I’ve been sniping about this Jane Fonda issue over at Larry Moran’s blog, and decided to spend some of my efforts in my own space. This discussion is also going on at Phryngula.
 |
| This photo is a hoax |
Where was I during the Viet Nam War? Too young to serve or not serve. I missed required registration by literally a few days, but the war was over by then anyway.
But from a very young age I was politically active. I worked for Ted Kennedy during one of his bids for president. I worked for both McGovern campaigns. I led an organization of high-schoolers called “Impeach Nixon Now” (as well as the not very famous “Nature Conservation Club” … who’s third member to join was Pete Seger! I wonder if he still has his membership card).
There were a few reasons for my political activism (aside from the obvious need for political activism!). One was coming from a politically active family, both in traditional politics (my parents’ generation) and as anti-war activists (my older siblings, especially my sister Elizabeth). Also, I went to a school where the middle ground was fairly radical (Milne, now defunct), and from there transferred to a different school that was very very strict … in it’s sustained radicalism (The Albany Free Community School).
I also had another kind of engagement with the war, besides the politics and activism against it. When I was just a teenager, I got a job that I kept for several years, working for a city agency funded entirely by the Comprehensive Employment Training Act. This was at the time a make-work federal program for returning Viet Nam Era vets. The agency I worked for was divided into two parts: The guys who “worked” in the attic of City Hall … they were mainly heroin addicts who slept most of the day except for the occasional trip to the hood to get a fix; and the rest of us who had our own offices in a separate building. We were archaeologists and historians, and we were very productive and active.
So during much of my teenage years I spent hours every day working with a group of people that included several vets. There was a core group that ran the place and a constant stream of vets who would come into the agency and then move on. Our boss was a professional soldier who had been in Viet Nam at the very beginning … one of Kennedy’s “advisors” … and subsequently for a couple of tours of duty, as well as other parts of the world as a soldier of fortune. He and I became very good friends and remain so today. A few of these guys were “Viet Nam Era” but had not been in combat, or even near Viet Nam, but most were wizened and wounded, both physically and mentally. It got crazy now and then (now and then meaning about once a week) and was an amazing learning experience for me.
I remember a few years after all of this watching the movie “Platoon.” Most likely I saw the movie a couple of years after it was out, because that has been my life long pattern. I can count the number of movies I’ve seen on opening day on two fingers. (Batman, the movie; and Clan of the Cave Bear, to be exact). Anyway, Platoon as I remember it was a series of vignettes of bad things happening in Viet Nam, each and every one of which I had heard about already from the guys I worked with. Every one of them. In fact, one of the guys I worked with was at Khe Sanh with the Marines under siege and another guy was with one of the relief and clean-up units. My point is, there was very little of what happened in Viet Nam and experienced by the US soldiers there that was not somehow connected to the many different men I met and sometimes got to know well during that period. I got to experience the Viet Nam war vicariously which, I’m sure, was a LOT better than experiencing it in real life.
Some years later I was the editor of a monthly newspaper published by a Vet (whom I had known for many years). His story is interesting. On his return to the US, getting off the bus at the local bus station, he found himself encountering a group of anti-war protesters. He went over to them, talked to them for a few minutes, took off his medals and joined them. He has been with them (in a certain sense) ever since.
What is the point of all of this? I am a person who was against the Viet Nam War but who during the last days of the war counted among my friends many Viet Nam War vets. I never for a moment considered the possibility of blaming these men for the war. I don’t recall anyone I knew at the time doing this. Sure, it may have happened, but I think this was probably a hyped-up media scam promoted by war hawks at the time, or a post-hoc reconstruction fostered (festered?) by the right wing. Many, many of the people I worked with in various organizations against the war were vets, many former officers. This view that it was the protesters against the vets is nothing I ever saw or heard of at the time.
The question has been brought up, “What effect did the protests have on the execution of the war?” That is pretty clear. One president, who had been escalating involvement in the war, chose to not run again even though he was eligible to do so. Johnson bowed out of the election because of protests against him and his presidency due to his role in the war. Nixon was elected president under the pretense of having a “secret plan” to end the war, which was a position that was forced by the widespread (and getting more common) anti-war protests. When Nixon was president, he continued the war despite these protests, but there was de-escalation. Finally, in the the later parts of the war, the Nixon administration realized that they had to either win this war or get out. So they started to formulate plans to kick the shit out of the North Vietnamese, even considering nuclear weapons to do this.
In the end, the Nixon administration chose to not follow through with this large final push to win, and one of the main reasons they chose this course was because of the growing strength of the protest. This is well documented.
Forms of protest included things like what my father, a civil servant with a moderately high profile, did. He let his sideburns grow long. Other protests included peaceful marches and candlelight vigils. That was nice. The occasional one day student strike put an edge on it for the campuses. But the protests also included near riots, full scale riots, occupation of college or government buildings, burning the occasional police car, and Jane Fonda visiting Hanoi.
It is this more extreme end that got Johnson and Nixon’s attention. Nixon was literally afraid of open revolution. It is not the fashion statements or the silent vigils that ended the war. It was burning flags, breaking some windows, and threatening to do more. That is what it required, that is what we did, and that is what worked. It was not the choice of the protesters to be “extreme.” It was the choice of the hawks in power to force the citizenry into something that verged on open revolt.
In this more genteel age of “code pink” and non-violent marches down at the college library, let us not forget that there have been times when our government needed to be threatened to do the right thing.
Go Jane.
Here are the locations of a few interesting ongoing discussions regarding this issue:
A view of the world from the middle
Interesting post, Greg. I am not too young to remember all of this. I remember my father and certain other members of my family foaming at the mouth about Jane Fonda. Much later, my mother hid her Jane Fonda workout tapes so that my Father did not know she was using them.
Then there were protests at the mall when Jane Fonda came out with her new tapes maybe in the 1970s or early 1980s. You are bringing back many memories!
Jane Fonda’s focus was on encouraging a connection between Americans and the Vietnamese people. She believed that if people just looked at one another, connected as human beings, they would see the needlessless of military conflict. She became a target, and still is a target, for veterans who forget her rather simple, idealistic message and believe that she wanted people to hate America.
I am not defending Jane. I think she is a waste of space. She has done nothing concrete and meaningful for any part of society. She seems a bit on the shallow side. We used to see her when she and Ted came through here on their way to his ranch and her family’s place in Montana, on their motorcycles. She wore so much make-up that she looked foolish - obviously not at home in her own skin.
Veterans use her as a way to put themselves in the limelight as patriots. If you do not like Jane, you are cool - a true American. Rubbish!
I was part of the human potential, alternative culture back then. I had many vet friends and still do. The anti-Jane stuff came on strong after the war ended. But the protest movement more or less ignored Jane and other celebrity protesters. They were not real enough.
SIDEBAR: My father-in-law, Fred Losch, a member of the Black Sheep Squadron during World War II, despises Jane and includes his opinion on her in his recently book, “I Was There,” about World War II.
CG: Thanks for that post, it’s great to have more perspective of the times. I think you are right … that was her message.
Greg (thanks for your comment at my site) and other commentators here:
Jane Fonda was part of a group that Lenin/Stalin called “useful idiots”. The major anti-war establishments were funded by communist associated and sometimes directly institutions, Indeed, Jane Fonda’s particular group used the word “Mao” and “Maoist” frequently in discussing this particular subject.
The Vietnam War protesters did not have to get their point across through violence … Americans have the liberty of dissension and protesting, but the law clearly states - “peaceful” - no justification there.
Presidents sometimes inherent things that other presidents started and did not finish … from Johnson to Nixon. I did not like Nixon either, and as far as Watergate, the only crime he committed was that he tried to cover it up (and lied) when he discovered what had happened. At least, he, unlike President Clinton, had enough character and love for his nation to resign rather than put the government and the nation through an impeachment trial - of which I am sure that he would have been officially impeached. Then Johnson came who accelerated the war that JFK began and the rest is history. The point here is that, to some, Nixon was pegged as the evil president concerning the Vietnam War, and only because he was a Republican. JFK, a Democrat entered America into the Vietnam conflict that the communists started, and American policy at the time was to prevent the spread of communism. In effect, it all began with the Korean War under the Truman administration, but the difference is there was a ceasefire and a DMZ set up and South Korea became a democracy while North Korea became darkened with communism and tyranny. Unfortunately we did not totally annihilate the NKs and punish the Chinese for their part in it. But it is understandable that the American people had just gone through five years of a world war and were “war weary”.
If you say you never treated vets badly, but were against the Vietnam War - then you should be commended - but too often that was not the case. I for one personally experienced the rebuff from the protesters you write about. And, Greg, if you missed the Vietnam War for whatever reason, it certainly wasn’t a loss. The Vietnam War became unwinnable for several major reasons, two of which were that Washington was running the war and not the generals and the media decided to campaign against it even to the point of printing false or tailored stories and producing pictures that were falsely used by lying about the circumstance behind the photo - two of which have become historically famous and were printed by Life Magazine.
And, the gist of this blog is about evolution, the theory of - and no matter what you say, in the big picture of its vast subject material, it is still just a theory - in the major sense of how life on Earth began; yet in another sense much of the evidence certainly points to the fact that life on Earth (and probably elsewhere in the universe) adapts in order to survive, while other species become extinct. And global warming, if indeed it is a long-term phenomenon, has been hyped up to be the fault of human activity - when in fact through paleological history there has been the warming and cooling periods. It was only 10-15 years ago the alarmists were wailing about an upcoming Ice Age. Global Warming, if indeed it has begun, is something that humans can do nothing about, but adapt to the changes that occur. I might add that if it were not for global warming, when it occurred during Earth’s long history there would not have been the fantastic age of dinosaurs. Indeed because of a massive climate change, the dinosaur became extinct and mammals adapted and survived. In the matter of Global Warming (a theory and now a farce) - the main argument is how it is supposedly occurring, yet no one has considered the obvious - the effect of the star we call the Sun. It is changing, and it will continue to change until it turns into a black star in more time in history than one can perceive. The same nonsense occurred when “scientists” determined that using hairy spray caused the depletion of the protective membrane in the ionosphere of Earth - when in fact it was the Sun’s activities doing it all the while. It is quite sad that junk science has been traded off for real and properly researched science, and sadder yet that the junk scientists have such a large following that has now become part of the political system - and that alone will be costly. Money will be funded and wasted for this Global Warming nonsense when it could be used elsewhere, for real science and further space exploration.
Thanks, Greg, for affording me the opportunity to speak out here at your blog site. The gist of your blog contains interesting material for argument when it comes to the sciences. And, in respect to the extinction of the dinosaurs, new discoveries (some not so new) has found that the sudden earth change which iced the polar regions of Earth was probably due to huge impacts of meteors and asteroids, as they have found by drilling in Antarctica’s miles of ice that there once was trees, grass, and animals living comfortably there. In addition, they have found that the decaying prehistoric plant and animal life did not produce oil and that it is produced by the inner Earth’s activities. Amazing. And we were all taught in school differently. This also means that the Earth is constantly producing oil and the fallacy of running out is a myth - all there need to be found is where it has been “produced” by Earth’s inner natural process. All of this and other sciences are quite interesting to me - but the Global Warming scare sickens me. When it does come there isn’t anything that politicians and junk scientists can do about it. The theory that it was caused by human activity and the severity of it is all based on bad research and by those junk scientists who want to make a name for themselves. Maybe they took the film “Waterworld” to be more than just a fantasy film for entertainment.
Mr Lehman
I think you need to get some of your facts straight and take a history lesson or two.
You taut the constitution but you vilify Jane Fonda and her “group” and others for using certain words, and having a certain political philosophy. So what is this, freedom for you but not for anyone you disagree with?
Nixon was a crook. He was about to be impeached for something that is a lot worse than you make it sound, and they also wanted to impeach him for other things and had not gotten around to it or were unable at the time, such as conducing an illegal war.
It is insulting and absurd to say that Clinton should have resigned. The impeachment against him was a national tragedy, but not because of Clinton but because of the Republicans. It was a huge joke. How dare you compare Clinton and Nixon!
(well of course you have the right to do so, even though you do not give rights to others)
JJ, I agree with many of your points but you are being too hard on Poor Old Kieth! He’s obviously a guy from the stone age and needs to be treated gently. You know how those cave men get.
Greg, thank you so very much for directing me to this post. I love reading your posts and of course, this one touches me a lot as you know.
Thank you Dariana of Code Pink! (http://daridonovan.net/blog/)
Greg,
Thoughtful site moderator. Much needed. Much appreciated.
CalderaGal,
Jane is a “waste of space” and “has done nothing meaningful for society”???
You have obviously never read her bestselling books (at least three).
If you had, you would know that with every sentence she writes she contributes positively to mankind, which also answers someone elses statement about her intelligence.
In a word: Google.
Her lifetime of achievements are there for all to see.
I hope you do.
I have been noticing lately that everyone has an opinion. Some of those earn it.
For most of my life I was one on those “parroting” someone elses opinion. You know, O’Reilly, Hannity, Rush and those guys…the hatemongers…the showmen.
Then there are those who form opinions based on fact. Not easy to do.
Hard to accept value in people who you either disagree with or have been “trained like a parrot” to react to.
Please take another look at Jane. Knowing her will make anyone a better person.
Old Army Clerk
Greg, thanks for the comment on my blog. I read your post with interest. You have valid points. Apparently we came up about the same time. My father grew long sideburns in protest as well - but not in protest of the war. There was a major social revolution happening at the time, undoubtedly precipitated by our on-going and escalating involvement in Vietnam, but as with most things there was more to it than that.
While your take on the history of that era is correct as far as my memory is concerned, your conclusions are very different than mine. I believe that both Johnson and Nixon did what they did at least in part for the reasons you stated. Kennedy was assasinated before the war protests started, but he certainly increased American involvement there. So he didn’t live long enough to have to face the consequences of his escalation of US involvement in the Vietnam War. He seems to have been forgiven by history, so far.
For the commenter who stated, ‘Nixon was a crook’ and then in the next paragraph defends Clinton’s impreachment is mind-boggling. Apparently, there are two sets of standards for the two men. ‘Nixon was a crook’ is the tag he got stuck with. Just like with the Clinton impeachment - it’s more complicated than that.
But that diffuses the real issues we are grappling with. And I’m being more wordy than I meant to be.
Greg, where we part ways in our remembrances and conclusions of those troubled years is whether or not those riots/protests resulted in ‘the right thing’.
You write that the ‘hawks in power to force the citizenry into something that verged on open revolt.’ I agree we probably should not have been involved in that war. But if you look at it in the context of the times, just a few short years after WWII it puts it in a different light. We can understand the choices made. I certainly didn’t see the ‘citizenry’ as being close to open revolt. The open revolt was on college campuses with the ‘intellectual elite’ who were getting draft numbers and had been raised by returning WWII veterans who had seen all the war they ever wanted to see. They were raised in the most prosperous and peaceful time in American history by men who didn’t want their sons to have to do what they had to do.
the ‘citizenry’ was going to work, school and living their lives. The ‘citizenry’ watched the college students burning their draft cards on TV. The ‘citizenry’ kept America growing, prospering and strong while the protesters grabbed headlines. I say that as someone who came up during that period and had my own ‘hippie’ and ‘flower child’ moments. But I never, then or now, spoke or acted against my own country.
You write that it took those protests to get Johnson and Nixon to do something about getting us out of Vietnam. the democrat President Johnson chose to not run for re-election rather than face ending the Vietnam war in defeat. The republican President Nixon caved in to public pressure and is now known as ‘a crook’ and will forever be in the history books as the president who pulled American troops out of Vietnam in America’s first defeat.
What all three presidents should forever been known for is that they sent American troops into a fierce jungle war without the intention of winning the war. THAT is what is unforgiveable.
You refer to the pull-out from Vietnam as a good result. I see it as a disaster and shameful incident in American history. Three million were killed in our wake. We left our allies and friends without protection. Vietnamese and Cambodians who had resisted the communist invasion were left to fend for themselves.
It was the first time that the world knew we could be defeated and the first time the world realized we couldn’t be trusted.
BTW - Jane Fonda was and is a traitor. I don’t care what she thought of the war - she cheered for those who shot down, tortured and killed American Soldiers.
How “Hanoi” Jane can sleep at night is beyond belief. She sold out herself, “her” Country and brave Americans doing what they thought was right. She patronized with our sworn enemy for the sake of grabbing headlines and caused harm to countless Americans serving their Country. May “Hanoi” Jane fade away, rot and burn in HELL for what she’s done. If you weren’t there, don’t tell me what a great person she is…you have not had to live with the ramifications of what she did…if you weren’t there you don’t have a clue!
CPL Bell
USMC 1969
SEMPER FI