Much of the internal turmoil in America during the Vietnam war was a direct consequence of the credibility gap. If the U.S. government did not censor media coverage as actively as it did during Vietnam, how would that have affected the antiwar movement? How about other counterculture movements?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If all Americans really knew what was going on in Vietnam, they surely would've supported the antiwar movement. When Carl Oglesby found out what was really going on, he simply said, "It got to you." However, the other movements wouldn't have had as much success. A lot of what they were fighting was the government's secrecy and corruption. The corruption would've still been there, but at least the government would've been more honest. And with the increased pressure of the antiwar movement, who knows what would've changed fundamentally in government? The war definitely would've ended sooner because hardly anyone would be for or even neutral about the war. With this, there wouldn't have been as much reason for any of the movements (See post about "The Movement").
ReplyDeleteI partially agree with Sammy, in that it seems logical that the other movements would not have been as infuriated if the government were completely honest about the situation in Vietnam. Some of the distrust and anti-authoritarianism would have been eliminated. However, for each of the movements Vietnam became an example to support the necessity of their cause. Morgan writes, “Furthermore, increasing numbers of activists came to see that the system that produced the war was the same system targeted by the black power critique, the campus upheavals, the counterculture, and the women’s and environmental movements,” (131). These various movements were able to see the evils of the government played out in their actions related to the Vietnam War.
ReplyDeleteThe fuel for their fire came not just from seeing how corrupt their government was, but from seeing the horrible way it was handling the situation as a reflection of the horrible way in which it was treating its own citizens. Morgan continues, “The war revealed to black activists the pervasiveness of American racism….Student activists saw in the detached quantitative analysis and unquestioning loyalty of government decision makers the products of the same technocratic education they resisted. To countercultural seekers…Vietnam came to embody the repressive violence of a culture gone mad. .…feminists saw in Vietnam the ultimate expression of male machismo and the perils of a segmented, masculine personality….Finally, ecologists saw in the war the same corporate priests of technological process that threatened the ecosphere,” (132). The war in Vietnam served as such a strong example of the evils of society that it would have strengthened these movements even if the media accurately portrayed its progression. The censoring of the media just provided another incentive to stand up against “the system”.
For both Sammy and Emi: would increased awareness of what as actually happening in Vietnam have prevented the terrible things that happened in Vietnam (destruction of villages... My Lai...)? It seems a fair point to say that there would be reduced fire from the Movement because the government wouldn't be actively deceiving its people, but it also seems fair that in a democracy like the United States, bad foreign policies and atrocities reflect badly on the reigning power, giving government a reason to restrain their actions. With that in mind, do you guys think that the destruction of the credibility gap may have produced a more responsible government?
ReplyDelete