper’ came from The Beatles own disenchantment with the current state of society. This inspired a youth also affected by disturbances surrounding events such as Vietnam and Civil Rights. ‘Sgt Pepper’ commanded the ‘Hippie’ generation into the ‘Summer of Love’ becoming its soundtrack[1]. It captured a psyche of two sides. Promoting love and community, and broadening of the mind through drugs.

One track, ‘With A Little Help from My Friends’ symbolizes the sacred ‘Hippie’ belief of community.  Simplistic lyrics combined with a pleasant melody echo a clear message. Life can be better if you form a circle of people who support you. The role of Lead vocalist on the track, Ringo Star also reflects this. The humble personality associated with Ringo brings meaning to the notion proposed by the lyrics. The personal issues known about the drummer are reflected[2]. He feels vulnerable that listeners may “walk out” on him if he sings the song incorrectly. There is an underlying message that it is not only a case that people “want” somebody to love. In fact, people “need” it. This proposal is even more profound when taking into account events at the time. A key reason for the emergence of the ‘Summer of Love’ was due to the disenchantment much of the youth were feeling[3]. People rebelled against the establishment partly through not seeing a place for themselves within current society. A society which discriminated, suppressed and entered war. “With a Little Help” instead insists on people living alternatively. A lifestyle of unity and compassion.

Another key hit of the album, “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”, reflects the flip side of counter-culture psyche.  Many believe it to be a potential reference to the promotion of LSD. A drug which many believed aided the exploration of one’s mind. Despite John Lennon claiming otherwise, there are many indications this notion could be proposed. Firstly, the song’s initials could be interpreted as ‘L S D’. Furthermore, there are constant indications of the track attempting to mirror the effects of a ‘trip’[4]. Imagery such as ‘eyes’ and ‘picture’ appeal to the senses which are distorted when taking the drug. Furthermore “Marmalade Skies” and “Tangerine Trees” conjure up fantasies stereo typically associated when tripping. Technical components of the song further the notion the track advocates drug use. Synth keyboards and vocal distortion are heard in the background throughout. For the listener this offers the potential for experiencing an alternative reality. The illegality of LSD lead to it becoming a symbol of freedom for the youth. Rejection of restrictions the establishment dictated. The Beatles arguably followed the same ideology. “Lucy in The Sky with Diamonds” potentially stands as the anthem for this common ground they shared with the 1960’s youth.

By analyzing two tracks from the album it is clear how ‘Sgt Pepper’ not only epitomized, but reflected the fundamental principles of the ‘Summer of Love’. In doing this, the album sparked a unique cultural moment in modern American history.

---

[1] Begaja, K, ‘The Summer of Love: Hippie Culture and the Beatles in 1967’, TICNJ Journal of student scholarship, April 2014 page2

[2] Unterberger, D, Song reviews of Sgt pepper lonely hearts club band, Allmusician, ‘With a Little Help From My friends, and ‘Lucy in The Sky with Diamonds’

[3] Goldberg, P, ‘A Big day in the life: When Sgt pepper blew our minds’, 30^th may, 2012, The Huffington Post

[4] Unterberger, D, Song reviews of Sgt pepper lonely hearts club band, Allmusician, ‘With a Little Help From My friends, and ‘Lucy in The Sky with Diamonds’

An Issue no amount of civil rights can change

An issue no amount of Civil Rights can change

It would be incorrect to suggest the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s and 60’s failed to change the lives of African Americans. On the contrary, the courage of activists gained black citizens legal rights and an equal place in American society. This legacy inspires movements globally to this day. Nevertheless, its core aims of achieving total equality is far from a reality. It could even be said that discrimination is part of human nature and will always exist. This is something the Civil Rights movement will never be able to change.

On May 17^th 1954 it was ruled indefinitely that segregated schools were unconstitutional. What followed was a decade of unprecedented achievement in legislative rights for African Americans. Two civil rights acts were passed in 1957 and 1964 respectively. The latter of which eradicated segregation in public places and in employment. The 24^th Amendment of the same year outlawed taxing on voting for African Americans[1]. These are all major legal successes for black citizens. In 1963 230,000 protestors took to the streets to show solidarity. Sympathy to the notion of racial equality was growing. Clearly the movement had started the road to change. But just how much could it change?

It is necessary to highlight the limitations that belong to these changes. It could be argued African Americans legal equality was theoretical. It would be naive to believe that Black Americans were instantly treated with the equality and respect legislation promised. Despite desegregation in schools being national law, Arkansas State attempted to block nine students entering. Resistance to their entry became so large that hundreds of national guards escorted the students in. Similarly, in 1963 four black children were killed in the Birmingham Church bombing. 1964 saw violent riots in Harlem, Chicago, Rochester and Philadelphia. A year Later 34 were killed after an eruption in Wyatt. The two central leaders of the movement were assassinated. Malcolm X in 65’ and Dr King three years later[2]. Instances of progression were countered by these examples of people’s refusal to accept races as equal.

Progression has been made due to civil rights activism. African Americans are no longer subjected to living segregated. Due to the United States constitution every man has equal rights. However, simply because the law states total equality, does not make it the reality. To this day statistics show that on average Black citizens will have a poorer quality of life compared to white. 32.8% of Black American children are living in poverty according to the University of Michigan[3]. Despite legally having the same opportunity, in regards to economic and education African Americans simply do not. Although not accepted in society, discrimination is still prevalent. Looking at recent events exemplifies this. The media is constantly filled with reports of unlawful police brutality towards black males. Disturbances in Baltimore, Chicago, and San Diego are eerily reminiscent of the 60’s. Statistics potentially support the genuine belief that there is institutionalised discrimination within certain sectors of the establishment such as the police force. Police killings of African Americans outnumber those of white by some distance. The reality is that racial violence is still instigated by communities within the United States. Despite the best efforts of any civil rights movement races have continued to clash rather than live in complete harmony. This was the ultimate goal set out by the movement. It would not be too far to suggest that instead discrimination of colour and creed is rooted within the psyche of some humans. No amount of victories on paper will be able to eradicate this issue unanimously

---

[1] Meany, James, ‘The Civil Rights movement in America’, 1989, Princeton University press, pgs 99-105

[2] Skher, Richard, ‘Unfinished Business: Civil Rights movement’, 2006, University of Kentucky pres, pgs 68-69

[3] Univeristy of Michigans ‘National Poverty Centre’, http://www.npc.umich.edu

The Civil Rights Movement: Race and Gender

The 1960’s was a decade in which some of the most defining moments of the Civil Rights Movement came to pass. Martin Luther King’s peaceful war against racial discrimination reached its summit, arguably peaking even further after his death on April 4^th 1968, which gave way to mass riots and violent protest in retaliation and brought attention to the struggle of black Americans to the forefront. The events which transpired in Birmingham, 1963 at the hands of Bull Connor saw black students violently hosed down by streams of water powerful enough to rip the skin. This kind of reaction however, is precisely what was expected by Martin Luther’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the publicity of these events shocked America and the World.

Too often however, the activists of the Civil Rights Movement have been criticised for doing little to acknowledge the issues faced by Black American women, evident in both their words and the actions they took. Through Randolph’s Messenger magazine it was made abundantly clear that the fight for Civil Rights was a fight for the ‘New Negro Man’ and not the ‘New Negro’ in general. Women were relegated to the background and expected to aid their partners by rallying support for the movement, as opposed to being granted any real responsibility or role within it. The issue of gender and race in the Civil Rights Movement has been explored more frequently in recent years, and scholars such as Steve Estes, in studying African American methods of protest among activists alongside the methods of their white opposition concluded firmly that both groups ‘framed their actions in terms of claiming or defending manhood’ instead of their race in general. The significance of this is that black women effectively faced discrimination from multiple fronts, from the white racists who condemned all blacks unanimously, to the black African American activists in their own communities who claimed to lead the fight for freedom, despite overlooking the capabilities of black women. Those women that were members of civil rights organisations such as the SNCC and the NAACP were often subject to unfair, ill treatment in favour of their black male colleagues, whom demanded first pick on resources and were not beyond sexual harassment. The implications of this suggests that there were multiple movements at work within the black community and provides a clear explanation as to why a large number of Black American Women would make the shift to the Feminist movement during the 1970’s.

Sam Aldorino Flett

______________________

Simon Wendt, ‘They Finally Found Out that We Really Are Men’: Violence, Non-Violence and Black Manhood in the Civil Rights Era, Gender and History vol. 19 no. 3 (Wiley-Blackwell November 2007)

https://www.loc.gov/collections/civil-rights-history-project/articles-and-essays/women-in-the-civil-rights-movement/

Fortunate Son: CCR and the Vietnam War

In September 1969 Creedence Clearwater Revival’s John Fogerty penned what has come to be considered the Anthem of the 1960’s era of Counterculture and anti-war sentiments commonly found among American people. ‘Fortunate Son’ is a song synonymous with the Vietnam War, famously written as an attack on the rich and privileged, whose sons were spared from the horrors of the ongoing conflict. Throughout the chorus Fogerty bellows ‘It ain’t me, it ain't me’ claiming, ‘I ain’t no senators son’. While possibly referring to any and all children of wealthy, entitled families, Fogerty himself has shed light on the origins of his lyrics in interviews, claiming them to be fuelled by anger harboured against the newly elected Richard Nixon and the entitled lives of his children, whom naturally received a free pardon.

Julie Nixon was married to David Eisenhower by 1968, the grandson of President Dwight Eisenhower. He served 3 years in the naval reserves but was never officially deployed, which only served to strengthen the relevance of Fogerty’s lyrics.

The passion in Fogerty’s words comes from his unique perspective on the corruption of governmental officials, who sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands in order to make advancements in a war while providing excuses for their own children. Thomas M. Kitts has stated that ‘Fogerty himself, identifies with the have-nots, the lower and working classes who received no preferential treatment.’

The popularity and increasing relevance of the 1969 September release ‘Fortunate Son’ reached new heights on November 12^th when the atrocities committed by American forces and their allies in Mai Lai, known aptly as the Mai Lai massacre were revealed to the public. Retaliation took the form of a formidable force of protesters, more than half a million strong, who marched on Washington in protest. The influence of rock music to incite protest within the public was clear, and the stark contrast of anger and frustration found in Fogerty’s ‘Fortunate Son’ in comparison to songs of the early sixties  embodied the opinions of the masses, undoubtedly stimulating them to further protest against the government and proving that rock n’ roll music had the ability unlike any other genre to empower the people.

Such fierce protest songs were practically unprecedented at the beginning of the decade; the likes of The Kingston Trio who criticised for their political neutrality and soft lyrics in the early 60’s were completely blown out of the water by 1969.

Sam Aldorino Flett

______________________

Thomas M. Kitts, John Fogerty: An American Son (Routledge 27, August 2015) p.99

Sarah Baker, Redefining Mainstream Popular Music (Routledge, 2003)

'68: Sympathy for the Devil

1968 will be recollected in History as the defining year of the decade; the culmination of various tensions among students and youth culture, Black American Civil Rights and the violence and subsequent protests against the Vietnam war. Written primarily by Mick Jagger, ‘Sympathy for the Devil’ is a boastful account by the eponymous fallen angel Satan, detailing the many atrocities he has overseen and compelled throughout history. It brings together the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the death of Tsar Nicolas II and the birth of communism, the wars of religion and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Sympathy for the Devil is a song that for many, on account of its creation and release in such a tumultuous period of history is synonymous with the Vietnam war, due to its appearances in movies such as Full Metal Jacket (1983) and more recently in Mafia III, a video game which pits African American war veteran Lincoln Clay, fresh home from Vietnam, against the violence and rampant racism of the city of New Orleans.

From as early as 1962, the overcrowding in Paris schools was becoming increasingly problematic. Despite a huge uptake in students, amounting to around 160,000 in 1968, courses were longer and the drop-out rate increasing. Thus when in 1962, what became known as the ‘Love War’ began in protest against the separation of male and female student quarters at the university in Nanterre, students were able to amass great support. Between 1962 - 68 numerous sit-ins and even ‘sleep-ins’, along with the boycotting of classes, and the eventual strike of 68’ applied considerable pressure upon university officials and the government. They had shown they were not above targeting African American students in the past and with the proposal of a more rigorous selection process their prejudices were made abundantly clear and subjected to harsh opposition.

The advancement of North Vietnamese forces and the Tet Offensive saw a wave of surprise attacks across the country against the opposing American forces and their allies. This marked a monumental shift in attitudes towards the war as it proved disastrous for the US, whose soldiers were severely unequipped and untrained for guerrilla warfare. The events which transpired in Vietnam from January 30^th 1968 brought fierce opposition against the war and although unknown at the time, resulted in brutal retaliation by American troops and their allies, and in the case of the Mai Lai Massacre of March 16^th, the murder of hundreds of innocent Vietnamese women and their children.

1968 for many is considered to mark the end of the Civil Rights Movement, or at least the end and beginning of a new era of the Modern Black Freedom Movement. On April 4^th, from his hotel balcony in Memphis, Tennessee, Martin Luther King Jr was shot dead. The eruption of riots and protest in the days following ignited a new, unrelenting will in African Americans to seek and achieve justice. This took the form of the Civil Rights Act, which signified a major victory on the road to achieving greater equality for African Americans.

The Rolling Stones 1968 song Sympathy for the Devil is a reflection on these defining moments in history fuelled by racial hatred, greed and political agendas, and it proclaims Satan to be the instigator of such events. Generally speaking however, Jagger’s depiction of Satan more closely resembles that of the snake in the Garden of Eden, or a trickster summoned at the crossroads, who presents a choice or dilemma, as opposed to the more common interpretation of absolute evil. The song implicitly suggests that the devil is also responsible, or at least had a hand in the Vietnam War and various social crises affecting students, both black and white and Black Americans. In this sense, the devil is an embodiment of corruption, discrimination and hate within humanity, but can also be seen as a sort of liberator, a catalyst for change, and moreover, a common enemy to revolt against. Jagger’s lyrics may have been influenced by books such as Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and the Margarita and his interest and perhaps even involvement in Satanist and other cult movements clearly informed his lyric writing process, but the overall message received by the masses was one encouraging resistance to the world’s many evils; A warning to the people to know your enemy, to be actively passionate in fighting corruption. 

Sam Aldorino Flett
______________________

Gerd Bayer, Heavy Metal Music in Britain (Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009)p.150
Mikhail Bulgakov, The Master and the Margarita, (Random House, 2010)

America and Space, A Love Affair

If you can watch 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)[1] and make sense of it after the first viewing I don’t believe you. Produced at the height of the “space race” between the USA and the USSR, 2001 depicts the birth, life, death, and rebirth of human civilisation. Or at least that is one of the ways it can be interpreted. With a plot left deliberately vague by Kubrick it has left audiences and critics baffled ever since.

AMERICA’S LOVE AFFAIR WITH SPACE

In May 1961 President John F. Kennedy announced that by the end of the decade America would have put a man on the moon. Despite not living to see this come true, Kennedy’s vow held strong. Said as a response to the USSR for being the first to put a man in orbit, it started a love affair in American film and television with the idea of space exploration. The hugely successful television series Star Trek debuted in 1966[2] boasting an incredibly diverse cast, especially when considering the political climate both internationally and domestically of the era. Kubrick fought hard to premiere 2001 before any country landed man on the moon, capitalising on people’s eagerness to see more of the solar system that we live in.

TECHNOLOGY, FRIEND OR FOE?

Right from the start of 2001 we are shown it is our use of technology that separates us from the beasts. The apes use it to reclaim their water hole from another tribe. Omitting three million years, we see the human race travelling between planets with comfort and ease in advanced spaceships. At this point it appears that the technology is there to help and provide for the characters within. However as the portions of plot that are coherent progress, we realise all is not well with having technology so ingrained in our day to day lives. The operating system of Dr David Bowman’s spaceship, HAL 9000, starts to malfunction and eventually leads to the deaths of several of Dave’s fellow astronauts. Dave only survives due to his ‘murder’ of HAL. This forces us to realise two question. First of all is it really murder if HAL was never truly alive, despite how much he seemed to be? And secondly can we keep up with the technology as it evolves, or will it eventually overtake us as we see in so many films? Or must we defeat it so that we may continue to evolve? [3]

 

Finally in July 1969 America managed to land man on the moon, just over a year after 2001 debuted. While this seemed to calm the trend of space oriented films at the  time, our fascination with outer space has never really gone away. Rather, we are now looking further into other galaxies, still in hope of finding extra-terrestrial life. As long as we don’t invent another HAL, I’m OK with that.

Jenny Coombs

---

[1] 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dir. Stanley Kubrick (1968, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer)

[2] Star Trek, Gene Rodenberry (1966, Desilu Productions)

[3] DanielDilenno, Technophobia: Science Fiction Vision of Posthuman Technology (University of Texas Press, 2005), p99

Youth Rebels With Peace

“The youth rebellion was central to much of the fractiousness and dismay, much of the idealism and hope”[1]

A GAP BETWEEN GENERATIONS

If the 1950s introduced the teenager, the 1960s proved that it was here to stay. Children turning into teenagers in the 1960s were a part of the Baby Boomer generation. These children grew up without the ominous threat of war hanging over them as their parents had. Adults wanted their sons and daughters to enjoy their childhoods, as they had been denied the chance to do so.

TEENAGERS AS CONSUMERS

As products became easier to manufacture through technological development, they became cheaper and more available to the teenage market. In turn as teenagers became considerable consumers the music, fashion, and television industries reacted in kind. The invention of the portable transistor radio meant that teens could listen to their music when, where, and with whom they liked.  Clothing got brighter and more playful, culminating in the mini skirt- a symbol commonly linked with the Swinging Sixties. Programmes focusing on the popular music of the day became common on the TV and radio. Researchers determined that “fifteen year olds were effectively acting like eighteen year old consumers from the previous decade”[2].

POLITICAL PROTESTS OR HIPPIE HANGOUTS?

Despite the increased freedom given to them, teenagers still rebelled against their parents. One of the most common outlets of rebellion was to become a part of the counterculture.  The American counterculture was not one coherent movement, but rather a collection of movements that were united in the belief that America was corrupted, unjust, and required change.  Some of those included in the counterculture were the civil rights, anti-nuclear, free speech, and feminist movements. All these movements at some point involved protests that happened in American cities and universities.  This counterculture however was not completely unique to America. Similar events and changes in society were taking place across Paris, London, and West Berlin as well. Through becoming a part of this, the teenager was staking their claim to their future, furthering themselves from their parents and the governments that ruled them.

 In contrast with these structured movements was the growth of hippie communities across America. These communes came about as teenagers and young adult left their home and possessions behind in favour of a more natural lifestyle. As well as to escape domineering parents. Hippies, like normal teenagers, presented themselves and their thoughts through their clothing and hair. By wearing brightly coloured clothes, beads, and walking barefoot they systematically rejected the system. To distance themselves further many hippies smoked LSD and marijuana, listened to psychedelic rock music, and promoted free love and sexual liberation.

To say that the generation gap could not be any wider would not be far from wrong. The youth of the era were promoting love and freedom through peaceful means. Their parents had been fighting for the same things 20 years earlier, in a war on another continent.  Yet both ways of action were needed to further progress the lives of those in America, and around the globe.

Jenny Coombs

---

[1] Doug Owram, Born at the Right Time: A History of the Baby-Boom Generation, (USA: University of Toronto Press, 1997) p159

[2] Victor Brooks, Last Season of Innocence: The Teen Experience in the 1960s, (USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2012

) p103

Vietnam, A Visual War

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF WHEN I SAY THE VIETNAM WAR?

Often the first thing to come to mind is not the different battles or political intrigues, but the photos. The images of children running through the streets after being bombed, a Viet Cong suspect about to be executed in the streets, a monk who has set himself on fire. At no other time in history was a war as visible as this one had been. This was the result of two key factors, the growth of the television industry and the freedom that the press had in Vietnam.

GROWTH OF TV
Before World War 2 the cost of a television was far more than most families could afford. However, as a result of mass production techniques, which were developed during that war, prices were driven down and so sales went up. In 1945 it is estimated that fewer than 10,000 television sets were owned in the United States. Over the next decades this number rose dramatically to 5 million in 1950, and then to nearly 60 million in 1960, and has carried on increasing ever since[1]. It was at this time that television began to overtake the newspaper and radio as the form in which most Americans received their news.
 

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
Since the Vietnam War was never officially declared a war by the US government, US officials had little control over the press. They were prohibited from reporting any news that would have “direct military value”[2], but otherwise went largely unchecked. Journalists were left to decide what stories they wanted to tell from the footage they captured. Reporters integrated themselves into Vietnamese society and American squadrons allowed them to get up close to the events as they unfolded before them. Yet this freedom of movement for the press ended up proving fatal for some reporters. Over 60 journalists were killed or went missing during the conflict. Scores more returned home wounded, both physically and mentally.
 

HOW DID IT SWAY THE PUBLIC?
The change in public opinion over the years can partially be attributed to the fact that Vietnam was a ‘living room war’. Reports were on the news every night about the war for the whole family to sit down and watch together. In these reports progress was determined by announcing the number of Viet Cong that had been killed, rather than announcing any tangible advances in the conflict. Prior to 1967 only 20 per cent of television reports covered battles, and only a third of these showed any casualties[3]. It was only after the Tet Offensive that public opinion began to change. Although the American military was in the know, the American public and journalists were not. The Tet Offensive made America seem vulnerable for the first time, and the public began to question why this was so.
This was the first war to be fought under such public scrutiny, leading to questions about their country’s involvement and mixed reactions to the returning Vietnam veterans. History is said to be written by the winners, but did anyone truly win this war?

Jenny Coombs

---

[1] "Television." in The World Book Encyclopedia (Chicago: World Book Inc., 2003) p119.
[2] David Steigerwald, The Sixties and the End of Modern America (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1995) p96
[3] Ibid, p98

Regina v. Penguin Books Limited – A Changing Time

Regina v. Penguin Books Limited – A Changing Time

This case is a little different to the previous two cases I have discussed in my blogs as it is not part of the United States Civil Rights Movement. However, it does play a huge part in society. The case of Regina v. Penguin Books Limited was over a very controversial book titled ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’. The book had actually first been published in Italy in 1928 but, it was not until 1960 when Penguin Books published it. This story involved many sex scenes and rude words. It was about the relationship between a working class man and an upper class woman. However, it was different to anything else at the time because of the explicit details when it came to the physical side of the relationship. The rude words that were used were very uncommon in books at this time so it made many feel uncomfortable.

There had been obscenity laws established to protect literature and enforce the law on pornography. However, this case concluded that Penguin Books Limited were not in the wrong for publishing the book.

The reports of the case are useful when looking at the controversy it involved. For example, one interesting quote I have picked out is, "Would you approve of your young sons, young daughters - because girls can read as well as boys - reading this book? Is it a book you would have lying around your own house?” Also Penguin Books planned on selling it at a price that women and people of the working class would be able to afford too. This meant that all would be able to read this explicit book and not just the privileged.

One of the other main debates over this case appears to be whether the book benefits the reader at all. Also whether the sexual scenes were a natural thing to discuss or not.

I thought it would be interesting to find some examples of the explicit language used in Lady Chatterley’s Lover’. One example is ‘he too had bared the front of his body and she felt his naked flesh against her as he came into her’.[1] This shows the explicit nature of the book and why it made some people uncomfortable. However, the factor that pushed people over the edge with this book was the fact that offensive swear words were being used. The fact that Penguin Books won this case shows that this was perhaps the beginning of a more relaxed era in literature with more freedom.

Even though there was much controversy over this story, it became widely popular. Many think that since people made such a fuss over this book, it actually made it more popular as people would have wanted to see what the disagreement was about. There have been many films and theatre productions of it, and it has even been on the radio. Still to this day there are theatre performances being made of it.

 Annabelle Billington

---

[1] D.H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley’s Lover (Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Edition Limited, 2005).

Loving v. Virginia

Loving v. Virginia

I found the case of Loving v. Virginia captivating. Not only does it tell us a lot about the laws in the US at the time. But it’s also a romantic real life love story about a couple fighting for their rights. This case also relates to a previous case I have written about, Brown v. Board of Education. They are both cases which are fighting for civil rights and had a great impact upon the movement.

The case of Loving v. Virginia is seen as a very significant moment.

Loving v. Virginia is a very well-known court case as it cancelled out the laws that banned interracial marriage. It involved a couple called Mildred Loving and Richard Loving who got married. However, they were an interracial couple which was illegal. They were sentenced to a year in prison if they did not leave Virginia. They did leave the state, however after some time they travelled back to Virginia together and were caught.

The courts argument as to why inter-racial marriage should be illegal was very behind the times and traditional. It was thought God put different races on different continents to keep them separated, so it was against God for them to marry. This shows the affect religion was still having on the way people lived. The generations these days generally would accept this as a very bizarre and radical view.

The Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional to stop interracial couples for marrying. It was then enforced that all states should allow interracial marriage. It can be seen how significant this was to people as there have been films and songs produced about it. These include ‘Mr and Mrs Loving’ and a documentary called ‘the Loving Story’. The film Mr and Mrs Loving received criticism from Mrs Loving herself as she said it did not accurately reflect what happened at all. I personally find this to be a shame as this is such an important part of history, yet people are being misled purely to make it more of a drama. They were focused on getting a wider audience, than focusing on the history. There is also one day a year where this Supreme Court decision is remembered and celebrated.

After this Supreme Court decision, interracial marriage increased hugely. This shows that there were always many interracial couples, just many would have kept in quiet.

This case did not simply affect Virginia. It led to 16 other states having to get rid of their ban on interracial marriage. I find it shocking how some states up until very recently still had laws against inter-racial marriage. It seems absurd now days for there to be bans on interracial marriage. For example, Alabama did not re-peal their laws against inter-racial marriage until 2000. This means these laws carried over into the 21^st century. Alabama was the last state to make inter-racial marriage legal.

Annabelle Billington

Brown v. Board of Education - Fight for Civil Rights

Brown v. Board of Education – Fight for Civil Rights

From my Global Sixties course I have taken a great interest in the Civil Rights Movement. This involves a lot of law cases which I find to be a particularly interesting part of history as they can make a huge difference to people’s lives. Also, I am aspiring to become a lawyer, which contributes to my interest in this.

Therefore, the case of Brown v. Board of Education is fascinating to look into. This is a case from the United States which was seen as a big success within the Civil Rights Movement as it ruled to get rid of segregation within schools.

This particular case actually has five different cases combined within this title. They were all to do with segregation in schools so they came about to be joint as one. There were different reasons for why schools should not be segregated anymore. The most important one was that by having segregated schools it broke the equal protection clause. This was because the schools that the white children went to were better than those for the black children.

This case decided that having separate schools for white and black students was unconstitutional. The official quote to the decision on this case is stated below:

“segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group.”

Therefore, this was a huge move in ending segregation and attempting to make society more equal.

The years 1954-68 were the years of the African-American Civil Rights Movement. Brown v. Board of Education took place in 1954 so this marks one of the first steps towards reaching civil rights for African-Americans.

One reason I find this case especially interesting is because a few years ago while I was in Washington, we saw a parade that schools were involved in. The different schools that took part in this parade appeared to be very much either all black students or all white students. This gave me an interest in this case as it made me wonder how effective the case decision had been.

By looking into the case of Brown v. Board of Education I was able to observe that there was no set plan to get the schools to become integrated. The case simply ruled that desegregation should take place with ‘deliberate speed’. There was a second ruling called Brown II which encouraged the process further, but it still took years to begin to properly enforce, which may explain what I observed.  
Annabelle Billington

“Oh! What a Lovely War”: The First World War in Popular Culture during the 1960s

“Oh! What a Lovely War”: The First World War in Popular Culture during the 1960s

In this second blog, we shall take a look at the First World War in the world of Popular Culture in the 1960s through two widely viewed popular history works, the 1963 and 1969 stage and film versions (respectively) of Oh! What a Lovely War. Whilst it is not uncommon to hear about the late Richard Attenborough’s 1969 film version of Oh! What a Lovely War, it is less commonly known that the film was based on a 1963 stage musical, which in turn was inspired by the writings of Alan Clark’s The Donkeys.

The stage musical, written by ex-Communist Party of Great Britain member and pacifist Joan Littlewood, was developed by her stage company Theatre Workshop as a comedic satire on the vulgarity of war and how people can so easily suppress their independent spirit in the face of a higher authority. As such, she refused the use of military uniforms or even the visible death of characters on stage, instead using theatrical costume inspired by traditional Italian theatre (Commedia dell’arte) and whilst it was written with a script, the actors were permitted considerable leeway to ad-lib or improvise sections based on how they emotionally reacted to the scene. Also present (where theatre technology permitted) was a projector displaying statistics of various battles in a manner of Grandstand or Match of the Day, which added to the surrealism of the production as it continued largely unannounced and uncommented by the actors on stage.

Picture: An Early rehearsal of the stage musical, The Daily Telegraph, 1963

The stage show was popular, but the reaction of critics was mixed, with both The Guardian and The Times agreeing that a negative portrayal of the First World War was really something of a “sitting target” for Littlewood to aim at. At a time of theatre censorship, it was not permitted to be performed to a London theatre until it was patronised by Princess Margaret. A transition to New York occurred in 1964, ending after 125 performances, with reaction much the same as in Britain: popular, but with a mixed reception amongst critics.

In contrast, the film version, in Richard Attenborough’s first directing role, was very explicit in its use of uniforms and death, with the final scene of thousands of white crosses in a windswept field being particularly memorable. This, in Littlewood’s opinion, had rather missed the point of her production, which was supposed to be comedic, rather than violent. By 1969 however, the film was no longer really just about the First World War, contemporary politics had seeped in, with a general anti-war feeling linked to the ongoing Vietnam War being widely seen in print and on television screens around the world. Many of the “extras” in the film were students from the University of Sussex, known for its student radicalism and anti-Vietnam War protests. Despite containing many “A-List” actors and actresses of British cinema, it only managed to achieve 19^th in the yearly cinema rankings in the UK and did not even score in the top 30 in the USA, being easily outranked by more well-known cinematic classics like Oliver!, Ture Grit and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Picture: Cinematic poster of the 1969 film production

Changing theatrical and cinematic tastes of the decade of the 1960s saw a changing way in which we look  at the First World War. Whilst the early sstage production was more focused on a comedic satire, the later 1960s saw little to laugh about in the brutality of a war that was all to close to comfort in the light of the Vietnam War and the wider Cold War. Although having a mixed reception from ciritics and poor contemporary viewership in light of the wave fo other stage and cinematic classics which were in prudction at the time, Oh! What a Lovely War remins for many an important visual representation of the First World War’s massive death toll and a reflection of contemproary views on warfare, class and gender issues at to points in the 1960s.

Philip A. Bennett