The True Patriot Patriotism is a complex and complicated concept. Sure we all feel that inexplicable love for our land. The same love motivates us to fight until our last breath to whoever attacks her, but who dictates which is the best way to defend ones country? How should a person show his devotion and unconditional support to his motherland? What would happen if ones way is not the same as that of others? The most important thing for me is being true to ourselves; fighting for whatever it is we believe is correct. No matter how different our opinions can be regarding the defense of our country, no one should have the right to impose their way using violence. As we saw in the documentary “Two Days in October,” police should not have treated students who were passively protesting like criminals. In October 1967, students at University of Wisconsin decided to disrupt their academic activities and protested …show more content…
First, violence is never the answer. No one has the right to abuse another person just because this one does not agree with what others think. We need to comprehend that violence promotes violence; it and endless cycle in which nobody wins, but many can lose. In the documentary, Keith Hackett, a Madison police officer, recounts “…I have never seen the hate that I saw in these kid faces toward us.” He seems shocked when talking about the direction taken by the events; as if it was not logical to expect this kind of response from students after being attacked. Second, the students were exercising their right to freedom of speech. It is under the Constitution of the United States, First Amendment, that people have the right to express their ideas freely. Finally, students were protesting peacefully. As James Rowen recalls “…they were there in the spirit of the Civil Rights movement, non violent protest…” He adds “…no one thought about getting
Working sort of opposite to patriotism is emulation. Emulation works by giving the audience a role model that they idolize, someone containing vast quantities of ethos in their eyes. This is the most positive of the three emotions intended to get the audience up. Inciting anger
Such students differ from the minority groups of Native Americans or African Americans in that they were not so much fighting because they were being discriminated against, but more because they wanted to change what was at that time “the norm.” The civil rights movement was created around this time, and many individuals were beginning to find a voice. African Americans and Native Americans were protesting in order to gain equality and their rights, as opposed to fighting for political reasons. Yet, some of the students at this time were beginning to change their views and believed that it was time for racial equality to exist. Primarily, students formed organizations and clubs, protesting peacefully on their campus and within the college towns to get their beliefs across to others. However, as it became apparent that peaceful protests did not have a big enough impact, as a result of the Vietnam war, the most extreme activists argued that only violent protests would lead to real social change. The Weathermen, a revolutionary group which formed in 1969, proposed an armed struggle to overthrow the U.S. government. This group of radicalists were responsible for a number of bombings during the late 1960s and 1970s. Though the majority of students in America during the sixties and seventies did not face the same racial
Political turmoil on campus began in 1968 when a Black Panther member, George Murray, was dismissed from school, and student militants called a strike. Using terrorist tactics, these groups intimidated and physically threatened students and professors if they crossed the picket line. Some of their demands included the formulation of an autonomous black studies department, promotion to full professor of a faculty member who had one year's experience, the firing of a white administrator, and the admission of all black students who applied for the next academic year.
Particularly during the Vietnam War, tensions had been brewing over civil rights and pacifist movements, often headed by young people or students who felt that the government were not listening to their opinions and interests. With the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King, racial tensions came to a head, sparking riots and animosity towards the government, who some perceived as countering or hindering the civil rights movement. The police and National Guard reacted violently to these riots, and in the case of student protests, many of which were peaceful, such during as the 1970 Kent State ‘Massacre’ where four were killed and nine injured during an anti-war demonstration. This was particularly damning as unarmed students were killed, and the reaction was immense. The Kent State ‘Massacre’ made it clear that to many social dynamics, the police, and by extension the government, were becoming the
... and in doing so represent their country even more. Trying to be patriotic becomes hard for Brinker when his father wants him not to embarrass himself and do more for the country because Brinker feels that his father doesn?t understand that he is afraid to go to war. Brinker says", He and his crowd are responsible for it and we're going to fight it " (190). This quote shows how agitated Brinker is with his father for trying to tell him to accomplish more in a dangerous war, that Brinker wants nothing to do with, that can possibly lead to his own death. To sum up, patriotism is a necessity in going to war and representing the country because it shows feelings from the fighter to his or her country.
One of the first documented incidents of the sit-ins for the civil rights movement was on February 1, 1960 in Nashville, Tennessee. Four college African-Americans sat at a lunch counter and refused to leave. During this time, blacks were not allowed to sit at certain lunch counters that were reserved for white people. These black students sat at a white lunch counter and refused to leave. This sit-in was a direct challenge to southern tradition. Trained in non-violence, the students refused to fight back and later were arrested by Nashville police. The students were drawn to activist Jim Lossen and his workshops of non-violence. The non-violent workshops were training on how to practice non-violent protests. John Lewis, Angela Butler, and Diane Nash led students to the first lunch counter sit-in. Diane Nash said, "We were scared to death because we didn't know what was going to happen." For two weeks there were no incidences with violence. This all changed on February 27, 1960, when white people started to beat the students. Nashville police did nothing to protect the black students. The students remained true to their training in non-violence and refused to fight back. When the police vans arrived, more than eighty demonstrators were arrested and summarily charged for disorderly conduct. The demonstrators knew they would be arrested. So, they planned that as soon as the first wave of demonstrators was arrested, a second wave of demonstrators would take their place. If and when the second wave of demonstrators were arrested and removed, a third would take their place. The students planned for multiple waves of demonstrators.
In all of the books, magazine articles, and web pages dedicated to this subject, it is impossible to find an unbiased one. I have to admit that I did go into my research in favor of the students, but the more I read of the situation on campus in the days prior to the shooting, the more I found myself asking “How I would I have handled a situation like that if I had been a member of the Guard?” I can only conclude that there is no right answer to that. There are so many questions, and so many misconceptions about this incident, and like any controversial issue, there are always two sides to the story. Now that I have thoroughly studied both sides to the story, I still have no idea who I think was in the wrong. There are simply too many unanswerable wholes in the stories from both sides that now I can’t say I’m for or against either one.
One of the most violent protests of the Vietnam War took place in May of 1970 at Kent State University in Ohio. Protests were common across America during the war but this was by far the most violent. On May 4, l970 members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University protesters, killing four and wounding nine of the Kent State students. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that caused many colleges and universities to shut down . This deeply divided the country politically and made ordinary citizens take notice of the protests that were taking place across the nation’s college campuses.
Even though whites and blacks protested together, not all of them got punished in the same ways. Even though it wasn’t folderol committed by either race, racists saw it as this and would do anything to keep segregation intact. Sometimes, the whites would be shunned, by society, and not hurt physically. While the blacks, on the other hand, were brutally kille...
School cant paid if they dont have students so with the students walking out they should listen. Right when the bell rang, and teachers were about to take attendance, one student from every school who was part of the organization stood up and said “walkout!”. They did this for about a week and every time it occurred, it got worse. People were getting abused by police officers and this was all caught on camera and showed on the news. The next day people were getting tracked down and being arrested for the protest. This is when the organization of students knew they had to make a bigger stand even though it was gonna take a huge risk. Instead of only students walking out, they got Parents, workers, cousins, friends, to all walkout and show they’re mexican pride and that they are american citizens, that they are people and should be treated like
Patriotism is defined as: “devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.” Supporting your country in times of war is not the best way to define patriotism because patriotism should be shown at all times. This statement seems to give the idea that no matter the reason, if any reason you should support your government during times of war. Seeing that the government tends to get involved in wars that could have had good impact I agree with this statement. Yes, you should indeed support your government even if they are in the wrong that is a because in the end they are doing things to better our nation for future generations.
The Free Speech Movement was a college campus phenomenon inspired first by the struggle for civil rights and later fueled by opposition to the Vietnam War. (The Free Speech Movement) The Free Speech Movement sparked an unprecedented wave of student activism and involvement, one of such a great multitude that the college administration had no idea what to do with this entire activist, fighting and protesting for the same cause. (The Free Speech Movement.) With the administration not knowing what to do they banned all on campus political activities, out of fear that something bad was going to happen. (The Free Speech Movement) With this ban on political activities on campus a alumni of Berkeley set up a table right in the center of campus proper, with political information. (The Free Speech Movement) An Oakland Tribune reporter found out that this political activity was taking place on the campus proper; when word reached the camp...
Patriotism is shown by personnel of both the Army and Air Force. It is displayed through the hard work and dedication put in every day on and off duty, through the combat deployments and temporary duty assignments separating the troops from family, friends, and loved ones, to every hardship troops endure in order to “fight and win the Nation’s wars.” and “to fly, fight, and win…in air, space, and cyberspace.”
Kara writes about the extremes the students are going to. She states, “A day or two after that, some young people burned the ROTC building on campus and set bonfires downtown. I heard that police cars were hit with bottles and store windows were broken”(2). This quote shows that the activists were taking violent actions. Furthermore, they were damaging things so that the government would hear the message of hate they were trying to make. Instead of taking the violent option, the Freedom Riders from “Waiting for Dan” took a route of peacefulness. The wife states, “The ride seemed simple enough”(4). This simple, yet small quote shows that the Freedom Riders did not mean any harm. They ride had an easy plan of acting out. In addition, their only goal was to get their point across without causing any harm to others. The activists wanted freedom and equality, not violence. In brief, there is a simple difference between acts of violence and acts of