On May 4th, 1970, a protest occurred at Kent
State University which led to the massacre of four unarmed students by members
of the National Guard. To clarify “unarmed,” at least one of the students
killed had been seen throwing rocks at members of the National Guard. The
members of the Guard, however, were equipped with M1 assault rifles. The
incident prompted an FBI investigation. The FBI documents were initially kept
secret, but later released through a Freedom of Information Act request.
The iconic flower-in-the-rifle barrel gesture of a 1960s "terrorist" |
In these documents, the focus is not on the massacre itself,
but on the fact that a campus ROTC building had been set on fire. The documents
clearly convey the sense that, were it not for the existence of protests on the
campus and the presence of a separate group of arsonists, the shooting would
not have occurred. The FBI report (available here) describes
the protest as a “riot.” Walter Adams, a Kent State professor at the time, said
that the attitude of law enforcement was that, “we had brought this on
ourselves, because, if you behave that way, naturally, someone's going to shoot
you to death.” He likened it to blaming a rape victim for dressing
provocatively.
Until the National Guard arrived, Adams did not see a riot. “Things
didn't seem to be at all threatening. I had an impression of the atmosphere as
being really quite pleasant (source).”
The atmosphere changed once the National Guard arrived in
tanks and armored personnel carriers. Guard members announced, by megaphone,
that the campus was surrounded and that protesting was not allowed. The student
protesters, however, were determined to exercise their First Amendment rights.
According to Eldon Fender, a student who witnessed the
events of May 4th,
One of the most interesting experiences was, frankly, you
felt like you made a wrong turn off of [Interstate] 76 going into Kent because
of all the armed vehicles, military hardware, military vehicles on campus. You
almost felt like you drove onto Fort Knox or something where you have a highly
protected federal property or something of that nature. So the atmosphere on
the campus certainly was very tense and very different than the way I left it (source).
The FBI was not concerned with investigating the National
Guard members who fired the fatal shots. Instead, FBI investigators sought to
identify students who could be prosecuted under the charges of criminal
conspiracy, sabotage and sedition -- the latter, a capital offense.
Cooperative students spoke of “hippie types,” “radicals,” “militants”
and “hard core trouble makers” but few offered any substantive leads. Parents
were also interviewed. One father describes becoming estranged from his son
after his son allowed his hair to grow long.
FBI agents sought to
validate their suspicion that members of Students for a Democratic Society
(SDS) had been involved in the incident. This would be significant because the
Weather Underground Organization (or simply, "the weathermen") was a
splinter group of SDS and was, according to conventional wisdom at the time, a
terrorist organization.
According to Mr. Fender, Kent State had been a relatively
apolitical campus until Nixon announced an expansion of the Vietnam War into
Cambodia. The news inflamed anti-war sentiment because many people were hoping
that the war was drawing to a close. People believed that the decision to enter
Cambodia would prolong the conflict. Also, Cambodia was an ally; the ruler, Lon
Nol, was pro-U.S. He was, however, unable to control the Cambodian border with
Vietnam, and Viet Cong fighter were able to slip into the country to move
supplies and set up bases.
The resemblances between the situation in May of 1970 and
the situation today are striking. The word “terrorist,” then as now, is not
confined to individuals who use violence against civilians to promote a
political agenda, but is a label used to describe political opponents. This
label legitimizes the unrestrained use of force. We bombed an ally in 1970 and
today, we bomb Pakistan and other non-combatant nations such as Yemen.
The differences are also striking. Nixon was a widely
despised ruler; President Obama is relatively popular. Then, students protested
the war even when confronted by a contingent of heavily armed troops. Today,
students will occasionally muster up the energy to send politically-charged
tweets.
No comments:
Post a Comment