October 10, 2010

"Kent State tape indicates altercation and pistol fire preceded National Guard shootings."

What really happened at Kent State, back in 1970?

69 comments:

The Drill SGT said...

Regardless of who may have fired a pistol, or whether a pistol was actially fired (as opposed to firecrackers, or some other man-made noise), the existence of the tape with noises that sound today like gunfire leads me to conclude that those Guardsmen could have thought it was gunfire 40 years ago.

blake said...

Oh, what a surprise.

It wasn't establishment stooges firing randomly into the crowd.

It's almost like none of the great legends of the hippie/peace era are true.

damikesc said...

I cannot express my stunned amazement that the story of a key moment for the anti-war movement in the 1960s wasn't factually accurate given the Boomers known love of honest self-reflection in that era. If I next hear that SNCC was violent, I might weep.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

I think it's fairly obvious what happened here....
Sarah Palin was in cahoots with Nixon, SHE fired the shots, in the air, ducked, and then that gave the excuse for the stooges and Running Dog Lackeys of Capitalist Monopoly Finance Imperialism to fire upon the Peaceful Supporters of the Nationalist Agrarian Land Reformers of North Vietnam.

Palin is a WAR CRIMINAL.

mesquito said...

What does this say about four decades of emoting?

Moose said...

We're messing with a sacred cow here. Kent State is the equivalent of "settled law" to the left. Those NG troops fired without provocation, etc.

I suspect there will be lots of "explanations" of how this did not matter...

Ignorance is Bliss said...

What does this say about four decades of emoting?

Nothing that was not obvious before we learned this new piece of information.

Pogo said...

What happened?

Mark Rudd, Bernardine Dohrn, the SDS and the Weathermen very nearly got what they wanted, to provoke a violent confrontation in which somebody would be hurt or killed, and so begin 'the Revolution."

On April 10, 1970, when Jerry Rubin spoke on the campus at Kent State, he said: "The first part of the Yippie program is to kill your parents. And I mean that quite literally, because until you're prepared to kill your parents, you're not ready to change this country. Our parents are our first oppressors."

On May 22, at another campus rally, SDS member Rick Skirvin said, "We'll start blowing up buildings, we'll start buying guns, we'll do anything to bring this motherfucker down."

However, it was not until many years later, on launching Obama's career from her living room in Chicago, was Dohrn, with husband and fellow Weatherman William Ayers, finally successful.

edutcher said...

IIRC, if you see the video of the incident, one round is fired; after a second or so, another; another interval of a couple seconds, maybe two more and then the whole line lets go. I don't recall an order for the Guardsmen, but I do remember noting how they'd been pushed back to a small rise.

After seeing that, I've never bought the idea, sold by Lefties like Phil Donahue, that this was some sort of co-ordinated attack on the poor, harmless (they'd spent the night trashing the campus) protesters.

damikesc said...

I cannot express my stunned amazement that the story of a key moment for the anti-war movement in the 1960s wasn't factually accurate given the Boomers known love of honest self-reflection in that era. If I next hear that SNCC was violent, I might weep.

The whole campus commando narrative is a lie, but, don't lump the Boomers together. Most of the peace/love crowd was either the scions of the Left or a bunch of airheads looking to get high and get laid. Boomers were also the ones who served in 'Nam and who cut their Conservative political teeth on college campuses in '68, which made them the backbone of the Reagan Revolution.

With regard to SNCC, as they said at the time: they weren't students, they weren't non-violent, they co-ordinated nothing, and they weren't a committee.

lemondog said...

Technology can distinguish and match the human voice based on vibration frequency.

Does the gun still exist and is there similar technology that can reliably distinguish shots fired from same caliber guns?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

...is there similar technology that can reliably distinguish shots fired from same caliber guns?


Even if there is the audio recording would not be anywhere near high enough quality.

John Lynch said...

Yeah, can't say that I'm surprised.

History looks different to people who didn't live through the events.

Kent State just doesn't matter to people who weren't old enough to live through it. It's a footnote.

It's also typically American to elevate the accidental killing of four people into something like, oh, Tienamen. Some Americans just want the government to be oppressive so they can resist.

A few years back I read about the circumstances surrounding Kent State. It turns out that riots were common and that the local community was tired of it. The level of violence around the university was endemic. That's why the local criminal justice system wouldn't prosecute the Guardsmen. In fact, most of the country didn't care very much at the time. Riots and protests were out of control. Nixon won big in 1972 for a reason. It's too bad that there was no good Democratic alternative.

For me, what's interesting is that Kent State had so much more impact than the burning to death of the Branch Dravidians at Waco. Eighty people being burned to death in a botched assault by the federal government is a lot different than untrained local National Guardsmen opening fire on a crowd because there was no one else available to control it.

Kent State was a failure, they killed people who didn't have to die, and why they had ammo in the first place I don't understand. But it was an understandable failure, given the unprecedented situation that they were called on to deal with. This is nothing like what it was claimed to be, some kind of national crackdown on protest (neither was Waco, which was a breakdown at a much higher level and much less excusable.)

The Drill SGT said...

Does the gun still exist and is there similar technology that can reliably distinguish shots fired from same caliber guns?

No.

They can use acoustics to trianglulate location and determine ammo type.

what the best would show is apparent 38 special rounds being fired from this area or that.

possible overlapping shots would however indicate that a single revolver was incapable of firing the 2 overlapping shots.

damikesc said...

Edu, true, its not fair to label all Boomers (my mother was annoyed when students pulled crap on her campus since she had to have armed escorts to her nursing exams)...but that generation of Lefty might be the most destructive in American history.

sydney said...

The Kent State protesters had also set fire to a building on campus and trashed downtown businesses before the guard fired on the crowd. Anyone in that situation would think they were in danger if shots rang out.

Frankly, the most honest representation of that day I have ever seen was in Crankshaft. (You have to read all 35 panels to get the full gist of it.)

Oh, and incidentally, all the lefties around here were certain the audio recording would prove that the guard had fired unprovoked. Whoops.

dartmouth05 said...

Have all of you actually read the full article? It's not exactly exculpatory of those believing the government committed misdeeds at Kent State-at best, it may get the National Guard off the hook and put the FBI on the hook instead.

First, it's a new analysis of an old tape. It's not as if any additional evidence has been found one way or another. It's just the conclusions of one more audio expert to listen to the same old tape.

Second, even assuming that this new analysis is 100% correct, if you read the article, you might have noted that the alleged shots in the crowd are alleged to have come from a .38 carried by a Kent State student named Terry Norman, who was working for the FBI. So, instead of the old story of National Guard firing indiscriminately at the crowd in reaction to (___–fill in the blank), it's the new story of the National Guard firing indiscriminately at the crowd in reaction to an armed FBI plant shooting off his gun. How does this make the protestors look worse; how does this make the government look any better?

Omaha1 said...

so it wasn't just "hateful words" (like "kill your parents")from the left that were fired like bullets?

Pogo said...

"How does this make the protestors look worse; how does this make the government look any better?

Because it proves the deaths were from a clusterfuck of stupidity on all sides, not state fascism.

More, what's conveniently forgotten is that the radical leftists were terrorizing the town and the campus to try to start an actual military revolution. They weren't using metaphors, they talked about killing people, lots of them.

The shootings were intentionally provoked by the SDS, just like their mob violence at the 68 Democratic convention had hoped for.

edutcher said...

damikesc said...

Edu, true, its not fair to label all Boomers (my mother was annoyed when students pulled crap on her campus since she had to have armed escorts to her nursing exams)...but that generation of Lefty might be the most destructive in American history.

You get no argument from me. I've always characterized the whole anti-Establishment thing as one big temper tantrum.

sydney said...

The Kent State protesters had also set fire to a building on campus and trashed downtown businesses before the guard fired on the crowd. Anyone in that situation would think they were in danger if shots rang out.

That point is vital to understanding what happened. Those kids (ARNG - the ones Andrew Heiskell (editor of Life magazine) described as "soldiers" in a manner to portray them as a bunch of kill-crazy Vietnam vets) were facing a bunch of little darlings throwing rocks and bricks and must have been scared purple.

That kind of destruction was fairly common during the "demonstrations" in 1970.

Kind of makes you wonder if the whole business wasn't orchestrated.

Fen said...

What really happened at Kent State, back in 1970?

The "peace" activists surrounded the guard and began chanting "Kill! Kill! Kill!"

damikesc said...

Dartmouth, the story also says that campus security said the gun was fully loaded with no powder. We have reporters saying otherwise, but I see no reason to believe their claims. And since nobody else claimed he fired, then its safe to assume he didn't.

John Lynch said...

Dartmouth-

It doesn't. The government killed people. It looks like an FBI informer fired to protect himself, which caused the Guardsmen to think (erroneously) that they'd been shot at.

I don't think anyone believes that the people who were killed by rifle fire deserved it.

What is debatable is the extent to which the event has been framed as a sinister government plot rather than a screwup that killed four people. The Guardsmen didn't know the FBI snitch was there.

Also, the responsibility of the rioters that caused the Guard call-up in the first place is something that should be brought up. If the riot hadn't happened, there would have been no need for anyone to control it (continuing from my earlier comparison, the same can be said of the Branch Dravidians who opened fire on the ATF.)

What happened at Kent State is that the people who died really had nothing to do with the causes- one was an ROTC cadet. In that sense it was a tragedy, and the primary lesson is that violence tends to hurt people who are just going to class.

The real culprits, to me, are the people who pushed violence as a solution to their political problems. Secondary blame is on whoever issued ammo to the Guardsmen. What did they think was going to happen? Real riot control and SWAT teams were in their infancy, but even so that was a massive leadership failure.

realwest said...

I have to say that dartmouth05 is closer to the mark than some other commenter's.
But for me, as a Vietnam Veteran (infantry) I STILL think that Kent State reflects one thing above all others; those in charge of the National Guard troops were, in fact, derelict in their duty. I would expect young National Guardsmen (back in that time period) to be nervous and scared and all the rest of it. Their Officer(s) and NCO's were RESPONSIBLE for maintaining discipline and I never heard any order from anyone on the National Guard side say "Fire" (or more accurately "Fire at Will"). I do NOT condone the rock throwing and other provocative acts by the "students,and am unconvinced as to any pistol being fired at the National Guard troops. I am saying the leadership of the National Guard troops FAILED MISERABLY in maintaining control of their troops.

John Lynch said...

Realwest-

Yeah, the 82nd Airborne did riot control during the war, and never shot anyone.

There was a leadership failure, and a failure to plan and train for a civil order mission. No question.

Walter Cronanty said...

Somewhere, Richard Cohen has fallen off his bike and is weeping while silently mouthing the words: "Four Dead in Ohio."

damikesc said...

I suspect the protestors fired on the Guards. The kids had few problems with violence.

But the shot didn't deserve it. Firing in a crowd is stupid. But the whole "they were unprovoked shootings" nonsense is sad.

Hagar said...

At the time, there was a lot of reports that the State governor and the State commander of the National Guard was running around the campus using very imprudent and inflammatory language and getting the young Guardsmen worked up.

AllenS said...

There is no reason to deploy the Guard or any other military unit to stop any riots unless you're willing to let them shoot people.

John Lynch, I was in the 82nd at the time of the riots.

William said...

@dartmouth05 at 10:44: OK, the guy who possibly fired the shots was an FBI agent. If he did, indeed, fire those warning shots, was his behavior more inappropriate than that of the crowd that threatened to beat him up? Doesn't some of the blame again revert to violent demonstrators?......There will be no new evidence that is completely exculpatory or thoroughly damning. This was a tragedy of circumstances and not the result of the grand machinations of the left or right.

AllenS said...

Do you want to stop illegal border crossing by using the National Guard? Let them shoot people crossing the border illegally. That'll put a stop to it pronto.

ndspinelli said...

I'm a baby boomer, and I can't wait until we become all to feeble to be narcissistic. I detest much my generation. I was a blue collar kid working my way through school. These protestors were pampered upper middle class jerks. It was 2 different worlds on campus. Beatles v Four Seasons.

Who gives a shit about shots fired. Kent State showed quite clearly our pampered upper middle class generation wasn't willing to fight and die for their "strong beliefs." It ended the anti war movement...what a bunch of pussys!

dartmouth05 said...

William, I'm not saying, nor did the article say, that the guy was an FBI agent in the standard sense of the term (acting on their behest, paid for his service, etc., so, an agent in the legal sense of the word but not in the FBI agent is to FBI as officer is to police department sense).

This was a tragedy of circumstances, but there were actors that bear some responsibility for what occurred.

All of that aside, it's the level of vitriol and sarcasm and the like by some commentators that I just don't get. As I said earlier, this isn't newly discovered evidence, it's a new guy giving his interpretation. And if you go by his interpretation, it's still not a huge revelation-instead of armed agents of government firing into a crowd of students indiscriminately in response to _____, it's armed agents of government firing into a crowd of students indiscriminately in response to an agent of government firing his .38.

Hell, Blake, even if you think the FBI plant's gunfire justified the National Guard opening fire, it would have justified shooting the FBI plant, not random students in a crowd. Or, alternately, even taking the position that it DID justify randomly shooting into a crowd, it would still be "establishment stooges firing randomly into the crowd" as you put it.

It doesn't seem to change very much. I don't want to disrespect anyone, AllenS for his service in the 82nd Airborne, those who served in the Guard, the dead students and their families, and the like, but it was forty years ago. It's not the question of "settled law" that Moose talked about, it's more a question of irrelevant law.

History is important. Truth is important. But there's no shocking revelations here, so, why are people giving a damn to this extent?

Fen said...

History is important. Truth is important. But there's no shocking revelations here, so, why are people giving a damn to this extent?

Because leftist scum robbed your Truth from History. The narrative established in the public mind is the myth of peaceful little basket-weavers sitting in a circle singing kumbya when a gang of armed goons came up on them and started shooting.

Fen said...

I suspect the protestors fired on the Guards. The kids had few problems with violence.

True, they were already throwing chunks of cinderblock at the Guard. Anyone who thinks thats no biggie... please stand 10 feet away while I hurl one at your head.

Alex said...

Now we know! Althouse was on the grassy knoll in 1963!

Alex said...

All of that aside, it's the level of vitriol and sarcasm and the like by some commentators that I just don't get.

Oh really? You think most of us aren't sick and tired of your Ivy league bullshit and how you've ruined the country in the name of your leftist god of COmmunism?

dbp said...

I think chasing men armed with automatic rifles, when unarmed earns the chaser a Darwin award and no sympathy.

dbp said...

Also, considering the lethality of the weapons involved and something like 4 dead, 9 wounded. My guess is that most of the soldiers either never fired, or aimed into the air or ground.

dartmouth05 said...

Well, screw you too, Alex.

It was over a decade before I was born, thank you very much, so, I don't have a particular horse in this race. I'm genuinely confused as to why a few altercockers and others here (I'm not putting the folks who were being polite in their arguments in the altercocker category!) are still arguing about Kent State without any real new evidence coming to light.

Alex said...

I'm genuinely confused as to why a few altercockers and others here (I'm not putting the folks who were being polite in their arguments in the altercocker category!) are still arguing about Kent State without any real new evidence coming to light.

Because we love hippie-punching.

William said...

Darthmouth05: I've no quarrel with any of your observations, but, if you wish to see importance of truth to history, I would refer you to the Sacco Vanzetti case. Many years after their conviction a ballistic test determined that the pistol which Sacco carried was the murder weapon used on the guard. The left's response? The DA had switched the evidentiary bullets. If your sympathies are with the left, I would refer you to the way in which conservatives dismissed the exculpatory evidence for Dreyfus.....There is truth and there is history, and seldom does the twain meet. Perhaps the mills of time align the narrative with the facts, but we're all dead and gone by that time.

dartmouth05 said...

If people want to debate Sacco and Vanzetti or Dreyfus or whatever other controversies of history exist, that's fine. What I just don't get, though, is the temperature of the debate.

It's one thing for the left to shout names at the right and the right to shout names at the left about current events, terrorism, health care, the economy, and other things of the moment. I don't like it, I try not to do it, but I understand it. But this was forty-years ago. It's....just so unnecessary to talk about hippie-punching, leftist scum, etc.

And Alex, mislabel me again, and we might be having a conversation that includes the words defamation and libel.

Oligonicella said...

dartmouth05 --

"And Alex, mislabel me again, and we might be having a conversation that includes the words defamation and libel."

At least you have a good sense of humor about it.

Michael said...

Dartmouth05: The lies of forty years ago are the plans from which the left wrote its catechism, constructed its politics and crafted its talking points. The "truths" that find their way into every news cast, every received truth of a liberal are understood to be the correct way to think, to see the world, to fit in. The beliefs of the left are as solidly held today as were those of the "silent majority" forty years ago. The left has become "the man." You are too young to understand the implications of this to those who matured from leftists into libertarians or conservatives and who recognize that these harmless old stories (just move along, you say, they are forty years old)are root and branch the cause of our current crisis.

Fen said...

And Alex, mislabel me again, and we might be having a conversation that includes the words defamation and libel.

Thats pretty rich, coming from someone with such a causal attitude about the defamation of History...

The MYTH of Kent State has been used by leftist scum to bash and malign their ideological opponents, and to cover for the emerging pattern of violence from the Left.

And you just can't understand why all the vitriol. But you'll threaten at lawsuit over libel.

Ha. C'mon, if you take a step back and look at it, your position is kinda funny. ;)

Fen said...

And Alex, mislabel me again -

And I gotta say, you're attitude is a bit totalitarian - threatening a lawsuit to shut some up because you don't like how they label you.

I bet you're a Lefty, since they always trend toward silencing those they disagree with.

dartmouth05 said...

There were enough lies on both sides forty years ago (and 30, and 20, and 10, and 5, and last Tuesday for that matter). I'm going to stay away from debating views of liberal catechism if I may, Michael, because I think we'll probably just end up butting heads pretty quickly and not getting too far.

So, without arguing over whether there is a liberal catechism or whether its right or wrong, I certainly acknowledge your point about why it matters whether the incident at Kent State was a massacre or a reasonable response to liberal student thuggery. Still, I remain puzzled as to why this can't be discussed rationally without using insults or calling people communists. It may matter, but it's not a heat of the moment issue that justifies rage on either side at this point.

And Fen, once again, even if everything in the linked article was true, what does it change? There was still random gunfire at a crowd of students. If it was in response to shots, it was in response to shots from someone in the FBI's employ. It doesn't particularly change the narrative. It's fine to argue over it, but it's a 40-year-old argument with no real new information. So I once again question the lack of civility this many years later from people who five years ago, were talking about the "angry left".

blake said...

Dartmouth,

Hey, not revelations to you, perhaps, but the story I'd always heard is that nervous National Guard fired (basically) unprovoked into a crowd of peaceful protesters.

I'm must have missed that verse in "Ohio". But so did biking-earphones guy, I think.

John W. Campbell wrote an article about it at the time where he related a story of managing to kill a bear by throwing rocks at it.

This was basically before my time, but if you huck a rock at me and I have a gun? I'm probably gonna shoot you.

dartmouth05 said...

Fen, being called a communist isn't exactly the potential career ended it was fifty years ago, but thanks to some on the right, it's making a comeback as a damaging slur.

Alex had no cause to believe I am a communist, he called me one anyway, and I chose to place him notice that I will not look kindly at future baseless lies of that nature.

I'm not looking to silence any debate or anyone I disagree with, but I don't see why I should stand for false slurs against my character, either.

Fen said...

It doesn't particularly change the narrative. It's fine to argue over it, but it's a 40-year-old argument with no real new information

You keep saying that, but I don't think you have all the information. When you say "If it was in response to shots..." you omit all the other acts of violence the Guard was justified in using lethal force to defend themselves against.

I once again question the lack of civility this many years later

Present yourself as a snake oil salesmen to a town thats been ripped off by snake oil salesmen for 40 years. See what happens to you.

dartmouth05 said...

But Blake, the linked article does not particularly change the story. Some of the folks writing comments have talked about the crowd being violent, provocative, throwing stones or cinderblocks, etc., but they aren't citing anything to substantiate their claims and they are not relevant to my point that the article Ann linked to isn't making a major change to our understanding of the Kent State narrative.

It just changes the story from nervous National Guardsmen firing basically unprovoked into a crowd of peaceful protesters into a paid FBI stooge provoking nervous National Guardsmen into firing into a crowd of peaceful protesters. The details the linked story changes doesn't seem to change the big picture nature of it.

If people disagree with the narrative, if they believe the crowd was throwing things, deserved to fired on, or whatever else, fine, but Althouse's link does not lend any added support to their theories or take away any support from those theories.

Fen said...

Fen, being called a communist isn't exactly the potential career ended it was fifty years ago, but thanks to some on the right, it's making a comeback as a damaging slur.

Huh? I never used the word "communist"

but I don't see why I should stand for false slurs against my character, either.

Loon.

Michael said...

Dartmouth05: Dude, do you believe that the comments on this topic are "angry?" Do you view these comments as uncivil? You have to be kidding or have been in a coma these last ten years. Granted you were in school for most of the horrors of the Bush years but your real or feigned naivete is touching. And to aver "There were enough lies on both sides forty years ago (and 30, and 20, and 10, and 5, and last Tuesday for that matter)" is to invoke the lamest time honored "debating" technique of the left, to try to level the field by claiming equivalency where none existed. Dartmouth was once a great school.

Fen said...

It just changes the story from nervous National Guardsmen firing basically unprovoked into a crowd of peaceful protesters into a paid FBI stooge provoking nervous National Guardsmen into firing into a crowd of peaceful protesters. The details the linked story changes doesn't seem to change the big picture nature of it.

Yup, I called it - you're still working off the Myth of what happened, not the facts. And you have the nerve to lecture us about it all being "old news".

You should do some research on the subject before commenting further.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


At least Dartmouth05 has a sense of humour, s/he employs the words “libel” and “slander” as jokes, no doubt. It's funny and I assume some irony is the artistic goal, right? Because used in any other sense, well they're STILL funny, but mayhap not just like s/he intended.

Slander/libel are DAMAGE to your good name...now Dartmouth05 I can call you a low-down, back-stabbing, dry-gulching, C*ck-sucking, Boy-Loving, M*ther-F*cker who cheats on his/her taxes and has smelly armpits...In fact, I now do so.

Now, please show me how your good name has been harmed?......I'll wait......Ok, back again?

Unless your legal name is “Dartmuth05” your good name hasn't been damaged, your screen name was insulted and unless you can show that Dartmuth05 somehow lost business, jobs, girl friends/boy friends/play dates with children you haven't been damaged.

That's what slander and libel entail, falsehoods that hurt you....

But thank you for contributing to the humour and laughter on this site. BTW, are you any way related to or involved WITh “Lonewacko” s/he too threatens slander and libel all the time.

Fen said...

Hmmmm. Anyone think LoneWacko is stupid enough to threaten lawsuits from his sock puppet?

dartmouth05 said...

There's some equivalency to some of alleged lies. The Right likes to argue about Kent State, the Left likes to argue about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. (Actually, not much equivalency there, I suppose-given the body count attributable to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, but...)

As for the rest, I hate to surrender to a heckler's veto, but the hell with it. I've said my piece, there's not much more to really add, and it's too nice a day to deal with those who can't discuss things without resorting to namecalling.

As much as I'd like to say fuck you and the horse you rode in, you seem determined to beat a dead horse, and the mixed metaphors just seem disgusting when put together. I'm off to enjoy the sun and I have no intention of reading additional comments in this thread.

Alex said...

Oh wow, the lawsuit threatening sock puppet has left...

Alex said...

Heck even Ritmo/garage/AL don't threaten lawsuits!

Michael said...

A Dartmouth man leaves the field of upon the commencement of hostilities. Same as it ever was. Same. As. It Ever. Was.

Cedarford said...

I never quite liked the Left making the "4 Dead in Ohio" into some seminal event in "wasteful, tragic loss" in US history when the Kent State clusterfuck is but a tiny mote against a backdrop of 60,000 dead and 110,000 seriously wounded in Vietnam.

Or the mayhem that liberal meddling in criminal justice caused in the "Kent State era", that led by disintegration of black society -- that caused an extra 3,000-5,000 murders a year and doubling of rape and assault (another 30,000).

So "4 Dead in Ohio!" 40 years ago is also set against a backdrop of 120,000 -200,000 net murders over 40 years that liberal welfare state/soft on crime policies causes.

That how it started is yet another debate on a minor riot that only yielded 4 fatalities - inconsequential compared to other riots in the USA and oversea at the time, before, and later.

All too much ink has been wasted on the 4 martyrs.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Edu, true, its not fair to label all Boomers (my mother was annoyed when students pulled crap on her campus since she had to have armed escorts to her nursing exams)...

Thank you. I was going to SF State at that time and the hippie/protesters were a big pain in the ass. I was also working at a full time job at night while taking a full class load during the day. Ineeded to either get to work or get to class and my time was precious to me.

They were in the way and I had to go miles out of my way (well...it seemed like it at the time anyway) to go around them and avoid the bullshit.

Punch a hippie.


LOL.. verification word: beatin

reader_iam said...

The piece by Janis Froelich, which I read yesterday and which is linked a ways down in the article which Althouse links here, has some interesting information sprinkled throughout. It's worth reading, though quite long.

Trivia of the day: While reading these pieces yesterday and doing some googling of my own to cross-reference/double-check some info**, I had one of those "degrees of separation" experiences we all experience from time to time, out of the blue. Turns out that a roommate of 19-year-old William Schroeder (one of the people killed at Kent State, in fact the one who was in ROTC and was not demonstrating)--in fact, the roommate who noticed he hadn't made it home, called around and ended up identifying the body--was a later a professor of mine. I had no idea of the connection at the time, even though I knew both him and, especially, his wife (also a professor of mine) reasonably well in that "motivated, involved student" kind of way. Truthfully, I was a little take aback: He, in particular, struck me as one of the least overtly political of my many profs back then. Who knew?

Life is really, really strange sometimes, isn't it? There's a reason why "it's a small world" became such an ubiquitous cliche.
---
**I've long been interested in Kent State, because I can remember so clearly when the news about it broke and all the conversations my parents and their friends had about it. (At the time, my dad was teaching at a small college in a small town in the Midwest; this was before he became a professor at university in the East.) It's probably just as well I didn't know...I probably would have peppered the poor guy with questions.

reader_iam said...

Schroeder, by the way, was almost a football field's length away from where the guard was.

I think among the variety of reasons for the enduring interest is the distance between those shot and the National Guard and the fact that not all those shot, not even all those killed, were actually protesting, much less throwing rocks or nails or whatever.

roesch-voltaire said...

Doesn't surprise me that an FBI informant's actions may have tripped the incident, but still the shots had been fired-- into the air? and that justified shooting on the mark- I think not.

blake said...

You know, all this blather ignores the reason those protesters were there. Whether they knew it or not, they were pawns being used by the Communists to provoke a violent reaction.

Well, mission accomplished.

Let's put the blame where it belongs: Moscow.

blake said...

Dartmouth,

From my perspective, the struggle in the late '60s/early '70s was not left vs. right, but left vs. left--or more accurately, statist vs. statist.

Since the "right" was embodied by Nixon--that EPA creatin', price controllin', war-losin', enemies list-keepin' "conservative"--I don't feel any kinship with them either.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that the "right" were ridiculously demonized and the "left" ridiculously sanitized in the when the dust settled.

Revenant said...

Because it proves the deaths were from a clusterfuck of stupidity on all sides, not state fascism.

How so? If shots were fired, the likely suspect is a government informant.

So the story changes from "government forces killed people for no good reason" to "government forces killed people because one government agent panicked and a bunch of other government forces panicked in response".

Where are the other "sides" that prompted these shootings?

William said...

Moynihan was wrong when he said that you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. In point of fact, facts are not neutral. The facts you choose are just as prejudicial as your opinions....Fact: The Moscow subway was superior to the NY subway. Conclusion: The Soviet Union cares more about the working man than the capitalists...Fact: The Soviet Union dedicated over 25% of their national budget over several years to building the Moscow subway. Conclusion: The Soviet Union is willing to underpay and overwork their agrarian workers in order to build showpiece projects.....The second conclusion is the judgement of history, but the first was an item of fervent belief among leftists of a previous generation.....The Kent State killing was, as noted, a cluster fuck of stupidity, but it was not the supreme high tragedy of the era. Perhaps the Communist takeover of South Vietnam and Cambodia qualifies for that honor. Does anyone remember a folk song or protest march against the summary execution of 100,000 Vietnamese when the north took control?