75% of those serving in Vietnam were volunteers, only 25% were draftees. In WWII 67% were draftees.
76% were from lower middle/working class backgrounds (No myth, I said nothing about blacks.)
This next one is a bit bogus because it is a survey, but
91% say they were glad to have served (They weren't protesting.)
Even during the height of the war, most people were for it, even young people. They were volunteering and going to war. Again, mainly the protesters wanted the killing to stop. The draft was a concern, but it was fairly easy to get out it. The easiest way was to file for conscientious objector status. How easy that was depended on your draft board. But there were many other ways.
The protests ended with the war because the U.S. stopped killing people. That is what precipitated and fueled the whole thing.
There were many protests about the War in Iraq, both Bush's wars. I participated in many of them both here and in Washington, DC. where hundreds of thousands gathered a number of times.
Here are some baffling statistics (which is why I had to make a new post)
Why would the subversive left Peace Corps volunteers drop out in record numbers ONLY during the time of the draft and war?
6 comments:
These stats surprise me a bit. Keep in mind that the number of PC volunteers are as follows:
1966 - over 15,000
1979 - around 6,000
1986 - 6,200
2005 - 7,800
Although, I can't image opting out of the Peace Corp in favor of going to war, perhaps the number of early exits in the 1960's were a result of a large number of young college graduates entering this new and interesting organizaiton thinking that it would be a cool experience and then discovering that it isn't the "world tour" that they thought it would be. I guess only Jim, Pete and Lisa can answer that.
Interestingly, over 5% of the current PC volunteers are over 50 years old.
That is exactly what I suggested--idealism ran into reality and they went home. I agree, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but I think you have to conclude that 1) they weren't there to avoid the draft and 2) whatever made them go back was more important to them than the draft.
Jim-
Let me reiterate what I am arguing. I am not arguing whether or not people care for other people. Nor am I arguing that 1960s lacked strong moral convictions. There is always a percentage of the population involved in activism based on morals, activism grows larger still (though less on the principles of morals) when the whole of the population is affect. What I am arguing is that the draft bolstered the left movement as it caused far more people to have stake in the war. I find it hard to believe that, “People were giddy with ideals. Plus there was this huge confraternity of like-minded youth.” didn’t decide to protest in large numbers until six years into the war and only at the exact moment when draftees tripled.
You stated it is easy to get out of the draft (aka. File for conscientious objector) (I guess the poor are not smart enough to do that) thus the upper middle class did not fear the draft because they could avoid it. You further state since the upper class did not fear the draft they did protested because it was morally wrong for the poor to kill and get killed in an unnecessary war. While I am not sure the exact break off point for lower middle class, it varies depending on definition but for the most part it is around 15% of the population and 1% the superrich. Thus your statistic, “ 76% were from lower middle/working class backgrounds (No myth, I said nothing about blacks.)” Leaves 24% from the upper class. My black example fits (representation based on population). The upper-class was represented relatively proportional in the Vietnam War thus it is not difficult to understand that when the poor and the rich are fighting a war in large numbers it results in a higher proportion of the population protesting.
Ted touched on this about the Iraq War, the Vietnam War had a higher proportion of the population protesting (after tripling the draft) than the Iraq War. This is not due to lack of convictions of our generation, as Jim you pointed out: the large marches on Washington, but that a larger percentage of the populations becomes active when they or their families have a personal stake in the war.
1960s wide spread activism was in large part due to the terrible circumstances of the time and not that the generation had stronger moral convictions over the generations that preceded or followed it.
As for your Peacecorp statistic, shooting Vietnamese was preferable to living in Palua. Or that the peacecorp attracted higher numbers of far-left (the people that tend to be activists regardless of the circumstances) and thus terminating early as a result of the draft because it is easier to protest the draft in America. Also keep in mind that you are only talking about a few thousand people, a drop in the bucket compared to the millions families protesting the war because the draft sent their sons to war.
I think we basically agree but not on the degree to which the needless killing (and news footage and napalm footage and newspaper reports [remember this was before the military realized they could not let a free press go free]) affected the protest movement versus the expansion of the draft did.
I think, where you say for example "proportion of the population protesting (after tripling the draft)" I would say "(after witnessing more tragic deaths caused by the war)"
I certainly, in no way, shape or form, think that individuals were more moral then than now. If anything the reverse is true, or so I would hope. (The Me-80's dig was just in fun.) Plus I'm not even sure what "moral" means.
There were many other reasons for the protests also, not the least of which were the extraordinary (anti) leaders who organized. Abby Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Renny Davis, Tom Hayden, Bobby Seals plus the publicity of people like Joan Baez and Pete Seager were huge in created a snowballing effect for the peace movement. Would it have been as vocal and violent if there was no draft? No, but it was the war which started and (I think) fueled the protest.
Now I was away, so my personal views could be suspect. Indeed, I expected to come home to burning cities and class/generation warfare. Perhaps Bill, Steve, and Myk could state their view points.
Okay, I understand, I wasn't trying to lump everyone's motive, only that draft forced a majority of people to really take stock of what their government was doing. Iraq goes on with little protesting, (proportional to populace) , regardless of the amount of bloody pictures, youtube videos, hopkins statistics, Generation Kill etc. (though to your argument the military does have a much better PR group now). Just saying without the expansion of the draft, less dead, less footage, less people involved, less protesting, less war, less left movement. Its just weird the lack of protest the first 6 years of the war which in your view should have been fueling it. That the tipping point, when protesting went from thousands to millions (spike), occurred conveniently at the expansion of the draft. The level of protesting just didn't appear to be following a snowball effect, growing faster and faster in size and not being a large spike.
Your point on leaders is well taken, though anti-establishment usually gains clout when the establishment forces everyone to go to war (since most people don't like killing and dying).
I guess we are arguing the same side of a coin. People don't like people dying or watching die, I just think think the draft forces people into activism because they are now a number away from being the killer and the killed.
Your point that there were 6 years of war without significant protest is a strong one, enforced by the Noam Chomsky piece. I don't really have an answer for that. I remember a growing anti-establishment mood in the mid 60's but really what people call the 60's, at least the protest part, didn't happen until '67 or '68.
So perhaps the draft did play a larger part than I realize. I'm also thinking that we underestimate the power of following the popular press (TV) and following the crowd.
Another point in your favor is a video on the NYT called "Why I Joined the Tea Party." Contrary to the characterizations that these people are crazy, it is a very sensible older couple who lost their jobs. They had never done anything political. Now they are devoting 10 hrs. a day organizing. The significant point is that they were personally affected by the economy downturn and saw billions given to Wall Street brokerage firms. Your point that we mobilize when personally affected is definitely born out there.
Post a Comment