One of the great societal changes that took place during the 60's was the banding together of the nation's youth under a common shared cause.
That cause was protesting the war in Vietnam. The war itself was a drawn-out affair that was mired in red tape and bureaucratic rules of engagement, and the only sure thing that was coming out of it was lots of young men in the primes of their lives being sent home in bodybags.
By the end of the decade, protesting had reached its acme, as students at universities all over the nation staged protests, some peaceful, some, like that at Kent State University in 1970, tragically violent.
Four students gave their lives on may 4, 1970. Another suffered permanent paralysis. But one can't simply point a finger at the Ohio National Guard and cry villainy. There is more to the story than that.
Sometime around 1990, I read James Michener's book Kent State: What happened and Why. It was a real eye-opener to me, and I recommend you search your own local library to see if a copy is available.
Michener painted a picture that is far from that described by those who would decry the incident as a case of trigger-happy Guardsmen who decided to take out students in an act of murder.
The protests at the university were caused by Nixon's April 30th speech announcing his plans to accelerate the war by invading Cambodia. A noisy protest took place the next day on the campus's commons area. Plans were made for a further demonstration on May 4.
That evening (May1), large groups of students were gathering at downtown bars, still seething over the latest news from Washington. By now, according to Michener's account, professional rabblerousers were strategically whipping the students into an uncontrolled frenzy.
A fire was lit in the middle of Kent's Main Street, windows of businesses were broken, and the cops showed up to close down the bars.
The next day, a Saturday, the mayor of Kent called in the Ohio National Guard to help maintain order. Students held another protest on the campus, and someone torched the ROTC building. Incidentally, the building itself had been boarded up and was soon to be demolished.
Again, Michener presented evidence that outside entities set the building on fire, making it appear that the students were behind it.
Then, there are the Guardsmen themselves. Some of them were, indeed, patriotic WWII vets who despised the fact that the students were defying Uncle Sam. But many of them were youngsters themselves, the same age range as the kids on campus, and many Guardsmen of all ages were sympathetic to the students' cause. But the overwhelming emotion that the troops felt was fear. An unruly, angry mob is a frightening thing indeed, especially when driven by those whose business it is to stir up trouble.
On Monday, May 4, students gathered to attend the rally which the school itself had announced had been canceled. About 2,000 students gathered anyway, and attempts were made to break up the assembly. This climaxed with a thirteen-second volley of shots being fired, causing the four deaths and nine injuries.
Much investigation took place afterwards, with officials at the school being given the primary blame for what had happened. Two of the dead students had never participated in the protests, one of them being an ROTC member. The injured and dead were all a goodly distance away from the troops when shot.
All in all, it was a tragic, terrible mess. And, according to Michener's book, the ones that were most responsible all got away scot-free. Hey, that theory holds a lot more water than the average Oliver Stone fantasy.
Comments (5)
Kudos for identifying FEAR as the over arching villain in the Kent State tragedy, it was also fear that caused the deaths in Washington D.C. in 1932 when the “Bonus Army” protest was put down. See Bonus Army Demonstration.
The combination of weapons (especially those that can kill at a distance) and fear have been responsible for countless deaths and injuries from the beginning of recorded history. The Louisiana homeowner who shot and killed Yoshihiro Hattori who was on his way to a Halloween party and got lost was by all accounts afraid and sought to neutralize his inappropriate emotion by killing the bogeyman.
The NYC police officers who killed an unarmed Sean Bell (after leaving his bachelor party) were so terrified that they fired 50 shots before deciding that was enough. Anytime armed individuals feel threatened there is a great potential for tragedies such as Kent State.
I am not opposed to the 2nd amendment per se but I would never carry a gun unless I was using for hunting. For my 10th birthday I was given my father’s boyhood .22 caliber single shot Springfield rifle and was required to complete an NRA hunter’s safety course before being allowed to hunt by myself.
The primary purpose of a gun is to kill something at a distance, the putative deterrent factor notwithstanding, as the deterrent is in reality the threat to kill. When one threatens with a gun (always out of fear,) one has to be prepared to kill that which is feared. If you aren’t prepared to kill, don’t carry or rely on a gun for protection, which is why I don’t keep guns in my home anymore as I am not prepared.
An anecdote from my checkered past:
While in college in 1968, I was hunting near campus before class and as I lived about a mile away from the school and was cutting the time close, I (foolishly in retrospect) opted to take my shotgun into class as I had no place to leave it. I removed the clip and bolt and placed them on the professor’s desk and propped the disabled gun in a corner by the professor. He assessed the situation and never batting an eye told me to take a seat and conducted the class. Afterward I picked up the pieces and gun and left with it in the decommissioned state. The next day I was summoned to the college president’s office (the cool prof reported the incident) and I was put on probation for my foolish behavior. I never did anything like that again but imagine the difference today if someone repeated those actions.
Posted by Burt | October 20, 2008 7:51 PM
Posted on October 20, 2008 19:51
Interesting reaction by your professor. At my small Arkansas community high school in the 70's, students frequently brought their hunting weapons on campus to get oohs and aahs from fellow students. The guns stayed in the back-window pickup gunracks, however.
Pickup gunracks are another thing that went away when you weren't looking. However, potential for thefts were the cause, not social outrage, at least in my area.
Posted by Ron Enderland | October 21, 2008 3:48 AM
Posted on October 21, 2008 03:48
Wow Ron, you are indeed an early riser, I get up around 9 AM on work days.
Whenever I hear of a school shooting (they were unheard of prior to 1966 when the University of Texas at Austin massacre occurred. see School Shootings)
I imagine myself in the situation described above in today’s climate. If I escaped being shot by the authorities which would surely be summoned by any number of ubiquitous cell phones, I would have likely been arrested and charged with domestic terrorism (shades of Palin’s idée fixe William Ayers – I also was associated with the Weathermen (inadvertently but that’s another story) possibly without the benefit of habeas corpus.
I no longer hunt – my guns are locked in my father’s gun cabinet and when he dies (currently aged 88 and still hunts) I will liquidate them along with his, family heirlooms notwithstanding (I like that word) even though most once belonged to my great grandfather (I come from a long line of hunters.) My wife and children have no interest in firearms and beyond antique considerations neither do I.
BTW due to the unanticipated nature of my actions at the college, there was no formal proscription against bringing firearms to class (that oversight was amended) – and the probation was to squelch further incidents (it worked.)
Posted by Burt | October 21, 2008 5:04 PM
Posted on October 21, 2008 17:04
I recently picked up Michener's "Kent State" at a used book sale, and am making my way through it slowly right now. Interesting!
Posted by Becky | October 22, 2008 4:04 AM
Posted on October 22, 2008 04:04
I guess what I marvel at is how exactly the 60s died as the new decade just got started. I see 1970 as a very pivotal year of change. I saw many remnants of WWII in Portland Maine area but most were gone by 1970 or soon after. and for me and my family, it was also a big change as we moved.
Kent State seemed like the big announcement that the old world was gone and a nastier one was here to replace it. TV changed. We had a mall, the first, open in 1971 and downtown soon died as a result and never fully recovered. The 70s were still fun and not that different from 60s but there was a difference and a change, just the same.
Kent State could be said to be the distinct marking point indicating that change.
Posted by Scott Irving | November 21, 2008 6:24 PM
Posted on November 21, 2008 18:24