88 10 1775 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/ed1243d74a2a378dfc0961e886c47372.jpg 2f1ab9748fccaf576b88fab0c04bf250 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/ecfb3db1eb4146ec9b8acb072139c113.mp3 960bb9fd7af44df301a42a5c56dfffd7 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2002-07-14 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Kenneth Campbell Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text Dr. Kenneth Campbell is a scholar, reseacher and political scientist. Dr. Campbell is a Associate Professor Emeritus of Political Science and International Relations at Universtiy of Delaware, and he is the author for several journal articles and a book titled <em>A Tale of Two Quagmires: Iraq, Vietnam and the Hard Lessons of War</em>. He has a Bachelor's degree in History, as well as a Master's degree and Ph.D. in Political Science from Temple University.&nbsp; Dr. Campbell served in Vietnam during the Vietnam War in 1968 and 1969 and received a Purple Heart for his bravery. Due to his expertise in international affairs, he has testified before Congress on the Iraq War. Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Vietnam War; Civil Rights Movement, Anti-War Movement, Women's liberation; Baby boom generation; Jane Fonda; Vietnam; Lyndon B. Johnson; David Cortright; Increased use of drugs in the military; Resistance to draft; Vietnamese interrogation.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:513,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;12&quot;:0}">Vietnam War; Civil Rights Movement, Anti-War Movement, Women's liberation; Baby boom generation; Jane Fonda; Vietnam; Lyndon B. Johnson; David Cortright; Increased use of drugs in the military; Resistance to draft; Vietnamese interrogation.</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 163:15 Subject LCSH Political scientists; College teachers; University of Delaware; Campbell, Kenneth--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Nancy Cain Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 14 July 2002 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:03): Okay, here we go. When you think of the (19)60s and the early (19)70s, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? KC (00:00:13): The (19)60s and early (19)70s. Well, I guess it has to be Vietnam if you are going to cover that entire period. The (19)60s growing up, but the (19)70s, and my Vietnam experience being really the division between my childhood and my family and my neighborhood and growing up. And me then going off to becoming an adult and having a much different life, leaving family, leaving home. SM (00:00:46): When you think of the (19)60s overall, because you are coming from not only growing up in the era but serving your country in that era, do you see a difference between the two in your perspective of that era? KC (00:00:59): The difference between the (19)60s and the (19)70s? SM (00:01:01): (19)60s, yeah. Well, the difference between if you had not served- KC (00:01:06): Oh. SM (00:01:06): ... and serving your country during that timeframe. KC (00:01:09): Well, I cannot accurately imagine not having done that because I did do that. I mean, I guess that I would have been quite different if I had not done that, but I think that it was because I am who I am that I did. I volunteered. I was not plucked out of my life. I do not think that there was any question that I was going to go in the military in some way. As to which branch and at what time under what conditions, those are particulars that I think that I could have played with. But I felt strongly that it was necessary for me to not only serve in that sense of civic duty, but also to use it as a vehicle to grow up, to give myself more opportunities to mature so that I felt that I was going to get a lot out of it, not only give a lot. SM (00:02:23): What do you think of those individuals who did not serve? KC (00:02:28): That did not serve? SM (00:02:30): That did not serve during that timeframe, with particular emphasis on those that could have served but used deferments or any other alternative to get out of service? KC (00:02:42): I do not have a problem with those who used whatever devices they could to get out of serving if they had political or religious or moral objections to the military, in general, or to the war, in particular. That, I think, is a defensible position personally, ethically, defensible position to take. But those who either had no feelings one way or another about the war and about military service, and especially those who supported it, but then found ways of getting out of it themselves, I have problems with. I think that it is dishonorable to avoid your general civic duty, and particularly dishonorable to support someone else going off to die in your place. SM (00:03:39): How do you respond to historians or social critics or sociologists who say that the Vietnam War, and the people that served in the Vietnam War, were basically from working class, lower class backgrounds. They were thrust into it. The upper classes really did not serve, or many of the people that would have gone to college did not serve. Is that a description of the military of that era? KC (00:04:07): Well, it certainly seems like an accurate description of the Marine Corps that I experienced. If we are talking about my personal experience, I was in the Marines and enlisted. Not an officer, I was an enlisted person. And the description of working class, lower middle class, rural, poor, farmer, that is accurate regarding the enlisted people in the Marine Corps at the time I was in there. SM (00:04:50): Getting back to some of the criticisms over the last 5, 10, 15 years on television network shows, you will see people, like Newt Gingrich and George Will and many others, saying that the generation, the boomer generation, the people that were young in the (19)60s and early (19)70s, and when I say (19)70s, a lot of people defined the (19)60s going up to 1973. KC (00:05:15): Right. SM (00:05:15): And so, including those individuals, they think that one of the great reasons we are having problems in our society today is because of that generation with the sexual revolution that took place during that time. As I put down here, "The boomer generation of the (19)60s and early (19)70s is being attacked as one of the reasons for the breakdown of American society." Could you respond to this criticism and comment on the period and its impact on present day America? Is the criticism fair? And when this criticism is often directed to the youth of the year, what can you say about the boomers of the (19)60s and early (19)70s as a generation of 70 million? KC (00:05:58): I guess I would have to, first, address the description of the time as being the breakdown, or leading to the breakdown, of American society. I do not think American society has broken down very often in its history. You have to talk about questions of degree, not kind here, for the most part. Certainly, it was under great stress during the (19)60s and early (19)70s, but it did not completely break down. I would define breaking down as actual civil war. And although there were incidents that looked like civil war at times, whether it was a demonstration that got out of hand or an isolated pseudo revolutionary group uprising from the left, whatever, I think, by and large, American society, under great tension, basically held together during that period of time and after. But to address what, I think, is at the heart of that criticism, that the boomer generation is responsible for a lot of the social problems and political problems, and to some degree economic problems, of the (19)70s and (19)80s and (19)90s, and perhaps now, I think that that is horse hockey. Every generation is neither perfect nor completely worthless, and every generation has to take responsibility for some of the problems that follow it. But that does not make that generation any better or worse than the previous or following generation. I think there were, certainly, a lot of committed people, a lot of boomers committed to change, and good change, but there are also a heck of a lot of boomers that, despite what they say today, were not really involved in that change at the time. There is certainly a lot of anti-war stories told- SM (00:08:10): It never happened. KC (00:08:12): ... and exaggeration today, what did I do in the anti-war movement, as much as there are veterans who tell stories, although they never got near any combat. I think it is just a human tendency to want to exaggerate one's importance. From my experience in leadership positions in the anti-war movement of that time, I know how hard it was to get more than a small percentage of people active in the anti-war movement, or any movement at that time, whether it was community movements, student movements, movements against apartheid, or whatever was around at that time, to get more than a handful of people involved, more than a small percentage of people involved. So, I would not credit the boomer generation as a whole with a whole lot of that, and I would not blame the boomer generation as whole for a whole lot of that. I think the so-called damage done is exaggerated, but so are the accomplishments. The accomplishments, I think, sometimes are exaggerated by the historians on the left. I think what was accomplished was great, and through a lot of difficult struggle and sacrifice on the part of some leaders, but the whole generation, certainly. Not even a majority of the generation was involved and had anything to do with that. SM (00:09:50): Good point. Because you read about this era, and they will say that of the 70 plus million that were in the boomer generation, again, the boomers are defined by years. KC (00:10:02): Right. SM (00:10:03): I have a problem with that, too. They say Boomers are (19)46 to (19)64, and now a more recent study by Howe and Strauss- KC (00:10:09): 1946 to (19)64. SM (00:10:10): Yes, 1964. Yeah. KC (00:10:12): As opposed to an age. SM (00:10:13): Yeah, 1946 to 1964. But now, Howe and Strauss have just written a book on the current youth, which is the millennials, who states that the boomers were 1943 to 1961. And if you read earlier books on this period, a lot of the people who were born between (19)42 and (19)46 were upset because many of them were in the lead of the anti-war movement. KC (00:10:37): Yeah. Yeah. SM (00:10:37): So, what I am getting at here, really, the question is this. Another way that people have lessened the impact on boomers is to say that only 15 percent were really involved. KC (00:10:48): There you go. SM (00:10:49): And would you say that is true? KC (00:10:51): I would say that is very true. And I make the same point in my book about Vietnam veterans in combat, that are only 15 percent, and that is probably exaggerated, it is probably smaller than that, were involved in any sustained combat in Vietnam. Few people realize that, whether they are for or against a war, whether they are arguing for veterans’ rights, or just simply trying to study it objectively, few people realize that only 10 to 15 percent of all Vietnam veterans saw any significant combat. Now, that has an impact. That has an importance in certain areas- SM (00:11:32): Right. KC (00:11:33): ... and I will not go into all of that right now, but that is an important figure for people to understand. And as late as two years ago, in 2005, when I got together with some old anti-war hands, some of them which were non-veterans, one of them, when I gave that figure at a public forum, came up to me and said that she was shocked, that she had been around for 40 years in the movement and working in the anti-war movement back in the (19)60s, et cetera. And she never knew that. No one ever said that. No one ever told her that. That that gave her a better appreciation of the intensity of the experience of combat veterans and the isolation that combat veterans feel, even among veterans as a whole. SM (00:12:18): Are we talking here, maybe, about 400,000 Vietnam vets who actually were in combat of the three plus million? KC (00:12:25): Well, I need a calculator. SM (00:12:28): Yeah-yeah. KC (00:12:28): I am not that great at mathematics. SM (00:12:30): Right. KC (00:12:30): But whatever it turns out to be, between 10 and 15 percent- SM (00:12:35): Right. KC (00:12:35): ... because the so-called tail to tooth ratio, meaning those who were in support versus the tip of the spear, or the tooth of the war machine, was six to one. Six people in support for every person out in the bush with a rifle, and that is less than 15 percent. SM (00:12:54): Right. KC (00:12:55): And I have been told by folks who study this even more closely that 14 or 15 percent is still too high. SM (00:13:00): Wow. KC (00:13:01): That when you start subtracting people, like the clerks that worked in the combat units who were back in the rear with the typewriters, and you start doing all sorts of other calculations, it turns out to be closer to about 10 or 12 percent. But I still go with 15 just to be safe. SM (00:13:18): Yeah. Obviously, being down at the Vietnam Memorial on Memorial Day and Veterans Day, the people that are on that stage are the people that are in that 14 to 15 percent, obviously. Yeah. KC (00:13:28): I do not know. You find a lot of them there. Some of them are the most committed. But there are a lot of folks who, well, let us put it this way, a lot of Vietnam veterans that I would look critically at that take strong political positions on various issues, putting forth their experience in the war as their credibility, that really did not experience much or any war. SM (00:14:02): You hear that a lot from Chuck Hagel. KC (00:14:03): Is that right? SM (00:14:04): Yeah. KC (00:14:04): Yeah. I would not be surprised. Chuck Hagel is one of my favorite guys. SM (00:14:07): Yeah. He and his brother, and they did serve. KC (00:14:10): Yeah. SM (00:14:10): And I like him too. Yeah, some people would say, "Well, when is he going to run for president?" I do not think he is going to run. I think he's going to stay in the Senate. When you look at the characteristics, could you give some of the positive qualities, just some adjectives to describe the boomer generation in your eyes? And some of the negative qualities? KC (00:14:27): Yeah. I would say innovative in the sense that boomers thought outside the World War II depression experience. Not having that experience, we were able to think outside the box, so to speak. And imagine a world where, perhaps, you did not have segregation, racial segregation. Perhaps, where you did not simply go off to serve and fight for your country because someone in authority said it was necessary to do. Dared to question authority. Asked critical questions. As an educator, I think of that generic quality that we try to develop in students of critical thinking, being able to see contradictions, complexity, variation, nuances. And I think that politically, socially, that the boomer generation, especially those who were in the leadership on contentious issues, were able to have that kind of imagination. Now, it is not to say that the previous generation did not have that imagination, because the previous generation, certainly, was able to imagine well, in at least leadership, in many cases, how to deal with the depression, how to look beyond the state that did not provide relief, that did not provide welfare, that to be innovative when it came time to fighting a war that was necessary under very adverse conditions. But I think the boomer generation had its most impact for its domestic reforms, the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement, which was certainly focused at home. I mean, it was focused on a war, but it was focused on changing the system at home and finding out what was wrong with America that got us in there. And the women's movement. SM (00:16:55): Right. I guess you could include in there the environmental movement, too. KC (00:16:59): And the environmental. SM (00:17:00): Yeah. KC (00:17:00): Very good. The environmental movement, since were sitting here in a nice environment. SM (00:17:03): Yeah. And some of the other movements you think of in that era, you think of the Native American movement- KC (00:17:08): Sure. SM (00:17:08): ... and the Chicano movement, too, as well. To get off the order of questions here, the civil rights movement and the practice of nonviolence and the methods used by people in those movements were forerunners to the anti-war movement. Do you think that all these other movements, their teacher was the civil rights movement? I have read that in history books, that the anti-war, women's movement, all the other movements you just mentioned were learned from the civil rights movement. KC (00:17:43): Well, I think a lot was learned from the civil rights movement. I think a lot was learned from the labor movement during the thirties, as well. Twenties and thirties, but the thirties in particular. Peaceful ways of protesting health and safety conditions or inadequate pay or the right to unionize, not having the right to unionize. A lot of ideas and experience were transferred by older folks who lived and worked through those eras, the twenties and thirties and forties, to not only the anti-war movement, but other movements, as well, community movements, et cetera. I remember Saul Alinsky- SM (00:18:43): Oh, yeah. Rules for radicals. KC (00:18:45): Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals, he had established some kind of an institute in Chicago to train leaders on the left, or not on the left. He was not looking for left or right, but just people who were interested in grassroots democracy. And so, there are important links back to earlier generations and earlier movements. But there was a lot of innovation, as well. A lot of thinking beyond that or differently from that came out of the boomer leaders themselves, the generation themselves. A lot was learned from the civil rights movement. But I think there was, also, something that was very American about the anti-war movement in the sense that there is an understanding among many, if not most, organizers in the Vietnam anti-war movement, that the system probably worked well enough, on most days, for most people, that you were better off not using violent forms of protests. That it was unnecessary and, in fact, counterproductive to use violent forms of protest. So, that nonviolence was for a principle that maybe they built their whole life around it. Quakers or Passivists, like Martin Luther King. SM (00:20:25): Right. KC (00:20:25): But for others it was a tactic. It was something that worked better than violence. But if they had lived under a regime, like the Nazis, they might be using violence because they might give up on the idea of peaceful change. SM (00:20:41): Yeah. Right. KC (00:20:42): So, I think that the structural conditions in America, the fact that America was the way it was with a constitution and a long history of rule of law, et cetera, was a major factor, if not a defining factor, for most people in the anti-war movement. Because most people in the anti-war movement were not out-and-out passivists in the sense of never using violence, pure passivists. We're not the kind of people who would have refused to go to war during World War II. SM (00:21:10): Like Bayard Rustin. KC (00:21:12): Right. SM (00:21:12): Yep. KC (00:21:15): Right, right. So, I think that is an important factor, as well. Part of its civil rights experience and leadership, part of it, earlier struggles, but also part of it, the structural context in which all of us was occurring. America as, basically, a law-abiding country, and it is people recognizing that there are non-violent ways of achieving your ends. And if you choose not to use those, then you are probably at least as bad as what you are protesting against, if not worse. SM (00:21:44): Right. Yeah, I think, on college campuses, in particular, I think one of the lessons learned is that protest is still important, and a lot of people think it is outdated, but I think it is still important. However, you learn from the lessons and the mistakes of the past. You do not disrupt the university and shut it down because that really creates a big divide. So, maybe you can still protest, but learn that shutting a campus down and getting parents all upset. I am leading into another question here. KC (00:22:16): All right, go ahead. SM (00:22:18): And this question deals with the millennials, which are today's young people that are in college campuses, and- KC (00:22:23): Is that the term used to describe them? The millennials. Oh, geez. SM (00:22:24): Yeah, the millennials, yeah. Born after 1984. KC (00:22:28): I doubt that they came up with that themselves. SM (00:22:30): No, they did not. And the Generation Xers, which followed the boomers- KC (00:22:35): Right-right. SM (00:22:35): ... which has been written about a lot. KC (00:22:37): Right. They are the tweeners here. SM (00:22:41): Right. KC (00:22:43): The Xers are the ones that were probably born while Vietnam was going on, but did not know anything about it. They were too young. SM (00:22:53): Yep. Yep. And they, also, now make up 80 to 85 percent of the parents of today's entering college students. KC (00:23:01): Yeah-yeah. SM (00:23:01): Where only 15 percent now are really boomers. KC (00:23:04): Right. That is right. SM (00:23:05): And so, here, we have got another 15 percent. KC (00:23:09): But the equivalent to that are those who were born in the, well, not born, but grew up in the late forties and the (19)50s, who are not really boomers- SM (00:23:21): Right. KC (00:23:21): ... but are of the World War II generation. SM (00:23:22): They are the silent generation. They call them the silent- KC (00:23:26): Yeah. Okay. So, there is always a tweener generation- SM (00:23:27): Right. KC (00:23:27): ... in there. It is either the X generation or the silent generation. SM (00:23:31): Well, one of the things that over the years, since I work in a university, and you are a professor, your comments will be important on this. For quite a few years, there was a reaction on generation Xers. They either wished they had lived in that era because then there were great causes that they could be involved in, or they would be the other extreme. They were sick of boomers because they were nostalgic, and they dreamed of all these things in the past, and let us live for the present. KC (00:24:01): Right. SM (00:24:01): And the millennials today have a sense of, this is my impression again, that it is not that they do not care, but I do not know if they want to learn about the history that preceded them. So, I have real concerns, and would like your thoughts on this about the parents of today's college students now, the generation Xers, and the millennials, in terms of how important is history to them? Do they want to learn from it? Or are the only thinking of today and tomorrow, and the past is the past? That is what really worries me. KC (00:24:36): Well, you have to understand. I think that we have to understand that the generation Xers reached the years when the boomers were the most committed, active, and making the biggest impact. That is late teens, early twenties, in a highly conservative period. You are talking about the Reagan era. And Xers really did not have the social context or support that boomers did. The issues were not as burning, and their lives were not directly threatened, either. That is the other thing. SM (00:25:23): Right. KC (00:25:23): There is always a sense of survival driving boomers during the anti-war movement, fear of being drafted, fear of being used, and even the boomers that became anti-war when they came back from Vietnam, anger for being misuse. The Xers did not have that context to drive them or support them. So, I think they have often been criticized and condemned by boomers in an unfair way. And when you add to that the fact that only 15 percent or less of those boomers really were as active as some much larger group of them claimed they were, you know, have to look at the boomers and say, "Okay, do not be hypocritical here. Do not condemn other people for something you did not do either." SM (00:26:21): Sure enough. KC (00:26:21): "Your generation might have, your leaders might have-" SM (00:26:23): Right. KC (00:26:24): "... but not all of you did. A lot of you sat on your ass when that demonstration went down. A lot of you threw Frisbees and smoked dope and did not listen to the speakers when you went to the demonstration." SM (00:26:32): Whereas, one person told me, "I went to Washington only to see bare breasted women." KC (00:26:36): That is right. Yeah, yeah. It became a happening. SM (00:26:39): Yeah. KC (00:26:40): Like a bee and only with a bunch of political noise in the background. So, I think the criticism of the X Generation has always been a little bit unfair to them because they were born in a different age and raised and came to fruition, to maturity, in a different age. And unfair by the boomers, because many of those boomers were not as committed as they claimed, as involved as they claimed, could take as much responsibility as they claimed for the great changes. So, I believe in being fair to people, and we should not be too hard on our sons and our daughters and our little brothers and our little sisters. SM (00:27:24): A thought that applies with the millennials today, too, as well. KC (00:27:26): Yeah, I do. Yeah. SM (00:27:26): Yeah. KC (00:27:27): But I think I have a better handle on the millennial because I think I think better now than I did 20 or 30 years ago about these kinds of things. And I was just thinking about this again a couple of days ago. I think that the millennials are being criticized too much by boomers and Xers for not being active enough against the war in Iraq, when in fact, that just isn't their issue. They view Iraq, as well as Vietnam, unconsciously, I think, for the most part. Unconsciously view it as old school. What to them is current and contemporary, AIDS, especially in Africa, Darfur, genocide in Darfur- SM (00:28:20): Right. KC (00:28:20): ... human rights, the environment, all those issues that connect with globalization. SM (00:28:28): Right. KC (00:28:28): These are contemporary issues for them, and that is where you can find them active. If you look, you find them active, whether they are blogging, whether they are on websites, whether they are holding meetings, whether they are raising funds, doing 5K runs, whatever it is, that is where they are active. SM (00:28:42): Yep. KC (00:28:43): For the most part, it is the boomer generation that is active in the anti-Iraq war movement. Now, there are certainly plenty of exceptions, but I think, in general, that is true. And I think Iraq, created by a boomer generation by people from the boomer generation that never went, chicken hawks, and protested by those who did go to Vietnam. Or those who did protest Vietnam, but are back protesting Iraq now, or those who did go to Vietnam in turned sour on it. This is a within boomer generation war and within boomer generation issue. SM (00:29:24): Wow. KC (00:29:25): In other words, they are saying that this is all politics. Not only should you not have gone to Iraq, that that is wrong, but this whole argument over it is not relevant to us, for the most part. SM (00:29:38): See, one of the characteristics that Howe and Strauss, they wrote the book Generations, they have got the book on the millennials now- KC (00:29:46): Okay. SM (00:29:46): ... they speak at national conferences. They have studied youth. KC (00:29:50): Yeah. SM (00:29:50): Some, like Dr. Levine from Columbia Teachers College- KC (00:29:54): Okay. SM (00:29:54): ... have written some great books on youth of different generations. When we are talking about the millennials, the millennials have been compared to the World War II generation because they want to leave a legacy. And they are thinking about, according to the studies of Sprouse- KC (00:30:12): Okay. SM (00:30:12): ... they want to leave a legacy, but they want to leave it when they are in their late thirties or starting in the forties. What concerns me, as a person who works in higher education with students, is, okay, we have got a generation now of students who do care about other people. They do. KC (00:30:27): Yeah. SM (00:30:27): They do care about the issues like you just mentioned of human rights, but they have got to wait until they are 40 to start leaving their legacy. And the question is, what happens between 22 and 23 and 40? From what I am gathering from the information is they want to raise a family, they want to get a lot of money in the bank, they want to get a home. So, I do not know if there's an issue here that we have to deal with. KC (00:30:53): Yeah. And I think it is the same issue that we keep coming back to, which is the 15 percent versus the 85 percent. Those people that are active, that are active now, not waiting till they are 35 or 40, are within the 15 percent. They are the ones that are really active, though, among the millennials on these issues of AIDS, of genocide, of environmental issues, et cetera, et cetera. And as I said, if you look for them, if you look at the organizations, if you go to the campuses, if you go to the websites, you find them, they are active, they are working. They are not doing the same things that the boomer generation did, but they are a different generation at a different time, and they found different ways of doing it. Just as a boomer generation did things differently than the depression era generation. It was active in the labor movement or the women's movement, women's suffrage, or whatever, twenties and thirties. The 85 percent are the ones, just like the 85 percent and the boomer generation, or whatever, were busy looking after themselves. SM (00:31:57): I think we are- KC (00:31:59): For the most part. SM (00:32:00): I think we are going to take a break here in a minute. I am- want to just mention here, could you comment on the importance of the boomers in respect to the Civil Rights movement and all the other movements, and with ending the Vietnam War? How important were the youth in ending the Vietnam War? And what do you think was the number one reason why the war ended? Then, we will take a break. KC (00:32:21): Geez. I could answer the first one, I think, easier and sooner than the second one. The first one, how important were the young people and the boomer generation in ending the war? An important part. Not a decisive part, an important part. We have to remember, the Vietnamese also contributed a lot to ending that war, to frustrating the United States in its attempt to win a victory in Vietnam. And whether we are talking about the North Vietnamese or Viet Cong or the liberation movement, whatever you want to call it, the Vietnamese, who were fighting against the Americans, contributed a lot to finally ending that war. Now, the home front, along the home front, I do not think. It was- Along the home front, I do not think it was until the movement was broader than just young people that it really became decisive. It was only when broader sections of society and many of them older sections of society whether it was church leaders, some of the liberal trade union organizations. Geez, by the time I became active in the movement in 1970 after I got discharged there was a businessman's organization against the war. I mean, they began to come from all facets of society and fill out any war movement so that it was much broader than just the youth or just the students. I think that is when it began to be recognized as legitimate by that silent majority or whatever you want to call it in the middle. Those who were not on the far right but certainly... Those who were open to the possibility that the war was wrong and they were in the middle as opposed to the far left or the far right. I think that middle ground, they were really the parents of those Vietnam veterans. The parents of the working-class kids, the parents of the farmers, the parents of the kid that went off from the rural area to Vietnam. From which so many of those lives were lost, they're the ones that needed to be won over and they were Nixon's silent majority and they were eventually won over. I think in part by the Vietnam minister turned against the war, acting as a bridge to them and bringing along that stuff. But more generally, the broadening of the anti-war movement to give it legitimacy in the eyes of those folks. SM (00:35:14): Okay. Kind of like the... But some of the history books say it is when the body bags start coming home, middle America responded. KC (00:35:23): Absolutely, yeah. The more body bags, the classic study is by John Mueller who War, President's and Public Opinion. SM (00:35:32): That is the book I... KC (00:35:33): Yeah. SM (00:35:33): Yep. Let us take a break right here and then [inaudible]. One of the things about the boomer generation, and I can say this from personal experience is when I was on a college campus. There is this feeling that we were the most unique generation in American history because we were going to... Well, not me. That the boomers were going to change the world, they are going to make everything better. Going to end racism and sexism, bring peace to the world, love, the whole thing not hate. Your comments on that attitude that boomers had when they were young and your thoughts about boomers over the years as boomers have gotten older regarding that question. KC (00:36:29): Well, and this question I do not see any great difference between the boomer generation and any other generation. It is youthful arrogance taking what is true at its core that is that you have people committed to change and meaningful, important, necessary change and exaggerating. This is a tendency it's not a uniform, it is a tendency many to exaggerate it and think that they are so different or we are so different and so great, so new, move over old people get out of the way. To some degree maybe we can thank JFK and his inaugural speech, go anywhere, pay any price, we are the new generation coming in. Eisenhower and that crew is the old tired, do nothing, lazy... Not lazy but ineffective generation. Geez Eisenhower had two heart attacks while he was in office, he was on a golf course a lot of the time. I mean, there is this whole sense that it was a new, young, vibrant generation and I think that inaugural address really does speak to the boomer generation and the way we saw ourselves. We were going to do stuff that nobody had done before. I think every generation thinks that though, they just think of it depending on the circumstances in different ways. So the oppression World War II generation certainly did plenty of new things. Only concentrated more in the conventional and the more traditional areas and they built newer and bigger businesses. That is how we got the Whiz Kids that wound up in a JFK administration. SM (00:38:33): Yes. KC (00:38:33): Yeah, that is right. Yeah. After all that depression era, World War II generation really created the large middle class in America where most people actually had the American dream eventually of their own home. Home ownership after World War II skyrocketed. So there were very conventional kinds of goals but that earlier generation was committed to doing things beyond which their previous generation... I think every generation does that and every generation tends to think when they're young. When they're in their teens or their 20s they think that they are greater than the previous generation. Well, they may be in some ways but not in other ways and compared to the generation that is going to follow them they are going to be less. So long as we keep improving in general, so long as humanity keeps improving in general. Next generation is going to do the things a little bit better and they will probably in an arrogant way think that they are better than they really are. So, I think it is a human thing, I would not pin it on any particular generation. It just plays itself out differently in different generations based on the circumstances, the larger structural or societal circumstances. SM (00:39:56): This is a very important question that I have asked in each of the interviews, the concept of healing. The Vietnam Memorial in Washington D.C. when it was built, I loved the goals to pay tribute to those who served, to remember those who served and to not be a political entity. It's about the warrior, it's about caring. KC (00:40:26): Right. SM (00:40:27): So the goal was to heal those individuals and hopefully to heal the nation as Jan Scruggs said in his book. The question is this, have we healed as a nation because of divisions that took place during that era? The divisions were so strong, you mentioned even earlier in the interview about we did not have a civil war here. But the nation was being torn apart and if you looked at 1968 at the Democratic Convention, even the Republican Convention. The threats for that convention that year and you saw the burnings in Watts, all that whole era- KC (00:41:00): We are talking about the worst division since the Civil War in American society but not as deeply as the Civil War. SM (00:41:05): Right. But here we are in 2007, I have been doing these interviews since 96 now so as the years progress. But where are we with the respect to healing on these particular issues? Healing over the divisions that happened in the war, the divisions... All the other issues, all the other movements that took place at that time. There were always barricades in many respects in all of these movements were... In short what I am saying is, has the wall truly healed the Vietnam veteran portion of the boomer generation? Secondly, where do we stand as a nation in terms of healing over Vietnam? KC (00:41:54): I think the wall helped and the wall helped in a big way in that process of healing, I do not think it has been the only thing. There have been a lot of other contributors to the healing that has occurred. But there has also been a real limit to the amount of healing that could occur regardless of what device we are talking about. Using a wall, using movies, using meetings of Vietnam veterans to talk stuff like this out, whatever the device is. Legislation to provide some more support for veterans. Whatever it is, it is meant to help heal. There are limits on it and it is not for lack of trying but because some of these wounds cannot be healed completely. Some of these wounds are so deep and remain so fresh that the scars just never healed, they remained open. Now, we are talking about emotional wounds for the most part. Because for some Vietnam veterans, and I would not want to in this case separate the 15 percent of combat intensive veterans from those who experienced very little or no combat. Because here, even the 85 percent that did not see much combat still suffered psychological damage because of the failure of the war and the cold shoulder of the American society when they came back. I think for some of those veterans Vietnam was the best and the worst of their life. On one hand it represented the worst while they were there for most of them, for 99.9 percent of them. I would suggest that one 10th of 1 percent that loved being there might have needed some psychological help but most of us could not wait to come home. Right? SM (00:44:17): Right. KC (00:44:18): So most of us at the time wanted to get the Vietnam experience over with and forget about it as quickly as possible. But the irony is-is that in later years, most of those Vietnam vets cannot forget about it and do not want to forget about it. They gather as Vietnam veterans, they have reunions as Vietnam veterans. They email each other and have websites which they talk to each other because it was the most important experience in their life. It turns out that everything after that for many of them was anti-climactic, whether it was marriage or their job or having kids, who were traveling or success in their business or whatever it was. Now, that is true among a certain segment. I do not know what that percentage is, it is I think a fairly significant percentage of all Vietnam veterans that have problems like that. I do not know, it is certainly in double digits. I do not know whether it comes anywhere near a third or a half. But on the other hand, there are a lot of veterans who... I think they would probably be in the majority of Vietnam veterans who do not have those scars or they are not obvious. So, they are able to deal with them well enough that they have healed well enough, that they have been able to get over it. I am not talking about locking bad memories in a closet or artificially, where someday they are going to pop out and they will go crazy and kill 15 people in a bar for no reason. I am talking about people who really have, for the most part gotten over it and moved on and had more important chapters in their lives. Right? So that they can look back and not be troubled by that all that much and not have to think about it all the time. For those I think the healing has pretty much occurred, pretty much completed. Not completely but it is that other segment, that still significant segment of those who for whatever reason and there are probably lots of different reasons wound up in the strange contradiction of not wanting to stay in Vietnam. Wanting to get out as soon as they could, wanting to forget... Okay. Put it behind them as fast as they could and then winding up building the rest of their life around that experience. Now they're the guys you see that have the bumper stickers, wear the pins in their hats. The worst of them become professional veterans right? That is all they do and their wives are veterans’ widows. SM (00:47:09): What do you think of veterans who live off the Vietnam War? KC (00:47:15): Live off in what sense. SM (00:47:20): One of the... I am going to put this in the book. But one of the criticisms of the Vietnam Memorial is that Jan Scruggs is... I have heard Vietnam veterans saying he is living off it. KC (00:47:27): Yeah, right. I mean I know what you could be thinking about and I guess I am right. SM (00:47:31): But I know Jan and I know that is not what he said [inaudible]. KC (00:47:36): Those who find a way of subsistence on the issue of Vietnam in some way, whether it is Veterans Affairs in some way or something connected directly to the Vietnam War and the history of it, etc-etc. I do not have any particularly ill will about that, if personally some of those folks are doing it only because they do not want to bother finding another way of making a living. In other words, they are not driven by principle, they are driven by opportunism. Right? I say shame on them, look at yourself and in the mirror and shame on you. But I would not make a big deal out of it, I do not worry about it. The people that I find most reprehensible are those who are so hypocritical in their involvement with the Vietnam War and with Veterans Affairs. That they're prepared to turn their own experiences into a lie in order to continue to profit from it, either financially or politically. Those who are prepared to twist the truth of their own experiences and other experiences in a way in which they get ahead financially, politically, socially, some other way. That kind of opportunity, if they are becoming opportunists by creating more unnecessary bodies or more unnecessary victims. Those are the folks that I potentially dislike. SM (00:49:23): How about the healing within the generation? KC (00:49:27): Yeah, that was the second part. SM (00:49:29): Was there a place to go to the restroom or should I go behind a tree? KC (00:49:39): There is a restroom, of course there is a restroom. Of course, yeah. It is right over here, let us stop this at this point. SM (00:49:43): Talk about the generation regarding the question of healing. KC (00:49:47): Right. SM (00:49:49): Your thoughts on the boomer generations, the divisions of the... Do we still have these divisions today? KC (00:49:55): I think in the fringe wings of the generation, we still have these divisions in a significant way today. That is that they are still deep and they are still bitter, still open wounds. The far left and the far right, I think most folks in between have agreed to disagree if necessary but probably agree more now than they did 20 years ago on a lot of issues. I do not think it is a big problem, I do not think it is anywhere near the kind of problem that it is for a lot of Vietnam veterans. SM (00:50:41): There were several books that have been written in recent years, I know Barney Frank wrote a book called Speaking Frankly. Other books have been written about that, that in 1972 when the nation was really torn apart and McGovern became the Democratic candidate. The divisions were intense even within the Democratic Party and the term liberal- KC (00:51:02): Was pejorative. SM (00:51:03): Well, yeah. Yes. KC (00:51:05): By the radicals according to most activists, if you were a liberal that was pejorative. That meant that you were not prepared to make the kind of sacrifices and engage in the kind of activities that would bring about real change. You just postured that way and you were probably part of the elite and benefiting from the status quo anyway. Part of the system rather than part of the solution. SM (00:51:33): Well supposedly people who were involved in the anti-war movement were labeled a radical fringe and it is stuck with them their whole lives. Do you think there is truth to that? KC (00:51:45): Well, there is certainly truths among those on the right and the hard right that they still think of the anti-war movement as a radical fringe. But I think most people who were involved in one way or another either slightly or intentionally in the anti-war movement. I think for the most part in general American society there is a recognition that the anti-war movement was not just the radical fringe, that it was a bit broader than that. But let me back off from that just a little bit and say that the more time passes, I think the more that myth of the anti-war movement thing, the radical fringe gains ascendancy. Because with passing time there is smaller and smaller space given in history books to that period, and awareness is simplistically deal with it is just to label the war movement a radical fringe and show a picture of a riot with tear gas and students throwing stuff and long hair and etc. SM (00:52:59): Why do you think just the word Vietnam, you just bring it up in a conversation today it creates all kinds of whoa. KC (00:53:10): Well, it depends on who you bring it up among. If you bringing up among folks of the boomer generation, it is going to have that reaction. If you bring that up among the millennials, "Huh? What?" SM (00:53:25): Right. KC (00:53:25): It is not relevant to them. "Yeah, that was my grandfather's war." Well maybe not quite that bad, but to them it is not bad it is a long ways removed. To them the first Persian Gulf War is ancient history [inaudible]. SM (00:53:42): Yeah. KC (00:53:48): As you pointed out, even to some of them 9/11 is ancient history. So yeah, if you are talking about the boomer generation. Sure, there is a sharp immediate reaction to it because of how emotional the issue was then and the fact that it has never been completely settled. In the 1970s, essentially mid to late (19)70s we agreed to disagree in the country as a whole and move on, forget about it. But among those who were the most intentionally involved, either supporting the war or opposing the war. It always remained a sharp issue and an open wound. SM (00:54:33): We had just your thoughts on the word activism. We had for a couple of years activist days at Westchester University, I was asked to politely not to end it. We did it for five years, we brought people like Phillip and Daniel Berrigan to our campus. Elizabeth McAllister, Alan Canfora from Kent State, Tom Hayden. KC (00:54:55): So, it was all left-wing- SM (00:54:56): Holly Near... Oh, no. We did bring Michelle Malkin from the conservative. KC (00:55:01): Okay. SM (00:55:02): So, her activist days of last year, because Republicans they believe that activism is a very important part of what they do, the Young America's Foundation. KC (00:55:12): Sure, yeah. SM (00:55:16): What is it about the term activism that seems to turn people off when we actually want people to become involved? But- KC (00:55:24): Are you talking about students today? SM (00:55:26): Students today. KC (00:55:27): That population? SM (00:55:27): Yeah. Some universities responding to the fact that this is not the era the students they are volunteers, but they are not activists. KC (00:55:36): Right, yeah. SM (00:55:36): There is a fear about that term as I have done some educational sessions that at university conferences on this, and there is truth. There is something out there, and a lot of us within the boomers who are running universities but it is also following generations too. What is it about activism too that scares people? Am I- KC (00:56:00): Well, it might be confrontation. It might be bitter confrontation because they might associate activism with the (19)60s and that kind of bitter, nasty confrontation that they are not interested in becoming involved in. That it became particularly uncivil during that period of time in (19)60s and in early (19)70s, and they feel that they can be more civil. That they can disagree with other people in a more civil way. So that for them to become activists would mean for them to break away from those values. Reject those values and adopt values from an earlier period and an earlier behavior that they think perhaps was not the wisest kind of behavior to engage in. SM (00:56:53): See, the current scholars on the term activism will say that activism is any person who wants to make a difference in this world. KC (00:57:00): You cannot rely on scholars for definitions, they do not even agree among themselves. SM (00:57:06): But even activist handbooks will say that. KC (00:57:09): Yeah [inaudible]. SM (00:57:09): What is wrong with wanting to make a difference in the world? KC (00:57:13): Yeah. There is nothing to the millennials that is wrong with making a difference in the world, but you are not putting it in those terms. If you said to them, we want you to try and make a difference in a world they would probably respond. As a matter of fact, you would not need to tell them that they are already involved and they are already responding trying to make a difference. They just do not particularly want to be associated with the kind of activism that, that word brings up. SM (00:57:43): Good point. When the best history books are written, you being a scholar. The best history books are often written 50 years after an event takes place. World War II books, some of the best ones are being written right now. 50 years after the (19)60s and (19)70s what will historians say about that era? KC (00:58:08): Well, first of all I have a question about your premise here. Who decides which is the best book and maybe it is the generation that lived through that period when they are getting old and awfully as nostalgic decide that the book's written and by their own generation and by them are the best books. How do we know that the books written immediately after the fact, or at the time were not better books? Who judges which of the best books? Well, if you let the generation that lived through that judge the best books they are probably going to judge the ones that they write themselves as the best books. Because that is just a little quiver with that, just sort of a bleak way of thinking of that question. SM (00:58:50): I think historians say that the best books are written 50 years after. KC (00:58:55): Well they probably say that because they believe distance and greater objectivity make for better history books and they may well be true, be right about that. But there are also other historians that believe that perhaps those who were very subjective and very involved in it can also contribute a lot to the history of that. Therefore, things like oral history are written and done. So maybe the best book on depression for instance, was written 40, 50 years later. But I loved Studs Terkel's oral history of the depression, Hard Times. SM (00:59:51): Yeah. KC (00:59:52): That was still written about 40 years afterwards, yeah. But it was all based on oral history and oral history is not objective. It is very subjective, it is the collection of very subjective first-person descriptions about that- SM (01:00:16): And that is in my interviews. KC (01:00:18): That is right, yeah. So, I do not know how to answer the question I guess. I have got a number of possible answers, but I do not know when the best books are written about something. SM (01:00:37): This little section of the interview-interview is just for me to mention some of the names of that period. KC (01:00:41): All right. SM (01:00:42): For your immediate response, does not have to be any long in depth but just quick response- KC (01:00:48): Kind of like a Rorschach? SM (01:00:48): Yes. I am going to start out with Tom Hayden. KC (01:00:53): Jane Fonda. SM (01:00:53): Jane Fonda was next. KC (01:00:54): Yeah. I thought maybe this was the scene from The Dirty Dozen where they were all being asked by psychologist to respond to different names or words or whatever. SM (01:01:07): It is similar. KC (01:01:09): Yeah, Tom Hayden. Jane Fonda. SM (01:01:11): Yeah. KC (01:01:12): Tom Hayden. Well, Tom Hayden to me evokes the era of student protest against the war, although I think he also was involved and may have been a leader in the protest for a free speech in California. SM (01:01:29): It was early on, yep. KC (01:01:30): Right, earlier. Well I think a student protest against the war, I think of Tom Hayden. SM (01:01:35): How about Jane Fonda? KC (01:01:36): Jane Fonda, that is a little more different. A little more personal in the sense that I have a great deal of respect for her for stepping up and siding and supporting Vietnam veterans against the war when she did. I had great regret for her, I feel badly for her that she made a young and foolish decision to sit in the seat of that anti-aircraft gun in North Vietnam. I understand and support her motivations for doing that, which was solidarity with the people that did not deserve to be bombed. But it was not a smart thing for her to do, and especially be pictured in it and be laughing while she's sitting there. But that is a youth... Relatively, she was in her (19)30s at that point. But relatively youthful, inexperienced, and I do not blame her anywhere near the degree that many Vietnam veterans especially the right wing of Vietnam veterans blame her for that. SM (01:02:42): The big selling sticker down in Washington is Jane Fonda bitch, and they have it upside down and they also have a Jane Fonda... Some toiletries or something like that that they sell. KC (01:02:54): Yeah. Jane Fonda toiletry. SM (01:02:56): Yeah, something like that. So, the hate for her is still pretty intense. KC (01:03:00): Yeah. My personal pet theory about that is that that is the macho posturing right wing Vietnam vets that take particular offense that a woman has undercut their experience. SM (01:03:14): Oh, wow. KC (01:03:15): There have been a lot of men who visited North Vietnam and did at least what Jane Fonda did, who have not been singled out by Vietnam veterans the way Jane Fonda has. I think it is particularly interesting it is a woman that they singled out. How dare she? As if she is eviscerated them in some way or cut their balls off in some way and they are going to get her back. SM (01:03:38): Robert McNamara is the other one they seem to hate. KC (01:03:41): Oh, yeah. SM (01:03:41): McNamara and somewhat even when Clinton was president, they hated him too for- KC (01:03:47): Yeah, sure. SM (01:03:47): Yeah. So, your thoughts on Bill Clinton and Robert McNamara. KC (01:03:56): And they hate me too. Robert McNamara, I think that the hatred for him was more than Johnson. That is interesting because Johnson was commander-in-chief, it is not like they hey... Well, Johnson is no longer alive. Who knows? Maybe they'd hate more than McNamara today. I think the hatred for McNamara had more to do with him being so much an architect of that war. SM (01:04:18): Right. KC (01:04:19): At least in terms of the strategy and tactics. That war of attrition, that numbers war, he was a numbers guy, war by the numbers and the impersonal persona. Is that a contradiction, impersonal persona? SM (01:04:39): Mm-mm. KC (01:04:39): But the impersonal image that he presented, although we can learn by looking at his video or his movie that he cries and he is sensitive. SM (01:04:49): Right. KC (01:04:51): But that image that he presented and finally, and I think this is most important. That he actually concluded that the war could not be won long before he stopped directing it and I think it is rightfully in this case felt a certain betrayal, a lack of principle, a certain hypocrisy on his part. SM (01:05:17): Yeah. I remember the six... In Retrospect was the book that came out and my very first interview with Senator McCarthy in (19)96. The book had been out a year or so, and I asked for his comment on the book, and he did not believe him. "I do not believe him." I have that in the interview, and then also- KC (01:05:39): Did not believe that he had [inaudible] against the war. SM (01:05:41): No, he still- KC (01:05:44): There seems to be other I think independent verification of that in the documents now. SM (01:05:48): We still disliked him intensely. KC (01:05:50): Oh, yeah. SM (01:05:50): Then interviewed Bobby Mueller recently in the last year, and Bobby has actually done some things with him. Bobby- KC (01:05:59): With McNamara? SM (01:06:00): Yeah, with McNamara and some programs. So, he would be upset with him, but he's- SM (01:06:03): And some programs and so he would be upset with him, but he has grown to understand him. I am not speaking for Bobby, I get- KC (01:06:08): And not just understand him, work with him- SM (01:06:09): You are right. KC (01:06:10): Too. SM (01:06:10): Yeah. KC (01:06:11): And work in common cause with him on certain issues, maybe the landmines issue. SM (01:06:15): Yeah, I am not quite sure, I have to go back to the interview, but there was not the hatred that I expected and Bobby was to be the first one, I respect him so much. If he's against somebody, he will outright say it and- KC (01:06:27): Sure, but I can understand Bobby Mueller's approach to McNamara because at least McNamara admitted that he was wrong, eventually and has taken a position that is against that kind of wasteful destruction now. SM (01:06:46): What is interesting, why I like Mr. Scruggs and also when Lewis Puller was alive back in... They brought Bill Clinton to the wall and I thought that took a lot of courage on their part to do that, and Lewis would went right up to... With his wheelchair and made sure that he was seen next to Bill Clinton, even though he disagreed with him. Although when- KC (01:07:10): It is also a smart political movement. SM (01:07:12): Yes. KC (01:07:12): Part of Scruggs. SM (01:07:15): Yeah, but also Lewis though, and back in February of 19- KC (01:07:20): Well, wait, you said Lewis? You said was- SM (01:07:21): Yeah, Lewis. KC (01:07:21): Lewis, [inaudible]. SM (01:07:22): Yeah, Lewis was involved in that. And Lewis was up there in the States. Of course, the next year he died, he killed himself, but he had made a point that he was trying to... It was part of the healing process and also I guess in February of that year, some issues between Lewis and other Vietnam vets and President Clinton and promises he had made fell through. So Lewis was pretty bitter, I think, toward Clinton. It was not that same other vets, but I have always found, and I am going to get into the questions here, but what makes the law program so important is they brought some very key people there since 1982, and I think the epitome of healing is to bring the people like McNamara and Jane Fonda to speak there. I think it would do an unbelievable part of Jane Fond and McNamara before he passed away, visited and were there at the ceremony, for example, this 25th anniversary, I'd do anything in my power to bring them to this. KC (01:08:29): I think that if Jane Fonda tried to speak in front of that memorial- SM (01:08:32): I know. KC (01:08:32): There would be some right wings there to try and assassinate her. SM (01:08:36): Well, McNamara too, maybe. KC (01:08:37): Maybe McNamara, but certainly Jane Fonda. They associate Jane, she is the epitome in their eyes of everything that was wrong about Vietnam. SM (01:08:52): Lyndon Johnson. KC (01:08:57): Responsible for Vietnam. Tragic figure. On one hand he did a great deal for civil rights and for the poor in America, but on the other hand, he was so wrong on Vietnam and was... Well, it is a paradox. He is a typical tragic figure. I mean, on one hand, you feel sorry for him. On the other hand, he has to take... I feel anguish towards him too, you just take certain responsibility for that. To some degree, he was a victim of the circumstances, the Cold War. I am not sure any president would have done much differently than he did, so I am not sure we can separate him from any other president, even if Kennedy had lived. I strongly disagree with those historians who say that if Kennedy had... There is evidence, if Kennedy had lived, that he would not have done what Johnson did, that he would have pulled us out or not. Certainly not escalated to the level of using combat battalions and brigades. I disagree, I think that Kennedy was at least as much a politician as Johnson and said different things to different people depending on what he felt they should hear and that he could no more escape the politics of the Cold War than anybody else could at that time. SM (01:10:35): This brings me right in just John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy. KC (01:10:38): Yeah, John Kennedy has to share a great deal of responsibility for what Johnson did because John Kennedy, it was on his watch that the overthrow of Diệm, and the assassination with Diệm took place and in my view, the only reason that overthrow occurred, I will separate the assassination out from it because it is possible that Kennedy wanted Diệm to make it to the Riviera alive. Where the emperor Bao Dai was at that point in time too, where most Vietnamese escape wound up [inaudible]. So, I will separate the assassination part of it, that might have been the officers themselves. The Vietnamese officers had decided to do that, but certainly Kennedy wanted the coup to occur, allowed the coup to occur, gave orders for the coup to occur, whatever you want to call it, helped orchestrate that coup through the CIA. The evidence is absolutely crystal clear and credible that the CIA had everything to do with that, and the only reason they would do that is because Kennedy administration and Kennedy having to take most responsibility with the buck stopping there, it's because they intended to carry on the war only with more American involvement, not less, because Diệm at that point in time was an obstacle to them. He did not want the war Americanized. He was digging in his heels and beginning to even desperately talk, he and his brother talk about some neutralization process and talking to the VC and talking to the North, finding some other way out of it in order to keep that war from becoming so Americanized because Diệm was a nationalist. He had plenty of other false... He was all always a nationalist, and he began to conclude that the Americans were simply replacing the French and wanting to control that area, and the war was going very badly under Vietnam and the only way the Americans felt that they could have a chance of keeping the south from going communist was putting American troops in there. [inaudible] was an obstacle, get them out of the way and then put the troops in. So, I think if Kennedy had lived, he would have done what Johnson did. Maybe not exactly the same way at the same time, but I think he would have... The Democratic Party would not have allowed him to do anything differently because the Democratic Party did not want to be labeled as pro-communist, having lost a yet another country, let Vietnam go after China, they wanted the White House. I do not think there is any point in time where one of those two parties says, nah we do not need the White House. We will stand on principle. Uh-huh. They wanted the White House and they would do what they needed to do in the context of the Cold War. This is not the late (19)60s, this is the early and mid (19)60s, and Kennedy could not have gotten it past the Democratic Party, would not have gotten it past the American Electric... The American society, American public as a whole saying, "Oh, we will let Vietnam go south on us, we will let it go to a communist because we do not want to put American ground troops there." Uh-huh, would not have happened. SM (01:13:59): How about Bobby Kennedy? Just a quick thought on Bobby and- KC (01:14:00): Yeah, just Bobby, I did not know very much about Bobby. Bobby died when I was in Vietnam, he was assassinated. I heard about it as I was in Vietnam. I was around Khe Sanh at the time, in the mountains around Khe Sanh and him, and Martin Luther King. I was in the bush when I heard about it, finally. He seemed to... Well, I could say was he younger seemed to be more idealistic than Robert, or not Robert, than John. Robert was more idealistic than John, I think. Probably not as clever and as realistic politically as John Kennedy was. I think John Kennedy was just politically more bright than Bobby, but I am not sure of that. I think Bobby Kennedy turning any war was opportunistic, probably if he was against the war, it might have been before he ever decided to turn against it publicly. I mean, it might not have anything to do with his decision to publicly come out against it. I think he publicly came out against it because he saw that as the best route to the White House. SM (01:15:12): Yeah, how about Eugene McCarthy? Because I was- KC (01:15:14): Eugene McCarthy, I think was more on principle. That is my impression, but again, I did not work with these guys, I was too young, my sense of it is far less direct. My experience with it is far less direct and far less knowledgeable even as a scholar than most of the other questions I have asked so far. I just have not spent a whole lot of time looking at either Bobby Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy. SM (01:15:41): You got Hubert Humphrey in there and you have got- KC (01:15:43): Oh, I got arrested over Hubert Humphrey. SM (01:15:45): Yeah. KC (01:15:46): Hubert Humphrey was running for president in (19)70... The primary in (19)72, and I got arrested as VVAW in Philadelphia here protesting at his speech because he was not anti-war enough. He was still trying to keep one foot in each camp in (19)72, and the government was a clear anti-war candidate, and we supported McGovern and opposed Humphrey, and I got arrested for civil disobedience. That is my immediate association with Hubert Humphrey. SM (01:16:16): Yeah, [inaudible] your thoughts of George McGovern, because we have had him on our campus. KC (01:16:20): Yeah. McGovern is a highly principled, is he still alive? SM (01:16:25): Oh yeah. KC (01:16:25): I think he is, yeah. Highly principled, a good guy, hearts in a right place. He made few mistakes in his presidential campaign just in terms of tactics that alienated them, but now without doing a close study of that, it was an overwhelming victory for Nixon. It is a landslide for Nixon. McGovern only won Massachusetts. There had to be other things that went wrong with that campaign, or perhaps in the McGovern's case, he simply had to be prepared to sacrifice the White House for principal. I think he was, and I think it was only because there was a revolution within the Democratic Party at the (19)72 convention that enabled grassroots people to get leadership pissed off Daley, as I recall, John Daley, because his whole delegation I think was unseated or something at that convention. But they got control of it, and that is the only kind of leadership in a Democratic Party, and it's an anomaly, that kind of leadership that would say, we would rather lose the White House than sacrifice this principle. I do not think they thought that- SM (01:17:47): You see any of that- KC (01:17:49): They prepared to take that risk. SM (01:17:50): You see any of that in the candidates today in the Republican or Democratic? KC (01:17:53): I am a governed kind of approach that it is better to- SM (01:17:55): Yes. KC (01:17:56): No, I do not see any of those candidates that way. None of them stick out to me as being that way. I think they are all more political than not. When it comes down divide between principle and... If [inaudible] gets in a race, I might lean towards him being more principal because I think he has grown a lot and come a long way, but I do not trust any of the rest of them if it came down to a division between principal and winning to go with principal and risk losing. SM (01:18:30): Okay. How about... These are some quick responses to Huey Newton, Bobby Seale and the Black Panthers general thought. KC (01:18:42): Some of the most tragic figures in the left and some of the most tragic history. Those with the most grievances and the most legitimate grievances in American society, winding up using some of the worst tactics, embracing violence, seeing violence as the only way to do it. Tragic in that sense that it backfired on them and they suffered personally. The movement, the black liberation movement of that time suffered as a whole and the left suffered as a whole, but... Well, I also have a lot of understanding too. I do not understand it the way a black person can understand it, the way a poor black person can understand it, but I was a poor white kid and I can understand at least some of it, some of the rage, economics, feeling of isolation from the system and the powers at be, opportunities forever closed off or pretty much forever closed off. At least poor white kids had some opportunity, poor black kids had virtually nothing. But the opportunities for poor white kids were nowhere near what it was for middle class white kids. Poor white kids did not know anything about conscientious objection and how to go about doing it. Whereas we're simply getting into the National Guard, or getting into college and getting a deferment that way. SM (01:20:19): Dr. King, particularly with his speech in Vietnam on the go. KC (01:20:23): Yeah see, I did not realize that until many years later how eloquent and how thoughtful he had become on the war. I knew he had turned against the war publicly, not long before he was assassinated, but it was only in later years that I actually read some of the speeches from around that time and saw how truly sharp, at least according to what I read, how truly sharp his thinking and how much courage he had to speak that way regarding in particular America's role in the world at that time. Because to go beyond Vietnam to America's role in the world as a whole was the step that most of the left did not even go because it was focused so narrowly on Vietnam as a foreign policy, as a foreign affair, and King recognized that America had become the greatest purveyor of violence. It might have been even been his phrase, I forget exactly the phrase, but the greatest generator of violence in the world by that point in time. He was essentially saying, we are the bad guys, not just in Vietnam, but in general, in the world, we have to change our attitude about intervention and opposing every indigenous struggle because by calling it communism, whether it's in Asia, Africa, Latin America, I mean, it was pretty far-reaching kind of conclusion he came and a decision he made to say it. SM (01:22:13): He had a lot of courage, I was talking with a couple civil rights leaders on our campus this past year, and no one has written a book on Dr. King in Vietnam. KC (01:22:22): Oh, that is a great idea. SM (01:22:24): There has been a lot of books on Dr. King and his speech is well known. KC (01:22:28): I am going to talk to David Cortright and ask him if he... Do you know who David Cortright is? SM (01:22:28): No. KC (01:22:33): Okay. David Cortright's a former active duty GI leader soldier, Soldiers in Revolt is a well-known book of his from that time. He is now a professor at Notre Dame, and if there was ever a face on the GI movement, it was David Cortright. So, I mean, he was probably the most famous leader of the GI movement against the war, and that is how I first met him, because I was one of the mid to higher level leaders in the- SM (01:23:05): Is he still at Notre Dame? KC (01:23:06): Vietnam vet. Yeah, he is associated with it. There is the Four Freedoms Foundation, and he is the director of it is called, so that is the way he would find them on the internet. Four Freedom Foundation, either the fourth freedom or four freedoms might be the Fourth Freedom, try either one of those. SM (01:23:22): Okay. KC (01:23:22): Or just Cortright, C O R T R I G H T. SM (01:23:29): Okay. KC (01:23:29): David Cortright. And David is a great follower of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and he would be ideal to write this, he just published his memoirs on nonviolence. So, David Cortright did. SM (01:23:42): Oh, really? KC (01:23:42): On nonviolence and the anti-war movement and just in a movements in general. SM (01:23:46): Is that Notre Dame Press or? KC (01:23:48): No, that is paradigm. It is my own press, it is the same press that [inaudible]- SM (01:23:52): That is out now? KC (01:23:54): Yeah, it came out before mine did. Matter of fact, I used his as a model for when I was doing my citation, so I wanted to get the paradigm citation process right, I simply used his as an example. SM (01:24:06): What are your thoughts on the, again, just quick responses, the Berrigan brothers? Daniel and Philip. KC (01:24:11): Yeah. Again, great contributors, highly principled people. They were clearly religious, and it is something that I am not. I was born and raised Catholic, but I lost God in a fox whole. I began doubting a higher being when I looked around me and saw what was going on and all of the myths, religious myths, they became more and more unsupportable to me as I came more directly in contact with the worst of reality. You know what I mean? And plus, that whole Catholic upbringing in a Catholic Church reflected to me and represented to me the rigidness of the conventional life that produced the conventional society, the conventional structure and leadership that produced Vietnam. And I saw many of [inaudible], people like Cardinal Spellman blessing the bombers before they go off for, I do not want to go into great details there. There's some personal connections to include my uncle [inaudible]- SM (01:25:27): Did you become an atheist? KC (01:25:28): Atheist in the sense that I- SM (01:25:31): Or agnostic? KC (01:25:32): Yeah, I do not have a positive belief in God. It is possible that God exists, but if I am wrong about... I do not think it is going to be any big thing, because I think it is most important that you live your life in the best way you can, that you live a good life, that you be good to other people and try and be good yourself, do not always live up to it. But I think that the essence of every religion I accept, which is to do the right thing, that short, sweet version of what is his name? The black film producer, do the right thing. SM (01:26:20): Spike Lee. KC (01:26:20): Spike Lee, in a tradition of [inaudible], just do the right thing. And I think you could gather every serious and sincere religious person to gather around that same thing. Do the right thing, I believe in doing the right thing, that is my religion. Do the right thing- SM (01:26:34): Dr. Benjamin- KC (01:26:34): Of course, I do not always live up to it. SM (01:26:35): Dr. Benjamin Spock. KC (01:26:39): Benjamin Spock, baby doctor? I mean, that is how I associate... Well, I know that through reading and history that he was... And I might, if I taxed myself, recollect, but I cannot trust my recollection that he was connected in the Air War movement. I now know that he was. But no other recollections beyond that. SM (01:26:54): Well, I think this [inaudible], did not it? Yeah, it did. It all is still going. It was... Cannot tell. No, that good click, I heard it. Amazing. Well, it is still in the middle. KC (01:27:11): It is on a very slow speed. SM (01:27:14): Yeah, that is a very slow speed, did not know. KC (01:27:16): Yeah. You wind up, I think with less quality though, when you have it that slow speed, right? SM (01:27:23): Not sure, just something is wrong with this. I think this one comes out fine. KC (01:27:29): All right. SM (01:27:29): Abby Hoffman, Jerry Ruben, the Yippies. KC (01:27:32): Assholes. SM (01:27:32): Okay. KC (01:27:41): Yeah, assholes. Infantile leftist, people who might have had their heart initially in a right place when they decided to oppose things like the war and the establishment, but certainly were silly, stupid, infantile. To me, they were taking middle class tantrums. This was a middle or upper middle class tantrum, carry on the way they did. And they did great destruction to the image of the anti-war movement in the minds of middle America out there. Their thing was to goof on Middle America. SM (01:28:19): They got [inaudible] as the pig to run as president. KC (01:28:23): Yeah, they had no respect for middle America. SM (01:28:25): Malcolm X. KC (01:28:27): Malcolm X, militant, extremist. They are the words I think of first for my oldest, and my oldest recollection of that name from when I was much younger when I was a kid, fear. We in working class white America, row house, inner City America, and the white neighborhoods feared Malcolm X and black militants. In particular, the black Muslims because they were armed and they were fiery and they were angry, and they predated the Black Panthers. I mean, the Black Panthers, as we talked about it, adopted some violent tactics himself. But I have a better appreciation since then, since my earliest experiences listening to on a radio or seeing on television or reading about the black Muslims and Malcolm X, that this guy... Another tragic figure, this guy was attempting to do something for his people who were clearly wronged and perhaps in the most extreme cases, did not use the best approach, made strategic errors. But I do not know a great deal about them, I have never read a biography of them. I have not studied him. So I begin with my sense of him from when I was a kid in a racist white neighborhood of fearing him and fearing that riot that took place in 1964, I think it was in north Philadelphia, which spread up to our neighborhood, it was only a few blocks away. And to the point of better understanding, respect, but also a tragic sense of, it is a shame that he was not able to adopt the methods of a Martin Luther King and strengthened King's movement. SM (01:30:50): Of course, he was changing toward the end of his life. I think there is a direct link between that change and his death. KC (01:30:58): Yeah, sure. SM (01:30:58): Yep. Timothy Leary. KC (01:31:02): Acid, something I never used and never wanted to use because I was afraid I would not be able to control my Vietnam nightmares and my temper and my anger and my violence if I ever took acid. But that is what I associated him with. SM (01:31:16): How bad were drugs in Vietnam? KC (01:31:18): Well, not acid, geez when I was in Vietnam, grass was the thing. (19)68, early (19)69 grass was everywhere. I did not know at the time, I came in a complete novice, a complete virgin to drugs and learned while I was there that grass was ubiquitous and that a significant portion of the guys in Vietnam when they were off duty, downtime in a relatively safe area, smoked dope. And then I eventually got involved with some of those folks and started to smoke myself, that is where I was initiated into. But the heroin that eventually racked the armed forces in Vietnam did not make it is entry until well after I left. It really did not become a big thing until 1970. And those who have tracked that story, who have researched and told that story many years ago, in fact, like Alfred McCoy for instance, in his classic book, the Heroin in Southeast Asia, I think it was called, or was it the heroin Traffic... I forget the exact name. I have a copy of it on my bookshelf. But it showed that, in fact, the big influx of it was almost overnight. The big influx of it took place sometime in 19... It might have been a spring of 1970 now. It was there before then, but it was as well as opium [inaudible], it was pretty much relegated to the Vietnamese or the Chinese ethnic minority in Vietnam. It was not popular among American troops, but Heroin did become popular tragically after about spring of 19- SM (01:33:24): Just in continuing the names here. KC (01:33:26): Yeah. SM (01:33:28): Ralph Nader. KC (01:33:30): Just [inaudible]. I do not have much to say about that. SM (01:33:36): Daniel Ellsberg. KC (01:33:38): He is one of my heroes with the Pentagon Papers, former Marine. I have to be sympathetic to the former Marine. A guy that certainly did his time in Vietnam as an advisor, and then worked in the Pentagon and got access to the papers and based on conscience, the people who follow their conscience I have a lot of respect for, who do the right thing, put the principle over personal advantage, and he is one of them. I have a lot of respect for him. SM (01:34:13): Now, you have mentioned a couple people that had that conscience to the effect of Daniel Ellsberg, can you just list some other ones from that era? For who you think [inaudible]. KC (01:34:22): Martin Luther King, certainly George McGovern, Bobby Muller, certainly. SM (01:34:27): Oh yes, definitely. KC (01:34:32): People who followed their conscience and risked a lot or maybe even sacrificed a lot to do that. Yeah, they are my heroes. I do not want to waste your tape sitting here, trying to think of more negatives, but I could come up with more if it was necessary. SM (01:34:50): George Wallace. KC (01:34:53): Never liked his politics, certainly he was a racist, but he was coming around at least to some kind of a conciliatory politics near the end of his life. Just he represents a negative image in my mind. SM (01:35:08): Richard Nixon. KC (01:35:10): Oh boy, tricky dick. I harbor more dislike... Hate. Okay, hate for Richard Nixon than I do for LBJ. Richard Nixon, as far as I am concerned, was far more responsible for prolonging that war than even most people understand and did absolutely everything he could to not only keep the war going, but hurt those who were legally and morally trying to oppose it back home. He was absolutely vindictive, absolutely. Vindictive is the word I could think of that would most associate- SM (01:36:00): Was the enemy's list as real as we... As it stated it is real in the history books? KC (01:36:08): Yes. He went after people and he had his executive branch bureaus and agencies go after people. So, it is well documented, whether it is IRS people he used, or military intelligence or CIA. I mean, it does not matter. And he used them illegally. I mean, the records clear on that. SM (01:36:42): This gets into the whole issue of the imperial presidency, there has been a book... Well, I cannot forget who worked with him now, the imperial presidency. KC (01:36:52): Oh, it is Schlesinger. It is Arthur Schlesinger. SM (01:36:52): Arthur Schlesinger. KC (01:36:52): Yeah, classic. SM (01:36:53): When did the imperial presidency begin? And where would you rate Nixon in that? KC (01:37:01): Well, I think you have to look at the 20th century as the era of imperial presidency. SM (01:37:09): FDR on? KC (01:37:10): No, even earlier than that. I would start with Wilson because of World War I and then FDR following him because of the Depression first and then World War II. It's the whole sense of national crisis and the need to centralize power in a national crisis. The willingness of the American society as a whole to defer in a special period and an emergency period and a period of real national crisis to a smaller and smaller group of people to make decisions so that they are able to do it quickly and with authority and with unity and all of those aspects one needs to have when dealing with an emergency. If there are 18 of you in a lifeboat and you are out there in the middle of the ocean, you cannot have 18 leaders. You have to figure out some way of pointing the boat and come up with somebody to make a decision. So, if there is a real national crisis, whether it is a world war or a great depression, the natural human, and in our political system, systemic tendency, and I do not think it's just in our political system, I think it is in any political system, the tendency is for a very frightened national population to want something to be done quickly about it. And the only way you can do that is by streamlining, even if it takes some temporary tweaking of the system legally to streamline the decision making so that decisions can be made effectively and quickly. Now that- KC (01:39:03): Well, that I think is not only natural for human beings to do and for political systems to do in general, but it is necessary, because you are talking about survival here. If it is a true national crisis, not a manufactured one. The problem was that, is that when the crisis lets up, you have to go back to normalcy, and you have to let loose those, peel back away those emergency powers that you have, the society has temporarily allowed the executive to take, the president in this case to take. And you have to be, and this is even more important, doubly on guard that some individual president, some president does not manufacture a crisis for you and usurp that authority and scare the hell out of the public with a pretend crisis. SM (01:40:02): Which the Gulf of Tonkin was, was not it? KC (01:40:05): Well, that is what I would say. Sure, yeah. Yeah. It was the creation of a national crisis. So, I think that is where the imperial presidency went wrong. I would not fault either Wilson or FDR for the powers they drew to themselves and used in those two world wars or the Depression, in the case of FDR, economically and socially, and during the Depression. Even in the areas where they overstepped their constitutional rights, because in those circumstances, the public was at least sympathetic, if not outright support of the president doing it, taking the actions he did, he took, and most of Congress generally agreed and did not, so that if you have got the public and Congress not objecting, the president can get away with it. And the President gets away with it, because, gee, it is a real crisis. And we have to survive. But once you are out of that crisis mode, and the Cold War was the structure that enabled fake crises to occur, you have abuse of those powers. And you have the runaway imperial presidency. SM (01:41:21): I know Tom Eagleton, he just passed away recently. He wrote a book on the role of the president to declare war. And it is a really good book. And the question always gets to me is we all knew about Wayne Morse, and I think the Senator from Alaska who- KC (01:41:41): Yeah, [inaudible]. SM (01:41:41): [inaudible] KC (01:41:44): It begins with a J. SM (01:41:46): They were against the war, but the other- KC (01:41:48): Gravel. SM (01:41:48): Yeah, but the other- KC (01:41:49): Was it Gravel? SM (01:41:50): No, not Gravel. KC (01:41:51): Oh, I am thinking of someone else. SM (01:41:52): Yeah, they were against the war. But the other (19)98, it was Wayne, because then of course you had Senator Fulbright and his challenge, and we all know what happened to him when he challenged President Johnson. And then Gaylord Nelson and that whole group. But why it took so long for Congress to... I guess- KC (01:42:13): Well, Congress- SM (01:42:14): Congress should have done more. KC (01:42:16): ... Congress is the sackless branch for no small reason. It does not have a backbone, in general. The exceptions or the principle, ones that will sacrifice their political careers for principle. But in general, just the way Congress is made, just the way it is instituted. It has meant to follow public opinion. It has meant to follow the electorate. It was the one that most closely represents the population, and it has meant to be a check on the tyranny of the executive. But that has a downside. The upside is that, yeah, it checks the tyranny of the executive. The downside is you cannot lead with 535 people trying to represent their constituencies, so that Congress defers in periods of crisis. And Congress defers because it knows its own constituency wants Congress to defer in a crisis, in a true national crisis. If it turns out to be a fake national crisis, first of all, Congress has to be convinced it is fake. And they generally give the benefit of the doubt to the executive, which the population does. And even if they have the evidence that they, Congress have as elites, and they are elites, have evidence that it is a fake crisis, they still will hesitate, because of opportunism, they want to keep their political careers, to go against the President, so long as the people yet do not know that it's a fake, have not arrived at the conclusion it is a fake crisis. And they may even hesitate to inform their people to let the secret out of the bag because they are afraid of what it might do to the system and to their nice state seat. So, there is a lot going against principle here. SM (01:44:16): Maybe- KC (01:44:16): There is a lot of structure, a lot of history, a lot of just human character going against principle here, so that I do not think we should be surprised. We should not accept it, that we still should be surprised that Congress is a sackless branch. SM (01:44:35): Wow. Yeah, it is interesting. Just bringing up, there should be some sort of test given to every leader that goes into Congress, the profiles and courage test. KC (01:44:44): Oh, sure. Yeah. Absolutely. SM (01:44:46): Require them to read the book. And if you do not pass this, you cannot be our senator or our Congressman. KC (01:44:50): Absolutely. That is right. And any elected official presidents too should be required to read that book. I was tempted to write a book not long ago called Profiles In Cowardice. SM (01:45:04): That would be an interesting thing, because I think students need to see the other side, because students do want- KC (01:45:10): And give clear examples of when you had people who should have stepped up, and did not. SM (01:45:15): Yep. Yeah. KC (01:45:16): The causes of that. SM (01:45:17): Yeah. In fact, I know that Caroline Kennedy wrote another follow-up book to her dad, which is a very good book, of people that she felt, and they give the Profiles In Courage award up at the Kennedy Library every year. And I remember reading the one about the congressman from Alabama, I forget his name. He wrote a book. He has passed away since, but I had never heard of this guy, and he got the award, so I wanted to, I never heard of this man. And then, he lost his seat because he was a man of conscience, and he has unheard of. And he got the award. He was in a wheelchair. KC (01:45:52): Yeah, very-very rare case. SM (01:45:53): Right. He was a Southern congressman who lost everything. And he was, yeah, Republican just does not act that way. KC (01:45:56): Yeah. SM (01:45:57): So, Spiro Agnew. KC (01:46:04): Spiro Agnew, what a reprehensible guy. What was that term he used? Effete snobs or something like that? In describing at least the leadership of the left. Well, of course, he... I say of course, because I know better now. Of course, he was right to a limited degree that the leadership of the left was pretty much upper class and to some degree opportunistic. But there were a lot of people in the leadership that worked, of the left, that were not. And I am sure the vast majority of people who followed the leadership were not effete snobs. So yeah, this guy was a... Agnew was, I put him at the level of the gutter. SM (01:47:05): He was [inaudible]. Let us see, some of the other, Gerald Ford? KC (01:47:10): Tragic kind of guy. He was a caretaker. Gil Scott Heron referred to him many years ago as Oatmeal Man on a... part of a record he called, Pardon me, Mr. President, a great rift he did. And I could not forget that. Could not help remember that when they were doing all of these eulogies honoring Ford after he died. And I kept thinking, "Boy." It's not that he was a bad guy, but he was not all that good. He was brought on because he was neither. He was as bland as you could be. And the system produced that. I mean, and the system needed that at that point in time. They needed somebody to follow in the heels of Vietnam and Watergate that would not divide the country further. And the country was so divided that they had to find somebody that the Democrats and Republicans could support, because after all, you are talking about somebody who was not elected either to vice president or to president. And that is the other anomaly. It is not just the end of Vietnam and Watergate, but it's also making somebody president who was never elected to either of those offices, president or vice president. And they knew when they brought Gerald Ford in as vice president, that the president was not going to be around for very much longer. I mean, they were pretty much sure of that. So, they knew that he would be, so that is why they chose him. He was a tweener. He was a bridge. He was just, in that sense, he had a strength in that he could accommodate both sides in a principled way. I think he was probably a pretty principled guy, but he was tragic in a sense that he got to clean up after all that. SM (01:48:56): How about Jimmy Carter? Because when Jimmy Carter came in, he- KC (01:49:00): Oh, Jimmy. SM (01:49:00): ... pardoned all the... KC (01:49:01): Yeah. SM (01:49:03): Does he play into any of this? KC (01:49:04): Well, that was a good move on his part, and that was courageous of him. But his courage was limited. Carter's idealistic side has always been overplayed since he has left office. We tend to think of him now as the kindly human rights, Habitat for Humanity, healing, elderly statesman. And everything he has done in those realms is good, and I will give him credit for that. But he also has to take responsibility for some of the nastier stuff he did, which was to become a born again warrior, Cold warrior when he heard the footsteps of Ronald Reagan getting closer and closer in 1979 and 1980. Because we have Jimmy Carter to thank for the B-1 bomber, for registration for the draft, for increasing the size of the military, for much of the militarization that Reagan then launched into was begun by Jimmy Carter, who finally, "Saw the light," in his words of the Soviet bear after 1979, 1980, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, a crushing of solidarity, that kind of thing. You have a guy, who for a short period of time, becomes the most saber-rattling warrior that, just as bad as any one of the Cold War presidents for a very short period of time, because then he loses the election, and he has to leave office. But it not only coincides with increasing of crises with the Soviet Union. If one were to be overly kind, one would say, well, he got that way because he actually saw what was going on around. But I think more tellingly coincided with the poll numbers getting closer and closer between him and Ronald Reagan. He tried out to out-Reagan Reagan, and nobody does that. SM (01:51:13): Yeah. You lead right into Reagan, because Reagan has got a history here too, as the governor of California, disliked by students at Berkeley and a lot of students around the country. He seems to be a voice that symbolizes the establishment. And then, of course, with being president. And then that whole issue, even when George Bush is vice president, when he came in, I think it was George Bush Sr. who said, "The Vietnam Syndrome is over." KC (01:51:41): Yeah. Well, he said that when he was president. SM (01:51:43): Oh, he did say that as president? KC (01:51:44): Yeah. He said that at the end of the first Gulf War. SM (01:51:46): Yeah. KC (01:51:47): "We finally kicked the Vietnam Syndrome," that is the quote. SM (01:51:49): Yep. KC (01:51:50): Well, he was full of crap on that issue. He just did not understand it as well as some of us who have spent so much time looking at it. But in fact, that that experience that he was summing up, that first Gulf War in 1991, reaffirmed the Vietnam Syndrome. It did not undercut it at all. At least it reaffirmed that, certainly among those in the military who believed that they learned lessons from the Vietnam War, which was to sort of the Powell Doctrine approach, which was to make sure that not only you have sufficient military strength to go after your enemy, but you win over the public, you win over Congress, that there is a real national commitment, yada, yada, yada. All of that was strengthened by the Persian Gulf War, so that, and historians now looking back at that period have come to a consensus that in fact it did strengthen the Vietnam Syndrome, because it was still around during the 1990s. It did not go away during the 1990s. SM (01:53:03): That is why when you talk about Vietnam period and why people have such an alarming reaction, obviously, is all the activism and all the other things. But so many lessons can be learned about how we deal with people, how you build trust, the concept of serving your country and what it truly means. KC (01:53:26): Yeah, and a lot of them are bad lessons. SM (01:53:28): Yeah, a lot of bad lessons, but a lot- KC (01:53:30): I mean, in the sense that you have a lot of contradictory lessons. SM (01:53:31): ... You learn a lot about human nature. Yeah. KC (01:53:34): As you know from my book, that it depends on who you ask as to what the set of lessons are. And they often conflict with each other. There are too many lessons of Vietnam, and they contradict each other. SM (01:53:44): What are your thoughts on Barry Goldwater and the conservative movement, the Bill Buckleys, and American, some of the things that really upset a lot of conservatives in the last couple years, so, I interviewed Lee Edwards and a couple other people, is that they have been totally left out of the anti-war movement. The Young Americans for Freedom were against the war. There were conservatives that were against the war. KC (01:54:10): I did not realize that. SM (01:54:10): Yeah. And- KC (01:54:11): They were probably Libertarians, right? Are you talking about against the Vietnam War or against- SM (01:54:14): Against the Vietnam War. KC (01:54:15): Yeah. Yeah. I did not realize that. Perhaps they were against it because they thought it was not being fought properly. Perhaps they were against it because they did not think enough force was used. SM (01:54:25): How important was Barry Goldwater in this era, though? Because he- KC (01:54:28): Oh, he was critically important in the sense that he was what Johnson feared on the right. Johnson feared the left, and Johnson feared the right, and tried to split the difference. And Goldwater was his fear on the right, so that in Johnson's mind, it seems to me, gradually escalating with ground troops beat the hell out of dropping the nuclear device on Hanoi, which he thought Goldwater, or some people thought Goldwater wanted to do. But it also was a hell of a lot more acceptable than just saying, "Well, we will give up Vietnam. We will withdraw." And in Johnson's view, that is that world, Munich appeasement lesson that you do not accept peace at any price. You have to take a firm stand, or sooner or later the Red menace will be in Isla Vista or Long Island or somewhere like that. SM (01:55:30): What about Muhammad Ali? KC (01:55:33): Muhammad Ali. SM (01:55:33): Cassius Clay. KC (01:55:34): One of my heroes, and I remember when he was Cassius Clay, I followed. As a young kid I loved... I paid some attention to boxing, and I loved Cassius Clay. I loved Rubin Hurricane Carter, Cassius Clay, and Benny Kid Paret, who was a Philadelphia fighter who died in the ring, yeah. SM (01:55:52): He died. Yeah. I did a paper on him in college on against boxing. KC (01:55:58): Cassius Clay, yeah. I certainly did not understand his whole black Muslim conversion and his refusal to accept be drafted, because again, I was the kid and a teenager in a white working class, largely racist neighborhood that was afraid of any militant blacks. Anybody from a black community took not only a firm stand, but a firm militant stand, who was willing to fight, and that was my sense at that time. But that is a gap in between my admiration, beginning with Cassius Clay and then carrying on after I got back from Vietnam, of course, and turned against the war. But also just as a boxer, his comeback. I would listened to the radio in 1976 to that Zaire fight. SM (01:56:55): Oh, yeah. KC (01:56:55): You could not watch it on television, but I listened to the round by round summary of it when the radio broadcasted summaries of it from Zaire. I just loved that, that rope-a-dope thing. I was a big Cassius Clay fan. SM (01:57:14): Do you think- KC (01:57:14): [inaudible] Muhammad Ali fan. SM (01:57:16): When you look at his stand against the Vietnam War, boy, some people go after him, but some admire him when he would fall into your conscience? KC (01:57:28): Well, I admire him now because I have a different take on the war now than I did when I was a kid, when he was, I think it was in (19)67, was not it? That he refused to go to the draft? SM (01:57:40): Yes. KC (01:57:42): And I was a senior in high school, and then in bootcamp, and then preparing to go to Vietnam. That was my whole 1967. And my only impression of Cassius Clay was from the neighborhood and from my family background, from the social era, social milieu that I was in. And I was very apprehensive and put off by Clay's... I was disappointed in him. I thought that a great fighter like that, I could not understand it. It was just too much for me to grasp. SM (01:58:25): But when he beat Sonny Liston, I know, I thought nobody beat Sonny Liston. That guy was a- KC (01:58:29): Yeah, he was huge. I remember seeing Floyd Patterson knock out Ingemar Johansson, and the film reel at the movies in between, and I will never forget it, and out cold on the floor. His foot shook. He had those tremors or whatever they call them. I was a big fan of boxing. SM (01:58:56): We cannot, been just mentioning men, but people like Gloria Steinem. I have only got about 10 more minutes. Gloria Steinem and the leaders of the women's movement. Your thoughts on... KC (01:59:07): I think first of people like Bella Abzug and Betty Friedan. They, to me, were the earlier ones. And Gloria Stein probably was around or right after them, or right, maybe the later part. That was also something that I had trouble grasping, understanding, did not get on a visceral level or a gut level or an immediate reaction level at first, but all of this was taking place in the context of me becoming anti-war. And I began to adopt the politics of the left in general, and have a far more open mind there to some of the things I did not immediately get, and therefore became acceptable and tried to understand and incorporate that in the way I lived and the way I understood the world. But it was not on the same sort of gut level as Vietnam. SM (02:00:05): What are your thoughts that some of the women complain about of that era, is that in the anti-war movement and the Civil Rights Movement, women were secondary figures? That men were male dominant, and they put women in secondary roles, and that is a lot of the reason why the women went out on their own to create the women's movement, because the secondary rules in both of those movements. KC (02:00:29): Well, I think it is true in general, and it is true in particular in most organizations, but that is not the end of the answer, because it was more or less true with certain organizations in certain periods. I think that if you are talking about (19)66, (19)67, you're going to find a lot more of that. If you are talking about (19)70, (19)71, you are going to find a whole lot less of that, because women were being far more assertive and taking leadership roles, if not on a national level, at least on a local and regional level, a lot more. And it depends on the organization too. For instance, resistance, which was based in Philadelphia, resistance to the draft, and they had the Omega as the sign [inaudible]. SM (02:01:14): Oh, yeah. Right. KC (02:01:16): And Vietnam Veterans Against the War were very close. They supported us a lot because they worked with active duty GIs. That was their specialty at Fort Dix, at the Naval Hospital, other military bases. They did GI organizers, and they knew that the better they got to know us, the better they could speak to the GIs. Or perhaps they just knew by working with the GIs how to relate to us when we came back. And we actually shared offices together, we socialized with each other, etc. And that was a largely women's organization, all women in leadership there. SM (02:01:48): Very good. KC (02:01:49): And they actually taught us a lot about how to deal with women in the movement. I mean, I was not familiar with women who did not shave their legs and did not shave their armpits until I met women from resistance and did not wear bras. By that point, most young women were not wearing bras. SM (02:02:07): Right. KC (02:02:07): So, that became fairly common in the culture at that time. SM (02:02:11): Right. KC (02:02:12): But what was not common in the culture was having really hairy legs and really hairy armpits. SM (02:02:18): You see that over in Europe and Germany. KC (02:02:20): That is right. It was very European- SM (02:02:21): Yeah, very European. KC (02:02:23): But it became strong among women who were strong and on the left in America. SM (02:02:30): We have a professor. I will not even mention her name. I'd better not. KC (02:02:34): Yeah. Okay. Not on tape. SM (02:02:35): Not on tape though. Finally, the Watergate Committee people, Sam Ervin, Baker Thompson, even Weiker, the Watergate Committee- KC (02:02:47): Yeah, I know them well. SM (02:02:48): Just your thoughts. John Dean and that whole situation there. KC (02:02:52): Well, I am so happy Congress stepped up and took a leading role in that case. It may sound as though what I just said contradicts something earlier, that the Congress cannot lead because they are the sackless branch, 535 them, etc. But there are exceptions, and again, national crisis, but in this case, created by an imperial presidency creates the room for Congress to be that exception. Does not mean that Congress will automatically step into that vacuum, but the vacuum and real leadership in a crisis, because it is clear to much of the nation, most of the nation, the president's taking the wrong direction, Congress has to step up and fill in that vacuum, because there is not no other branch to do it. The Supreme Court by its very nature is passive and waits for cases to be brought to it, and cannot play that kind of leadership role. So, it has to be. If the imperial executive is leading in the wrong direction, and not only manufacturing a national crisis that was not there, but creating a national crisis because of the imperial presidency, then Congress had better step up. And in this case, the Watergate Committee and much of the new leadership and that, old leadership and new leadership, the Joe Biden and so forth, that were brand new coming in, and that Vietnam generation that came in, they stepped up and they played a good role, but it took also others, like good leadership among some principled, courageous journalists to do that. And it took the conditions of the American public being prepared to support that too, being not only ready but overripe for that kind of thing. Because again, Congress, the limit, even in a national crisis created by an imperial president, the Congress is still going to want to make sure that they have their asses covered in some way before they step out there, and the coverage is to have public support for it. SM (02:05:02): When did the (19)60s begin? When was the magic moment when the (19)60s began? By the way- KC (02:05:07): In my view? Or history's view? SM (02:05:09): By the way, my book's title is going to be The Magic Moment. KC (02:05:14): Yeah. Are you talking about in my personal view or in history? SM (02:05:16): No, in your personal view, what do you think was the beginning of the (19)60s and when did the (19)60s end? Was there an incident? Was there a happening? KC (02:05:28): For me, the (19)60s began as the (19)60s that we know and love or hate, depending on what their perspective is, in 1965, when I first sat around late at night listening to a Bob Dylan album, as people around me were drinking and smoking dope and talking about controversial issues. I forget whether it was about the war or civil rights, but clearly had a non-establishment, if not an anti-establishment attitude. And that occurred at a Benedictine seminary. SM (02:06:09): Oh, my God. KC (02:06:11): My uncle's Benedictine seminary. It was a monastery, but they trained seminarians there, Benedictine seminarians in Hingham, Massachusetts. My uncle was the abbot. SM (02:06:24): Oh, my God. KC (02:06:24): And I was up there with my brother as guests for their annual picnic, and after the picnic was over, and after everything was cleaned up, and people were going to bed, some of the young seminarians asked if we wanted to join them in the tower, which they had this big tower. They still have it there, big stone tower. You could hang out in the tower, and just talk and hang out. Well, they were playing Dylan. I mean, I was Motown all the way or-or classic rock or whatever you want to call it, and they are drinking, and they are passing joints around, and they are talking about social issues. And in a clearly critical way, as their attitude. I mean, this blew my mind. Now, after that, left and went right back to my own very conventional working-class situation. That did not change me, but that was my first peek at it. That was my first peek at an alternate, alternative lifestyle. Let us put it that way. If I were to pick anything, that is the one thing I can think of, the very first glimpse of an alternative lifestyle. And after all, that is what the (19)60s was supposed to be about. SM (02:07:51): Right. It is like my brother, when he got married in 1985, the priest that married him was young, and his music he played in his office was Led Zeppelin. KC (02:08:06): Oh, Jesus. SM (02:08:06): My brother said, "What have we gotten ourselves into?" He was a legend. KC (02:08:11): By the way, if my uncle ever had gotten wind around, he would have had a stroke. Honest to God. We never told anybody about that. My brother and I just only recently talked about it again, and see, I did not realize. I do not think I remember. I cannot clearly recall seeing the dope being passed around, but my brother, who was two years older than me told me, "Oh yeah, they were passing around marijuana. They were smoking marijuana." I am not sure my brother ever smoked marijuana before, so it is not like something that he would make up, but I know they were drinking and playing Bob Dylan and talking and acting in alternative ways. These were seminarians. I do not know how many of them remained in there, but actually several of them did because we met them many years later. SM (02:08:56): When did it end? KC (02:08:58): When did it end? SM (02:08:58): For you? KC (02:09:01): I think (19)70, '72 was the end, the loss of McGovern's campaign, the overwhelming reelection of Nixon. The war was over for all intents and purposes. The war was not over for the Vietnamese, but the American involvement was over. After that it became... I mean, the war for me is the most direct connection to the (19)60s, the most, I guess the brightest characteristic. And yeah, one of your very first, if not the very first question about what is it about the (19)60s? It's the war, right? SM (02:09:38): Yeah. KC (02:09:39): Well, the war was... That was the last I was active in 1972 because I figured it was pretty much all over. It was time for me to move on and do other things. I mean, I still remain very active in an alternative sense, but not with the war. SM (02:09:56): What did that helicopter flying off the rooftop- KC (02:10:00): That was (19)75. SM (02:10:02): ... In (19)75, how did that strike you? Just seeing that on the news? KC (02:10:05): Well, I felt it was much too late. SM (02:10:08): Yeah. KC (02:10:09): This should have happened a long, long time before. There would be hell of a lot fewer deaths. We should not have gone in the first place, and it is happening much too late. I did not feel a kind of loss or anger or alienation that I suppose some veterans did. But for me, it was a good thing that that last helicopter was finally leaving so the Vietnamese could have their own country back. And I thought it should have happened a hell of a lot earlier than that. SM (02:10:48): We are going to end with, I got about 15, 16 words of an era or an event. Just very, very quick responses. KC (02:10:57): All right. SM (02:11:00): Number one, Woodstock. KC (02:11:03): Oh, I think of my time floating around in the Mediterranean, still in the Marines and on a ship, and reading about Woodstock in August of, or September of (19)69, as we got the latest Life or Look Magazine, whatever it was in. And I am thinking how cool that was. I wished I had hair that long at that point. I had side, high and tight cut of the Marine Corps, and you're only allowed two to three inches on the top in the middle of your head. I just could not wait to get out. I was back from Vietnam by that time, so I was done with that, but I still had time to do the Marine Corp. I could not wait to get out, could not wait to join them. SM (02:11:44): Black power. KC (02:11:46): Frightening at first. Understandable, eventually tragic in the end. SM (02:11:52): Communes. KC (02:11:53): Commune? SM (02:11:53): Communes. KC (02:11:53): As in commune? SM (02:11:55): Communes. KC (02:11:55): Like a commune? Like a hippie-dippy commune? SM (02:11:59): Yeah, communes. Yes. KC (02:11:59): Yeah. Attractive for a while in my most- KC (02:12:03): Attractive for a while in my most hippy-dippy phase, but then too idealistic. I never could bring myself to trying to live on something like that because I did not think it could survive. And I thought that life in established American society would inevitably take over, would engulf it and swallow it up and make it disappear. SM (02:12:30): Hippies? KC (02:12:30): Hippies. I think I was one. Sometimes some of my old friends tell me I was not because... Well, I must have demonstrated too many of those old establishment or conventional, not establishment, but conventional traits. But I enjoyed it the two or three years I think I was a hippie, with few cares and few resources, little money, living cheaply, hitchhiking. I hitchhiked across the country several times. You could do it then safely with long hair and a beard. Hung out with people in lots of different places. I enjoyed that. But sooner or later, you have to grow up and take responsibility. SM (02:13:20): Yippies? KC (02:13:21): Yippies. Assholes. SM (02:13:24): Counter-culture? KC (02:13:28): A good idea for a while, until you jarred the prevailing culture, and there was a sense of necessary change. But after that, it becomes less and less relevant. SM (02:13:43): Pentagon Papers? KC (02:13:45): Loved them. Great thing that they came out. SM (02:13:49): Chicago Eight? KC (02:13:51): Heroes to some degree, in a sense that they took a stand and suffered through that trial and the fear of long prison terms. But they were, other than that, a pretty diverse group. That is my sense of them, that they were not a close-knit group of people. They were all snatched up together doing the same thing. They were very different people. Dillinger and Bobby Seale are tremendously different people. SM (02:14:23): Oh yeah. And Tom Hayden- KC (02:14:25): And Redman and- SM (02:14:28): The Rubin and Hoffman. And they got the lesser known John Froines and yeah- KC (02:14:31): Yeah, not Redman. Not Redman. I guess Redman was not part of it. Who was Redman in, SDS or something like. I forget. Anyway. SM (02:14:36): Oh, Mark Rudd. KC (02:14:37): Mark Rudd, yeah. SM (02:14:39): He was in SDS at Columbia. John Lennon? KC (02:14:41): John Lennon, fellow atheist, imagining a world without God. SM (02:14:53): Good movie out. US Versus John Lennon, which just happened recently. KC (02:14:57): Yeah-yeah, yeah. He was a good guy. I think he probably was a little temperamental and could not get along as well as he probably should have tried to with his buddies, but he was part- SM (02:15:11): How about the Beatles? KC (02:15:12): Just the Beatles. Yeah. I love The Beatles, but they are not what I consider to be my youth's music. Motown. SM (02:15:26): Oh, yeah. KC (02:15:27): City kid dances, fuss times, dating, listening to music on a radio, slapping on that English leather. Motown. SM (02:15:37): Motown, because that is the music of the year. Because when you think of the music of the (19)60s, you think of Motown, but you also think of- KC (02:15:44): The Beatles- SM (02:15:45): Woodstock, all the rock bands, the folk singers. KC (02:15:47): Well see, Woodstock was after I went to Vietnam and after I came back. So that, to me, I am an adult. That is no longer my safe home, comfortable, great carefree time of shelter to some degree. We were living in a poor working class neighborhood. You're exposed to some bad stuff, but nevertheless, you still have a family, a house, a neighborhood, kids you go to school with. There is a normalcy there and a carefreeness, because your parents, you are not having to work. I had to work part-time, but you know. You know what I mean? SM (02:16:19): Yep. KC (02:16:20): You do not have to take adult responsibility yet. By the time Woodstock happened, well, I was hippie-dippy. I am still not taking adult responsibility, but I took responsibility to lead politically. I did do that. And I took care of myself. I managed to pay the bills. SM (02:16:34): Kent State and Jackson State? KC (02:16:36): Kent State, Jackson State. Triggers for my radicalization. The first trigger was of course the invasion of Cambodia. That son of a bitch, Nixon led. And then Kent State and Jackson State were reactions to that. And then my reaction to Kent State and Jackson State were, because there were demonstrations within days of the invasion of Cambodia, and were protests against the war because of the Invasion of Cambodia. And I am at home, not politically astute at all, not involved in any way. Could not even conceive myself involving any war movement. I am out of the service only a couple of months, and I see this stuff on television, and I cannot believe this war is not ending. I had a gut level of revulsion against the war because I did not think it was worth anything. It was stupid. It was a lie, I knew that much, because the leaders, my leadership, military and political leadership were telling lies about what we were really doing there, and what the people there actually thought about our presence. But I had no political consciousness as an activist yet. But boy, that me pissed off, the Cambodia, and then went right on into Kent State and Jackson. Mostly Kent State, because of course I could relate to the white kids more. SM (02:17:52): See, April 30th, to me, is a big day that we do not ever think about that much. Particularly the boomer generation. KC (02:17:58): What was April 30th? SM (02:18:00): April 30th was the invasion of Cambodia. KC (02:18:02): I always thought it happened around May first, but definitely April 30th. SM (02:18:04): May 4th was when the killings took place. KC (02:18:05): That is right. SM (02:18:06): But April 30th was also when the helicopter went off the roof. KC (02:18:10): See, I was not traumatized by that. SM (02:18:13): April 30th was also when- KC (02:18:13): Good enough. Close that chapter. SM (02:18:14): FDR died. KC (02:18:15): Is that right? SM (02:18:15): What is amazing is that April 30th and Kent State had so much bearing on me because I was a senior at SUNY Binghamton, and I broke my arm. I was in the hospital, had a very bad arm break, and I went to my graduation at SUNY Binghamton on May 17th, but May 7th was when the Grateful Dead were coming to our campus. I was looking forward to it. KC (02:18:37): Oh, boy. So, you are two years older than me. I just did the math. You were graduating from college in 1970. SM (02:18:43): I graduated college in 1970. KC (02:18:44): So, you graduated from high school? SM (02:18:45): (19)66, yeah. KC (02:18:45): So, you are one year older than me. I am sorry. SM (02:18:45): Yeah, (19)66. KC (02:18:49): (19)67, I graduated. SM (02:18:50): Yeah. But Kent State was just unbelievable. It has affected me my whole life. Because even when the tragedy of Virginia Tech took place, and they talked about the worst tragedy ever around the... It was terrible, all the killings and everything. But we seem to forget the four students who died at Kent State, the seven who were wounded, and the two who died at Jackson State. We cannot forget them. Universities pay tribute to the Montreal, the women who were killed in Montreal in (19)89, and they had the Women's Center paid, and we have ceremonies, and it happens all over the country. KC (02:19:27): And the women were killed for what? SM (02:19:29): The doctor who came and killed the nurses. KC (02:19:31): That is right, yeah. SM (02:19:32): So, Montreal (19)89. And so we paid tribute to the tragedy of the women dying. But you could not even bring up paying memorial service to the ones that died at Kent State. It is activism again, it is bringing up all the past. KC (02:19:44): Well, it is because it is politically controversial, and universities do not like political controversy. It makes their trustees nervous because it makes the potential donors nervous. SM (02:19:55): Yeah. When I think of, I went to the Remembrance ceremony at Kent State 35th, and I went there and I spent the entire four day... There is no question to me that when you look at Sandy Scheuer and Bill Schroeder and Jeff Miller and Allison Krause, that they were destined to do good things. You look at their background, their families, what their majors were and everything else. The tragedy is that we lost those four, and then we lost the two at Kent State. And I do not know about one of them. I mean, Jackson State. But to me, that tragedy sticks with me because it is part of the Vietnam War. When I go to the wall in Washington, I know they did not die in Vietnam, but I see them all the time there. Here is some names, just quick responses. President Q? KC (02:20:50): Sleaze bag. SM (02:20:53): The other one, I forget. KC (02:20:54): Key? SM (02:20:54): Yeah, General Key? KC (02:20:56): Yeah. SM (02:20:56): We almost brought him to Westchester. KC (02:20:58): Yeah. A better dressed sleaze bag. He always used to wear an Ascot. SM (02:21:05): William Westmoreland. KC (02:21:07): Oh, God. War criminal. SM (02:21:13): How about Creighton Abrams? Neighbors found him. KC (02:21:19): Probably tried to do the best he could with a bad situation. SM (02:21:23): The two ambassadors, Ellsworth Bunker and Henry Cabot Lodge? KC (02:21:28): Bunker, I do not know much about Bunker, other than he was largely ineffective in dealing with the Vietnamese. Cabot Lodge was far more effective, but in a sneaky CIA way. SM (02:21:45): Dwight Eisenhower? KC (02:21:51): A president that was seen as very inactive in the Cold War, that actually was very active in covertly making sure that the dirty deeds were being done covertly by the CIA. SM (02:22:14): Do you think Vietnam went all the way back to Truman, when he rejected the letter from Ho Chi Minh? Because Ho Chi Minh had written a letter when we first became president, and he did not even acknowledge it because he was a communist. KC (02:22:27): Well, I would trace it back to Truman, but not for that reason. You could reject the letter and still not get yourself involved in Vietnam. America became deeply involved in Vietnam. That is why we are here. America's involvement began under Truman, with Truman's winking and a nod to the French using American equipment, to American money, American equipment, American uniforms, rifles, to win the front door of France for the purpose of solidifying France as a bulwark against the Soviets rolling into Europe, going right out the back door to Indochina. Truman knew all about that and increasingly supported the French effort in Indochina covertly. So, he takes the initial blame and everybody else gets in line after that. SM (02:23:22): It is a long line. couple other final ones here. The beats? KC (02:23:28): Oh, the beatniks? What do you mean, the beats? SM (02:23:30): Yeah, Marilyn Young, the history professor at NYU said that she felt the (19)60s began with the beats. KC (02:23:37): Yeah. See, she might be a little older than me. Yeah. The beats were... SM (02:23:42): Kerouac and Ginsburg. KC (02:23:44): I know who they are in history, but they were not real to me at the time. To me, the beats were what I saw on television. People in berets going, "Hey man..." SM (02:23:56): Maynard G. Krebs. KC (02:23:56): Maynard G. Krebs. That is right. Dobie Gillis. That is where I associate, that is the beats as far... Or the TV show called Bourbon Street Beat. SM (02:24:07): Cannot remember that one. KC (02:24:08): Yeah, that was not a long-lived one, but anyway. SM (02:24:11): (19)62 Missile Crisis? KC (02:24:14): I thought I was not going to live very much longer. I thought that was going to be pretty much it. We all certainly went to church a lot more, or synagogue, or wherever our beliefs led us, fearing that the country would go up any day in thermonuclear disaster. SM (02:24:37): The astronauts. 1969, Neil Armstrong. KC (02:24:40): The astronauts, yeah, pride, but not as much pride as the Europeans had, because I was in Europe when that hurt happened in (19)69. And when we went ashore from the ship, whether it was Spain, or France, Italy, that is all the people we're talking about around that period of time, how great this was. "You Americans had put somebody on the moon." And we said, "Oh, that is cool, and then give us another beer." We thought it was cool, but we did not take it as that big of a thing. But then again, all of us had been to Vietnam, so our own risks, to us, were more immediate, more memorable, and in some ways more direct than what we thought the astronauts were. They had, I think, a better chance of surviving that trip than many of us did going into combat Vietnam. SM (02:25:37): How about that Cold War, and we know that the Cold War was started right after World War II, but Cold War and Vietnam? KC (02:25:44): Well, some trace it all the way back to the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1917. And World War II was just a temporary break, a marriage of convenience between Stalin and FDR and Churchill, and that we went right back into our anti- Soviet approach after that. But one has to point out the exception, it was FDR that recognized for the first time, formally recognized Soviet Union in 1933 when he came into office. So he was at least willing to deal with them. But Cold War, what a huge mistake. I probably differ from a lot of other of your respondents in that sense. So, I think the entire Cold War was a mistake. SM (02:26:27): John Wayne? KC (02:26:30): Great movies, but certainly not like real combat people. SM (02:26:37): He played all those roles. KC (02:26:42): Played all those roles, and all of us who watched him developed all these myths about what combat really was like. SM (02:26:46): Cannot think of anything else here on. Make sure I covered it. Well, the generation gap, too. What is interesting today is there is obviously, I like your thoughts on the generation gap during the (19)60s, but comparing it today with the generation Xers, and even some boomers and their kids, they have never been closer. They are involved in students’ lives, and there does not seem to be any generation gap between generation Xers and millennials, or even the older boomers and millennials. What is happening there? KC (02:27:16): I think it is there, but it is more subtle. Unless you define gap in a certain way, that it takes a real qualitative aspect to it. That is, we are not talking about degrees here. We are talking about something in kind. One could say that, yeah, there was a generation gap among many during the (19)60s, of those boomers with their parents, but not all. I mean, again, we would have to sit down and say, okay, in reality, what percentage of boomers were truly alienated from their parents? And if I had simply come back from Vietnam and did what so many other Vietnam veterans did, there would have been no gap. I would have just simply come back to the life I led. I would have gotten a job or continued to go to church on Sundays with my family, and there would have been some differences because I have been in a war, certainly. But the gap would not have been there. I think the generation gap is most clearly evident between those who took, certainly that 15 percent who took leadership or acting role in a sustained way in the movements of the (19)60s and their parents. But for the other 85 percent, I would take a hard look at that before I would judge that as a gap, because I know a lot of people just simply went home and lived their own lives, and there was never any real gap. SM (02:28:34): What is your perception of the media's role in coverage of the Vietnam War, and coverage of social issues in that timeframe comparing to today? Some people think it is irresponsible that today's media is basically being controlled. That favoritism, for example, access to the White House, is that if you are in with the White House, you are favored, you get access. Has that always been the case, or has a Woodward and Bernstein type of a mentality gone? Investigative journalism? KC (02:29:02): Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Because we still have it. Seymour Hersh is still writing good stuff. Nobody's thrown him in jail. Nobody's tapped his phones lately, that I know of. Well, I am sure the NSA is busy tapping everybody's phone, tapping their cell phones and intercepting their email. But he does not seem to be singled out on anybody's enemy list or anything like that. You can still do investigative journalism to some degree. You do not have to anymore to some degree, because it is just not necessary because there is so many media organizations, outlets, forums, whether it is in cyberspace or print media or whatever, that there is a great deal of competition to constantly expose stuff. The Bush administration cannot keep it secret for God's sake. As powerful as they became in their most powerful years, the earliest years, when the neocons were truly on a roll, and they were doing some truly what I considered dastardly stuff. They still did not have full control, even over their own people, let alone everybody else. So, it has been a lot of stuff. A long list of books have come out critical of this war. Tell-all books from the administration itself, whether you are talking about inside the intelligence community, inside the military, inside the White House. Wherever you are talking about, there has been a lot of stuff uncovered that is been uncovered faster and in a broader way than ever happened during the Vietnam period. And I just think it is a difference. It is a difference in the technology. It is a difference in the times. We did not have cyberspace back then. We did not have the internet back then, so you are going to have differences. So I think the media plays pretty much the same role now as they did then, only in a much different way, because their communications facility, their communications tools in an information age are much different and much better than they were back then. The media plays just as good and just as bad role as, say, other institutions like Congress in these political controversies. Congress waits until they are absolutely sure public opinion is at least turning to their side, if not on their side, before they will act. The media is the same way. The media did not turn against the war first and public opinion followed. It was vice versa. Public opinion according to that polling figures that John Buehler and many others have come up with show that the public opinion swayed against the war before Walter Cronkite ever stepped out and said, "I think we have a stalemate here. We better think about new ways." So that the media does this. Why? Because the media has to sell those papers, sell that airtime, sell those advertisements, and they need to, as a responsible institution, be careful before they go out on a limb. They are careful. So, they are careful that the public has already turned against them before they start, as a mainstream mass turned against you. Of course, among the public, you have a fringe that turns against it earlier, and you have a fringe in the media that turns against it earlier, The Nation, or Ramparts, or something like that. So, I do not fault the media. I do not honor them for doing great things, and I do not condemn them for doing bad. They are doing what they are supposed to do. I cannot condemn them any more than the desert for being hot or the wind for blowing. SM (02:32:22): I keep coming up with questions here and we are going to end this, but I keep going back to Dr. King about one of the statements he made in one of his speeches that the Vietnam War had a disproportionate number of African Americans who served in that war. And when you got down to the wall in Washington, there is a disproportionate number of African Americans who were on that Wall. KC (02:32:43): How do you know? SM (02:32:44): See, I do not know. But then of course, this Dr. King, he died in 1968, and there were other people that died after (19)68, through (19)73. The question is this: the role of minorities in the Vietnam War, and you have made reference already that they at many times did not have any choice but to go through service. Some of it did it to better their lives, because they did not have any other alternatives. KC (02:33:11): Probably because they were drafted, probably because they did not have a job. SM (02:33:12): What was it like when you were there in terms of, we have already talked about drugs, but in terms of black, white, Latino, white, Native American, we have heard about, there has been some things written about Native Americans being thrown to the point because they were natural and- KC (02:33:33): Good trackers. SM (02:33:34): Good trackers, and then a lot of them died because of that. KC (02:33:36): I do not know about that. SM (02:33:37): But Asians, In terms of what was it like, and secondly, just being there, how strong was the anti-war movement amongst the troops? KC (02:33:47): Okay. That is a lot to answer in a short time, but I am going to try and do it briefly. SM (02:33:50): Do it short. KC (02:33:55): The area where there was clear and obvious tension between troops in Vietnam was between black and white troops. That is not to say that there were not racial tensions between Hispanics and whites, Hispanics and blacks, Asian, but I do not remember any Asian Americans in the units that I was in, but certainly Native Americans here or there. I do not recall anybody being singled out and put on point because of any of that, whether they were Native American or black or white or what. But I do recall that there seemed to be a higher concentration of black troops in grunt units, combat units, than in the Marine Corps in general. And I have heard and read and seen figures, I do not know how hard they are, that indicate that that was true in the Army as well. But then again, I have read since I started doing research on the war, that those figures are soft, and that the real story says that blacks did not die in any higher proportion than whites. So, I do not know what the actual figures are, or whose figures to use, but my personal experience tells me that there was a higher concentration, a disproportionate concentration of black troops in the grunt units. They still were not the majority. Whites were still majority of grunts, but if blacks were making 10 to 20 percent of the population up around that time, there was probably 30 or 40 percent of marine grunt units. When I was there in (19)68 and (19)69, they were blacks. Now the tension between there was manifested mostly when one was in the rear. The further in the rear, the more tension. The closer to the bush, the less tension. Because the closer to the bush, the closer to the danger, the more you needed each other. And the bush, you did not let those arguments get in the way. And you were your brother's keeper. And back in the rear, there was a luxury to take on political questions like that in that sense, social questions or whatever. And people could start to congregate among the cliques and shun others. And actually, at the worst times, get into fist fights, gun fights, knife fights, that kind of stuff. So that that is... And then either in Germany or Japan or back in the States, it was even worse. So the further got away from combat in Vietnam, the more the hostility. Because by (19)69 and (19)70, the hostility, you could cut it weather nice. It was so thick. It was really bad. At Camp Lejeune, we were getting ready to go on this med cruise after I was back from Vietnam, getting ready in August of, July of (19)69. And had a big going away party, I did not attend the party, but for the battalion, I was part of the battalion going away. They had a fight in the enlisted man's club after the club let out, and two people were killed, and a bunch were seriously wounded. And it was a racial fight. And by the time we had to leave the next day to go embark for Spain. But by the time we got to Spain, they were waiting for us. The Criminal Investigation Division with witnesses and a motorized, this box of wheels that had only a slip of everybody to get off the boat, single file, and picking out people that were part of this fight. They got shipped back for a trial. And that was a really bad scene. You could not go around a military base without several other people for fear of being jumped, knifed, robbed, maybe just simple robbery, drugs. I mean, the military was coming apart. There's no security on the military base. That was a bad scene. SM (02:37:37): Any final thoughts that you'd like to mention here, or anything that I maybe did not ask that you were expecting me to ask? KC (02:37:43): Yeah, Mỹ Lai. Why no Mỹ Lai? That is my question to you. SM (02:37:54): That was on my list here. I did not read it. Mỹ Lai. Yeah. KC (02:37:55): Well, on a much smaller level, much smaller level, far more typical in Vietnam, that is that killing innocent civilians, purposely killing innocent civilians, two or three or four at a time was not all that uncommon in Vietnam. Sometimes 10 or 20 at a time. Mỹ Lai was unusual that it was four or 500. That is what made it unusual. SM (02:38:15): And that it was Kelly and Medina, the names. KC (02:38:15): Yeah, sure. SM (02:38:15): Kelly got off, and they... KC (02:38:15): They got pardoned by Richard Nixon. SM (02:38:27): Okay. And Medina, whatever happened to him? KC (02:38:29): He was found innocent. Acquitted. SM (02:38:32): We had Country Joe McDonald on our campus a couple of years back, and Dan [inaudible 02:38:35] were in a dinner. KC (02:38:35): An old friend of VVAW. SM (02:38:35): No, he is a good guy. And he said that, Jan, did you want to tell Steve and everybody else in the room why there were no prisoners of war on the other side? They were only talking about on this side. And he wanted me to tell, and he was kind of making a reference to that there were no prisoners of war on the other side, that Americans took them. They gave them to the South Vietnamese troops, and the South Vietnamese troops summarily killed them all. KC (02:38:59): Well, they kill a lot... From my understanding, from my evidence, I did not experience it firsthand. I certainly had experience with prisoners of war, but they got passed on and I did not know where they went. But I found out later they did get turned out in South Vietnamese government, but not always right away. Often the Americans, usually Americans are targeted first, and then South Vietnamese, and it was not all that unusual for those detainees, those Viet Cong suspects or confirmed VC during the interrogation to somehow die, or certainly be seriously injured. And there were various ways of doing this with, field telephones, or water torture, or half a chopper ride. SM (02:39:42): Yeah. I heard the story about how they took them up in the helicopter. KC (02:39:45): Yeah. You never wanted to throw out the important one. You threw out the one that you knew did not have any information, to intimidate the important one. But again, I did not have any firsthand experience with this, but I certainly have been among enough Vietnam veterans, and some of them took pictures of this stuff. I mean, that is what sealed it with Mỹ Lai. If it was not for the journalists taking pictures, and then those pictures by other journalists being distributed through Life Magazine, Mỹ Lai would have passed largely as no big thing, because you would not have had the pictures. We thought we were out. The pictures make it. The stories can occur, but they only go so far without pictures. You got pictures. SM (02:40:17): That is a very sensitive issue for Vietnam, that Mỹ Lai. KC (02:40:18): Absolutely. SM (02:40:19): That labels them all as baby killers. And they all come back at you- KC (02:40:22): That is the 15 percent. That is a figure that is really important. When I first brought that up to you, I said, it's relevant in certain ways, but I won't go into it. This is the connection. And I do not delve deeply into it, but just point out that those of us in the anti-war movement who were Vietnam veterans, who began to talk about, and I did, as a young man, began to talk about what we saw or did ourselves, that were either possibly or probably war crimes, did not take care enough, did not understand and know and take care enough, to make that distinction between the 15 percent that were in combat, and 85 percent that were not. So that it looked like we were saying all Vietnam veterans. And what we were saying was not that... We were also saying that we do not hold most Vietnam veterans responsible, directly responsible for this. We hold their commanders, and especially the people in Washington who created the conditions for this to happen, like free fires on a body camp, all those things to put pressure on the uses of the Geneva Convention, who looked the other way, et cetera. But what I understand today that I did not understand then, and can tell people about, is that most Vietnam veterans deny that that ever happened because they never saw it. And they did not ever see it because they were never in a position to see it. You had to be part of the 15 percent to have a chance to see it firsthand. So, when a Vietnam veteran says, "I never saw anything like that." Well, 85 percent of them certainly did not see anything like that, because they were never in a position. And of the 15 percent who did some of those did not say anything because their particular commander did not let them do that. None of them. It has been buried among the commanders, too. And the time you were there, a lot of more about the early part of the war than later in the war. SM (02:41:47): Back in 1974, my very first job at High University of Lancaster campus, outside of Columbus, there was a Vietnam vet that had an office there. And I can remember that when they were hiring at the university, we were talking about affirmative action for African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Vietnam was not even an issue. KC (02:42:00): There was for Vietnam veterans, yeah. SM (02:42:00): Vietnam veterans are having a hard time sometimes getting a job because they were labeled. KC (02:42:00): They are still federally considered protected under federal law. Still protected. Equal opportunity protection. So those Vietnam veterans who absolutely deny the atrocity stuff you have to ask him, "Were you a grunt?" If you were not a grunt, you're probably not going to have had a chance to see any of this stuff. Well, they are sure did not happen anyway, but they wanted [inaudible] prior to the Vietnam war. SM (02:42:00): He was a little older. He had been in the service and very close to he and his friends. And I remember he was joking. Tell them the real story, how there were no POWs. And the POW stories and other issues, there is a brand-new book out now on POWs, that it has been a conspiracy all along that [inaudible]. America knows darn right that there are people over there. There are still people filing out. [inaudible]. KC (02:42:00): Always a ton of stuff coming. SM (02:42:00): How can you say there were no POWs [inaudible]. KC (02:42:00): I suspect it is horseshit. That does not sit right with those right-wingers. How can anybody want to say [inaudible]. SM (02:42:00): Thank you very, very much. KC (02:42:00): You are welcome. (End of Interview) Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Kenneth Campbell Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Campbell, Kenneth ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Political scientists; College teachers; University of Delaware; Campbell, Kenneth--Interviews Description An account of the resource <p>Dr. Kenneth Campbell is a scholar, reseacher and political scientist. Dr. Campbell is a Associate Professor Emeritus of Political Science and International Relations at Universtiy of Delaware, and he is the author for several journal articles and a book titled <em>A Tale of Two Quagmires: Iraq, Vietnam and the Hard Lessons of War</em>. He has a Bachelor's degree in History, as well as a Master's degree and Ph.D. in Political Science from Temple University.&nbsp; Dr. Campbell served in Vietnam during the Vietnam War in 1968 and 1969 and received a Purple Heart for his bravery. Due to his expertise in international affairs, he has testified before Congress on the Iraq War.&nbsp;<br /><br /><br /><br /></p> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002-07-14 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.183a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.183b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 163:15 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/1b0ef99ddb7a7e56b70f1074434cecf0.jpg 536c14a8456bb5ce32012c41c14be12d https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/5111a50ae3c22fbcf16b15f4621d181c.mp3 6929a256181a5f65964b01dcd873782c Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2002-07-29 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed James J. Kirschke Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;James J. Kirschke is currently an English professor at Villanova University. Kirschke earned his Bachelor's degree from LaSalle College, and his Master's degree and Ph.D. in English at Temple University. He served in Vietnam until was medically retired in 1968. He recounted his experiences in an autobiography entitled Not Going Home Alone. He is also the author of Henry James and Impressionism, Willa Cather and Six Writers from the Great War, and Gouverneur Morris (1752-1816): Author, Statesman, and Man of the World.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:15105,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">James J. Kirschke is currently an English professor at Villanova University. Kirschke earned his Bachelor's degree from LaSalle College, and his Master's degree and Ph.D. in English at Temple University. He served in Vietnam until he was medically retired in 1968. He recounted his experiences in an autobiography entitled <em>Not Going Home Alone</em>. He is also the author of <em>Henry James and Impressionism</em>, <em>Willa Cather and Six Writers from the Great War</em>, and <em>Gouverneur Morris (1752-1816): Author, Statesman, and Man of the World</em>.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;John F Kennedy's Election; Nineteen sixties; Ron Castillo; Grace Slick; Baby boom generation; Nineteen sixties government distrust; Bobby Mueller; Disabled veterans; La Salle University in nineteen-sixties.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:3,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:14275305}}">John F Kennedy's Election; Nineteen sixties; Ron Castillo; Grace Slick; Baby boom generation; Nineteen sixties government distrust; Bobby Mueller; Disabled veterans; La Salle University in nineteen-sixties.</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 91:45 Subject LCSH College teachers; Villanova University; Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Veterans; Kirschke, James J.--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. James J. Kirschke Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kirschke, James J. ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource College teachers; Villanova University; Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Veterans; Kirschke, James J.--Interviews Description An account of the resource James J. Kirschke is currently an English professor at Villanova University. Kirschke earned his Bachelor's degree from LaSalle College, and his Master's degree and Ph.D. in English at Temple University. He served in Vietnam until he was medically retired in 1968. He recounted his experiences in an autobiography entitled <em>Not Going Home Alone</em>. He is also the author of <em>Henry James and Impressionism</em>, <em>Willa Cather and Six Writers from the Great War</em>, and <em>Gouverneur Morris (1752-1816): Author, Statesman, and Man of the World</em>. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002-07-29 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.76 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 91:45 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/4dd9b79e07b905eebb184c938db06c62.jpg 87bb7515db9433bb3b1f46d0cd97cb1c https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/d64fde35685b4bc7bb1d20f9c70ec91f.mp3 57ca2e5d45e5e68a725e28abb87ad020 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2003-05-28 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Paul Critchlow Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Paul Critchlow retired from the Bank of America as the head of communications and public affairs. Previously, he served as the chief political writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer and then as press secretary to Pennsylvania Governor Dick Thornburgh. Critchlow has a Bachelor's degree from the University of Nebraska, Omaha and a Master's degree from Columbia University.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:15243,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,5099745],&quot;6&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,4995385],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:11}">Paul Critchlow is a Vietnam veteran with years of experience in government, finance, and journalism. Critchlow retired from the Bank of America as the head of communications and public affairs. Previously, he served as the chief political writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer and then as press secretary to Pennsylvania Governor Dick Thornburgh. Critchlow has a Bachelor's degree from the University of Nebraska, Omaha and a Master's degree from Columbia University. Paul Critchlow served in Vietnam and he considers this experience the watershed event in his life.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data MicroCassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 102:40 Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Vietnam War; WWII; Hiroshima; Baby boom generation; Anti-War Movement; Veteran; Dwight D. Eisenhower; John F. Kennedy; Richard Nixon; Tom Hayden; Jane Fonda; Lyndon B. Johnson; Conscientious objector; Benjamin Spock; Environmental movement; George McGovern; Robert McNamara&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:515,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:14281427},&quot;12&quot;:0}">Vietnam War; WWII; Hiroshima; Baby boom generation; Anti-War Movement; Veteran; Dwight D. Eisenhower; John F. Kennedy; Richard Nixon; Tom Hayden; Jane Fonda; Lyndon B. Johnson; Conscientious objector; Benjamin Spock; Environmental movement; George McGovern; Robert McNamara</span> Subject LCSH Bank of America; Journalism—Political aspects; Press secretaries; Critchlow, Paul--Interviews Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Paul Critchlow Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Benjamin Mehdi So Date of interview: 28 May 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) 0:00 SM: When you think of the (19)60s and the early (19)70s, what comes to your mind when you think of that period? 0:10 PC: Well for me it was a, it was a very exciting, it was a very exciting period. It was also clearly; I was very aware that it was a tumultuous period. I was raised and born and raised in Omaha, Nebraska. And I remember, I went to high school in the from (19)64 through-through, I am sorry, from 1960 to 1964. So, the Civil Rights Movement was somewhat underway. I was a little isolated from it in you know, Nebraska at that time was a fairly conservative state. It still is, but much more cosmopolitan now than it was then, and I remember certainly reading about all these things and being interested in curious and did not necessarily have a lot of exposure to them. I remember that I actually had no interaction with any-any black people until I was on the high school, track and football teams in uh Omaha Benson High School and competed against them. We had no blacks, had no Hispanics, no Asians at all in my school we were I was basically all white. That was a big school, 2500 kids. And you know, I remember running against them and track Gale Sayers was one of the guys that ran against yeah, he was two years older than me, but I still had two years of overlapping, competing with him and he, he beat me. But then and then when I went to Nebraska University, I got a full-full scholarship to play football there. And of course, there were quite a few African Americans on the football team. And, uh, and yet, there were not still not very many blacks in the school in the university, which was a very-very, it was a big school, there must have been 30,000 kids in the school. And so that was kind of my exposure to them. I absolutely remember, John, uh, John F. Kennedy, getting killed. I was a, uh, I think a sophomore in high school. And then I remember in college Robert F. Kennedy being assassinated in Los Angeles. And I just remember being incredibly bereft by his assassination. I remember being out with a girl who was a go-go dancer in the, from, you know from the one of the downtown Lincoln Nebraska bars. And I remember laying out in the cornfield with her and we decided, you know, we were both upset by his death, and we decided that we would meet the next morning and, you know, drive out to California. And we did not. [laughter] We did not meet, and we did not drive. So, you know, I, I had I had no direct experience with any of it but clearly had some consciousness of it. And I knew as an exciting time I knew the war was starting the Vietnam War was starting to heat up and I had entered the University of Nebraska in 1964. And was a redshirt which meant I had five years of eligibility, so I figured I got five years to avoid the draft and all my friends were thinking the same thing. They were all you know a number of them begin to take steps to-to avoid being drafted. All middle-class kids, nobody wealthy but you know, middle, middle, middle economic strata and the-the, um, a number of them as they got closer to the end of school, join the National Guard or the Air National Guard. Some of them got married. Now they, in every case they were truly in love. They had girlfriends and they got married and nobody you know, as far as I recall, it was not like there was a whole lot of debate on the campus of Lincoln. The only protest I remember is probably in my junior or my third or fourth year, which would have been (19)60. Well, probably in my fourth year, which was (19)67/ (19)68. There were about 50 protesters outside the administration building. And I remember, uh, I remember that irritating me for the first time I think I had a sensation of patriot-patriotism. But at the same time, I was kind of like a lot of kids in the (19)60s, also into the (19)60s, you know, flower child, hippie kind of lifestyle was interesting. You know, an intriguing, of course I never lived it, did not really even do drugs then but I did drink a lot of beer. And so, I remember the, in the, uh, it was just it was sort of a lot of partying, partying, it was going on. And I remember getting, you know, drunk most nights and that I was not, you know, in football training, and even some nights when I was and so I do not know how long you want me to go on, you know. 6:38 SM: That-that is good. Okay. When you think of the boomer generation, sociologists will say that the boomer generation are people that were born between 1946 and 1964. Although anybody who knows history knows that some of the leaders of the antiwar movement were born in (19)41, (19)42, (19)43 and (19)44. It is hard to kind of differentiate the two. But do you get a lot? A lot of people today, sociologists oh, George rolls even done it tax the boomer generation as being a very negative generation in American history because of drugs, the sexual lifestyle, and certainly the antiwar movement, the protest, what are your thoughts on the boomers? Do you consider them a group that added to our history in a positive way? Or, or do you feel that some of the things that they did we have really set back our nation and we still have some of these problems today because of what happened in the (19)60s? 7:45 PC: Hmm, it is a very, very interesting question. I mean, the, uh, well, the boomer generation was the largest population wave United States, you know, post all the immigration occurred here, but the I do not know, you know, I guess the, the, uh, the, there were- you know, I framed so many things in the context of the war because I went and I can, I am amazed to this day by how when another war is contemplated, the divisions resurface. And I am amazed by how people still write op eds and speak you know about the war from the Vietnam perspective. And when I came to-to-to participate in the forum you conducted you know, the-the fella who was an antiwar- 9:02 SM: Larry Davidson. 9:03 PC: -Guy, you know, uh, I found myself just really in my gut, angry at him. And knowing that was not rational I mean, intellectually I knew that was not rational. But clearly those-those the-the direction that I ended up going shaped how I view the world and I am sure in the direction he ended up going shaped how he viewed the world and informed him throughout the rest of his life. You know, I believe that is probably a safe statement to make. But on balance, I think that-that is like a subject for a sociological study, really that question but on balance, I think that the boomer generation has created the enormous wealth that we have, and I think it probably is the diversity of backgrounds and beliefs and opinions. That have caused American society to be so innovative, you know, people have not been afraid to voice their views and come up with-with ideas that might have seemed unpopular and they have been willing to go ahead and, you know, put their money where their mouth is or put there, you know, put their lives on the line and or, you know, just to state how they feel. I think that is probably better than having grown up in a, you know, homogenous culture that would have had everybody thinking more alike, so I mean, I think [phone rings] I think on balance, it is probably stimulated the, the country's economic and social progress. [phone continues to ring] 10:56 SM: Did you want to answer? This leads right into a perfect segue into the next question. What are the qualities you most admire in boomers? And what are the qualities you least admire? Again, from your vantage point, yeah, sir. 11:14 PC: Hmm I think the boomers came from a very rich environment in terms of the conflicts that they grew up, you know, in their formative years with the fact that they came from the World War II generation you know, they are the offspring of the World War II generation you know, the greatest generation as broke all called it. I was born on August 6, 1946, you know, exactly one year after the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. And so, I was always aware of the dropping of the bomb and of course, in the (19)50s we went through the you know, the, uh, the Cold War, we went through the-the bomb shelters. And so, we had that. We grew up with that, in our for-formative years we grew up with, with that sort of overhanging fear and anxiety of nuclear war and worrying about the stability and personal trustworthiness of our leaders and leaders of Russia. You know, and so, you know, the-the and I and, and then to go into the (19)60s when I say worrying about the trustworthiness of our leaders, I think having confidence in the trustworthiness of our leaders through the (19)50s and then hitting the (19)60s. And having that confidence undermined by questions about the prosecution of the war, whether it was political, you know, questions about the establishment. I mean, we were children of-of a very establishment center, you know, way of life. And all of those feelings and attitudes became challenged in the (19)60s, you know, by the, by the civil rights movement, and I am talking now from the perspective of a shelter, white boy, no, without a lot of exposure to a black population. There was one in Omaha there was a and they lived in one part of Omaha. And there was not really a whole lot of integration, you know, so I mean, I was just not exposed to it. And then to have all of that have that sort of, you know, that sort of set of attitudes, that everything is the way that I am used to it having all that being challenged and undermined in the (19)60s and probably the (19)70s. I think required boomers to become more adaptable and forced us to maybe be more thoughtful about our own ideological beliefs. And so, we were about you know, I-I think it was the one I that was what I talked about when I talked about the context of where we came from, and-and what we went through. Gave us gave us an ability to-to be more adaptable to, to different ways of thinking and different ways of looking at things and- [doorbell rings] 15:14 SM: Right in the middle of that questionnaire regarding the quality you most admire or at least admire and antics. 15:21 PC: Yeah, I, I think the boomers demonstrated both admirable and not so admirable qualities. I think the boomers unfortunately also became known as rather self-centered and sort of became the, you know, the- because there was such a period of economic prosperity. They got a reputation for being a little materialistic, you know, the me generation like but I also think that they they-they have stablish you know, a tremendously much more informed kind of body politic or electorate, if you will. That has, uh, I mean, I, to me, what is amazing is you really had during Vietnam, kind of roughly half the population favored the war and half the population did not favor the war. And the debate and the divisions were very sharp, and you were kind of either forward or again. And if you think about how the body politic has evolved in the United States, you know, the parties are almost constantly shifting back and forth in terms of control and elections. So, so there is there are there are rooms there is room for a sort of the more left leaning ideology and the more right leaning and ideology and it is, it just never ceases to amaze me that the It is- stays consistently so, you know, for decades, you know, for down through the decades since the (19)60s and (19)70s. And I think that, you know, that has to have come from the from the divisions and the different-different experiences that people had. You know, as you said, everybody was touched by Vietnam one way or another. Right, everybody, you know, I mean, just was- 17:28 SM: Some of the books will say that 15 percent of the population was actually involved in some sort of an activist movement, but that the other 85 percent effective their subconscious in some way. So, the whole 70 plus million boomers were in some way affected. 17:43 PC: By oh, definitely. 17:44 SM: By-by Vietnam. I like your thoughts on the impact that boomers have had on their kids. Because I think this is interesting, because I just my perception is once your thoughts as I looked at some of the young people from generation X, which was the generation the foul in the (19)90s, and now generation Y, which I believe is your son's, my nephews group too, um, our they as activist minded as the people from the (19)60s that it was almost like when they look at the (19)60s or the seven, early (19)70s, they do look upset with boomers because they are nostalgic for they wish they have lived during that time. Because, of course, this is before 9/11 is really yeah. 9/11. And certainly, has changed everything. But your thoughts on whether boomers have passed on their activism to their kids in following generations. 0:18:42 PC: I mean, boy, that is a tough one. You know, I mean, it is like- I think boomers, I really can only speak from personal experience, but I think boomers have tended to pass on whatever their basic attitudes and ideologies were. I passed on a stronger belief in authority in authoritarianism and establishment way of life. My wife is 10 years younger than me. So, she is a half generation, you know, removed. Born in 1956. She has always been very activist and always very, very challenging of government and authority and she has passed that on to the kids. So, there has been a little struggle for the little bit of a struggle for the soul of our children's souls of our children. And each of them has picked up my daughter is probably more- I am sure there must be some conflicting impulses there, but my daughter is more is more activist and more liberal, more left leaning and she is, she will challenge authority, you know all the time, and yet likes the comforts provided by the more establishment way of life. My son is probably more like me, and more, more respectable, more respectful of authority. And-and yet he is also not afraid to ask questions, but he does it with he does it without the edge that my daughter does. So that is a tough one. It is hard for me to generalize about that. I do not know how to do that. It is good. 20:46 SM: It is good because you from an individualistic point of view, right. Yeah, generalists? Well, I think that learned from working with college students that you cannot generalize. 20:55 PC: No. 20:56 SM: You cannot and be around a group one year and then the next year is totally different. And when I was years ago used to say every 10 years, you can see the difference between generation now it is every four years. 21:10 PC: I do think there was a generation X which is, you know, I mean, I had him fairly late. So, I mean, I also have a 28-year-old son by a first marriage. But I was not around we set we divorced. And that generation was known as the slacker generation. And they were more into me they were more into just getting by. But now I see you know, now I see him come, you know, he has come out of that. And he is-he is a, I think we are more I think boomers, most boomers tend to be more tolerant of experimentation by their kids. Because they did not, you know, I mean, there is nothing, there is very little that I did not do. I mean, I, you know, you know, was very interested in sexuality. You know, I think everybody is, but you were more free to experiment with it. I was more likely to experiment with drugs not the way the generation X I think got into it more, I believe. Well, that is not true. I think there is quite a bit of drug use in the (19)60s. But anyway, I cannot remember the basic question now. [laughter] 22:42 SM: Sure, man, let me show this to you talk about-about the antiwar movement. Could you comment on your thoughts on those individuals who are involved in the antiwar movement and secondly, how what kind of impact did they have on ending the war. I interviewed him. I have had some unbelievable mixed responses to this question. To see your thoughts on the antiwar movement. 23:14 PC: Well, first of all, you know, as a veteran, and relating more to the way I was treated well, relating the two things that I can specify one when I was there. First of all, I mean, I think, you know, I volunteered for the draft. You know, I did not enlist I literally called my draft board and said, I am ready to be drafted even though I had another year of college eligibility. And what happened was, I just got I broke my leg and football, and you know, began drinking even worse and just sort of decided, you do not want to play football anymore and you are screwing off in school. You know, and I knew that Vietnam was going to be the defining experience of my generation. And I made a conscious decision, if that is what it is, I would rather go be there and see it, than to oppose it or avoid it. And it was not out of any great sense of patriotism at all. Steve, it was much more out of a sense of adventure, and curiosity. You know, what, what, what is this thing? I mean, how can this be, you know, I mean, you saw a lot of images on TV and read about it, but it was sort of like, you know, I want to go see, I want to be there, I want to be at this, I want to be at the center of action. Now, there are two ways to do that. You know, one was to be in the antiwar movement. One was to be in the war. And so, I am very careful to explain that I am, I am not a great patriot. And then I went there thinking, oh my God, I have to defend my country. I mean, I was aware that there was opposition to the war that there were questions about how the politicians were conducting it. And part of it was just to escape, you know, an unfortunate, you know, sort of a downward spiral that I was in I just I just wanted to get away from Nebraska and get out and get away from football and get away from the, you know, the-the defeatism that I felt, you know, from breaking my leg, you know, I was just sort of like depressed, you know? So, I uh- 25:31 SM: Did you fear losing your life. Did you when you want to be in the center of action? 25:34 PC: I was, I was aware, but I did not care. I mean, it was like, I mean, I truly just thought, you know, I wanted the experience, but it was more of an experience seeking was not thrill seeking, it was just, I want to see what this is all about. If it is, I absolutely knew, as you say, I knew at that time that it was going to define my generation I just knew it and I and I decided I do not want to be on it. I want to be there and experience what it really is more than I want to be on the other side opposing it. Okay, so. So, I went over, and the first specific thing is that I remember hearing and reading, you know, and I knew because I went over in (19)69 hearing and reading that, I mean, the (19)69 is when troops started to get withdrawn. You will recall that was sort of the turning, turning point of the of the war. And so, I knew that the politicians were starting to react to the antiwar protests. So, when I went over, morale was not-not very good. And I attributed that to the antiwar protesters and in particular to the kids on college campuses. So immediately, the, the, you know, the first time that I saw an American, you know, get killed. My anger toward the enemy became very great. And I did in fact, equate the enemy with communists and, uh, and then I wanted to, you know, and then I felt great anger toward the antiwar protesters. Then I came back, you know, badly wounded, almost died and was treated, you know, very badly and with great disrespect by the moment I came back, I mean, it was just unbelievable. I mean, my-my friends would not return my phone calls, they would all virtually I would say 95 percent of my friends had avoided the war one way or the other. Old girlfriends would not even come to the phone when I called. I remember going to a party. And these were not particularly antiwar people, but I sort of lumped them all together. I remember going to a party I was on crutches. And it was in a big room and the whole room just gradually moved away from me. And all of a sudden, I was standing there alone in a corner on crutches and just thinking, oh, my God, I just these people hate me. I feel terrible. They did not want to talk to me, you know, I mean, and-and so what did I do? Then I healed and I went back to undergraduate school and finished up my undergraduate degree, and then I went to, uh- but I had a deep, you know, antipathy for the protesters. And then I went to Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. And on the very first night that I went to campus for the first organizational meeting, there was a huge, so now we are talking 1970, (19)70, uh, 1970 like 19- Fall of (19)70 there was a Huge antiwar protest right in the quadrangle, and I had to walk through it to get to my first sort of class meeting, the incoming class. And I just remember thinking, you know, I want to kill these motherfuckers. And yet I was also terrified that they would find out I was a Vietnam veteran. Right. I was the first Vietnam veteran to go to the Graduate School of Journalism. And so, I sort of put my jacket over my head and just sort of snuck through the group. You know, there was thousands of and, and I and I literally thought to myself, you bastard, you fucking spoiled you know, college kids do not understand that you are causing people to die, causing Americans to die by not supporting them. Those are my feelings. Okay. So, and then I hid the fact that I was a Vietnam veteran for six months. Nobody in my class knew it. Until finally after about six months, I got to know people well enough, let them know that I was a veteran. And I listened to all the antiwar, crap and rhetoric. And just I was just full of anger, you know, most of the time. And yet, because I had four years of undergraduate school before I went into the army, you know, I did not go over as a 17-year-old or 18-year-old draftee, I mean, I went over to draftee, but I was already 20. You know, 23. So, and, and I had an intellectual understanding, which was strengthened over, you know, over time that the antiwar protests were, in fact, helping to bring about an end to the war. And so, I knew overall that was good. But as you say, the defining factor for me in terms of how I felt about the antiwar movement was that they disrespected- [audio get cut off] 31:21 SM: Did you were a military garb? 31:22 PC: No, I never know I never want military garb. 31:26 SM: Did Professors treat you when they found out you were a vet. I have heard mixed stories about professors. 31:32 PC: Well, there were some, there were some absolute super left-wing professors there and I think I just avoided you know, like I say I was it was only it was a nine-month program, the Graduate School of Journalism. And for six months I mean, I just avoided talking to them about it. But I hated it. I still performed you know, all right. I got threw in blah, blah, blah. And I became more because I became interested in journalism in really as a result of my experience in Vietnam, then I began to read a lot more. And I became acutely aware that the antiwar movement in the end, probably was intellectually understood that it was a positive force. And but you have to separate the emotional and the intellectual. Right. And I have always done that. And, uh, sorry I cannot remember what the basic question was. 32:40 SM: No, but you covered up beautifully. One of the things that is interesting, you probably remember this as a young person to that. I can remember this on college campuses. You would go to a rally; you would be in a class. The Boomers would always say, a lot of students would say we are the most unique generally in American history, we are going to change the world. There is nothing like us. And there will be nothing like this. No generation that will follow us and we are going to make the world a better place. We are going to solve all the problems of the world or an end racism, sexism, you know, all kinds of things, peace in the world. Was that boasting? You thought? You heard that when you were a young person? Oh yeah, I heard it all the time when I was a student, no-no. And, and now, boomers are all in their mid (19)50s. Mm hmm. And so just kind of reflecting again, maybe- 33:41 PC: Yeah, I think I well, okay. I mean, I think there was a real sense of idealism. You know, especially on the college campuses. And again, you know, we have to remember we are talking about from our experience, you know, we were in college. There were a lot of boomers who were not- did not go to college, but I cannot speak for them. I do not really know. But their worlds were like, but the, there was the idealism of the (19)60s, as I said, the flower power you know, the tune in, the drop out, tune out, tune in or whatever it is, you know that the thing was, yeah, Timothy Leary, and all that there was a, a sense that there could be, there was a sense that that peace was a, an ideal to be achieved, and that there was a sense of individual empowerment to be able to achieve peace or at least reduce or eliminate war if individuals simply decided not to participate. And so, there was that there was a sense of power and that you could do important things and yeah, I mean, I think it was, you know, I met I think there was that sense. And I, I think boomers today have moved into all, you know, boomers today are in all these positions of leadership, partly by virtue of their age, but I do not think there is any lack of, you know, confidence that social ills and, you know, other major, very tough problems cannot be tackled. I mean, I think that is, I think that is sort of intrinsic in the boomer generation. By the way, I forgot to mention that. Another thing that caused me to decide to go to Vietnam was that my father was a pilot during World War II, in the Army Air Corps, and he trained on B-29 bombers. And, but unfortunately, he was [phone rings] unfortunately- I mean, I say unfortunately says what you think. I mean, he, just as he finished his training, the war ended. And so, he did not ever go overseas. And that always bothered him. And they regret it that he never had a chance to go. And so, I think that was in the back of my mind, you know, you have a chance to go have this experience. So, you should do that, you know. And I wanted it to make him proud of me. Did I miss your last question? 36:38 SM: No, you understand the culture, some of these? Talk about the importance of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington DC, and the whole concept of healing. I think, to me, what was described, and others did, and the creation of that wall is set an example for everyone in terms of healing. But I would like your thoughts on as the wall itself from your personal feelings, the effect that it has on veterans today. And also, the effect that it has on those people who were the antiwar movement. And I have probably read stories too about members of the antiwar movement and Larry Davidson, who said, you are right, was down in Washington with his son and his son, his son is only the same age as your son. He said dad what did you do in the war? And you know, Larry never really talked much about it, because he is a Messer. And so, he had to explain what he did, because there is so the basic question is, what-what impact has the Vietnam Memorial had on Vietnam veterans, the people who probably worried about the antiwar movement and the nation as a whole and how and in terms of healing? 38:00 PC: Yeah, well, I believe the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is has had an enormously positive and very powerful effect on the Vietnam veterans themselves. I remember when it was first being debated discussed 20 years ago, 20 years ago. Yeah. I did not really, I still had not fully, quote come out about being a Vietnam veteran. Because I felt sort of, I mean, I was proud of that of my individual service. But it was not something that I talked about a lot. I guess that stems from, you know, the reaction when I came back, you know, and from my friends and from, you know, going to Colombia and you know, I mean, it just was, it was it was a nascent feeling for me to have any sense of pride in it because, you know, the war was so widely condemned as a bad thing. You know, and-and the- and, you know, the other part of it is, I think you come to terms with what you actually did, you know, in the war yourself, and I was in a lot of combat, and I did, you know, participate in some killing and, and, and I think that, you know, there were some really terrible, you know, incidents and situations and most of us, you know, who were in combat. You know, you carry that with you, so you feel you feel a little guilty about what you did, too. And so, the-the, the drive to create the wall I-I sort of hung back from it. I sort of watched it, but I did not get emotionally involved in it ever until years after it was built. In fact, it was years before I went saw it. 40:17 SM: Yeah, I know several vets who have not gone yet. 40:20 PC: Yeah, and-and then I remember when I first did go to see it. God it was like it was only maybe it was probably about must have been about 12 years ago or something like that. It was about eight years old. And I remember just walking down into that wedge, you know that and just thinking, oh my god, this is just overwhelming. I mean, it was just so powerful and-and it was just it was in fact very, very healing and I went back to my hotel room. I was down there on business, and I immediately called, you know, Clearview Florida and got directory assistance for my best friend in the army who was killed their Roland dePaolo. And, and I had gone to his home, I knew his family and, but I had never ever contacted them ever, ever since. You know, coming back myself, and I called her and I talked to his mother and I said, I just want to know, I just went to the wall, and I found Roland’s name and I just, you know, I just, you know, I was thinking that was the first time you would ever yeah, wow, first time I had ever contacted her even though I knew them and I knew where they lived and I had been to their home because he and I used on leave from Fort Benning used to go there to his home. But that was how conflicted I was, you know, not wanting to deal with things that went on. Just not wanting to deal with any of it you know, other than sort of distantly and emotionally and. And so then of course, I began to go, you know, every time I went to Washington, and so it has become it became enormously healing but I did not know anybody in the in the move- I mean, I did not know anybody in the movement. I got interested in vet veterans. I was active in Veterans Affairs, but it was mostly because of politics because I was big former military. So, I did it as because I had entree, and I could get the veterans to line up behind Thornburg. But I was not really emotionally. And by the end, by the way, it was all World War Two, you know, and Korean vets, you know, it was it was the American Legion types Basically. The Vietnam veterans, or the Vietnam Veterans of America had just formed up and I sort of, they were sort of like, there were some real crazies who started that thing up and I saw I sort of kept my distance from them. 42:59 SM: Bobby Muller one Bobby. 43:01 PC: Bobby Muller, who I knew now I have known I have talked to and, and, and a guy named Dave Christian, remember him in Philadelphia, he was kind of an operator. But anyway, so-so the war so the wall became a tremendous-tremendous healing mechanism for me personally. And then I was able to deal with it and you know, I love going there and of course subsequently, I got involved with the people on the corporate advisory board. And actually, I actually got involved through the women's Vietnam Memorial that was how I got involved because I somebody asked me to meet with Diane and I helped help raise money in Maryland. So, and then the more I got into it, you know, the more I got, you know, then I met Scruggs and Right. And I just got more and more drawn into it, you know, and it was just an enormously healing device for me and through the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Foundation, then of course, I got invited back to, to go with a delegation to Vietnam, a heck of an experience on the 25th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. And that was just an extraordinary opportunity to go back. And in the article that I wrote in American heritage, you will see that I, my wife, Patty, said to me several years earlier, you know, I think you should go to Vietnam, and I will go with you. And she said, so my gift to you is, you know, we will go to Vietnam together and I said, oh, that was nice, but I did not really want to go, you know, I just always found reasons not to go. Then when I got this invitation. All of a sudden, there was no reason not to go and I went. 45:00 SM: How many people went all together? 45:01 PC: There were about I think about 20 business, businessmen in the delegation, you know, which was led by Jan Scruggs and James Kinsey. And, you know, people I knew, just absolutely astonishing experience and I found the battlefield where I was wounded. And that was, I found the exact spot. I mean, I did a lot of tremendous amounts of research again, which is all documented in that article, but- 45:29 SM: Still look the same. 45:31 PC: No, it was built up. No, it was jungle, and it was farmed. It was being farmed when I got there. So, I actually it was easier for me to spot than I thought because I knew that topography. I knew the map. And through research I found, I knew it was Hill 102 and I found the hill and I found the spot and it was really just that to me that was it was the probably the, the most emotional and greatest moment of my life was to find that spot on the battlefield to find the battlefield. And then finally, when I say spot generally, you know, the, the place where I was almost killed. 46:12 SM: If had not been for visiting that wall, you never would have been there. 46:15 PC: I would never have, would have never gone there. And I just would not, well, I might have gone on my own, but probably not. You know, so. 46:27 SM: I have a question here on trust. We all know the history about Lyndon Johnson, and, uh- 46:38 PC: Is that really going to affect your tape. 46:40 SM: It might I am not sure. [they pause to fix the audio] Do you think of Lyndon Johnson you think of Richard Nixon think of Watergate you think of Vietnam. You had mentioned earlier in the interview about during the (19)50s. We looked at our leaders as young people, there was a sense of trust. But then we get into the (19)60s and there is a lack of tremendous lack of trust because of what was being told to us about the Vietnam War. And McNamara and the body count on the other things and certainly Richard Nixon and Watergate kind of a lack of trust in leaders was something that many people in fact a lot of the boomer generation looks on that period that is why I think they oftentimes continue to distrust leaders. Your thoughts on the- what that is really done to America? Because you know, you live you work in the corporate world, and you have seen it in recent years about people, young people, we are always looking at young people and how they look at leaders, whether it be in the corporate world, whether they be in Washington, DC or whoever they are, university presidents, and whatever. What-what did that have? What effect did that have on the movie regeneration returned to their psyche as they raise their own children and then we head into days here because you talked about the boomers are a fluid group, yet they grew up around leaders that they did not trust especially in their formative years. 48:20 PC: I would guess that it-it has generally had a negative effect on-on American society certainly on the formations of the sustainability of different administration's okay. Watch your tape or something. I you know, I think that the-the boomers are somewhat more ready and always have been too ready to believe bad things that are said about their leaders as a result of having been having grown up in the (19)60s. And so, you know, in in the days of Eisenhower and JFK, you know, there was enormous confidence. Now, it is a little naive not to not I mean, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon had a lot to do with that theory, by their behaviors, so, but that is what I am talking about, you know, so Nixon was probably driven to do the things he did, you know, by-by, by fear of, by, obviously by a paranoid fear of not being trusted. So, you know, it there is probably there is probably too much skepticism on the part of boomers, about their leaders, the leadership of their country and the leadership of their states and cities. They are too ready to believe bad things they are in and that in and of itself creates a market for the media and for political, for other political people to make negative statements about people in office, or people running for office. It is a very, I mean, politics has become very negative and very poisonous. And I think that has, you know, that must have some of its roots in the, in the willingness of the body of the major part of the body politic. to, you know, to believe all the negative stuff or to want to hear it, you know, I mean, it is like, a lot of the negative stuff is real. Irrelevant to governing. 51:02 SM: When you look at the media today and how they looked at some of the corporate leaders that have gone down? Yeah. And, you know, what is the media's role in all this too? And certainly, basically, what you are saying then is that some of the individuals that are our age, who are in the antiwar movement or against the leaders, there are, are not easy targets, but are individuals that believe, immediately when they hear the stories about the corporate leaders, right, I think about the willing to generalize the generalization again, which we can never get into analyzing all corporate leaders, because the bad actions of a few. 51:47 PC: Exactly that is what I think you said it better. And it could I mean, it is just there is just this tremendous sort of susceptibility to believing that if a few people are bad at actors that the whole corporate scene or the whole governmental scene is full of bad actors, that it is that it is intrinsically corrupt. And that is just that is not usually I believe that most, the 99 percent of all the people in government public service, you know, are more in leadership are good and decent people. But there is a willingness to generalize, the opposite, you know, fan by the media, which, I mean, the media would not be fanning out if there were not an appetite for it. So, I am not blaming the media. I am blaming the appetite. You know- 52:44 SM: I have names here that I have some names here that I want to read off and just some quick responses and your thoughts on these individuals, just your personal opinions. And these are people of the era, right. Tom Hayden. 53:05 PC: Tom Hayden, you know I have a very negative had a very negative view of him which stayed negative which is still negative because I know I know his activities as a state senator in California. 53:23 SM: Jane Fonda. 53:26 PC: I do not use the word hate lightly, but I hate her. I mean, the picture of her sitting in an anti-aircraft. Battery was a-a, an North Vietnamese Army helmet on her head in Hanoi is just infuriating beyond belief. I think she committed the ultimate act of treason. She had no standing to do it. You know, she no standing to do it so. So, I sort of suspend my belief in free speech when it comes to Jane Fonda. And I link her with Tom Hayden. So, they were married. You know- 54:10 SM: There was a slogan in Washington DC this past week. And then I saw him It says, I will forgive Jane Fonda when the Jews forgive him. I would say that was amazing. And it was a big sign. And it was, it was right as people were walking in to get tickets. Yeah. 54:25 PC: I do not know if I would go that far because- but I-I-I just despise what she did I despise, by the way, now you are getting my real innermost feelings because I despise celebrities. All celebrities who make, uh, anti-war statements who have no standing whatsoever to do that except by virtue of their celebrity. If you give me a you know, if you give me a-a university professor who has studied history, and he opposes the war in Iraq, I will bet, that I respect but if you give me some of these actors who stood up, most of whom never went to college, you know, Susan Sarandon, they can all kiss my ass are concerned, I would not even go to a movie to see him. But other than that, I do not feel strongly. 55:26 SM: It is okay. Just-just quick thoughts on Lyndon Johnson. 55:31 PC: Lyndon Johnson, I think was I have you know, I have mixed reaction mixed feelings about him. I mean, he, I think was he inherited a war situation I think he was a victim of his own pride and, but it was also somewhat tied in his in his pride in America, that he did not know how to extricate America from that war with honor. But I also give him enormous credit for advancing the civil rights agenda of the country. And I think that history is looking more kindly on him. And I think he demonstrated enormous courage not running for another term. 56:18 SM: It is interesting. There is some, everybody seems to dwell on the foreign policy of Vietnam. The Lyndon Johnson brand new book just came out on Lyndon Johnson and NATO. Johnson in Europe and others are starting to look more about other things that he did in the world besides the Vietnam era, which is when. Bobby Kennedy. 56:37 PC: Bobby Kennedy, in many ways, though, he had an antiwar bent. He was so articulate, you know, that I admired him. And in fact, when he came in Nebraska University to speak, he had a huge reception, even though it is a very conservative place, he had an ability to inspire and uplift people. 57:00 SM: Certainly did, boy did I was I was a student in New York at that time campaigning. 57:06 PC: And also, he was, you know, the keeper of the Kennedy flame. And you know, and I, like everybody else. I idolized JFK because he was young and vibrant. And he showed he demonstrated courage on some bad pay in the Bay of Pigs in the Cuban missile crisis and all that sort of thing. So- 57:26 SM: Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, the Black Panther Party. 57:29 PC: I have very negative feelings about them because you know, they were trying to undermine the rightful process of government. 57:45 SM: Benjamin Spock. 57:46 PC: And they resorted to violence to do it. Right. I have by the way; I have completed and total respect for conscientious objectors who stood up for their beliefs? In other words, if they went to Canada, then I do not have respect for them if they declared themselves and went through the process, you know, the government process for dealing with that. Or went to jail or whatever. I have a lot of respect for them. You know, I do not, I do not, I have no disrespect to them at all. 58:27 SM: It is interesting. One of my best friends served two years. He was a conscientious objector. And he had two years up in newfound land and he did not like it down, but he paid the price for it. Yeah, I need your choice in two years now. Dr. Benjamin Spock. 58:44 PC: You know, I heard he was antiwar. I do not have strong feelings about him. One way or the other I mean, I would probably give him a break on the grounds that he was, he was, he was interested in children in life and things like that. So- 59:00 SM: The Berrigan brothers, Daniel and Philip. 59:02 PC: Um. I did not like them. They were radical left wing cuckoo birds. 59:16 SM: Andy Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. 59:18 PC: Radical left wing cuckoo birds. And my-my feeling about a lot of these people who-who position themselves as leaders of this movement was great flamboyance was that they were, you know, in it for themselves. They were promoting themselves rather than their cause. And by the way, I do not know if that is fair or not, but that is just my feeling. 59:39 SM: But one of the things about Abbie Hoffman, he committed suicide I remember this taking was in (19)87 or (19)89 forgot what year it was zip in Bucks County and apart is an amazing story. He lives in Bucks County in an apartment. He had $2,000 to his name and he made a lot of money in his life. He gave all his money to causes He wrote a note when he committed suicide and he said, basically, no one is listening to me anymore. And to see he had left even involved in the environmental movement, and even on the Phil Donahue show when he came hiding it. He just wanted to show the world that he cared about a lot of issues besides the war. Yeah. And, and well, it was interesting and- 1:00:22 PC: So, he paid a price then too. 1:00:23 SM: Yeah, he got upset with Jerry Rubin because he moved to California and became a businessman. Timothy Leary. 1:00:32 PC: Oh, he was just a quack. 1:00:35 SM: How about Ralph Nader? 1:00:36 PC: Snake oil salesman, Ralph Nader. I actually have a little more respect for him because he buttressed all of his statements with research, these know even if I disagree with the reason. And I think he was probably a necessary force at the time to-to, you know, he came into being for a reason. 1:01:08 SM: And pretty consistent throughout as well. 1:01:09 PC: He really has he stayed true to his own ideology, and he has not been afraid. 1:01:14 SM: Daniel Ellsberg. 1:01:20 PC: I think he did a courageous thing in terms of getting the truth out, you know, the Pentagon papers and all that took a lot of courage to do that. 1:01:32 SM: George McGovern. 1:01:34 PC: I thought McGovern was one of the biggest phonies, and I met him. I covered him as a reporter. He is one of the biggest goddamn ponies I ever met. He would go around and talk about you know, neighborhoods looking like bombed out areas and you know, and I just got so sick of it because he said that about everything that he saw and, and I think he was a pilot or something. 1:01:57 SM: Yeah, 28 missions over- 1:01:58 PC: Yeah. So, I-I mean, I am happy for him, but I felt like he was exploiting his-his own war experience. 1:02:11 SM: And again, Hubert Humphrey. 1:02:13 PC: Yeah, you know, I mean, I have, you know, he is pretty nice. The happy warrior. I did not, you know, he just he was. I do not know; it was just interesting. I had no strong feelings about it. 1:02:25 SM: Yeah, a couple more names. And then part two final questions. Certainly, President John Kennedy. 1:02:34 PC: Well, yeah, I mean, I have like, like everybody else, I had a highly favorable impression of him and, and was felt deeply crushed, you know, when he was killed, and did not understand at the time as I do now that he is the one who got us really into the war. So now there are all sorts of stories being written about, you know, would he have been smart enough to get us out? You know, the wood before we went so far. And who knows, nobody really knows. 1:03:13 SM: It is interesting. It was mentioned that because when, the hour before they got into the car, when Eisenhower was leaving and President Kennedy was coming in, they were talking about Vietnam. And that is something that President Kennedy wanted to keep, because Eisenhower was involved and still being linked to Vietnam because of the support of the French interest. And so, and if you remember my office, so Harry Truman, by when Ho Chi Minh sent that letter to him, after the war, about trying to create a friendship there, so the links between all of our presidents from Truman and Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and then for sure Ford, truly linked to Vietnam. 1:03:57 PC: That is true. 1:03:59 SM: Martin Luther King Jr. 1:04:02 PC: I had a very favorable impression of him. And still do. I mean, I think he was a very inspiring leader. 1:04:13 SM: What are your thoughts on he was one of the few civil rights leaders that was against the war. 1:04:18 PC: And he was off, I felt like he had the moral authority to do it. You know, I mean, he was so eloquent. And I do not remember that. I am just giving you my feelings now. I cannot remember. Right. You know, I do not remember anything that he said about it. But, you know, I think his opposition to some extent was based on the fact that it was young and poor people who were being drafted, and that, that was a valid concern. I as I said, I have a lot of resentment still of my friends in high school and college who avoided the draft through manipulations. 1:05:10 SM: Have you ever, have you ever met any of those kids that shied away from you that day when you came home around the crunches if you are going back to Nebraska Yeah, you know ever talk to them about what they did to you. 1:05:24 PC: No-no, I have never talked to them just-just not spoken of- 1:05:27 SM: But they talk to you now. 1:05:29 PC: I mean, you know, casual I do not I do not hang out with them. But- 1:05:33 SM: Robert McNamara. 1:05:38 PC: Well, I did not have much I had very little impression of him at the time. Now I have generally unfavorable impression of him just I mean, that is with the benefit of historical hindsight. You know, where he is concluding that his- where he finally I guess conceded, that is the buildup that he championed was flawed. The logic that he employed was flawed. And no one really understood the depth of willingness of Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese people to resist forever. They were willing to sacrifice every single male and many young females, you know, to, you know, I mean, they, their desire to be free, is historic. 1:06:36 SM: Let us get right into your thoughts right now in terms of why did we lose the war? In brief synopsis your thoughts on why we really truly lost this war. 1:06:52 PC: I am not 100 percent okay, let us say we probably, I believe that we could have subjugated that country if we had brought the full force of American society to bear on the effort, I think it would have been unbelievably costly in terms of American lives. And even more costly to use the metaphor you damn, damn, damn near would have had to pave the country over. But it could have been done, you know. So, I say that the end of winning the war would have been awful probably would have ended up being too costly. However, having said that, we have hugely crippled our ability because of political considerations. We hugely handicapped our ability to wage the war effectively, in my opinion, and I base this on my own real experience, because I was a fourth observer attached to an infantry company, and on many on numerous occasions, when we came under attack, I could not respond with artillery until there had been a series of clearances that had gone all the way to a village or provincial, D at South Vietnamese chief. And as a result, I think we suffered more casualties and, you know, we were just always crippled [inaudible] I often felt like we were fighting with one hand tied behind her back. And so, I do not know if that answered your question. But- 1:08:38 SM: One of the points that, uh- 1:08:40 PC: But the real reason I think we lost is because of the Vietnamese people themselves. Ho Chi Minh himself said in interviews we have always throughout our history, with various quote, colonial powers, you know, trying to occupy our country, and they had the Japanese they had the Chinese they had the French they had the Americans; you know, we have all these powers have always underestimated our willingness to sacrifice. And they would just keep sending people into the killing machine forever. I mean, they were they had limitless patience. So, I think we lost because you know, the will of the Vietnamese people to not be occupied was simply too strong. 1:09:37 SM: Getting back to the names here, but I have read quotes that when middle America finally money gets to war, Ohio, Nebraska, Kansas, that was when the war was over really was ending. Because of the you can debate with whatever you want to on whether the antiwar movement was the reason why the war ended. When middle America when sons and daughters start coming home with body bags, and you agree with that, the middle America- 1:10:12 PC: I think, politically, that was probably the final straw. I think the-the campuses and the East coast and the West coast. You know, went against the war fairly quickly, early on. But yeah, I think Middle America, I define it more broadly, because I think the culture of Middle America, so to speak, is also to be found in upstate New York, you know, Pennsylvania in places like that. And so, I think that they, uh, yeah, I think, I think that turned it for Nixon. I think when Nixon said, oh, my God, I am losing, losing, you know, I am losing. I am sure they were doing polling back then. And I am sure when-when the polling started showing that, you know, more conservative Republican voters were turning against them because of the casualties. And the feeling there was no end to it. I mean, it was it was viewed as a quagmire. 1:11:21 SM: Reading that we used to couple thoughts on Richard Nixon. 1:11:27 PC: Well, I think clearly one of the great tragic figures in our history, um, had a great, you know, intellectual capacity. But was, in fact, power, mad and paranoid and was so scared by his earlier defeats that you know, he just could not have, he just went overboard, you know, he crossed the line in terms of trying to win reelection. And, uh, I actually-actually this is sort of an aside, but I actually flew with Henry Kissinger on-on the corporate jet Maryland's corporate jet I took him out to he was giving a speech. It was just me and him in a corporate jet. And I told him that he met with the, uh, the Vietnamese foreign minister, I cannot remember the name right now, three days before I was wounded in secretly in Paris. It will be Acme no doubt he is a general I know it will-it will come back to me. I have got it in my one of my books somewhere. And I said to him, I said to Kessinger, I said, Dr. Kissinger, I said, if I wish you just started earlier, because if you had maybe I would not have been wounded. And he just kind of looked at me at all. All he said, “I am sorry, I did not start earlier”. I mean, it was a very, I mean, to think of me, you know, this little kid from Omaha, Nebraska, talking to the great Henry Kissinger, you know, on a corporate jet about these connections, I mean, him. I mean, it was just fucking amazing. 1:13:34 SM: Some people on the left want to put him on trial for some of the things he did in Vietnam. Some of the way-out people some of- 1:13:41 PC: It is pretty tricky, but I think that he I think he was so smart. I believe he recognized before others in the administration that this was a no-win situation. 1:13:55 SM: That is what upsets you more than anything else, when you read McNamara's books. That is, he leaves in (19)67 but really knew they could win the war prior to and the revelation. Exactly right. One of the things I like about the Vietnam Memorial and especially even with Mr. Scruggs in one little polar was there around, they believe in bringing people there to the wall may have been a little controversial but try to heal do not even go to the extent of healing. That was when Bill Clinton came. And of course, he was, you know, he was cheered, but, you know, I have often wondered, what extreme would-would the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund go in terms of a healing? Would they ever as McNamara ever been invited and would not [inaudible] calm? And would by him coming would that really do something in terms of the ultimate healing where he admits his mistakes and says he is wrong and I do not know how the veterans respond, but you know that to me, that is the ultimate healing. And of course, we mentioned the ultimate healing to with Jane Fonda. Yeah, it was a book written on her right now that she should have been court martialed. And back to the lawyers and lawyers have written that she-she could have easily gone to jail. 1:15:12 PC: And what she did was treasonous. Right. 1:15:14 SM: And the question is, would she ever come to the wall and that would create a stir, but it was certainly would-would be the ultimate healing the courage to say I was wrong because everything she said- 1:15:25 PC: I mean, I think everything has to come at a time. You know, I believe what you were saying I believe, and I believe that you bring your most extreme opponents into your own 10-year-old home at some point, and you try to break bread with them, and you try to find common ground. I really do believe that. But I think there has to be- healing comes in stages. And I cannot conceive that most Vietnam veterans have healed enough, right to have Jane Fonda into their home. I mean, but I think at some point in time that that could- it should happen though she may not live long enough for that to be the case- 1:16:27 SM: She is like 68 or- 1:16:29 PC: Yeah, I do not know how she is, but I mean, she may not, you know, be alive long enough for that to happen, but-but I think or as you said, over time, Jan is actually a very smart guy and he, he evolves. But Jan is also pretty good about touching base with a lot of people before he does something. If he thinks it is the right thing to do, he will do it. But, uh. 1:16:54 SM: It-it is interesting, that is an interesting point when I knew Louis was the end of his life, and he wants to be right after remembering, he wanted to be right up on that stage next to Bill Clinton. And we took the students down there in the clip was coming, I was not there that time, but he said, I am going to be up there. I am going to sit right next to him. I am going to get my wheelchair up there. To show him and it was a statement. No, and, uh, and I think an absent Mr. Scrubs is in agreement with that statement or a given layer. So, a couple other names here. Gerald Ford. 1:17:26 PC: Nice, you know, nice guy just kind of hapless. But, you know, I think did a very courageous thing and pardoning Nixon, which I think was a healing an act of healing, preventative healing almost because it prevented a long drawn-out criminal trial that would have really ravaged the nation, you know. 1:17:52 SM: Muhammad Ali. 1:17:56 PC: You know, uh, God I mean great athletes, inspiring athlete in many ways. I think he was pretty open about I mean; he was a conscientious objector and good he stated it. Hmm. 1:18:11 SM: He lost his title. 1:18:12 PC: Yeah. So, he stood up. I mean, he stood up and was counted. So, I have respect for him. 1:18:17 SM: Spiro Agnew. 1:18:19 PC: Sleazeball. Totally sleazeball. Absolute scummy low level award healing level politician should never been in that office. 1:18:30 SM: I agree. And I got I got I got a couple books on him. I do not know how he ever got. I do not know. I just do not understand. Gloria Steinem. 1:18:39 PC: I have a lot of respect for Gloria Steinem. I know her. I met her several times. She has always stood up and been counted. 1:18:49 SM: Barry Goldwater. 1:18:53 PC: I- you know, Barry Goldwater. I mean, he is too far right for me. You know, but he has, you know, he has-he has always he always spoke his mind and-and, uh, he just was too far right for the country. 1:19:13 SM: Bringing them all out for this here. John Mitchell. 1:19:18 PC: Oh, I think he was just a hack-hack, hack political lawyer. 1:19:23 SM: I want to ask you about his wife by the way. She was a trip about. 1:19:29 PC: The whole thing was just such a trip. 1:19:30 SM: Noam Chomsky. 1:19:32 PC: I do not know who that is now. 1:19:34 SM: He is the professor up at, uh, MIT. He is the antiwar. 1:19:39 PC: I know the name, but I do not have I have no knowledge of it very little knowledge of him. 1:19:43 SM: John Dean. 1:19:46 PC: You know, ambitious young guy there but for the grace of God go I somebody who got you know, swept up in the power thing and, and did some bad things, but in the end had the courage to stand up and be counted. 1:19:58 SM: He is from Binghamton, New York. 1:19:59 PC: Really? 1:20:00 SM: Yeah, and I can never forget. I was a student at SUNY Binghamton, and they had these articles and how we met that beautiful mole. His wife- 1:20:09 PC: Oh, she was beautiful. 1:20:10 SM: Oh yes. And she was sitting behind him and. Uh, some of the musicians of the year of Jimi Hendrix Janis Joplin, Bob Dylan. 1:20:18 PC: Loved them all. Love them all. Still got all their music. 1:20:24 SM: And their stand against the war, uh. 1:20:26 PC: Did not care, did not matter. I mean, I thought their music was romantic and it was not music of our times. You know? I mean, I love the doors. I love the Beatles. 1:20:38 SM: We have a- 1:20:38 PC: I love the Rolling Stones. I love Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. I just I loved her music, but I did not, just did not take them, seriously what I resented the actors today, were you know. I mean, that was the (19)60s. I mean, it was-it was like, so I guess I have a little bit of a double standard. 1:21:00 SM: But when I was when I was in that accident when my arm was my senior year, 1970 and I was in the operating room on April 30, the night Nixon gave his Cambodia speech. And I was in the hospital for at least 10 days, and I had tickets to the Grateful Dead concert that it was at SUNY Binghamton. And if you go on the website for the Grateful Dead, they considered one of the top three concerts they ever did in their history, because the music was on edge because it was it was it was right after Kent State and it was like, tension was like something else. We will see. Sam Urban. I am getting near the end of my names here. 1:21:41 PC: You know, he was a- you know, courageous politician. 1:21:47 SM: And, uh, some terms SDS. 1:21:50 PC: Uh, radical left wing rabble rousers? 1:21:57 SM: The term counterculture. 1:22:02 PC: Uhm, an accurate term, just an alternative view of life? I guess, you know, one of the things that bothered me about all the counterculture was that it was, you know, it was mostly people by people who had some means of support. They were living somehow there was money coming from somewhere, probably their parents. So, I probably somewhat had this thing for them because I figured they were just-they were just having a good old time with, you know, drugs, sex and rock and roll on their parents’ dime. I do not know if that is fair or not, but that is my that was my view at the time. 1:22:46 SM: We a minister on the corner of the university, Pastor Steve capsule, Myers see now he is now he is the pastor of the church. But his claim to fame is he was at Woodstock for two days and he will not let anybody know that at church because it is an inside thing. He was there the first two days when he was 17. 1:23:05 PC: And the last day of Woodstock is the day I was wounded. So, I always am mindful of that. 1:23:12 SM: Did you know about Woodstock was going on? 1:23:12 PC: No, I did not know about it till after I came back. 1:23:18 SM: What about John Lennon? 1:23:22 PC: I love the Beatles. I loved them all. 1:23:25 SM: He was one of the biggest antiwar rights to the very end. 1:23:29 PC: Yeah, but, you know, there we go again. I mean, I have a double standard because yeah, he was-he was but his music was so beautiful. I mean, it just, I just, I guess, like, so you are sort of catching me in double standard land here. But that is what it is. I am just giving you feelings. 1:23:47 SM: William Westmoreland. 1:23:52 PC: I thought he was known a great command presence who was either fooling himself I mean; he I think he engaged in wishful thinking- in his prosecution or at least his presentation of the war. He was a source of a lot of statements that turned out not to be valid. 1:24:26 SM: Yeah. And that is the that links back to the Johnson, Nixon. 1:24:30 PC: Yeah. 1:24:31 SM: Truth. Where is the truth right? Two individuals in Vietnam one of them was the one we are talking about bringing the Westchester General Cao Ky and President Thieu. Just your thoughts on them as leaders in president to some of the leaders during the Vietnam War. 1:24:48 PC: Well, you know, I, I do not have that much knowledge on them and so I was a little you know, I mean, I think Thieu was basically a puppet in a corrupt man. I do not really know much about. 1:24:59 SM: Did not like each other Ramsay Clark. 1:25:03 PC: I do not have I have no reaction to him. 1:25:06 SM: And last couple or Maxwell Taylor and Henry Kevin Lunch. 1:25:10 PC: I do not have any real thoughts about- 1:25:13 SM: Chicago 8, Chicago 8 trial. 1:25:17 PC: Yeah. You know, they are just radicals as far as I was concerned, any-any of the antiwar types that advocated violence, or encouraged or used it, I resented. 1:25:33 SM: That is what split SDS beginning it was an antiwar group. But as soon as the weathermen started doing the violence- 1:25:40 PC: Well, we have you know, we are two blocks, literally two blocks away is where the, you know, the weathermen. People are two blocks away from me, let me straighten your goddamn out here, Dustin Hoffman's apartments right next door and they just blew the whole goddamn from the building off. Killed a couple of them. Couple of young people were killed. 1:26:02 SM: When the best history books are written, and oftentimes the best history books are written 50 years after an event. What do you think will be the ultimate, uh, what do you think historians will say about the Vietnam War and about the young people who are against that, or the people who served in that war? Because right now we think 1975 that was when the war ended. So, I think we have great books now. But I know the greatest books on World War II are coming out right now. 1:26:34 PC: Yeah, no, I think that- 1:26:35 SM: And so, we are still about 20 years away from probably the best books on Vietnam. What is your- 1:26:39 PC: Thoughts on? 1:26:42 SM: What do you think they will say, about the boomer’s impact on society? 1:26:49 PC: Well, I think so. I think they will say that. You know, maybe this is self-centered. Because I am a boomer was in the war? I think they will say that it was that it had one of the greatest impacts on the course of American history that it left the greatest imprint on an entire population of people. Of any event, you know, uh, since World War II and that was because it went on so long, you know, and it was it was just such a grinding experience for so many different Americans. And I think so many people were touched by it in many different ways. And I think it will be seen as a viewed as a, just a sort of a boiling cauldron of conflict and decentralization. Here we are, what 30 years, you know, 30 years later. And as I said, you still see people-people have not changed their views of the poor. I mean, it is-it is quite amazing. You are probably getting more appreciation for the for the soldiers who fought in it. And that will probably soften over time, and they will come to be viewed as agents of misguided government policy. But I think it will be the end up being viewed as misguided government policy. 1:28:46 SM: It is interesting, because it is amazing that all the years since the war ended, every conflict, every involvement, foreign policy. Vietnam always comes up and then of course, during the Bush administration, Bush number one talked about that, uh, the Gulf War or Vietnam, the Vietnam syndrome. And then President Reagan, when he came into the presidency, he wanted to end the Vietnam syndrome to pride in America. And it is interesting, but still, everything comes back. That is why I believe the building of this building in Washington, Vietnam Memorial that they are trying to do on top of the wall has to be built. Because eventually over time, the boomers will all pass away and the people will walk down there and they will people remember the experience, but by having the building there, the documents, the lessons of Vietnam cannot be lost. And that is why it is important why we do with the university is saying despite the fact that the oh c'mon is the past it is not past. 1:29:51 PC: No, I agree with that and look at it. I mean, I think it inform the debate about the first Persian Gulf War, I think it informed the debate about the Iraqi war. And, uh, you know, certainly it was the way that I viewed what was going to happen. And the difference in the way the wars were, the wars were carried out. You know, the military technology and the precision. I mean, I am good friends with Bob Kerry. Senator, former senator from Nebraska, the president of The New school, The New School, and he and I are social friends. And I was talking to him about it. He-he said, I mean, he was, he expressed all the advances in the military weaponry. And the fact that the moment any Iraqi soldier would, would fire a mortar round within-within moments, the location of that soldier could not be precisely plotted, what kind of weapon was fired? And within seconds after he fired that round, they could hit him using, you know, spies in the sky and I mean, you know, I mean my God, I mean it was just it is just amazing. We had what I thought was pretty I mean; I called an artillery and airstrikes a lot. And I was always sort of impressed at how precise they could be. But this was this is like, oh my god, it was underground gun. I do not think any and I do not think any at this point in time. So, there is a resurgence of pride in the ability of America to-to create this kind of military capability and it is, but it is a reflection, not just power and strength. It is a reflection of the ability in America to create [phone rings], you know, something that effective, you know? So, I do not think it is, uh. 1:32:09 SM: Last question and that is any final thoughts you have on the overall legacy of Vietnam and America? And getting back to the issue of healing because we you talk quite a bit on the healing within the veteran community. Where are we in America with respect to healing on the Vietnam War? So really, we are talking about the overall legacy of the boomers and the- where we stand as a nation in terms of healing over that war. 1:32:38 PC: I think it is a very, actually it is a very good question I-I found, I am going to give you a really candid answer, and I am sure that I am not alone as a Vietnam veteran, but I found myself after the First Gulf War and a little bit after this war, resenting the American, you know, the sort of the praise and the respect that America was giving to the soldiers who fought in those two wars. The first one because it was so brief. And the second one because it was so easy, you know, relatively easy. And-and the resentment comes from I mean, it is, it is, a it is, it is parallel. The dual feeling of resentment comes from the fact that American Vietnam veterans were so poorly treated upon their return in a war that was in again, we are all sort of self-centered, I guess, but the war that was fought under really- much more rugged conditions. The dual feeling was the feeling of pleasure and happiness, you know that the contradictory feelings were happiness that these veterans are being treated as heroes. And-and so I think that there is more healing to do I am guessing my feelings are not alone, you know, and I and I am not alone in my feeling-feeling that way. And most Vietnam veterans probably would not say that, but I think it is a real feeling and uh, but I am happy that the military has become a source of pride in America again. And not a source of scorn, even the most ardent antiwar activists could not, did not and have not attacked the capability of the military to carry out a mission. And so that is a source of great pride and should be a source of morale, you know, it within the armed forces. And, uh, and I think that is, I think that is good for America. So, the healing process has yet has-has further to go and I think the successful prosecution of these two wars is actually in the end. A net plus but it does underscore it does, it does remind some of us once again, about the tremendous, you know uh, disrespect that that we were shown on our return. 1:36:17 SM: Really good points, one- You are right on here because you talk about at least I have been around universities now all my life. There is only for about six years and no question that everybody this time regardless of the fact that you do not criticize the troops. 1:36:36 PC: That may be a lesson in Vietnam too. I think it is. 1:36:38 SM: I think it is and even Larry Davidson. Yeah. And it was-it was all George Bush. 1:36:44 PC: Mm hmm. Right. 1:36:44 SM: It is all the policymakers. And so, I think I am hoping that is to me, that is one of the lessons learned that cannot be lost. So never give the warrior you are serving and what is interesting made ball is the fact that I am amazed that our Vietnam veterans, for warriors can sit down with the warriors who fought on the other side. And the respect is there because they were called by their leaders to fight. There is no sense and hatred. Ongoing hatred should be a learning for the general public, forget. 1:37:25 PC: It is very interesting that you say that because I met in in Hanoi. I met the commander of the second NBA division, which was the division that had my company in one other surrounded in the Khoisan Valley in 1969. And he was there, and he was the commander of the whole division. And we talked, I mean, through interpreters, and we embraced, and I think we both were teary. And, you know, and I walked away, and I said to Patty, I said, he is just a man, you know, he is just a man just like me. I mean, it was, uh, [clears throat] and I-I have I have no anger or hatred left for the Vietnamese partly because they were so welcoming, you know when we came back. But I do still have resentment for Americans who are not respectful of the troops. And what that meant, by the way to those troops. I am not just talking about disrespect, I am talking about people whose lives were ruined, or damaged. You know, because they came back. Fortunately for me, I was a- you know, I was a college guy, you know, so I had the intellectual wherewithal to understand what was happening and rise above it in the course of my life. A lot of these kids who went straight from high school into this and then came back and were dissed and humiliated and-and you know, criticized and-and shunned, uh, you know, that had to hurt a lot of people, you know, and it was just-just so patently unfair. 1:39:09 SM: And I was at the Vietnam Memorial two years ago. I sat next to a gold star mother. She was not wearing her white outfit. She was there. And that was the day that John McDermott was sitting there prior to the ceremony. Mm hmm. And she said, my son's on the wall, right behind, farther back where John's singing. Can you take a picture? I have a picture of him. I took a couple of them. I did mail it to them. But she told me a story. They were from Penn State that she grew up. Right her son grew up and he was buried and came home. And she said she started crying and she said when my son was home for his funeral was near the Penn State campus and the students were kind of spitting on the cars as we are going into the cemetery again and that is the memory I have about my, my dead son was treated on his return to be buried. And to me that was an unbelievable anecdote, a memory that the books some of the books that I read that it is not that the veteran portrayed as bad as some people say, a bunch of garbage because I read, I have heard so many stories, even. Even the people in 436 in Westchester, John Morris, who the man who came up and shook your hand at Westchester, he was invited, uh, he was brought to the American Legion event. And they did not want him around. He was a Vietnam vet. When he first came back, he was young and so somebody invited him to an American Legion event. And then he also went to the Veterans of Foreign Wars and he was really not welcome there because he was a Vietnam vet. It was for Korean War veterans, World War II veterans, and he never felt he could not believe that feeling is stayed with him his whole life. Now he is a big person in the community now friends with everybody there and it has accepted now for Vietnam vets, but at that particular time, it was pretty quick and abrupt. 1:41:14 PC: It was- I will never forget it. I mean, I think that is why when I see antiwar, you know, my wife, you know, participates in antiwar protests and things and it, it is a- it is a sore point between and I-I have said to her, I just do not want to talk about with you mean, we are just going to, you do your thing, and I will do mine. But, you know, I just, I just cannot go there. So it is, and that is a result of the way I was treated and the way I know that a lot of my girls were treated and if I was treated that way, I mean, I you know-you know, I mean I was when I think about the kids who came back who were black, and how they must have been you know how they were treated, right. It is just amazing-amazing. 1:42:09 SM: Well Phil, there is a high school in Philadelphia in the largest number of African Americans killed in the war. 1:42:14 PC: Oh, really? 1:42:16 SM: Edison, Thomas Edison High School. Actually, I interviewed first interviewed the, uh, Hispanic principal. They are hired since you know, brother died in Vietnam. It is really interesting. The real bad section of town we are going over the nighttime. I guess that is it. 1:42:37 PC: All right. That is good. Thank you. 1:42:39 SM: Well, it is great. (End of Interview) Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Description 2 Microcassettes Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Paul Critchlow Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Critchlow, Paul ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Bank of America; Journalism—Political aspects; Press secretaries; Critchlow, Paul--Interviews Description An account of the resource Paul Critchlow is a Vietnam veteran with years of experience in government, finance, and journalism. Critchlow retired from the Bank of America as the head of communications and public affairs. Previously, he served as the chief political writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer and then as press secretary to Pennsylvania Governor Dick Thornburgh. Critchlow has a Bachelor's degree from the University of Nebraska, Omaha and a Master's degree from Columbia University. Paul Critchlow served in Vietnam and he considers this experience the watershed event in his life.   Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003-05-28 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.9a; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.9b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-01 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 102:40 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/f5b12b2193da3fdb68f6419062813d38.jpg be259606999cd012aebcb8930e097d65 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/fd4af6a03cc2f675ba22f6b027f5adf5.mp3 2e013455ee4873327adc67123e91c546 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2003-07-30 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Jim Hilty Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text <span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}"><span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}"><span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}">Dr. James Hilty is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. His early career centered on four years in the U.S. Marines (1958-1963) and several years as a history teacher in the Columbus, Ohio school district. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. Dr. Hilty is author of&nbsp;<em>Robert Kennedy: Brother Protector</em>, <em>John F. Kennedy: An Idealist Without Illusion</em>, and <em>Temple University: 125 Years of Service to Philadelphia, the Nation, and the World</em><span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}"><span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}">. </span></span><span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}">He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri-Columbia.</span></span></span></span><span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}"><br /></span> Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;The nineteen sixties; Baby boom generation; Civil Rights Movement; Pentagon Papers; Richard Nixon; Jane Fonda; Vietnam War; War draft; pacifists; Anti-War Movement; Marijuana.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:513,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;12&quot;:0}">The nineteen sixties; Baby boom generation; Civil Rights Movement; Pentagon Papers; Richard Nixon; Jane Fonda; Vietnam War; War draft; pacifists; Anti-War Movement; Marijuana.</span> Subject LCSH College teachers; Temple University; Historians—United States; Hilty, Jim--Interviews Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 124:13 Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource interview with Dr. Jim Hilty Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Hilty, Jim ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource College teachers; Temple University; Historians—United States; Hilty, Jim--Interviews Description An account of the resource <span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}">Dr. James Hilty is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. His early career centered on four years in the U.S. Marines (1958-1963) and several years as a history teacher in the Columbus, Ohio school district. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. Dr. Hilty is author of&nbsp;<em>Robert Kennedy: Brother Protector</em>, <em>John F. Kennedy: An Idealist Without Illusion</em>, and <em>Temple University: 125 Years of Service to Philadelphia, the Nation, and the World</em>. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri-Columbia.</span><span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}"><br /></span> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003-07-30 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.199a: McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.199b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 124:13 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/ae9d2523e20822f41d9ce6801059fc20.jpg 5040c3664b2082ca0f379d96cd80e1bb https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/582f0dc1dfb9726946ed05ea82ddc3ea.mp3 6b22a061da4dc2e6b9b58ae70f29dfba Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2003-08-07 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Edwin J. Feulner Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Edwin John Feulner is an author, journalist,administrator, educator, political scientist, government official, and the founder and former president of The Heritage Foundation. He was the president from 1977-2013 and from 2017-2018. Feulner received his Bachelor's degree in English from Regis College, his Master's degree in Business Administration from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, and his Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13311,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:1},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,4884200],&quot;5&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;6&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;7&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;8&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;9&quot;:0,&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Edwin John Feulner is an author, journalist, administrator, educator, political scientist, government official, and the founder and former president of The Heritage Foundation. He was the president from 1977-2013 and from 2017-2018. Feulner received his Bachelor's degree in English from Regis College, his Master's degree in Business Administration from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, and his Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh.</span> Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Anti-war Movement; Vietnam; lack of trust; Baby boom generation; Richard Nixon; Lyndon Johnson; Nineteen sixties; Nineteen seventies; Democratic Convention of 1968&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:513,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;12&quot;:0}">Anti-war Movement; Vietnam; lack of trust; Baby boom generation; Richard Nixon; Lyndon Johnson; Nineteen sixties; Nineteen seventies; Democratic Convention of 1968</span> Subject LCSH Authors; Journalists; Political scientists; Public officers; Feulner, Edwin J.--Interviews Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 65:28 Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Ed Feulner Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 7 August 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:03): No, not at all. EF (00:00:06): So I think with those you have got to make some differentiations there. In the sense poor Wes Marlin was given an impossible task because his commander in chief was micromanaging the war. Key, and who was the other one you mentioned? SM (00:00:25): General Cao Ky and General... President Thieu. EF (00:00:29): Why do not you just hang on the second because he has come back a couple of times. I want you to kill the interview. SM (00:00:33): Yeah. Okay, all right. There you go. EF (00:00:43): Ky and Thieu, well, patriots, anti-communists, working with a powerful ally again, which was restricting what they could do or what they wanted to do. Playing probably what was essentially a losing game all the way, but tragic basically, the word which comes to my mind for those two. SM (00:01:08): And then I have got two more names here and then we are basically done with one final question. Your thoughts on Ralph Nader. And I do not know if you know too much about Noam Chomsky. What do you think about the Noam Chomsky's of the world because he has been consistent? EF (00:01:26): Yeah right. Well, in a sense you have to admire Nader for sticking to his principles all of these years. Of course, I think he is totally wrongheaded in what he is trying to do. And maybe the word totally is too wrong, too strong rather. What I do not like about Nader is he tends to look always to the government to solve the problem. And I would like to be able to make it a more balanced approach to problem solving and not always look to the government first but look to government, if not last, at least next to last. Chomsky is an ideologue, of course. A man of the left who I think probably would not, even if you presented him with all the evidence in the world, would not change his position if it conflicted with one of his pet ideas and theories. Case in point, Alger Hiss, I am not sure whether he yet still admits that Alger Hiss was guilty of espionage. SM (00:02:53): The Berrigan brothers. EF (00:02:57): Yeah, sort of. Again, minor figures of the day, important at the time, believing they were doing the right thing. But I think probably in the greater scheme of things, I think someone like Thomas Merton is more important than the Berrigan brothers in terms of looking to Catholic models of the (19)60s. SM (00:03:36): And Benjamin Spock, Dr. Spock. EF (00:03:40): Right. Should have stuck to his babies. SM (00:03:48): I never asked about Norman Mailer. I will turn this off now. I am here with two questions. I know I said I am almost done but when the best history books are written, oftentimes the best history books are 50 years after the event. Some of the best books of World War II are now. When the best history books are written, say 25 years from now because we are halfway there on the boomer generation, what will their lasting legacy be in the history books? What will they be saying about that? EF (00:04:20): Well, I think they will be saying that it is one of the most influential generations of the 20th century and 21st century. Sometimes for good, but I think more often for ill. SM (00:04:45): And the very last question is this, and it was the last one I asked Dr. [inaudible]. The two events, the impact that these two events had on the psyche of all boomers, whether they were protestors or non-protestors, the events of the Kennedy assassination in 1963 and the deaths of the four students at Kent State in 1970. EF (00:05:11): Well, as I have already indicated, I think you are absolutely right, that became this period of a psychological of depression. This was the beginning of a trauma with the American psyche, with the boomers and with every other American, starting with the assassination. The famous thing that you ask people of a certain age, where were they at 1:30 on Friday on November 22nd, 1963, they will be able to tell you very precisely. So that will always remain with them and it certainly was the most important event. I do not know that the Kent State murders... SM (00:06:03): And I say Jackson State included in there a couple of weeks later too, six students. EF (00:06:07): I do not know that that was the second most important and defining moment of the (19)60s for the boomers. I do not know. I have to think about that. I might be more inclined to say, for example, just for political impact, the Chicago (19)68 convention. Maybe Dr. King's murder earlier that year. I do not know that that Kent State was that... I would not put it up that high. Certainly, if you want to talk about it being in the top 10 events, but not as number two. Certainly I think the Kennedy assassination was the preeminent event and trauma. SM (00:06:55): Is there a person that you thought I might ask about that I did not ask about that may surprise you? I had Barry Goldwater, conservative, I did not mention any other conservatives so to speak. Nelson Rockefeller, obviously, he is another person. He was my governor. Because that convention itself was something in (19)64. I thought that was an unbelievable convention. I will never forget it because Rocky was our governor and then Governor Scranton. That was one heck of a convention. EF (00:07:29): Surely was. Yeah. Well, I just think you probably could give some thought to maybe some other conservative figures of that time although not necessarily were boomers. But after all, you have to keep in mind Ronald Reagan did begin his political career in that decade. If you are looking for somebody who balanced off Herbert [inaudible] and you did not mention would be [inaudible]. Certainly Bill Buckley, that was the decade in which he began both his newspaper column and also his television program, Firing Line, both of which had major impacts of course in [inaudible] everything else that he was doing. SM (00:08:29): Has been on our campus too. I am a big Everett Dirksen fan so when I think of... And Hughes Scott, because Hugh Scott was from Pennsylvania. In fact we had a professor who was writing a... I do not know why he did not finish it. Dr. Meiswinkel was writing a biography on Hugh Scott and was actually going down visiting him when he was very sick. And then he died and he could not finish it. He did not get enough... Do you know if there has ever been a biography done? EF (00:08:55): I do not think everybody has ever written one on him. There have been a couple on Dirksen but I do not know. It seems to me there has been something on Scott but I could be wrong. Could be wrong. SM (00:09:07): He was on there a long time, distinguished senator. EF (00:09:10): There would not have been any Civil Rights Act in 1964 without Everett Dirksen, by the way. He was key to getting the Republicans support in the Senate for that act. SM (00:09:23): His daughter was married to Senator Baker I believe, and she died now he is married to Nancy [inaudible]. And now he is the ambassador to Japan. What a life he has lived. Well, I am basically done, I want to thank you very much. It has been an honor. EF (00:09:36): Very interesting and... EF (00:09:40): [inaudible] that there is a problem, a discussion and a solution all in a 30 second or a 30 minute, back then, time block on television. Now it is down to about two minutes on CNN or Fox News or whatever your choice is. And that is not necessarily the way the world works. I keep telling kids that instant gratification is not necessarily going to happen on your behest. So on the positive side, still a generation, I saw this both when I was in the Pentagon and subsequently on Capitol Hill and even now, young men and women willing to give their all for their country just as the world's greatest generation did in World War II. To use that [inaudible] phrase. And I am not sure it was, but anyway, that is a different question. Anyway, the point is, statistically [inaudible] to prove it but a willingness on the part of the majority, many people to really commit themselves and do what it takes to help others. Again, whether you are looking at the back end in terms of Vietnam or you are looking at the most recent end in terms of Afghanistan, Iraq or as I was two months ago up at the DMZ in Korea. So it is mixed like every generation is. SM (00:12:00): The anti-war movement, those who were involved, I have done a lot of studying of it and I am reading a lot of sociology books and the common term or number used is 15 percent of the boomers were probably involved in some sort of activism. 85 percent were not. And they were talking about civil rights and the women's movement, the anti-war movement and all the other movements that took place in that period. EF (00:12:23): Where do you put the conservative movement? Is that part of it? SM (00:12:27): Yes. I think yes it is because activism, as I define it, and if we try to do this at the university, that it is everyone. It is people who want to make a difference in this world. And that is how I define activism. I like your thoughts on the fact that when you study the (19)60s, the Young Americans Foundation was also an anti-war group and a recent book has been written on the fact that they were involved in the anti-war movement. And some conservatives were very upset that they were kind of excluded from books on the (19)60s talking about the anti-war movement. Your thoughts on the anti-war movement itself and the impact it had on ending the war and also the conservative students and adults who were involved in politics were also involved and very important involvement in the ending of the war. EF (00:13:26): By (19)69 I was working for [inaudible] the then secretary of [inaudible] and there was no question that the Nixon administration was trying to figure a way out of what they had inherited from LBJ in terms of the problems of Vietnam. The whole defense department program toward Vietnamization. The decision by Nixon after long and intense discussion both at the cabinet level and primarily under his I guess domestic policy advisor Martin Anderson at Hoover. SM (00:14:21): Oh yeah. I got his book. EF (00:14:23): In terms of ending the draft was certainly as much a concession to answering the objection that you were sending the children of working men and women to fight a rich man's war in Southeast Asia through the draft. Clearly, you cannot say that if people are there because it was an all-volunteer army. And it was as much, I hate to say it, Ernie and I would probably have a long debate about this, but he would say it was done for philosophical and principled reasons about objections to servitude or something. Well, maybe, but it was also an answer to a political problem that was out there. And so clearly the Nixon administration, both in those tactical responses to Vietnam and Southeast Asia, as well as more strategic, longer range... Changing the draft was certainly [inaudible] answers like opening to China. In effect, changing the subject. Putting America's policy into a broader kind of context. Even Kissinger, in his memoirs, talks about during the peace process, trying to find areas of agreement with the then Soviet Union to move ahead on because... I have to find a specific citation, but I am sure you can. Because of domestic political pressures. So there were certainly pressures there as from my perspective as a conservative, it was tough because again, I needed it from a question more of principle. Did I like the draft? No. Why did not I like the draft? Because I was a male age 27. No I did not like the draft because the draft in fact was based on a faulty premise. That the only way that a free society would defend itself is through conscription. I did not believe that. And so you go from that to a belief based on my first trip to Vietnam, advancing one of the early [inaudible] trips other than Secretary of Defense in 1969 to Vietnam. And seeing the situation and saying, well we got it right. Either Vietnam's got to be given the tools to do the job successfully on its own, or we got to go in there and do a lot more and do it a lot more quickly and a lot more effectively than we have been. Well the second option was instantly precluded by the politics back home. And it turned out that the first option started out and then Cooper Church and the other resolutions that went through the Congress eventually cut the money off so that you could not do it the other way in terms of Vietnamization effectively either. So then you ended up with, I saw on the history channel the other night, replaying the video tape of the helicopters taking the people off the roof of the American embassy in Saigon. SM (00:18:27): April 30th, 1975. Itis interesting when you look at the two dates, April 30th of 1970 was when the Cambodia invasion took place, when the President gave his speech at nine o'clock. And then interesting that five years later, that is to the day. And I do not know if... That was not planned. And the irony, I look at the irony in that and I think about it an awful lot because I was a senior in 1970 and our speaker was representing the United Nations. I was at State University of New York at Binghamton, and of course we had protests all the time. It was a liberal campus. But it was very hard to going into class that year because there was protests constantly and we had a lot of speakers on campus. When you look at the boomer generation, again, getting back to this whole business, the anniversary of Watergate is right now. And then you get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and young people at that time. And history has shown that that may have been not a real deal there. That may have been made up. Just the thoughts about the whole issue of leaders and trust and the lack thereof. You are in a very important position here with the Heritage Foundation and you work with conservative leaders all the time. I really would respect your point of views on the impact that you feel that President Johnson and President Nixon had in terms of what they did in America and the lack of trust that so many of the boomers had as they grew up and gone on to different kinds of positions and responsibility. Just the whole issue of trust in America. And have they passed this on, this lack of trust to their kids. And by lack of trust I mean trust in all leaders. EF (00:20:25): The complex question so the answer is not simple. Number one, it is always easier to Monday morning quarterback. But based on the knowledge, again, looked at from a low level political appointee inside the Pentagon, when we were talking about Vietnam under Nixon and I was out by the time Cambodia was back on Capitol Hill. We were certainly making decisions and explaining/justifying our actions based on the best knowledge we had. And if somebody was doing it to cover something up or to hide something, it was done at a lot higher pay grade than I had then. And when you talk about the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or even some of the later justifications from the Nixon White House itself on Vietnam, I suppose it is easy today to look back and say, "Hey, how could they have been so wrong? Or how could they have been so deceitful?" Maybe. But I suppose I could also ask the same question about FDR and Pearl Harbor or going back through history at other examples that as a representative democracy we always assume people we elect have got a certain knowledge base that is more than what we have. So you have got to translate that. SM (00:22:31): Right. EF (00:22:34): Anyway, where was I? SM (00:22:38): Talking about trust. Talking about Nixon. Some of the things happening in the Nixon administration. EF (00:22:47): Looked at again, Monday morning quarterback, and you will get this, I think especially from a professional historian like Lee Edwards, the current generation that makes these sweeping criticisms and generalizations probably have read less history than just about anybody, any prior, whoever has in our country's history. And at the same time, because of TV and the internet now, know a little bit about a lot of things, a lot more things than you or I did when we were 20 or 25 years old. So it is kind of dangerous almost, I think to take some of these criticisms of earlier generations completely... Take them without a grain of salt. SM (00:23:58): I think when I refer to the lack of trust it is in reference truly to the boomers who are of college age or maybe just a spec older in the (19)60s and I would say through the mid-(19)70s. Because when you look at the numbers that were given by the Johnson administration and you read history books now and you read what was actually done there, I have a massive collection and I have done a lot of studying on it, but the more I know, the less I know. And that is so true. And the thing is here that I think you are right on track here with some people doing generalizations, but there definitely is a feeling from the peers that I grew up with, went to school with and actually worked with in a university environment, a lack of trust in anyone who was in a position responsibility. And I am wondering, and I say this only because I worry about the young people of today who are being given this information by their parents, whatever background they are, the boomer parents. And in this world, if you cannot trust someone, I know this some psychology. If you cannot trust somebody, you may not be a success in life. You have to trust people. And I worry, I see somebody's lack of trust of... It was very common, and this is not my interview, this is your interview, but it was very common on university campuses in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s that students did not trust university presidents. Did not trust their ministers. Did not trust corporate leaders. Did not trust anyone in a position of responsibility. And the excuse that was given as to the reason why they did not trust anyone, they would go back to Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Watergate. But much more than that, other political leaders too and things that university presidents did. So it is just your overall thoughts on that, the whole issue of trust, because I do not know if this is still happening in America today, but I sense it still is. EF (00:26:02): I do not know. You have a better handle on it in your day to day dealings with young people. We have obviously here, [inaudible] very active interns but they are a self-selecting group in terms that they tend to be right or at least center right and more traditionalist. So we are probably not as exposed to it as you are. What does concern me whenever I run into it is that as I look at the development of society and of both the social order and foundation, the most fundamental underpinning that I have been able to come up with is basically the rule of law. Which means every individual treated the same under the rule of law. And this goes directly to your point in terms of trust. If a large part of the upcoming generation does not trust the older ones, then they probably tend to think they are getting the short end of it. And if they are getting the short end of it, they might as well go for as much as they can for themselves because otherwise somebody is going to screw them down the road. Pardon, vernacular. So if what you are saying is really a generalized truth, then yeah, we got some real serious problems. But again, I do not see it reflected. Adam Smith said in the Wealth of Nations, it is one of my... I am a congenital optimistic in Washington. But he said in the Wealth of Nations there is a lot of ruin in a nation. And when you think about going back to the days of the founding fathers, down through our history of the heartbreak of the Civil War, the losses sustained in the First World War, the depression, we built up a hell of a lot of capital that I would worry that, to a certain extent, we have run down in the last generation. That concerns me. How generalized it is, I just do not know. SM (00:28:48): And that refers back to the boomers then. EF (00:28:49): Yeah. Back to whether the boomers trust or not and whether they have then conveyed a lack of trust to a subsequent generation. As I say, I worry about it if it is as generalized as you might portray it as or as other people might think it is. SM (00:29:08): When you look at the (19)60s and early (19)70s and the boomer generation of all the movements that took place, whether it be civil rights, anti-war, if you were to write a book or write a chapter or an essay to write a movement or an event that really defined the period, what would that be? There is many things, but one that just stood out. EF (00:29:34): I suppose the Democratic Convention in (19)68. That political dimension, a protesting dimension in terms of the anti-war, it was wrapped up to a certain extent, at least in the reaction from Mayor Daley and the police in terms of civil rights. Certainly as a conservative at the time, I remember thinking to myself, the Democrats sowed the wind and now they are reaping the rewards. But the ramifications of course were far beyond the Democratic Party. SM (00:30:29): I remember that so clearly. I remember buying My Life magazine and it was that picture of Hubert Humphrey and Ed Musky. And I have Barry Goldwater when he was with a horse wearing a hat. And I have both of them framed in my office because I am all about the (19)60s no matter who was involved in the (19)60s. You want to go on the other [inaudible] the Vietnam War really did a lot to divide our nation. Some of the people that I have interviewed really felt that outside of the Civil War, which is obviously one of the greatest strategies ever in our country, that we were pretty close to another civil war breakup of our nation back in the (19)60s. And so I would like your thoughts on that particular feeling and whether we as a nation have really healed since that time. I remember I interviewed Gaylord Nelson quite a few years ago one of my first interviews. And he said, Steve, I do not see anyone walking around Washington DC with healing, lack of healing on their sleeve or something like that. And people are... He was making a general comment. But then he said to me, the body politic will never be the same. And I would just like your thoughts on the divisions were so... Have they healed? Is Vietnam still, just the word, the mention of the word Vietnam brings all kinds of feelings to people. And it is not just thinking about the nation, it is what it meant to our country. Have we healed? EF (00:32:22): Yes. I think we have fundamentally healed, partly at least because the scar tissue is both thicker and because again, going back to the point where with the short time horizons of individuals, whether it is... I was talking to a conservative journalist this morning who said, I am so glad Schwartz never vote in the race. And I said, why? He said, because I do not have to hear about that damn Kobe Bryant every day. Until a week ago I did not even know who the devil Kobe Bryant is. And now he is every minute 200 news guys in some place [inaudible] Colorado or Esquire, Colorado, whatever it is called. What kind of trivialization of what is going on is this? And so you get the new cycle, et cetera, you got to fill it. And either you fill it the way CNN did until recently. Every Saturday afternoon, if you turned on CNN to find out what is going on in the world, you get 45 minutes on the latest French fashions or something like that because there just is not enough there, there is always news. So you get Kobe Bryant given this kind of prominence and in effect the same level of prominence as Colin Powell giving a major foreign policy speech to the UN or something. And if they both get 30 minutes of prime time over three consecutive days... Or more likely Kobe Bryant will get it and Colin Powell will not. Things are getting distorted and they are off kilter. And so I think that it is a couple of things. You get trivialization at that level. Then you got a shallow understanding what history is about. So a lot of people talk about Vietnam and well, that is a war that happened a long time ago. There is another place in Asia there too. What was that one called? Korea or something. And they are all kind of about the same time. So yeah, in terms of kind of looked at today, it is all... It is healed, but part of the reason that it is healed is because again, I said it about 15 minutes ago, I think that this generation just does not know as much history and has not read as much history as they should have. This same journalist, the guy we are buying the house from, was giving away a bunch of books and a bunch of college students... He brought them into his office and a bunch of college students they started pouring through them. And one of them came on a book called The Real Anita Hill. And she looked at them and said, who was Anita Hill? This is only 10 years ago. This is not ancient history like Vietnam or Korea. This is 10 years ago. Who is Anita Hill? SM (00:35:52): Unbelievable. I interviewed Dr. Hilty, he is head of the history department at Temple and he was really strong against the boomer. He is a liberal. Big Kennedy liberal. But very condemning against the boomers because he feels that the boomers were the generation that got the greatest education, Master's, but they do not have a whole lot of knowledge. And I never thought of that. I said their lack of understanding... They may be getting the degrees, but their depth of analysis, I am just like, how do you teach today? I am reading books on education, the proper way of teaching. It is not just always getting the high SAT scores and getting your school scores up. How do students think and analyze these things. When you are working with young people and they are reading things, how are they interpreting it and analyzing it? It is not just a score on an SAT question. And so there are some interesting things here and your observation is very good. Your thoughts on the Vietnam Memorial? I think it is one of the greatest things ever. How the Vietnam Memorial, when it was built in (19)82 and the effect this had on veterans and on the nation. Just your thought on the wall. EF (00:37:04): Very moving. Interesting that by the time it was really finished, in place and people saw it-it did what scrubs and everybody else wanted it to do in terms of healing. But during the whole course of it, when whatever her name was [inaudible] divisive, a stab through the heart of America with this black slab and all that. The rhetoric that went up about what it was. But today, to go there and to see some of my friends and contemporaries' names on the list as I have and to think about what it represents. Very moving. So it worked. SM (00:38:11): What would your thoughts be if you were sitting in a room with boomers and they were to say to you, we were the most unique generation in American history? EF (00:38:18): Bullshit. SM (00:38:19): Okay, because a lot of boomers felt that way when they were young. EF (00:38:26): Yeah. They were certainly the most pampered. After all our parents, and here I guess I would put myself in the boomer generation, they had gone through the depression. They vowed basically that we would be able to have more than they had. And this goes to Hilty's point at Temple. In terms of the best education possible. My father barely got himself through high school with a family, then went to college and almost got a law degree at night school. You will not have to do that. He said to me and my three sisters. None of us did. We were well-educated and that was very-very important. And then to have the earlier generation be basically so disappointed, I guess in their offspring as to have them copping out or doing drugs, to whatever extent that happened [inaudible]. That is disillusioning. And to have them just not appreciate what happened and then assume that because they got that again, that the notion of instant gratification is going to work for them and their kids. SM (00:39:54): Your thoughts, you have some fine, outstanding, young conservative youth here that work in the internship program. The sense that I have had and my peers is that when you look at the boomer generation, they again talk about the most unique generation of American history. Also, there is an attitude that we are going to change the world. We are going to make society better for everyone. We are going to end racism, sexism, or homophobia, everything they were going to end at all because they were the most unique generation. And they were also a very involved generation in the vote. But now we see a group of young people today that do not vote. And this is something I just wanted... I do not know if you have thought about this at times, I just sometimes sit in a park and why do today's young people and the boomers themselves, the parents, they do not vote. What is going on here? What have they transferred on to their kids with respect to the sense of empowerment? Their voice counts. They need to be heard. It worries me as a person. I have come up with several worries here in our interview, and that is another worry that I have because I want young people to know that they are empowered, that they do have a say, that their voice does count. So what happened to the boomer parents who were involved in these protests and activism changing things. And a lot of them did good things and some were just in it for themselves, but what have they done to their kids? Just your thoughts on that. EF (00:41:27): Well, you are better off asking them, I guess because our family, at least our nuclear family, in terms of my wife, myself, my kids and their spouses are very much involved politically and I think it has been transmitted. I suppose part of it is that frustration you talked about earlier from the earlier generation, from the boomers, that either they were not heard in terms of their cause. Maybe even it is a little bit embarrassing if anybody ever dares use that word anymore. Some of the excesses going way back when. In terms of the new generation, I would have to look at polls. I know what the broad numbers are in terms of the voter participation, but I would want to look at cross tabs in terms of the ones who are most committed to either a political party or a philosophy or an ideology of government, if you will, in terms of whether those who are most committed are more politically active. I have a good libertarian friend who has a bumper sticker that says, do not vote, it only encourages them. Well, this is a guy who comes at that decision from basically a philosophical perspective and managed to put it on a bumper sticker and you can understand that. That is not the way conservatives think, I do not think, but some libertarians do. And so it is not a case of just disinterest on the first Tuesday of November it is a case of... (00:43:35): In that case it is a conscious decision but I suppose again, you have the usual frustration or I am only one, why does it matter? Well, after Florida I think that is a non-argument anymore. Clearly everybody ought to know that their participation does matter. You can see that in the California recall that happened in October [inaudible] and you end up with whoever it was, Schwarzenegger on one side or the lieutenant governor on the other side [inaudible] being elected with 10 percent of the eligibles or something like that. In the fifth largest economy in the world, the largest state in the nation et cetera, et cetera, being elected by 1 percent of the eligible population. That is not exactly a mandate to go in there and straighten things out, whoever you are. I am not saying that is what happened [inaudible]. So does it worry me? Yeah, because again, and this go back to your earlier point in terms of trust and confidence in our systems. If there is not confidence in the political system, then confidence, again, the most fundamental thing in terms of the rule of law breaks down. Because if there is no legitimacy for the politicians, then there is no legitimacy in terms of what they are doing. Which means that people do not want to be governed by whatever laws they are passing. And that is not good for long term. SM (00:45:20): This is my last question before I get into personalities and that is, what do you think the lasting legacy will be of the boomer generation? When the best history books are written, and we are only 25 years out now from the Vietnam War and the best history books are often 50 years later, after an event. What do you think? How will history interpret this generation, this boomer generation? EF (00:45:41): Now a group of... On the one hand it could be a group of spoiled adolescents trying to feel their way out of a complicated situation by self-gratification. On the other hand, in a deeper sense, the people who did think they could change the world and do it... Every generation thinks it can change the world but here, I think you are on to something. The boomer generation thought it could change the world almost by themselves. Whereas in World War II you did it as part of the army, part of the Navy, you worked for big Bill Donovan at the OSS and later the CIA. Man, you were part of a team. But by the time of the boomers, you were kind of in a do it on your own more or less. So an individualistic way of expressing generally some high moral concerns. For that I recognize my colleagues on the other side of the political arena, but I also recognize my friends on our side who kind of came of political age and said, Hey, there has to be a better way to answer these social problems than the LBJ SDR big government one. SM (00:47:49): I at least remember a poster that I had on my door at Ohio State University when I was in grad school. Peter Max was very popular back then. And I will never forget it. I wish I would kept it, but it stuck in my mind. It basically said, you do your thing. I will do mine. If by chance we should get together. It will be beautiful. If by chance... EF (00:48:14): We get together. SM (00:48:16): Because it is interesting if by chance. And as a young person, as a boomer, that is sounded great for the time. But when you reflect on it, if by chance you have to work together in this world not hope that we just come together by circumstance. So anyway, I have a list of names here. I would just like some brief comments. These are all people from the period, Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda. EF (00:48:50): What do you want, one-word reaction? SM (00:48:53): Yeah, just your thoughts on the... EF (00:48:54): Traitors. SM (00:48:57): Lyndon Johnson. EF (00:49:03): Manipulative, clever and self-righteous. SM (00:49:16): Bobby Kennedy. EF (00:49:25): Cynical with a tinge of idealism. Cynical, going back to his days with Joe McCarthy, the senator. SM (00:49:35): John Kennedy. EF (00:49:39): Idealistic, almost naive... Idealistic, almost naive with a silver spoon, maybe brought on further and faster certainly than he otherwise would have, but maybe even further and faster than he should have. SM (00:50:15): Huey Newton, Bobby Seal on the Black Panthers. EF (00:50:19): In the overall scheme of things, irrelevant. At the time, strange and so far outside the mainstream it was hard to... SM (00:50:32): Go right into the Abby Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. EF (00:50:41): Flash in the pans. SM (00:50:49): Barry Goldwater. EF (00:50:50): An idealistic trendsetter who never admitted to the limitations of politics. Certainly had an impact beyond his electoral politics. SM (00:51:18): Richard Nixon. EF (00:51:24): Deep global strategist with the fatal flaw that prevented him from really effectively doing what he was elected to do. He did not trust the people. Never did. SM (00:51:49): Your thoughts on his enemy's list. EF (00:51:53): Everybody has one, whether they write it down or they just keep it mentally. And his more graphic and in a way, almost more simplistic. SM (00:52:07): [inaudible] EF (00:52:22): A competent administrator of Baltimore County who then was rapidly beyond his level of competence. SM (00:52:31): Timothy Leary. EF (00:52:40): A person whose influence was far beyond what it should have been but who... At the same time, I guess if his intended audience had been better grounded, he would have been as irrelevant as he should have been but he was not always. SM (00:53:13): Martin Luther King. EF (00:53:21): A visionary dreamer who apparently had some personal flaws. But guess we all do. But who also had a big picture in terms of solving some very real problems in a non-violent way. SM (00:53:47): Malcolm X. EF (00:53:54): Malcolm X... Hello. Okay, be with him in a minute. Bye. (00:53:57): Malcolm X. The wrong kind of role model. Malcolm X [inaudible] of Chicago. SM (00:54:10): George McGovern. EF (00:54:18): A man who believed deeply and compassionately about a lot of things but alas, was wrong. But who certainly built a dedicated cadre of followers no unlike [inaudible] George Goldwater. SM (00:54:50): Robert McNamara. EF (00:54:52): A technocrat who never understood that people are not cogs and a big machine. SM (00:55:01): George Wallace. EF (00:55:06): A nasty piece of work without principles or morals. SM (00:55:11): Daniel Elsberg. EF (00:55:11): A man who deserted the truth that he should have known for lesser political interest. SM (00:55:34): Jerry Ford. EF (00:55:38): A great congressman from the district of Michigan, who by accident ended up where he was and tried to do a job that even today is... He was fundamentally decent to people I know. He got thrown a delta, a rough deck when he got to the top. SM (00:56:06): Hubert Humphrey. EF (00:56:09): Idealistic and intellectual, but unrealistic in terms of what human response would be to [inaudible]. SM (00:56:29): Muhammad Ali. EF (00:56:30): [inaudible]. SM (00:56:44): Gloria Steinem and Betty Fordan, and the women's movement leaders. EF (00:56:55): Inconsistent, hypocritical and not clearly thought through in terms of what their real objectives were. SM (00:57:18): I got four more here and that is Ralph Nader. EF (00:57:25): A man who tried to do some effective things but always pushed too far in terms of using coercion to achieve his objectives. So when he got to the point of curbs and things like that and compulsory student fees, instead of battling reasonable things like... SM (00:57:54): Down to our last three. EF (00:57:57): [inaudible] bumpers, et cetera. Yes... I want to apply for a city [inaudible]. I think I told Kathy, anybody from any bank that calls or anything with my mortgage is coming up she better put them through. SM (00:58:14): This is just a generalization now, but the music of the (19)60s. The Jimmy Hendrix, the Janice Joplins, the Beatles, the music, the influence that that music had on this generation as opposed to any other. EF (00:58:26): I do not know if it is the Beach Boys, I like it. If it is the Beatles, I do not understand it. So yeah, it is kind of mixed. I guess it is like all music. But if, like you were saying about history before, let us look back on it in 50 years and see what is still there. SM (00:58:47): Yeah. Cause you got Janet Joplin, when you think of the (19)60s, you think of Joplin, Hendricks and Bob Dylan and Joan Baez and the list goes on and on. EF (00:58:54): Yeah, [inaudible] trio. SM (00:58:57): John Dean. EF (00:59:00): A man uncertain loyalty to... Well, just stop there. I never understood him. SM (00:59:08): And I am going to conclude with this. These are just terms of the period and just quick, SDS. Quick response. EF (00:59:26): Yeah. Perverted political agenda, trying to be imposed by compulsory means, which went against what their principles were supposed to be. Never quite understood how they got there. SM (00:59:48): Counterculture. EF (00:59:53): Sad because our traditional culture has got so much to offer why do you need one. SM (01:00:01): The Pentagon papers. EF (01:00:05): So what. SM (01:00:06): The Chicago Eight. EF (01:00:16): Representative of, as I said earlier, that incredible incident in the middle of that time period that tried to unhinge or destabilize a lot of what... A lot of our whole society, so not much sympathy. I do not know what they think their justification was. SM (01:00:47): And the last one is kind of a combination of three people. It is if you can put William Westmorland, President Thieu and General Cao Ky because Ky and Thieu were the leaders of Vietnam and Westmorland was [inaudible] Maxwell Taylor. EF (01:01:10): Man who tried to accomplish a mission without appropriate political backing from the United States' top officials in government. Therefore, without the backing of the US people he tried to carry out their orders as best he could. SM (01:01:34): I want to conclude on... First, I want to thank you very much. I admire what you do. I admire your organization. I am going to see Mr. Edwards next and we will hopefully continue to bring our students down here. The last question... There we go. EF (01:01:53): The Kennedy assassination did not start the (19)60s. The (19)60 election really did because JFK proved that the accepted order of vice president succeeding president was not necessarily the way things are going to go. And I think in retrospect that was almost more profound than the fact that Kennedy was a Catholic and proved that a Catholic could be elected. So I think that was a real turning point. But what the Kennedy assassination did for those of us who were around and affected by it was, it was a shock to the moral order of things that something like this could happen in this day and age. It meant that in effect nothing was sacred. That the highest elected person in the country could be zapped by a crazy guy down in Dallas. It was a shock to the body, I do not know about the body politic, but to the whole American society that had its reverberations for a long time. And I guess probably, in some respects foresaw then what was going to happen with Martin Luther King, with Bobby Kennedy and on and on. Attempted assassination on Reagan [inaudible]. Even I suppose you could, in that respect, almost link it to 9/11 and real traumas to the American system. And in that respect, it shook things up and helped... It made things unglue and we lost our compass for a while. And that one lasted longer than most. Kent State, I guess was I would describe as more a tragedy than a shock because Americans shooting Americans not in terms of stopping a prison outbreak or in terms of going back a hundred years plus then to the Civil War, but in basically a much more peaceful environment that just never should have happened. And I guess my problem to the whole reaction of the Kent State thing is that men are not angels and so we are not going to always do... Men who are in authority. Men who are in authority are not always going to do the right thing. Hopefully most of the time, under most circumstances they will, but not always. And so how do you make it happen more often rather than less often? At Kent State it sure did not. (End of Interview) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Ed Feulner Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Feulner, Edwin J. ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Authors; Journalists; Political scientists; Public officers; Feulner, Edwin J.--Interviews Description An account of the resource Edwin John Feulner is an author, journalist, administrator, educator, political scientist, government official, and the founder and former president of The Heritage Foundation. He was the president from 1977-2013 and from 2017-2018. Feulner received his Bachelor's degree in English from Regis College, his Master's degree in Business Administration from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, and his Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003-08-07 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.188a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.188b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 65:51 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/82556bbbd890c3c603b844028ec4f2a9.jpg 93af7916dce5f371dfc797319c2de378 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/40934a5aa8eb22b2325a2e239500c366.mp3 9b5058a329afb40588d6b154cc8e6749 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2003-07-11 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Paul Hendrickson Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Paul Hendrickson is an author, journalist, and educator. He is a senior lecturer in the English Department at the University of Pennsylvania. He was a former member of the writing staff at the Washington Post. Hendrickson is the author of two books, The Living and The Dead and Sons of Mississippi. Hendrickson attended St. Louis University for his Bachelor's degree in English, and Pennsylvania State University for his Master's degree in English.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:7051,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:1},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,5099745],&quot;6&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;}">Paul Hendrickson is an author, journalist, and educator. He is a senior lecturer in the English Department at the University of Pennsylvania. He was a former member of the writing staff at the <em>Washington Post</em>. Hendrickson is the author of two books, <em>The Living and The Dead</em> and <em>Sons of Mississippi</em>. Hendrickson attended St. Louis University for his Bachelor's degree in English, and Pennsylvania State University for his Master's degree in English.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/wav Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 80:31 Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Assassination of John F. Kennedy; Baby boom generation; Vietnam War; Activism; Post-war affluence; Collier and Horowitz; Anti-war Movement; Richard Nixon Resignation; Scott Fitzgerald; Vietnam Memorial; Robert McNamara; Jane Fonda; Civil Right; U.S Presidents; Hanoi Jane.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:7059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:3381606},&quot;7&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;}">Assassination of John F. Kennedy; Baby boom generation; Vietnam War; Activism; Post-war affluence; Collier and Horowitz; Anti-war Movement; Richard Nixon Resignation; Scott Fitzgerald; Vietnam Memorial; Robert McNamara; Jane Fonda; Civil Right; U.S Presidents; Hanoi Jane.</span> Subject LCSH College teachers; English teachers; Authors; Journalists; Hendrickson, Paul, 1944--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Paul Hendrickson Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 11 July 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:04): All right. When you think of the (19)60s and the early (19)70s, what is the first things that comes to your mind when you think of that period? PH (00:00:15): I guess I am speaking personally. Chaos, in terms of you almost woke up and did not know what the headline was going to be that day. I should back up and say that my own coming to awareness and consciousness in the world coincides with the (19)60s, which is why all my book projects, or so many of them, seem to be centered in the (19)60s. I was really an altar boy growing up in the (19)50s in a sheltered, Catholic, provincial, Midwestern town outside of Chicago and then I went to religious life, to the seminary, for seven years. In some ways, my awareness was stunted, not my intellectual growth, because the seminary was rigorous, but my awareness of the greater world outside me was stunted, so that when I came out of the seminary smack in the middle of the 1960s, literally July, 1965, I felt as if I were swimming straight out from shore. And it was overwhelming to learn about girls, to finish college, because I had done at least half of university in the seminary, and to connect with what was going on in the world around me. Kennedy, our great "Catholic" president, had been killed and that made a profound impact in the seminary, but we were still behind those seminary walls. That was (19)63. When I came out of religious life in 1965, so much in that short period of time had happened and I was trying to catch up with it. I mean, cities were starting to burn, Watts in Los Angeles. Vietnam was, not that I knew it, in the summer of (19)65, but America had taken over the war. It was now the Americanized war. All those years later, I would write a book about it. My opening word to you was chaos and that, even, is a personal statement of how I felt because interiorly, I had no grounding. It felt like I was on a sandbar or on a merry-go-round, trying to catch up. I was 21 years old. I had never been on a date and the world seemed to be swirling and I seemed to be swirling inside. SM (00:03:17): The boomer generation is characterized as a group of people that were born between 1946 and 1964. Now in recent years, there has been a lot of critique of this generation by news broadcasters or columnists or whatever. The basic criticism is the fact that they look at this generation of boomers as the reason why we have a lot of problems in this country, in issues like the drugs, issues dealing with sex, maybe even the increase in the divorce rate. All kinds of problems in our society meant there has been a lot of criticism of the boomers. Could you comment on whether that criticism is fair or unjust? PH (00:04:05): It is such a broad question that it seems to me there is truth in it and there is stereotype in it. There is myth in it that is unjust. I guess I am certainly part of that generation, even though I am just a little ahead of it. I was born in (19)44, so I am two years ahead of what might be technically or formally defined as the boomer generation and my own life, because of what I was just saying in the previous remarks, was more esoteric and eccentric than the classic boomer growing up, but of course, I am formed by that period of time. I am formed by the (19)50s and I am marked by the (19)60s. Is it fair? Yes. And is it unfair? Yes. It is fair in the sense that this generation had so much indulged upon it, extra expendable income by post-war affluence, a pampered quality, which has its flaws and sins and excesses in terms of the trouble, then, that people get into with their sense of affluence, with their sense of indulgence, and with their sense of, in a way, overeducated, not needing to be as accountable, both financially accountable and morally accountable, as the previous generation, as their parents and certainly going back to the depression of the 1930s, where no one had any money and people instantly had to start working and were grateful for any kind of employment. This boomer generation, the word itself, boomer, implies a lot about indulgence and laziness, maybe, and entertainment values. It is unfair in the sense that out of the boomer generation have come such already successful people, hardworking people, people that you talked about in your remarks before we even turned on the tape recorder, who have changed this country for the better. You have mentioned Tom Hayden. Okay, there is one. SM (00:06:54): When you look at the boomer generation when you were young, leaving the seminary, could you comment on the thoughts that you had on the generation when you were young in comparison to your thoughts today? PH (00:07:09): Just say that again. I am a little confused with what you want. SM (00:07:14): Your thoughts on the boomer generation, your generation, when you came out of the seminary, when you were in your early twenties, what were your thoughts about the young people that you were seeing in America of that period? Has that changed over time and have you thought about it and evolved in your thinking about this generation, and then where do you stand today on them? PH (00:07:35): Well, I will get in trouble here for what I am going to say. I am a teacher of writing at Penn, non-fiction writing, advanced non-fiction writing. These kids are the best and the brightest who get into these writing seminars. I am very, very proud of them because of how talented they are and how hard they work. I get the top of the pyramid, the creme de la creme, but what I am getting at here, Steve, is that I see all around me, when I said I am going to get in trouble, at the University of Pennsylvania, an elitism, an entitlement. When we were talking about the boomer generation being spoiled and too much income, the word that might come is entitlement. I feel that this generation of kids, and I am not talking about the ones I teach, because that is a very selective thing for them to get in. They are the committed, hardworking ones. I have to interview them before I allow them in. The run-of-the-mill, which is very, very high caliber of intellectual quality at Penn, those kids are entitled. They are too affluent for their own good. They are too smug for their own good. I feel that this generation has out-boomered the generation that I saw. You asked me what I thought of the world and young people my age when I came out of the seminary in (19)65. I still had blinkers on. I was still trying to learn. I went to a fairly conservative Jesuit university in the Midwest to finish up my education, St. Louis University, and the kids there were certainly boomers, but not in the real pejorative way that we think of it. I mean, just this term that we have been throwing around, boomer, strikes me as a pejorative idea. Do not you agree? SM (00:09:55): Mm-hmm. PH (00:09:57): And I think the rap is undeserved in some ways and in other ways, no. What you often find about me is that I am in the middle on everything. I, in many, ways see the grays of life. It is sixes and sevens with me. I am certainly not wanting to deny that the boomer generation caused a lot of problems. Do you know these two authors, Collier and Horowitz- SM (00:10:39): Yes. PH (00:10:39): ...who were radicals and then one of them, at least, Horowitz more than Collier, went totally over to the other side? SM (00:10:47): He has been on our campus. PH (00:10:48): Yeah. SM (00:10:49): He wrote Radical Son. PH (00:10:51): Yeah, you should interview him. SM (00:10:53): Well, we- PH (00:10:54): He is a difficult guy. SM (00:10:55): Yeah. We have had him twice on our campus. When you describe, can you break down the qualities that you most admire in the boomers and then the qualities you least admire in them? PH (00:11:09): Well, most admire are, this is almost flying in the face of some of what we were just talking. Most admire that they were idealistic. They want to change the world. They could not stand Vietnam. They could not stand the fact that African Americans were unjustly treated, so they were doing things, this is this element of the boomer generation, that was highly conscious and conscientious. I admire that tremendously. They wanted to change the world for the better. The things I do not admire are the ones who were listening too much to the Beach Boys and hanging out. SM (00:12:01): When you look at the anti-war movement, the anti-war movement is looked upon by most as college students, graduate students and undergraduate students who were very important in the ending of the Vietnam War. Your thoughts on how impactful these students were in ending this war? PH (00:12:25): I mean, we look back now and we see the excesses of the anti-war movement. A lot of the kids who were out there protesting, there were elements of peer responsibility, too much drugs, too much free love. All right, all right, all right, I agree to that, but I believe that, you said impact. It was tremendously impactful. That war would not have come to a conclusion. America would not have withdrawn its support if it were not for the boomer generation out there pushing and pushing and pushing and led by older generations, just as we mentioned Dan Berrigan before, Robert Lowell, the poet, Norman Mailer. All of the anti-war sentiment that grew has its roots in this same generation that is accused of so many sins. Yeah, they did tremendous things wrong and there were tremendous excesses, but the good of it, the power of it is far outweighed by history, it seems to me, which conservative Americans would want to write off and say, "Oh, it was irresponsible kids, stoned, who did not want to go to work and just wanted to protest something." Not true. SM (00:13:59): How do you respond to the critics who say that because of these college students who protested against the war or the Berrigans or the [inaudible] and so forth, they prolonged the war? PH (00:14:13): In what way? How could they have prolonged the war? SM (00:14:15): This is an attitude that comes from the Vietnamese and from the North Vietnamese, as some of the recent literature has stated that we knew when we saw this happening that we were going to eventually win, and so thus they can actually say that because of that, there are more names on the wall because they were not going to give up, period. PH (00:14:34): And it made the North Vietnamese, it gave them fodder for their cause. It made them hold together, but look how torn with dissension America is. If we just hang on, we will prevail. These people, these radical kids are on our side. Yeah, there is some truth to that and the grays are everywhere. There would be some truth to that, but far more, it seems to me, is the fact that all of that protest got the attention of the country because the lies that were being told within the government. I mean, I know what I am talking about. When I came out of the seminary in 1965, I knew nothing. It was so many years later when I was a reporter for the Washington Post and started looking at this and thinking about it and interviewing Robert McNamara, the architect of the policy, and when I started doing that, I knew nothing about the systematic and systemic lies that had been told. Those kids out there protesting, they did not have those documents, but they knew in their gut that it was a dishonest war and an immoral war, and God bless them. I, in my own way, only three years out of the seminary, joined the anti-war movement because I was at Penn State as a graduate student and I was passing out leaflets for Eugene McCarthy. I got with the program. SM (00:16:17): He was my first interview couple years back. He is not doing too well right now because he has got real bad back, but he is still hanging in there. When you look at the issues of the (19)60s, it is just a vibrant era, when you think of all the movements that came together. There was the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement evolved. I remember even the Native American movement, the Chicano movement, the gay and lesbian group. Is there one reason why this was all happening at this time? Can we look at the civil rights movement and say this gave the impetus for other movements? This was the example that allowed other groups to say, "We can do it. We can make a change in this world" PH (00:17:06): Maybe that is one theory, the bounce off theory, the synergistic theory. Synergism is all these forces colliding and coming off and positively reacting off one another. The Chicano movement synergistically gets its power from the civil rights movement, which synergistically, the civil rights movement gets its power from Vietnam protest or vice versa. Yeah, that seems to me as good a theory as any. I like that, Steve. You should talk to Sheldon Hackney, professor at Penn, who has written a book. SM (00:17:43): I have got it. Great book. PH (00:17:44): And he teaches in a course on the (19)60s and he is teaching a course this fall, or maybe it is a preceptorial, called The End of the (19)60s. You said, "Why did all these things come together?" I do not know the answer other than... All I can say is that I was in the middle of this thing and it was swirling around me, just like it was for you. That is why all of the writing power that I feel, so much of it is rooted there in the (19)60s. I am still trying to get to the bottom of the mystery. What were the (19)60... Every great once in a while, these periods of time come along that are just so powerful, cataclysmic. If you believe in the pendulum swing of history, you go the (19)30s to the (19)60s to the (19)90s. F. Scott Fitzgerald said that it takes about 30 years for a generation to occur. The cataclysms of the 1930s, when did the 1930s began? They began on Black Monday, 1929, when the stock market fell. And when did the 1930s end? I think they ended on December 7th, 1941, when Pearl Harbor, because history does not go in these neat 10-year cycles, so let us say the (19)30s began the day the stock market crashed and ended the day that we declared war on Japan. The pendulum swing generation ... When did the 1960s begin? For me, the 1960s began on November 22nd, 1963, when Kennedy gets killed. And when did the (19)60s end? Tricky question, they ended on August 9th, 1974, when Richard Nixon resigned. The (19)60s really, the (19)60s are not New Year's Day 1960 to New Year's day 1969, no, November 22nd, 1963 to August 9th, 1974, when Nixon resigned. Now swing the pendulum again. When did the, quote, when did the (19)90s begin? I mean, we are going on the paradigm of Scott Fitzgerald's 30-year swing. If there is supposed to be a revisiting, the (19)60s are [inaudible] generous, so we will never have a decade like that, I do not think, again. Maybe, who knows, but what happened in the (19)60s cannot compare, in my mind, to the (19)30s. The (19)60s is like a boa constrictor having swallowed a warthog. It just bumps up so large. When did the (19)90s begin, "the (19)90s?" If we are talking (19)30s, (19)60s, (19)90s, this is a trick question that I use on my documentary students. When did the (19)90s begin, Steve? SM (00:20:52): I would think it would begin when Ronald Reagan became president. PH (00:20:55): Wrong. No, we are talking about upheaval, cataclysm. We have got the paradigm of the (19)30s. We have got the (19)60s. When did the (19)90s begin? This is a trick question. This is a trick question that is absolutely compelling if you stop and think about it. SM (00:21:13): It was not when Bill Clinton came in. PH (00:21:14): No, it is not cataclysmic enough. SM (00:21:16): Okay, yeah. PH (00:21:18): Now remember, history does not go in the- SM (00:21:20): Oh, you are talking about 9/11. PH (00:21:21): The (19)90s began on September 11th, 2001. SM (00:21:27): Okay. PH (00:21:28): That is when the (19)90s began. (19)30s, (19)60s, (19)90s. SM (00:21:31): You are right. PH (00:21:33): The world has been different since September 11th, 2001. SM (00:21:36): Oh, definitely. PH (00:21:37): That is the pendulum swing of history. SM (00:21:39): Right. Good analogy. Very good. When you think of the boomer generation, the Vietnam Memorial was open in 1982. The goal of the Vietnam Memorial was to heal within the veterans and with the families of the veterans itself, but also hopefully to heal the nation. It was meant to be a non-political entity. Could you talk about your thoughts on the impact that the Vietnam Memorial has had on healing, not only within the veterans and the family of veterans, but within the nation as a whole? And I preface this question with, what effect does this have on those individuals who are involved in the anti-war movement or as some people say, may have guilt feelings for not serving? PH (00:22:34): I love the Vietnam Memorial. I have been there many-many-many times. I have been there at all times of the day, in the middle of the night, in the early morning, on weekends, on national holidays. I have experienced it in a wide spectrum and variety of occasions and emotions and anything I can say about it is positive and powerful. I have never been to the Vietnam Memorial when I do not see some expression of powerful emotions, some display of something beautiful, somebody breaking down, crying as they are tracing a name on the wall, motorcycle veterans who are terribly overweight with long hair who are holding onto each other for dear life, and that is their humanity, not their physical appearance. It is their humanity of suddenly being called back to the fact of where they were when somebody died, some comrade died, whom they knew. I always wanted to go down there with Robert McNamara. I always wanted to see Robert McNamara there. He said to me in his office when I interviewed him, "Yes, I have been there." I am not even sure he has. If he has, maybe he has been there with a hat over his head and dark glasses in the middle of the night. I do not know. He said he was there. I hope so. I hear your question and about those who guilt and who did not serve and that, but I can only think of it as a positive healing slash of granite coming out of the earth. James Webb, who was the (19)60s figure who was Secretary of the Navy and was a decorated winner, I think he even won the Congressional Medal of Honor, certainly won a lot. No, I think he won bronze stars and things. He was a marine combat veteran and has written novels and he hated the Vietnam Memorial's design when it came out. He was leading the protest about this. They did not accept us when we came back and now they were trying to build a monument that is ugly and is a slash of marble coming out of the ground. That was wrongheaded. I mean, I forgive him tremendously. He could not see the power, the perfect power of that monument. Its form follows function. You walk into that monument. As you go down the descending steps, the wall gets higher and those names get higher and the power and the profundity of 58,000 dead grows on you that way. I am in awe of this monument. I am of the belief that it has brought great healing to the country, not enough. SM (00:26:06): You brought up McNamara again. I am going to go on a limb here and have your comments on McNamara because when I have been to the wall and the veterans that I have known in the Westchester area and in Philadelphia, there are three names that they seem to, I use the word hate. Robert McNamara is one. Jane Fonda is the most, and for some reason, Bill Clinton. Now, I would just like your thoughts again on these three names and why these three names seem to bring such ire to them, Vietnam veterans, and they will never heal from their thoughts from them. PH (00:26:50): Yeah. They bump up large. It is symbolism. McNamara seems so sure. To our generation, you say that name, it is like a knife point, McNamara. It is a knife point of remembering of consciousness. It has to do with his look, that swept back hair, those steel rim glasses that were both scary and I mean, daunting and awesome at the same time. Gee, there must be tremendous intellect there. And the body was so rigid and tight. His body seemed to fit in an envelope. It was all about lies, as it was later revealed, and then he fell. He felt so large because he quit believing that the war could be won and yet, he kept trying to pretend, so there was this mask. When all this later began to be exposed, I mean, he just became such a figure of enmity and among the veterans I know, he will never be forgiven. I have always wondered why he did not get murdered. I mean, people tried. Why did not he get murdered? There is just such hatred out there, such incredible hatred, and he is still an arrogant man. He is an old, old, old man, but he is still arrogant. The story of McNamara is that he falls and then he comes back into his arrogance. He comes back into his pridefulness. The stone monument of his pridefulness is a line that I used in the book, and that is very hard to forgive. It says in the Bible, "Pride goeth before destruction," and that is the McNamara story. Hubris, McNamara symbolically came to stand for such hubris of that administration, far more than Lyndon Johnson, who was devious and power diseased, but McNamara came to stand for this incredible hubris. People who put their lives on the line over there can never forget that and can never forget the feeling of how they were betrayed, and that goes for Jane Fonda, of whom I know of so much less about. Hanoi Jane can never be forgiven. SM (00:29:32): Hold that thought. I am going to put [inaudible] Okay. PH (00:29:45): Hanoi Jane cannot be forgiven because it just seemed that people were dying and she, in her arrogance and her smugness in her ignorance, went to North Vietnam and was spitting on the valor and spitting on the struggle, the blood of these GIs. Clinton is a much more complicated case. It has to do with his lying and his hypocrisy and boomer, who seems to have gotten away with a lot of things, who avoided because... Boomers get the rap, and not undeservedly, for being able to have stiff armed service in Vietnam, where the ordinary guy coming out of Westchester, Pennsylvania on his high school education or his modest community college education, does not have the leverage, the political sophistication, financial leverage to avoid service, skillfully avoid service because of his upper middle class economic sophistication and abilities to hide behind certain deferments. That is what Clinton seems to stand for. Hanoi Jane seems to stand for her traitor, her traitorousness. Clinton seems to stand for his manipulations of the system and McNamara seems to stand for hubris, for pride. SM (00:31:47): What is interesting about Clinton is the person who wrote the letter so that he could go to Oxford was Senator William Fulbright, who ended up going as head of the Senate for Relations Committee, who supported the war in the beginning, but then criticized it and wrote The Arrogance of Power. The irony that the man who became one of the most disliked individuals during the Johnson presidency ended up being the man that helped Clinton. There is a little bit of irony there. PH (00:32:16): There is a little bit of irony there. Fulbright did not know much about Bill Clinton, just wrote him a letter, wrote a letter on his behalf. Fulbright was a great man. He had the power. He had the moral capital to change when he saw that it was corrupt. We called Fulbright as an old man in a K street law firm, long retired from government. I am interviewing him for the McNamara book and I said, "Sir." I mean, he was a hero of mine. And he was old by then, and he basically did not have a job. He was just in a law firm as a emeritus associate guy. And I said, "Sir, I was so naive when I started this McNamara project. I did not understand how these..." He said, "Do not feel bad. I was naive, too. I was a US senator." SM (00:33:04): Yeah. He wrote a really good book, The Price of Empire, and I guess he co-wrote it with Mr. Tillman or something like that, and we ended up taking students from Westchester University down to meet him as our first Leadership on the Road program. Gaylord Nelson helped us secure it right during the Gulf War in (19)91, and it was a tremendous meeting. He had had a stroke, but he was back fully strong. And he walked into the room and he had that gut and the suspenders were up and everything and his sport coat. And he said, "Why do you want to listen to an old man?" I will never forget that, but at that point forward, he challenged our students and you knew right away how powerful he was. We had a student government president at the time who was so gung hoed for the war and of course, he was against the war, so it was a great learning experience for our students to give him the pro viewpoint. When you look at the lasting legacy of the boomer generation... You are a writer and some of the best World War II books are coming out now, almost 50 years afterwards. When the best books are written on the (19)60s and the (19)70s and the boomer generation, what do you think the lasting legacy is going to be of the boomers via the greater period of time to really reflect and understand the history of this period? PH (00:34:28): That they sought to make a change and it was a human enterprise. Any institution that they became part of, like the SDS, is flawed and full of excesses because it is run by human beings, but they were idealistic and felt that the world, there was corruption and that they were being lied to and they tried to do something about it. That, to me, has to be saluted and remembered. When we wash off or want to write off the (19)60s crowd as dope smoking, long-haired, irresponsible, that is inexact and inaccurate. The greater part of it is that they were large elements were trying to make a difference. SM (00:35:30): How do you even deal with the subtleness that some people use, maybe not to go as far as attacking the extreme elements of the (19)60s, but stating that this particular generation of 70 million people, only probably 15 percent were truly involved in any form of activism, whether it be in the civil rights, anti-war, environmental, whatever the cause, and they used that as an excuse to show that they are not really, the numbers were not really there? It was just a small number in a big generation. PH (00:36:05): I do not know. What do you think about that? SM (00:36:10): Well, my thoughts on that is that I disagree with them. I disagree because when you take 15 percent of 70 million people, that is still a lot of people. PH (00:36:18): That is a lot of people. That is what I was going to say. SM (00:36:20): And you are dealing with a lot of different causes. PH (00:36:23): And that 15 percent made enough noise that they were tremendously heard. SM (00:36:27): Oh, yes. PH (00:36:34): You can light a match. You can light a match in a dark room and see that light. SM (00:36:43): This issue that is really important, I sense it today, and I do not know if you sense it amongst your students, but it really concerns me. It is this lack of trust that we seem to have in our leaders. I have been in college education for 25 years. I saw it in the (19)80s with students. I see it in the (19)90s. I see it today. A lack of trust in leaders, whether they be political leaders, corporate leaders, even ministers. No matter where a person is, that there has got to be something wrong with that person. They cannot be trusted. I am wondering if the effect that Lyndon Johnson had and Richard Nixon and I even had someone tell me in the interview process that the lack of trust began with Eisenhower. Eisenhower? Yeah, because of the U-2 incident. He lied to the American public. It was right on television. He knew he was lying. If you really want to go back, you can talk to Eisenhower, and then you can even go back to FDR if you want to for some things. PH (00:37:47): Yeah, for Pearl Harbor. SM (00:37:47): Yeah, for Pearl Harbor and then Truman had opportunities with... The question I am really asking is the issue of trust. PH (00:37:58): Trust in our trust in government, trust in our leaders, gosh, it is a huge problem that concerns me, too, that automatically there is a tendency to distrust. Does that come out of the (19)60s? Does that come out of Vietnam? Oh, well, you are just pointing that it goes back further, but it seems like it was so pronounced during the (19)60s, and that is a fearful thing. If we think that everybody who comes forward to try to run for office or to lead us should be distrusted, I mean, I do not know how we correct that. SM (00:38:41): You see that when you think of the periods that I am just describing, that the (19)60s was the period where this trust and lack thereof really evolved and developed. The question I am really trying to get at now is what had the boomers done with respect to their children in terms of passing on the qualities that they possessed in activism into the next generation? Have you seen that the children of the boomers are like them or not like them? PH (00:39:11): My wife says that when you are raising children, we have two boys, the notion of be careful not what you say to your children as much as what you show them by your actions, what you do, because that is what they are watching. That is what they are picking up. I do not think that answers your question, but I mean, this thing you are getting at about how do we restore some basic positive, I do not know the answer to that. It is very worrisome. SM (00:40:04): I am wondering whether boomers have actually sat down with their kids or their grandkids now and talk to them about the (19)60s and the (19)70s and what it meant to them, so that in their lives they can believe they are empowered as well to be change agents for the betterment of society. A question that has arisen through this process of these interviews is, what have the boomers done with their kids and why, in the generation that followed the boomers, they do not vote. And if you talk to them, "My vote does not count." [inaudible] PH (00:40:39): They stress their officials. They do not think it is going to do any good. And as I said, they are over-boomered. They have out-boomered the boomers, so maybe the boomers are negligent and culpable here for not giving enough of their time to sitting down with their kids and telling them. And why would that happen? I do not know. It is interesting that my own kids know about the (19)60s without... My 15-year-old, 5, 6, 7 years ago, he knew all about the (19)60s. Where did he learn it? If I said to him, "John, what are the (19)60s about?" He would go, "Hey, man, peace." Where did you get that, from television? I do not know, but the true values of the (19)60s, does he know about those? Maybe not enough. The true values of the (19)60s that I would think of is all these things we have been talking about, protesting. SM (00:41:41): Well, working with students as I do day in and day out, one thing that I have seen, at least the last 16 years at Westchester, is the fact that there is two ways that they look at the (19)60s. There is either, "I wish I lived in that period so that my life could be as exciting as," because there were causes and issues, and number two, "I am sick of hearing it. I am sick of hearing about nostalgia. You are trying to relive your past. Come on, we are in the future now. I am tired of hearing about it." And of course, these are all responses before 9/11, because we had a lot of the interviews that I have had are before 9/11 and the causes and now there seems to be, this is a major cataclysmic event in student lives. PH (00:42:23): What are you going to do with this? Put a book together about what the (19)60s stands for? SM (00:42:27): Yeah. It is based on these questions. It is oral histories and some taken people who were leaders at that particular time. That is why we got McGovern. We got some of the older leaders, so people that were in positions upon responsible at that particular time, certainly a lot of vets and civil rights people and then boomers, people in the anti-war movement and people in the intellectual community. It is a combination of different points of view. I am in the process now of trying to get more women, because I am finding, it is interesting, that when you look at the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement, men were in the major roles. Men mostly served, even though the nurses did serve in Vietnam. And I am working with Diane Carlson Evans now to try to make sure that I get a lot of women to be interviewed in the next several months. It is a composite, lots of views, because it is like any oral history interview. It is taking a person's feelings, people reading these oral histories of different individuals from different perspectives, and trying to get a grasp of some of the questions that I have been asking and- PH (00:43:34): Tucker. SM (00:43:34): ...trying to understand the period a little better. PH (00:43:38): Listen. There is a book that is somewhere around this house, but you probably know about it. It is a similar tack of what you are doing, except it was done a long, long time ago, 20, 25 years ago, right as the (19)60s were finishing up. It is called From Camelot to Kent State. SM (00:43:56): Oh, I have got that book. PH (00:43:57): And Craig McNamara, McNamara's son, is one of the interviews in the book. SM (00:44:02): Oh, wow. PH (00:44:05): And he is a great guy. He is McNamara's own son. He is proof that Robert McNamara has a heart because Craig McNamara, people who want to write off McNamara think he is the tin man searching for a heart. No-no. McNamara is much more complicated. McNamara is the fact that he betrayed his own predilections and his own desire. He grew up on the cusp of the country in the (19)30s at Berkeley, where there was all this intellectual ferment. He was idealistic. McNamara sold out. He sold out, first of all, in cars, but then he came to Washington, where the line really had to begin. The McNamara story is far more tragic than some soulless money idiot. People who think that that is what he is about or a soulless numbers cruncher, they do not get McNamara. They are all wrong. Craig, his son, is a walnut farmer in Winters, California, is a truly good human being. And when I say he is proof that McNamara has a heart, Craig McNamara, the son, the only son, could not have gotten his goodness from his mother alone. His mother alone, McNamara's wife, was a tremendous person, but Craig could not have, he had to get it equal parts or not maybe equal, but he had to get parts from his father and parts from his mother. I do not want to get off on that, but he is one of the interviews in that book and you should dust that book off and look at it again because I think some of what you are trying to do is, although that is mostly... That book, I think, is mostly interviews with just the boomers, just the protestors. SM (00:45:40): Yeah. Well, I have got a lot of older people and a lot of Vietnam vets. PH (00:45:43): You have got the range. SM (00:45:44): Got a long way to go. I think I am going to get David Eisenhower and I am hoping I can get Julie. David will interview, but Julie probably will not. And I want... PH (00:45:55): She is so protective, is not- SM (00:45:56): Yeah. David came to our campus and she has written me some letters a couple years back, and so I think she trusts me, but I got to get through David again to try to get to Julie. PH (00:46:08): He is much loved at Penn. SM (00:46:09): Is he? David? PH (00:46:10): He is in the Annenberg School of Communication and teaches courses on the presidency. SM (00:46:17): He is a great guy. PH (00:46:18): Well, the students love him. SM (00:46:22): I just admire the man. He came to our campus about eight years ago and that is been eight years now, but I had some correspondence with his wife, trying to get her to come, and that is before her dad died, and so she was really concentrating on her dad at that time. We have one final question then I am going to go into some individual personalities here, and you can comment on perceptions of these individuals. I have been talking a lot about the anti-war movement, but I want to get back to civil rights. I had an interview with John Lewis, a very good one, for about an hour. It was took three and a half hours to get the hour because he was a busy man, but we talked a little bit about the civil rights movement that he was involved in and the (19)60s as a whole. I would like your thoughts on the civil rights movement period from the (19)60s and a sense that this person, this person, Steve [inaudible] feels, that somewhat, the civil rights history and the civil rights movement is not, well, am I saying being forgotten? I do not see the sense of the leaders that we saw in the past to keep this issue alive. We have the issue of affirmative action, which has just become before the Supreme Court, but how important is civil rights today? PH (00:47:38): Well, you analyzed it very well, it seems to me. Vietnam superseded everything. Civil rights started. We talked about that synergy. Civil rights actually started before Vietnam because the Vietnam protest did not really take off until the spring of 1965, as America was taking over the war, and civil rights protest and civil rights movement was in deep, full swing before that, before 1965. Civil rights precedes Vietnam, but then Vietnam supersedes everything about the (19)60s. And your point is extremely well taken, that those leaders, just like John Lewis, who was willing to go down and get his head beaten in, in such charismatic power, dignity, quiet power, but for every John Lewis, you could name so many others, known and celebrated and not so celebrated. James Foreman of SNCC and so many, where are those people today, because the civil rights movement seems to have atrophied. That is my comment. I am just looking at my time. Let us get on with these other- SM (00:48:58): I would just like some comments or just your perceptions of the following individuals that are personalities from the (19)60s and early (19)70s. Tom Hayden. PH (00:49:07): Some of these I do not have as an informed feeling about as I would like to, so if I do not have it, I am just going to say that. Certainly, my knowledge is sketchy, like anyone else's. It has its holes and its gaps. Tom Hayden is a committed guy who did tremendous work and I think there is a line of integrity all the way through where he is now and where he was back then. SM (00:49:39): Lyndon Johnson. PH (00:49:42): A man who is so complicated. Robert Caro's biographies are powerful and good. Sometimes they miss the juice of Johnson, which seems to be this whole kaleidoscopic notion of Johnson was everything. There was a compassionate side of Johnson that was so truly invested in the civil rights movement. That has to be admired. He was a liar, a cheat. He was power diseased. He just bumps up so large. I am endlessly fascinated by Lyndon Johnson, fascinated, much more so than by McNamara. SM (00:50:24): Hubert Humphrey. PH (00:50:28): Tremendous man, tremendous man of conscience, of idealism, who again, held that line all the way through. Got politically neutered by Lyndon Johnson and lost his way, but that cannot undo the grocer's son from Minneapolis, who rose from mayor and whatever else he did, idealistically to really want to help downtrodden people, great admiration. SM (00:50:57): John Kennedy. PH (00:51:03): Not nearly as fascinating or as complicated as his predecessor, Lyndon Johnson. John Kennedy, a hugely bright man with a native intellectual ability, but spoiled, lazy, brave in the sense of what he endured with his physical problems and his heroism in World War II, but narcissistic, selfish, spoiled as a rich kid, and yet came out of that to be a leader. What Kennedy has about him in memory and history, it was style. It was this panache, it was this class, it was this finesse, it was this charism. All of those things are true and surface and thin, as opposed, in my mind, to this immense complication of someone like Lyndon Johnson. SM (00:52:26): Robert Kennedy. PH (00:52:30): Oh, tough, shrewd, hard, politically astute. That word ruthless, which was attached to him, was not undeserved, but who also had tremendous conscience and he changed after his brother died. The last five years of Robert Kennedy's life are something to behold. They are powerful and emotional and committed and I think that death sincered him, that he began to see the world in a powerfully different way. The last five years of his life are beautiful and to be admired. SM (00:53:17): Eugene McCarthy. PH (00:53:19): A guy who certainly had ambition, who had intellectual pride, who had ego, but who also was brave enough to stand up, to challenge his own party and was a committed guy. I feel that the problem with Eugene McCarthy is that he has never quite broken a sweat. He has always been a little bit on the fringe of not wanting to get in there, roll up his sleeves, and fight all the way, and part of that might be his intellectual [inaudible]. SM (00:53:58): Martin Luther King Jr, and if you could comment on his stand against Vietnam War. PH (00:54:03): I thought it was brave that the guy who was so leading the civil rights movement felt that if he were going to practice the integrity of what he believed, that he had to expand all his thinking toward all the injustices of Vietnam, which certainly were unjust to African Americans, but just unjust in a political worldview. And Martin Luther King is a great man and a great leader who had large, private, personal demons and flaws. He was one of God's sinful creatures, just like we all are, but none of those flaws and personal failings can override the great, great life. SM (00:54:56): Malcolm X. PH (00:54:58): Do not know enough about him. Would like to know more. What I do know is that he had a kind, it seems to me, an intellectual core of belief. That vision is something prominent and powerful to be paid attention to. I do not know. I would be interested in knowing about his anger and his hate. I have feelings that there was too much anger there. SM (00:55:35): The Black Power advocates, the Bobby Seales, the Huey Newtons, the Eldridge Cleavers, Kathleen Cleaver. PH (00:55:40): I met some of them and I interviewed some of them. I interviewed Bobby Seale years later when he was hawking barbecue sauce, which he still is. SM (00:55:48): Yeah, that is right. Yes. He was at Temple, or he was. PH (00:55:51): Yeah. Again, those guys were brave. They were angry as hell and they were brave and were all the things we talked about earlier, their excesses. They screwed up, but you have to look at the whole life and they helped change the status quo. A lot of them were scary dudes. Maybe they had a right to be scary dudes. SM (00:56:28): Any thoughts on the fact that they had certainly put a lot of pressure on Dr. King and Bayard Rustin and James Farmer and Roy Wilkins, that their time had passed? PH (00:56:38): Yeah. You have heard the thing that radicals can get along much better with conservatives rather than liberals. Radicals cannot stand liberals because liberals talk the talk. They talk the talk, but- SM (00:56:53): They do not walk the walk. PH (00:56:54): They do not walk the walk and the radical wants it right now, right fucking now, and do not give me the talk the talk. If you want to fight with me, put a conservative in here because I know where that guy stands and I will be able to duke it out with him, but the liberal is mouthing all of these nice pieties. The hell with those nice pieties. I think that is the problem with the Stokely Carmichaels and the Dr. Kings. SM (00:57:24): How about the Abbie Hoffmans and Jerry Rubins, the Yippies, so to speak, of that era? PH (00:57:29): They were crazy and narcissistic and selfish and weird, but the other part of it is that there was something genuine and real in them that they were not out just to make a buck. SM (00:57:47): Richard Nixon. PH (00:57:53): I guess he was very, very unbalanced and he did some good things, but was so burdened by his... He was so brought down by his neuroses and his pathologies that I see him not as a tragic figure. That word is too thrown around. McNamara is a tragic figure, basically because he betrayed his own ideals. In the Shakespeare construct, you have to have a great single tragic flaw. McNamara's single tragic flaw is this pridefulness, his hubris. Nixon is more a victim of his own pathologies, and in that sense, he is not a tragic character. You do not agree? SM (00:58:54): No, I do agree. I do agree. I do agree. Spiro Agnew. PH (00:58:58): Ted Agnew, a mean man, a mean, vindictive guy who probably did some good things. SM (00:59:12): Here we go. PH (00:59:21): He probably did some good things as the governor of Maryland, but overall is a shit. He is like Frank Sinatra. They were friends for a while. Frank Sinatra is this eternal mystery, it seems to me, of great art and shit life, the things that Sinatra did. Now, Agnew does not have any great art. Agnew is just a shit. Nixon is brought down by his pathologies and you can almost feel sorry for Richard Nixon. You cannot feel sorry for Agnew. You cannot feel sorry for Sinatra. I mean, we are mixing art and politics here. You can be uplifted every day of your life by listening to Sinatra's music. I listen to it around here all the time. Every day of your life, you can be uplifted by Sinatra's music, at what the human voice is capable of, and every day of your life, you can be brought to the floor by the awful things Sinatra did, which have come out. SM (01:00:31): In the women's movement, the Gloria Steinem and the Betty Friedan, your thoughts on their importance. PH (01:00:38): They are tremendously important. Friedan is a more powerful figure, more important figure than Steinem. Steinem took her abilities and her intelligence and went with it as far as she could go, and that was a lot and that was far, but Friedan is much more of a Moses. I wish I had a female image. Friedan is much more of a pioneer and has much more intellectual firepower. SM (01:01:17): Daniel Ellsberg. PH (01:01:21): A screwed up, really good man of conscience, who did things for ego and ambition and notoriety as well as conscience and realizing, "This thing stinks and I have to be the one to bring it forward," but a guy who also had tremendous personal problems and was undone by a lot of those personal problems. I met him. I have talked to him. I have met him. I know him. SM (01:01:54): Dr. Benjamin Spock. PH (01:01:55): Do not know enough about him other than what you know. SM (01:02:01): Muhammad Ali. PH (01:02:04): I have been around him. Ali is so curious to me. A guy who has a gift that you would think is based in intellect, but it is not because I do not think he... I am not talking about whether he is an educated man or he is not an, not an educated man. I am talking about his intellect. You would think that a man of such rapier-like wit, is so fast on his feet in the ring and in life, would be high intellectual power. I do not think he was. I think he was not particularly a smart man, but he has some kind of gift, some kind of instinct. Maybe it is a kind of animal instinct for protecting himself and giving lightning jabs, and he was very brave, too, and I believe that what he did in embracing Islam was based on conscience. SM (01:03:20): I can remember that when he was dethroned and he could not fight after staying on the Vietnam War, he came to Columbus, Ohio. I was working at Ohio University then and he went to the Ohio Theater downtown, gave a speech. They pay him $3,500, and he came on stage with $3,500 in cash and gave it back to the group that brought him in and said, "Use this to help the homeless or the poor." That is the kind of man he was, because he was a millionaire from his boxing. PH (01:03:52): Yeah, I love it. SM (01:03:53): But that was tremendous of what he had to say. PH (01:03:55): I love it. I love that story. SM (01:03:57): Noam Chomsky. PH (01:03:59): Do not know enough about him other than certainly a guy who has done all of the things we have talked about from the intellectual standpoint. SM (01:04:09): George McGovern. PH (01:04:12): A great guy, a great sense of humor, a guy who kept his feet on the ground in political Washington. Of course, ambition wanted to be president. He basically railroaded and sold out on his running partner, Tom Eagleton, when it was discovered that Eagleton had mental problems. He did not support him in backing like he should have, because we were all scared. You have to put that in context. The country was scared about mental problems. McGovern falls there, but McGovern is a World War II hero. McGovern is a man of conscience all through the Senate years. McGovern has a wonderful Midwestern, he is from Dakota, as you know, he has a wonderful stability. His feet are on the ground. He is not going to be swamped by these eggheads. So many of the people who came to Washington to work in the Kennedy administration got their heads turned by the glamor of Camelot. That, again, is that style, as opposed to substance. McGovern is a man of substance. SM (01:05:19): Timothy Leary. PH (01:05:21): I do not know enough about him other than he seems, in some ways, a creation of the media. SM (01:05:30): Ralph Nader. PH (01:05:32): A flawed, good man who was tremendously motivated to help change these things that are wrong in industry, but a guy who was so aesthetic that he was difficult to know. His personality is prickly and there was a hardiness there. He has been held back by his lack of people skills. You see, you get back to Lyndon Johnson. The juice of Lyndon Johnson is this immense people skill. He knows everything. He has a PhD in people. McNamara has an eighth-grade education in people. SM (01:06:26): George Wallace. PH (01:06:34): A demagogue, a fiery little guy who did some decent things for Black people early on, but was killed by his ambitions, and that he was a nasty guy, finally. SM (01:06:49): John Lennon, the Beatles, and John Lennon in particular. PH (01:06:59): Lennon is a great songwriter. I guess he is an immortal songwriter. He is the most talented of the four. His talent far out shines Paul McCartney's. He is an intellectual all the way. I guess I have pretty strong good thoughts about him, but in a funny, queer way, I have to tell you, I do not like the guy. SM (01:07:32): Just the music of the (19)60s, the Jimi Hendrix, the Janis Joplins, that whole era, The Rolling Stones. PH (01:07:40): I went back and tried to- SM (01:07:43): The impact the music of this period had on the generation. PH (01:07:46): Yeah, Vietnam was our first rock and roll war, as has been pointed out. You cannot think about the (19)60s without listening to the stoned, Benzedrine quality of that music. And Janis Joplin's cry and Jimi Hendricks's wail with that guitar are just so emblematic of the (19)60s. I mean, Joplin I have written about. I went back and tried to understand the legend of Joplin. I did this with the Washington Post about four or five years ago. She was so hurt, tormented by her own self-worth, and somehow or other... She dropped out of the University of Texas as a freshman. She did a couple semesters at Texas and the fraternity boards at UT Austin voted her the ugliest man on campus, ugliest pig man on campus. That was just one of her insults. SM (01:08:59): You think of the Phil Ochs and Joan Baezes and the Arlo Guthries. You remember those musicians coming to our campus and the impact that they had, just of the words, the music. There is so many people like that of that period. PH (01:09:14): Phil Ochs hanged himself. I love Arlo Guthrie. SM (01:09:17): I am going to close with just a couple terms here of the period. When you think of SDS, what do you think of? PH (01:09:23): I think of obviously the scary, radical edge of protest of the (19)60s. Not the edgiest and the scariest, but a group that was out there toward the fringe. SM (01:09:46): Counterculture. PH (01:09:51): Counterculture is a beloved word for me. I think everybody should have an element of counterculture in them. The streets that we live on here is too culture. I hope to hope be the counterculture of Colfax Road. SM (01:10:07): The Pentagon Papers. PH (01:10:10): Everybody knows what they are. The Pentagon Papers are one of the great treasure documents of the (19)60s, (19)70s, SM (01:10:19): Okay. Chicago Eight. PH (01:10:27): The Chicago Eight, Bobby Seale was one of them. You say Chicago Eight and you think of a courtroom and Judge Julius Hoffman and people being restrained in their seats as Bobby Seale was. That trial was unfair and it caused such commotion because they thought that those eight who were on trial were murderers and rapists. Well, they were not that at all. It was unfair. SM (01:11:03): Watergate. PH (01:11:06): Watergate. I interviewed a man who had been imprisoned in China all during Watergate and came out in the late (19)70s and he had been in a hole in China and he heard the word Watergate. He said, "What is it? Is it something to do with the dam? Is it something to do with water?" Watergate. You say Watergate and I can only see the buildings themselves along the Potomac, where we lived in Washington for 30 years. SM (01:11:38): Hippies and Yippies. PH (01:11:44): I like hippies better than Yippies. The instant connotations for me are yippies have too much money. SM (01:11:59): And how about the communes? PH (01:12:06): There were something that I always secretly wanted to try because I wanted to run around naked. SM (01:12:17): I am going to close out with a few personalities linked directly to Vietnam. William Westmoreland and Creighton Abrams, both of them. PH (01:12:25): Yeah. Okay. William Westmoreland, whom I knew a little, I mean, I have interviewed. Not a terribly bright man. A soldier, a strong soldier, but a guy who should not have been in charge of that war at such a critical time. He was not smart enough. Abrams was a bulldog of a warrior. SM (01:12:54): And Maxwell Taylor would be the other one. PH (01:12:56): Yeah, he was the soldier scholar and he was beloved by the Kennedys precisely for that reason because he could bring history and intellectual thought to it. I think he was a pretty good guy. I really do. I mean, he, of course, was caught up in the lies and the political. People like David Halberstam hate Maxwell Taylor. I do not really understand that. SM (01:13:17): General Cao Ky and President Thieu. PH (01:13:24): Cao Ky is a cowboy. He is all about his style of his dress and his daring exploits in the air and he is a little Hollywood guy who wants to be on the cover of People Magazine. General Thieu, he is more interesting and a person of more integrity in some ways for me. SM (01:13:49): Kent State. PH (01:13:52): You can only picture a slope of hill and a people on the ground and a girl reacting in horror, bent down over a body. Whoever heard of Kent State, Ohio the day before that happened? SM (01:14:13): Moratorium. PH (01:14:14): I was there in October of 1970 or was it (19)69? The moratorium is, the moratorium is- SM (01:14:30): I think it is (19)69. PH (01:14:30): Is October (19)69. I was there. Masses of people. SM (01:14:38): Gerald Ford. PH (01:14:42): A good guy. Lyndon Johnson's great comment, "The trouble with Gerry Ford is that he played too much football at Michigan without a helmet." Gerry Ford was a guy who used all of his abilities to their max, but did not have huge abilities as a thinker, but who was skillfully pretty good in the House of Representatives, pretty good as a Congressman. I am being too flip. Good for the years that he was president. We needed somebody. We needed a Midwesterner to help us be okay after Nixon. SM (01:15:27): April 30th, 1970 and April 30th, 1975, April 30th, 1970, being the Cambodia invasion, which eventually led to Kent State on May 4th, and April 30th, (19)75 when the helicopter [inaudible] PH (01:15:42): The people trying to climb the ladders into this helicopter. SM (01:15:44): Yes. Get your thought on those two. PH (01:15:46): Well, I can picture the second one much better. The Cambodian invasion? No, and it leads to Kent State, but the April 29th, which is my birthday, and April 30th of (19)75, those helicopters lifting off from the Embassy roof, it is all about our failure there and human desperation and us leaving this country behind and we are trying to claim victory, but we know we have lost. I mean, it is a terrible moment. SM (01:16:21): The Berrigan brothers, Philip and Daniel. PH (01:16:25): Great men and we talked about them and models of conscience and heart, and both artists in their own right, Dan more than Phillip. SM (01:16:39): And Ramsey Clark. PH (01:16:43): There should be a thousand Ramsey Clarks in Washington DC and there are not many. SM (01:16:50): And of the books that have been written on the (19)60s or the books that were written during the (19)60s, what would be the books that you think are the most influential and important? PH (01:17:03): I cannot do it, Steve, because I would leave out the ones that I think of. Michael Harris's Dispatches is one of the great books in the (19)60s. I will have to email you. SM (01:17:16): How about The Making of a Counter Culture with Theodore Roszak and the Greeting of America? PH (01:17:20): Yeah. SM (01:17:21): Those are very important books. Final question, and that is, it is on the boomers themselves again. Are boomers in middle age or approaching old age now? Are they doing what they did when they were young or have they given in. Like a lot of people said during the (19)60s and early (19)70s, "When you guys get older, you are going to change." Remember that, no one over 30 that Jerry Rubin did? PH (01:17:50): Yeah. SM (01:17:51): Are the boomers still idealistic or have they just gone into the society and raising families? PH (01:17:59): It is so hard. Yeah. It is so hard to maintain who you are and your ideals. SM (01:18:04): That is all right. Idealism continued. PH (01:18:06): It is so hard to maintain it. I guess I will answer it personally. I have said that on my best days as a writer, I am doing something priestly with a small p. I went into seminary and religious life out of some misformed, misguided ideas, but still idealistic. And the goal was to try to make the world better and to help people. On my best days as a writer, I am doing that. And the continuum, I feel, continues with the spectrum, with the teaching I do at Penn, on my best days as a teacher of non-fiction. I am teaching these kids to be better human beings and I am maintaining that idealism. SM (01:18:53): And finally- PH (01:18:54): You said finally a minute ago. SM (01:18:56): Well, this is it. Is there a question that I did not ask? PH (01:18:57): No. SM (01:18:57): You bastard. (End of Interview) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Paul Hendrickson Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Hendrickson, Paul, 1944- ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource College teachers; English teachers; Authors; Journalists; Hendrickson, Paul, 1944--Interviews Description An account of the resource Paul Hendrickson is an author, journalist, and educator. He is a senior lecturer in the English Department at the University of Pennsylvania. He was a former member of the writing staff at the Washington Post. Hendrickson is the author of two books, The Living and The Dead and Sons of Mississippi. Hendrickson attended St. Louis University for his Bachelor's degree in English, and ennsylvania State University for his Master's degree in English. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003-11-07 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.2a; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.2b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-01 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 80:31 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/c709fbab0cf1bf8485686eea180220a2.jpg 30f011dfb1bfd13dc4ba9e8b553eeb16 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/66586c521a2a11fe140c7a93f849b569.mp3 d877f617cd482f65750f0bcc01b8cd87 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2003-11-14 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Tom Hayden Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data MicroCassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Thomas Hayden (1939-2016) was a social and political activist, author and politician who was best known for his major role as an anti-war, civil rights, and radical intellectual activist. He was author of the manifesto Port Huron Statement and stood trial in the Chicago Seven case. Hayden won seats on both the California Assembly and the California Senate. He was also the director of the Peace and Justice Resource Center in Los Angeles County. He received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13311,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:1},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,4884200],&quot;5&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;6&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;7&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;8&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;9&quot;:0,&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Thomas Hayden (1939-2016) was a social and political activist, author and politician who was best known for his major role as an anti-war, civil rights, and radical intellectual activist. He was the author of the manifesto Port Huron Statement and stood trial in the Chicago Seven case. Hayden won seats on both the California Assembly and the California Senate. He was also the director of the Peace and Justice Resource Center in Los Angeles County. He received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan.</span> Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Nineteen sixties; marijuana; Anti-war Movement; Anti-draft; lack of trust; Vietnam (&amp; vietnam syndrome); Baby boom generation; Civil Rights Movement.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:769,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0}">The nineteen sixties; marijuana; Anti-war Movement; Anti-draft; Baby boom generation; Civil Rights Movement; Rorschach; Vietnam War; Draft resistance; Eugene McCarthy; Lyndon Johnson; Division; "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee"; Dee Brown; The Wall; Port Huron Statement; SNCC; Bob Moses; Jerry Adams; Kent State; Orangeburg; Integration; People’s Park; SDS; Jim Webb; Young Americans for Freedom; Jack Kerouac; Goldwater Movement; Fred Hampton; Mark Clark; Kent State; Jackson State; 1967 Newark riots; Max Cleland; Martin Luther King ; Max Faber ; COINTELPRO; Daniel Barrigan; Philip Barrigan; Direct Action Movement; Beat Generation.</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 157:57 Subject LCSH Political activists--United States; Civil rights workers; Legislators—United States; Radicals--United States; Chicago Seven Trial, Chicago, Ill., 1969-1970; Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Protest movements; Hayden, Tom--Interviews Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Tom Hayden Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Carrie Blabac-Myers Date of interview: 14 November 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) 0:02 TH: Hold it. 0:06 SM: By it is already there. 0:08 TH: But I need to play. 0:11 SM: It is recording right now. 0:12 TH: Are you sure? Yeah. All right, fine. 0:15 SM: When you think of the (19)60s, a lot of these questions are basic and general, when you think of the (19)60s, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? 0:33 TH: Well, I guess I think of the (19)60s as the cradle of my identity. 0:45 SM: Could you explain a little further on that? 0:47 TH: Well, you can think of it in different ways. I always get asked about the (19)60s so it is kind of a reference point and as a subject of reflection or study. I could probably give a course on the (19)60s in my sleep and there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered and inconclusive about the (19)60s. But if I think about it, in terms of my experience, I think everybody's identity is formed when they are young. And I was, I was formed by the (19)60s I was. I grew up in the suburban apathy of Royal Oak, Michigan and was simply traveling along in this suffocating, apathetic state and then the (19)60s began in an instant and it was, it was like an electrical charge that just went right through me and a lot of other people of my generation. So, the whole experience of the decade was the experience of my twenties. And the cradle of my identity. I do not know how else to explain it. 1:47 SM: The boomer generation has been criticized by a lot of pundits in the last ten, fifteen, twenty years, as being the reason why looking at the boomer generation, and some of the things they did is the reason why our society has gone downhill in many ways. And when I say in many ways, the disrespect for authority, the drug culture, those kinds of things, what are your comments on individuals who criticize that generation as the reason why we have problems today in our society? 3:13 TH: First of all, I do not like the term 'boomer generation', it is derogatory. It makes the generation seem silly. And it has. It has no other political content. When you think of the (19)60s, yes there was; there were a variety of events that happened, you know, the journey to the moon, the election of Nixon, that happened in the (19)60s, but the core experience of the (19)60s makes people think of the assassination of Dr. King and the two Kennedy's and the Civil Rights marches, and the Vietnam War and the counterculture, that is the core. And when you say boomer, you do not really capture Martin Luther King. As far as things having gone downhill, you know, I do not know of any particular evidence of things having gone downhill in the 1960s. I mean, to the extent there was any economic problem it was the expenditures for Vietnam outpacing tax revenues, and the country going off the gold standard for the first time in history, but would that have nothing to do with the protests that had to do with the folly of the war. I think things went downhill for the country in one obvious sense, and that was the assassinations of so many of our natural, popular, elected leaders and who can say where the blame lies for that? As for drugs, I do not really understand the charge. It has to come from people who think drugs are the bane of all evil. For me, you know, I was a virtual alcoholic, my father was an alcoholic. My problem and America's problem is very much around the legalization, celebration, and promotion of alcohol, which is a drug that is associated with violence, it is associated with car crashes. It is a proven association. I do not happen to have had much experience with drugs in the 1960s. But certainly, my experience with marijuana and my observation is that marijuana is not associated with violence. It is not associated with anything antisocial unless you are a Puritan, and you believe you should work 24/7. I do not think people having used marijuana adversely impacted the country and I have always thought marijuana should be legal if alcohol is, or we need to review all of our addictive industries. The other drugs I think you want to take them one at a time and put them subject to some kind of Public Health Commission and find a way to move away from policies that criminalize to policies that legalize and control and by that I do not mean, like we do alcohol. Alcohol in some states, I do not know about Pennsylvania, but you still have alcohol outlets that are state regulated. To me, after you classify drugs based on scientific findings and epidemiological findings, you should legalize, regulate, tax, utilize the tax revenues to promote treatment, you should prohibit advertising and you should prohibit any campaign contributions whatsoever. And it is my feeling based on the research I have done on prohibition of alcohol in the (19)20s and (19)30s that the violence associated with drugs, which is a real problem, would go down drastically if an alternative policy was followed. So, the tradeoff I would make would be to legalize and regulate in exchange for the reduction of violence that I think would happen. 8:40 SM: When you look at the, I will not use the term boomer again- 8:44 TH: You can use it, I just- 8:44 SM: But when you look at the use of the boomers or the youth of the (19)60s, what were their strengths, and what were their weaknesses? 9:02 TH: It is sort of, it is hard to sort it out for everybody because you had a great variety. But I think that the strength that I would recall is the capacity to idealize the capacity to dream which is essential to regenerate a society. And the weaknesses, I think were the considerable lack of a strong legacy to stand on. The feeling that we had not received much of a heritage from our parents or our society, and that it was necessary to almost begin all over again or carry the load of all these movements and causes when we were younger than we should have been. 10:32 SM: How important were the students in the antiwar movement in terms of ending the war? I preface the statement, because a lot of people state that the war really ended or people started going really against the war when body bags came for the people who lived in the Midwest, you read this in history books. And in some sense that denigrates some of the things that students are doing on university campuses around the country, the protests. I just want your thoughts on how important were student protests in ending the Vietnam War. 11:10 TH: That needs to be studied further. That is really sort of a Rorschach question, in that the answers depend largely on what you felt, but I do not think it has been studied. The idea that people only started to care when the body bags came home has some truth to it but it is obviously you know, oversimplified. I think for instance, when students started resisting the draft, that certainly made the implementation of the war more problematic. When students started to rock campuses, that reverberated among administrators and trustees who were usually in the local or regional power structures of the political parties and the business class. And that anti-draft sentiment and anti-war sentiment constituted I think a real problem for carrying out the war among people in the establishment who valued the support of the younger generation. I think students also were pivotal in dumping Lyndon Johnson in the sense that they were the dominant troops in the Eugene McCarthy campaign in New Hampshire. So, in all those ways, students played a role as students, I think, but I do not know if I would be able to compare the weight of different factors in how it ended. 13:28 SM: When you think of the (19)60s is there a clear-cut movement that stands out above in other words, or is it a combination? 13:36 TH: I think the (19)60s are remembered as a period of upheaval and questioning and nonconformity, and revolt and then it breaks down according to where you were or what you prefer. A lot of the times, people that disparage the (19)60s leave the civil rights movement out, you notice it becomes the psychedelic experience because you know, that and that was part of it. But the Beatles, but the (19)60s was different movements and yet at the same time, the whole was greater than its parts. 14:24 SM: One of the things that comes out a lot of Boomers feel is this whole issue of trust. We all know that historic events of that period of the Gulf of Tonkin, which as history has shown was really something that shouldn't have caused the beginning of a war number one, and then lies that we are often told to the American public, by political leaders. I want to ask you, to my basic question is, do you feel that the (19)60s have really affected our nation with respect to trust? Trust in leaders? 15:08 TH: Oh, absolutely. 15:11 SM: At every level. 15:07 TH: Oh, absolutely, you have to put it in the context of what came before. Whether it was entirely true or not, people had a lot of satisfaction with Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt in terms of, you know, confidence in leaders and feeling that they were getting the whole story. And that is obviously not true. It is obviously a historical exaggeration. But it was the experience of people like my father who believed that the government would tell the truth with respect to issues where young Americans were going to be put in harm’s way. And what came between me and my father and so many people and their families was the inability of the elders to embrace the idea that the government was lying. It took a while. I mean, by the end of the decade, there was a consensus that the government lies but the turning points throughout the (19)60s usually had to do with parents refusing to believe that their children was right, children were right, and the government was lying and was wrong. 15:23 SM: Do you think that the children of the (19)60s or the boomers passes this on to their children so that they also do not trust? Or have they seen again? Have they come to their own conclusions based on the leaders of today? 17:04 TH: I think that a majority of Americans would not be surprised to find that in any given situation, the government was lying. And not simply the president, but it is government practice to lie or to distort. That is a big change in skepticism. Whether it is greater among children of (19)60s people, I do not know. 17:34 SM: In the area of healing. We all know that the Vietnam Memorial that was built in 1982 was supposed to be a non-political entity. Still going, is not it? 17:46 TH: Yeah. You are alright. 17:47 SM: And it is done a great deal with respect to healing vets. But I would like to ask you the general question again, on the healing of America. Have we healed as a nation since the (19)60s based on the unbelievable divisions that took place in that particular time? Have we healed? 18:10 TH: No, but I think we have healed, we have healed more than perhaps other countries might. It is, it is impressive, given the past divisions, it is made somewhat easier I think, because of the common recognition that Vietnam was at a minimum a mistake and at maximum, a huge lie that manipulated the whole generation, whether one fought in Vietnam or resisted Vietnam, we have the common experience of having been manipulated by the government and deceived. I do not know if it is a part of American pragmatism that leads people to shrug off what happened yesterday and move forward. You know, Bill Clinton had that campaign song, "Yesterday is Gone" and this is a useful part of American pragmatism. It also has a superficial quality to it. And so, I cannot say healing on a deep level has occurred for the nation, where it might have occurred for countless individuals or families. Because in a superficial sense, people try to forget about it. Get on with it as if you can get on with the missing leg or a father who insisted that his son go to Vietnam, where his son was killed can somehow get on with it, you know, by forgetting. So, there is a, there is an awful lot of pain and division beneath the surface of this healing in medical terms, the wound, I wish I had the phraseology, but the wound is still there, and the treatment may have been superficial. But you know, I think you see what I mean. And the failure, the failure to the extent that the failure to deeply heal exists. It means that the Vietnam syndrome perpetuates itself over and over again, and that syndrome began before Vietnam. I might add if we, if we had a deeper memory of our own history, we might not have gone into Vietnam. Vietnam was the Philippines all over again, it was Spain all over again. It was the American Indians all over again, if you think I am exaggerating, the other day as we speak now, this is November, about ten days ago, a US helicopter was shot down in Iraq. And sixteen people at this point have been determined to have been killed and others wounded. And then there was a service on the battlefield for the dead Americans and what I noticed about the service was that the American troops had bugles and they'd put on the hats and other battle garb of their predecessors in the Air Cavalry who had fought against the Indians. They had on Indian Wars outfits and if you notice the helicopter that went down, it was named a Chinook. An Indian name. You have Blackhawk helicopters; you have Apache helicopters. We have internalized the Indian Wars and trying to like to take away the strong medicine of the Indian and conferred on ourselves by naming our helicopters, you know, after the Indians and we do not even think about it. But sometimes it is the things that you do not think about that are the most serious and, and it is this. But we have never really engaged ourselves deeply in what happened in the formation of this country against the Indians. Because apparently, that would be too much for people to handle. But it also means we have a superficial sense of our own history. We have a superficial sense of why other people in the world hate us. And we pass that along from generation to generation and we repeat what we have not learned to avoid, and I think we were doing it in Iraq. We say well, Iraq, vast country of tribes, you know, and the image invoked there is that there is a lot of little gangster clans. 24:14 SM: Right. 24:16 TH: There may be some truth to that, but North America was a vast continent of tribes. And it is just assumed that tribes are backward and thuggish and bad and most of all, you know, have to get out of history's way because of Manifest Destiny. They are anachronistic groups. So, we have been fighting tribes from the very inception of the country, and if you think about that, it gives you a sensitivity to, a different sensitivity I think which was gained in the (19)60s, that people had a newfound admiration for the American Indian. They read the most profoundly altering book I read was "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown. 25:13 SM: Dee Brown. 25:14 TH: Exactly around 1968, (19)69, maybe (19)70 and what was moving about it was not just the way it was written of course, but it was the first book I had ever read on the subject, and I was already twenty-eight years old. And I think it was because there were not any books on the subject. He made it popular and there was a niche for Indian books. Now, if you go to any college bookstore, at least you will find the one hundred books on Indians and you have the Alcatraz uprising, where the Indians took back Alcatraz Island. That was part of the (19)60s. That was a profound experience. You have the formation of the American Indian Movement. In other words, the Indians reclaimed their existence, not only from the outer society but from the amnesia in which it had been buried. That to me is the heart of the (19)60s, is the recovery of all this real history. 26:18 SM: In your book "Reunion" there, submit your review with Bobby Muller. And, yes, Bobby Muller. Could you explain that first time that you went to the Wall, yourself and just your feelings. 26:34 TH: I was very, I was very moved by the wall. I approached it with some trepidation, I had to have armed guards. So, I took Bobby Muller, a wounded Vietnam veteran in a wheelchair and we decided to venture down there, at least that is what I recall. You might have been with me the first or second time, but I always went with Vietnam vet in case some argument erupted. But it is a great story I have seen the documentary on it, and I think it is so unbelievable that a Vietnamese woman would have been the design architect. Not that, not only that she was Vietnamese, but that she was a woman. I forget her name, Maya Lin. 27:24 SM: Maya Lin. 27:24 TH: But that, it is there is a God, the God placed this person on earth for this purpose. It is almost too uncanny to quite believe. And I really do not know her story. I have seen her, and I have been fascinated watching her in interviews, but she mostly talks as an architect and not as an Asian. Anyway, the whole idea of it being a scar on the ground was a genuine, artistic, original artistic inspiration. So different from monuments that are phallic or monuments that are grandiose above the ground that makes the witness seems small, kind of in the shadow of the great man who is memorialized in the statue. That it is a scar, that it is a black scar that is like it is like a wound that does not heal. Like if you have a cut, and it is still infected, it turns black. I do not know if they thought of all these things, or it is my projection, but just the entry into a scar. That is also a grave. Like it is like a grave, it is a hole in the ground. And it is like a grave in that it looks like a gravestone. All of those things are, I think they make it the most inspired monument in the country. It is so, it is an amazing, wonderful place. 29:30 SM: When history books are written about the (19)60s, the boomer generation, and usually the best history books are written 50 years after World War II books are out now. What do you think the lasting legacy would be? 29:48 TH: I do not know because I do not trust the history books. I have been trained that they may be wonderful books. But they were written by people who were not there. And then who bring their own agenda to the table. And I have not seen any books on the (19)60s that go beyond the fragments of the truth. So, I fear for what historians will say. Yeah, and I strongly believe that, that people who were there need to fight for their version of the truth, need to keep their diaries, need to do interviews, need to contribute. This should be a participatory history project. The you know, like in the (19)30s, the government sent out unemployed artists and writers in the WPA, that Works Progress Administration, and they interviewed Southern sharecroppers whose voices never would have been heard. And until recently, there were enterprising historians who developed what they call oral histories of slaves, former slaves, who are all now dead. And a lot of the history is pursued a little too late. So, with what was left of my life, I am trying to encourage what I call a participatory history. The not simply the writing and video documentaries, but the archiving of everyone's experience, because we have the technology to do that. But the will and the funding are not necessarily there for it. 31:55 SM: When you look at your life, your personal life, to me, I am biased and nothing's wrong. It is one of the most admirable lives in America, because it is a life fighting for others, but as yourself look at your life, all those major events, protests, speaking up, you are involved with the Port Huron Statement. Do you feel fulfilled? When you go to the Wall, do you feel that maybe I should have done a little bit more? Or could have done more? Just your thoughts. 32:35 TH: Well, I am a restless person, and I am sure I am besieged by all kinds of demons. What if I had done this, should I have done that. But you only get one life to live, you know, and it is not over. For all I know. There will be another (19)60s before I am done. So, I feel lucky to have been a part of something great. A lot of people have gone through many decades without, you know, much happening. And a lot has happened in the time that I have been blessed to be alive. So, in that sense, I think I am fulfilled, but the frustrations I have and the longings I have are still very raw. And I am not fulfilled. Yeah, no, not International. I am not fulfilled living under this American Empire, and never will be. It is going. 34:17 SM: Oh, it is? 34:17 TH: Yeah. 34:18 SM: As far as personalities, who are the people that you worked with, and that you admired the most during that period of the (19)60s and (19)70s people you looked up to or that were your inspirations? 34:35 TH: Well, Bob Moses in SNCC, had an overwhelming influence not only on myself and, but on many others. For his, his moral commitment and his technique, and I mean technique like a manipulator, I mean, his approach to relationships, to organizing, and he always stands out, even though it is not, it is not appropriate to single out people as being themselves you know, superior to others they may be just luckier than others. So, among movement activists, I would say, Moses, among international figures would say, my friend Jerry Adams in Ireland, who has gone through the whole thing, you know, the youth rebellions of the (19)60s, the armed struggle against the British presence in Northern Ireland's the transformation to the peace process and to political struggle and survived it all. I mean, it is he is just an extraordinary person to have managed this whole life when you think of what it was like in 1968, and what- it is like now? I do not know. 36:26 SM: My last question is, when you look at the youth of that era, I will say the boomer generation again, is there one event that you think had the greatest impact on their lives? 36:48 TH: I would say, without a survey, we do not know there should be a survey, I keep coming back to the need for our generation to speak for itself. I would, I would think that if you are black, you would say civil rights in some sense. Beyond that, you would say Vietnam. And some myself in particular, would say the assassinations were the pivotal events in the (19)60s. 37:24 SM: Where does Kent State fall in this? 37:28 TH: The assassinations as a category that would include Kent State would include Orangeburg would include People's Park would include individuals. But the constant interruption of the natural flow of history by these, these deaths, particularly the deaths of leaders. It made the (19)60s turn out the way it did. And a friend of mine, Jack Newfield put it very well he said, "Now you know, instead of being has been, we were all might have been. We became might have been" 38:51 SM: Testing 123 testing. Okay, here is my first question. And I have written them all out here. Your life has been one continuous adventure where activism is the adjective that I feel best describes your life. Number one, do you agree with this assessment? And number two, do you remember your very first time were created to speak up where courage was expressed by yourself when you were young? 39:22 TH: Well, I have been around so long my life is like an archeological dig. So, activism is one level, but I probably became most engaged as a reader and student and now late in life, that is what I do. Mainly I research, reflect, write, teach, talk. I would not say activism is entirely in the background at all, but it is not. It is not what I do. It is not what I do with my time now. As for the second question, it is hard to answer. But I will put it this way. I think, number one, when you are young, you have a certain adrenaline that gets you through dangerous situations. Just like the soldier in a war. You may also, you know, not have much of an emphasis on death, because it seems so far away when you are twenty. And also, a big factor for me was that I would never use the word courageous about myself. Maybe risk taking, because I saw people who were doing things that scared me to death, you know, that black people, black students in the south standing up to sheriffs, and that sort of thing. 41:25 SM: Could you briefly describe your upbringing? I know it is in your book Reunion and in depth but the people that are going to be reading lists are going to be reading 200 different oral histories, and they will have not read Reunion, they will be encouraged to. 41:38 TH: What is the question? 41:40 SM: Briefly, describe your upbringing. And how did you end up in Michigan? Where dd you live? Were you in any way linked to the students who talked to John Kennedy about the Peace Corps? 41:52 TH: Well, only child grew up in Royal Oak summers in Wisconsin. Father and Mother both from Wisconsin, lower middle class, first in my family to go to university, University of Michigan. My parents got divorced, which was relatively unusual in those days when I was about 10 or 11 years old. And that was quite hard on me. My father worked at Chrysler and my mother was a film librarian in Royal Oak. I did well in high school, I was sports editor and editor of the paper and got into the University of Michigan thinking I would maybe play some tennis and read a lot of books. And I got lured into the Michigan daily, which really kind of focused my life and gave me a mission and a purpose that you know, I had not had until getting to the university, and I have stayed with that. Also, you know, it was an accident of the times I do not know what I would have been like, if I was ten years older. But in 1957, when I graduated high school, Jack Kerouac was publishing On the Road, and the Beat Generation had already arisen in San Francisco. The Little Rock school integration crisis, with Eisenhower sending the troops there, all happened my senior year in high school, it must have influenced me, the climate around me, although I did not have much sense of it at the moment. But then when, you know, the students started demonstrating in the south when I was a senior at university, and I went down to see what they were willing to do about their lives and their futures. I was very moved by that. I think probably the election of Kennedy in (19)60 was also important for all of us and if you will be legitimizing in the idea that young people can take action that makes a difference. 44:27 SM: For one thing, your parents in this, over your entire career as an activist, what did your parents think of you? As you became not only one of the leaders of SDS, but as you grew older and were involved in so many things. How did your mom and dad respond to it? 44:47 TH: My parents were not happy about it all and I was not alone in this family tension. My father was a Marine who was based in San Diego, he did not go into the world wars, Second World War, he was a Republican. He came from the generation that believes that the government does no wrong and tells no lies. And he was completely unable at first to understand or respect anything that I was doing. Like I think he believed that you know that it was about him and that he was he considered himself a failure, because he had not raised a son who went higher up the pecking order. He came to change his mind but was really not till about 1970 and we enjoyed a fairly close relationship until he died in 82. And my mom was one of those Irish Catholic women who thinks the neighbors are always fine. And who knows, maybe they are but I mean she was made extremely paranoid and ashamed by the attention I was getting. And the labels that were thrown at me. The difference between them is that my father basically abandoned me for a period of about sixteen years, and he had another family and did not tell the daughter he raised that she even had a brother. 46:54 SM: Wow. 46:55 TH: My mom stuck with me, but you know, she was always acting, you know, profoundly disturbed. And she could not understand she could not follow what was going on, she kept calling Indochina, Indonesia. 47:18 SM: Wow. Yeah. What a generation gap. 47:22 TH: Typical suburban life. [Laughs] 47:24 SM: The generation gap, obviously, was your experience was the experience of so many, even in my family. But I want to get back to this business about the generation gap when the current senator of Virginia, Jim Webb, back in 1980, I believe in a symposium with Bobby Muller and Phil Caputo, was asked the question about the generation gap. He said, the generation gap to him was more within the generation as opposed to between generations. And his commentary was saying that we all get caught up in this idea that the young people in the (19)60s, you know, listen to John Kennedy "ask not what your country can do for us, but you can do for your country", yet he felt that service was serving your country, and when, when you were called to go to war, so that he would never label the (19)60s generation or the boomer generation, as a generation geared towards service. And he was very critical. And he says the divisions of a generation gap to him was between those who served and those who did not. Your thoughts on that? 48:40 TH: Well, you know, he is a, he is a rather bombastic fellow, Jim Webb erupts a lot. And he is a good writer, he is a good Irish historian, a good military historian. And I have no doubt that he was traumatized by his service in the military and is still dealing with it. And I was also traumatized without having been in the military because it is traumatic to oppose your country's war. It is traumatic to refuse to be drafted into a war that you do not believe in. Traumatic to be beaten up and to be put in jail. It is traumatic to lose your parents' support, and so on, but we could go on and on listing our comparative traumas. The fact is that the whole generation including those who went to Vietnam, and those to opposed it were deceived, and suffered a common deception by lying politicians in the Oval Office, Republican and Democrat, and spineless politicians who let it go on far too long until millions of people died, including 58,000 Americans. Now, on this specific point, you know, I think it is true that the historical recognition of the (19)60s will always be about a period of progressive social change, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the peace movement, the environmental movement, the youth culture, and so on. And what is left out of that story is the counter movement on the right. And that would be the Young Americans for Freedom. And those who followed the National Review and, you know, became the core of the Republican Party during the Goldwater movement. And I have always felt that they nurse a grudge about the (19)60s, because they really did not get recognition. And that has left them with a resentment and a hostility, which still plays out, you know, you can still hear them complaining about Clinton or permissiveness or, you know, one thing or another. That goes back to the lack of recognition, I think there was a movement and a counter movement. I am not sure that it was those who went to Vietnam versus those who did not. You know, I am not sure that anybody holds that view except Jim Webb and a few others, they are entitled to it, it was certainly a divide within our age cohort our generation. But the divide was really between SDS and Young Americans for Freedom, I think. Because if you, if you put it in Webb's terms, he continues the, the omission, because if you put his way, his framework, there is no room for Vietnam veterans against the war. There is no room for a black resistance inside the military. There is no room for those who went to serve but wound up in Briggs. There is no room for those who even shot at their officers. So, there were certainly differences within the military, within those who went to serve, that reflected the differences I am talking about in the larger society. 53:12 SM: I know that these were comments he made in (19)80 - (19)81 one at a symposium. And maybe he has changed his feelings. But another person was Colonel Summers, Harry Summers, who passed away several years back, I think it was about 10 years ago. And he came to our campus, and he said, you know, what is amazing about how the (19)60s in Vietnam is taught is the military is never presented by history teachers. And so, he said, he made an effort before he passed away, to make sure that the military perspective of the Vietnam War was taught. So that might be similar to what Jim Webb might have been saying. Any comments on Colonel Summers? 53:56 TH: So, it is another take on the same problem of perception from where you stand. I mean, obviously, for a long time, they had the megaphone at the White House, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon, the Armed Services Committee, in both houses, the editors of all the newspapers who supported the war in Vietnam, their voice was heard. Then, when things went badly, and we lost the war, a whole new movement started. People like Lewis Sorely come to mind and others who are in denial and who say we did not lose the war. It was somehow lost politically at home. And so, the war is still being played out as a kind of psychodrama. And an historical debate. 55:03 SM: Yeah, of course, you mentioned very- 55:04 TH: That is true also of the American Civil War, which many in the south refused to call the Civil War. I mean, I did not realize that until I spent some time living in the south with these, these arguments go on, especially among those who have a difficult time coping with the fact that, you know, that they did not win so they, they continue to go on and on about the causes as if they have just been misunderstood for fifty years. I would like to believe we can get beyond that. But I do not actually think we will, given the fact that it is 150 years since the Civil War, and is still debated annually in elections, including the most recent one. 56:01 SM: Yeah, well, I interviewed Jeff Wheeler III and of course, he is one of the, he graduated from West Point, he was one of the men that talked about long grey lines in the book. And he mentioned it was a great interview, and he talked about Ronald Reagan's speech at the Vietnam Memorial in 1984. And it was a great speech, because that was where he mentioned, the noble cause that you bring up in your book, that it was a noble cause. But I found it very interesting, and he did not reiterate any further. But President Reagan could have come in 1982 when the wall opened, but he said he was advised not to, because for political reasons, but was okay in 1984. So, I thought that that is interesting. 56:48 TH: It was okay. To call the war a noble cause. I mean, he never specified what exactly he meant. To die in battle is a tragedy in the first place, a human tragedy. And a lot of people, you know, define tragedy as itself noble. There is a noble quality to it. But I think Reagan meant that to perpetuate the idea that the Vietnam War in itself was right. It was the right thing to do, it was the right policy. And so, he was re-raising the divide. As for 1982, I do not remember the detail, but it does seem to me that many, many Republicans, including some veterans’ groups, and perhaps Reagan was among them, did not like the memorial. Because the Vietnam Memorial reflects exactly this theme of tragedy. It does not reflect a theme of victory. It does not say that it was ignoble, not at all. That does not, it does not use terminology like noble, because is that? I think the designer, who herself is Vietnamese was grappling with the magnitude of the human loss. Millions of people in a cause that was never clear and never, never winnable to begin with. 58:55 SM: You were in the south in the early (19)60s, very early (19)60s. And you worked with SNCC and SNCC had this participatory democracy in everything that they did. And of course, your work is very admirable down there. I am not going to ask you the first one because I think you have already responded about the courage to go south so young, and the dangers but I want to know if your Irish heritage and understanding the history of the Irish, even as a young person and how they were treated in America and how they were treated even between England and Ireland had anything to do with your sensitivity towards bad treatment toward African Americans and women and people who were minorities and people who are economically deprived. Did your heritage early on have anything to do with some of your future actions? 59:56 TH: I pondered that, and I have written a whole book about it. 59:59 SM: Yeah, I read that book too. 1:00:00 TH: Do not look to the short answer is maybe on an unconscious level, but at the time and we are talking about the narrow window of 1960 to (19)63. I was oblivious to any Irish heritage even when the subject came up. So, I was a finished product of the assimilation process. That was (19)60 was the year that John Kennedy went to the Baptists and told them that he could be president without bowing to the Pope and narrowly squeaked through. And it was a very important watershed in the history of the American Irish. But I viewed the Kennedy election as young versus old. I did not I did not relate to the Irish dimension so sealed off was I from the past. Now, over the course of the (19)60s it became clear to me by the end of the decade, when I was reevaluating my identity, who I was it appeared to me that one way to view the (19)60s was as, as an Irish Civil War. Because, you know, on my side would be priests, like the Berrigans. On the military side would be priests like father, Cardinal Spellman, Father Coglin, whose church I was raised in, Bobby Kennedy and Jack Kennedy on my side. And the most of the most of the FBI agents who tells me were on the other side, most of the cops in Chicago were Irish, and so on, it became much more apparent to me, but this is because assimilation was breaking down and wearing off and I was more open to the question of where I came from, and where did these instincts of mine you know, first emerge in my past. I am named Thomas Emmet Hayden and I did not know who Thomas Emmet was. And my mom and dad, they did not know who Thomas Emmet was, they just thought it was a good name. And somebody else in my family had been named Thomas Emmet Hayden the first, second, third and much most of your readers and listeners have no idea who Thomas Emmet was but he was a survivor of the brutal suppression of the Irish national uprising. In 1798. His brother was beheaded. Thomas Emmet came to New York is an Irish refugee. It was only possible because of Thomas Jefferson policies and Thomas Emmet then became the leader of the Irish American immigrant community in New York City. Knowing that story, of course, obviously makes you more empathetic towards today's Catholic immigrants from Central America, Mexico- 1:01:21 SM: Right. 1:01:56 TH: And immigrants in general and blacks who were forced migrants through slavery and forced immigration inside the United States, but that all came to me later. The (19)60s made me Irish. 1:03:58 SM: Now it is interesting. That was also the time when Bernadette Devlin, we all saw her on the news. 1:04:03 TH: I knew a little about her, I did not meet her on her visit here, I met her later in Northern Ireland, but not, not here in the States. 1:04:14 SM: Right, yeah. And then, of course, Thomas Merton was a very close friend. 1:04:21 TH: Yes, and I did not know Thomas Merton. I read his book from a theological standpoint. 1:04:33 SM: In your in your in your feelings. Now I know we are going to get a question. Do you do not like the term the boomer generation? That is my next question after this one. 1:04:41 TH: I never heard anyone call themselves a boomer ever. 1:04:46 SM: Let us go right to that question and then I will come to the other question, do you like to term Boomer and I think you gave a great description in your book that I had never thought of. Of course, boomers are those born between (19)46 and (19)64 and in fact, do you like even the other terms, the Greatest Generation, Generation X, Millennials, do you like these kinds of- 1:05:10 TH: I do not line any of those terms, but I have come to realize that labeling is somehow a cognitive requirement. 1:05:20 SM: Right. 1:05:21 TH: But the problem with boomers, first of all, you have to ask yourself, what does the labeling and if nobody in my generation ever walked around saying I am a boomer, you have to wonder what the purpose of the labeling cannot be authentic. It has to be externally imposed. And it has two connotations that are not helpful. One, boom connotes violence. 1:05:53 SM: Yes. 1:05:54 TH: And two, Boomer connotes democratic statistics, so we were reduced to whether you were born in a particular year. And both are very objectionable. 1:06:10 SM: Well, I have heard that you know, I interviewed Richie Havens and in fact I was just sending a letter to Father Hesburgh. I am thinking I am going to have an interview with Father Hesburgh sometime in the next month, and Richie said something that I thought was unbelievable in his interview with me and Richie said that, you know, I am born in 1941. But I am a boomer and Todd Gatlin said to me, he actually said this to me, if you mentioned the word Boomer one more time in this interview, I am going to end the interview. It is because of the fact- 1:06:43 TH: Temperamental. 1:06:44 SM: Yeah, they do not like it, they and many do not like it, every single political entity does not like it and for a lot of reasons because it is about spirit. And Richie said, I do not mind being identified with the boomers based on a certain timeframe. But I am more boomer than anybody, because I believe in the spirit of the (19)60s, and that is who I am. 1:07:11 TH: So? 1:07:12 SM: So that is what Richie feels. So, you just do not like that term. 1:07:18 TH: I never heard it used. It is a label. 1:07:25 SM: Higher education is responsible for this because they have to have labels on everything. 1:07:31 TH: No, I do not think so. Now, it is the human desire to stereotype and especially stereotypes that carry a coded hidden meaning they are not overt stereotype, like calling an Irish person a "spick." But a boomer is inherently derogatory, and dismissive. It is not neutral. It is an external label applied to people. Always applied by people who were not there. 1:08:13 SM: What would be a better term? If we were to? The people born prior to World War II, during the war, and say, ten to fifteen years after who really experienced the (19)50s (19)60s and (19)70s. Was there a term that you can? 1:08:30 TH: I do not know why we need terms, but that seems to be the correct term would be the, the (19)60s social movement generation, (19)60s social movements, (19)60s protest generation, any of those labels would be more fair, if you say the (19)60s generation then you have a problem with the right because they were excluded. 1:08:58 SM: Right? Yes. 1:08:59 TH: So, I do not say that (19)60s generation, very much at all anymore. But the (19)60s movement is what we called ourselves. Actually, that is not even true. We call ourselves The Movement. Because nobody was going around. nobody in their right mind was going around saying: hey, we are the (19)60s generation never heard anybody say that. That was later. 1:09:26 SM: When you talk about- 1:09:28 TH: I am in SDS or I am in SNCC or I am in a commune or you know, I if you go back and you read the papers of Jack Kerouac he cannot stand the label Beat Generation. He wrote beat as part of you know, his writing or beatific or beat down he used the word but it was New York Times or Time magazine that labeled them the Beat Generation after their words became famous or well known. 1:10:14 SM: You bring up in one of several sections of your new book. And you have also talked about in some of your own books, too, but the critics of the (19)60s are that group of people. But David, I have some names here of people that well, you mentioned David Horowitz, of course Newt Gingrich in (19)94, his commentaries. Currently, Mike Huckabee, on this TV show George Will, throughout the years on his articles, and in his books, Harvey Mansfield, who I well know, Glenn Beck, who seems to try to be trying to become a cultural phenomenon right now. And even John McCain, during the campaign, made some commentary toward Hillary Clinton about her links to the (19)60s. What was it? I have a two-part question. What was it that made the young people and older people who inspired the young like Dave Dellinger, you know, Dalton Lin, people like that, that made them so special that the (19)50s and (19)60s and then at the same time why are people who did so much movement-wise, so reviled today by their opponents on the right? 1:11:39 TH: Two or three reasons, one, radicals and reformers won the battles of the (19)60s and so the first reason for continued resentment, even hatred, is the grievance of having lost. I am talking about the people who lived rather well, in the comforts of the white segregationist south talking about the generals in Vietnam. I am talking about the people that went to work for industry and found themselves staring at 20 million people during Earth Day. Those men who had to feel the, you know, the reversal of the relationship with the women individually and collectively as women gained power, women gained voice. It is easy to see what the argument is. Because when it is when all is said and done and when movements come and go and when society has been changed, I would say for the better, the people on the other side, never stop trying to take it all back through counter movements. And, you know, that, that gave a lot of the energy to the anti-Obama movement certainly animates McCain, who was in Vietnam, Palin who was not even there, but you know, you started to see in Palin it is quite interesting, she is now trying to co-opt the label of feminist because she is feisty. And she blames the feminist movement for having twisted and distorted the label. 1:14:05 SM: Right. 1:14:06 TH: That is what she said, literally. Beck you know, I do not believe in a million years that Beck was unaware that he was trying to appropriate the symbol of the civil rights movement by standing at the Lincoln Memorial, and carrying on what I think is a thinly disguised resentment of Martin Luther King. I could go on but 1:14:38 SM: Do you also believe- 1:14:41 TH: It'll never end. Remember, in the 1960s somebody said, "a new movement is beginning" and I said, I think so too, why do you think so he says, the last Civil War vet just died. 1:14:54 SM: Hmm. Oh my gosh. 1:15:00 TH: Until we are all dead of natural causes, I think. SM: Yeah Tom, I think- TH: Even Obama, he was not there, he is only forty-nine years old. He spent the whole campaign talking about the (19)60s, going to the Selma bridge to prove a civil rights credentials, reminding people he was only five years old. You know, when there was when there were relevant bombings, and getting accused of palling around was all these (19)60s people that are that are like twenty-five years older than him, even his minister, his minister is only understandable as a figure out of black liberation theology. Well, the black liberation theology school is an angry school of prophecy and coming out of the (19)60s in the black community, they built big church congregations. There's nothing unusual for Obama and many other people, far less political to be members of that church in Chicago, but the, the right could not get over it is thinking that, you know, he was the same as his minister, when he was a generation, after and he finally had to break away from his own church and from his own minister, in order to declare his independence. 1:16:29 SM: I think- 1:16:31 TH: It would be like if Kennedy in 1960, quit the Catholic Church and became a Baptist, in order to prove to the Baptists that he was legitimate. I am laughing about it, but it was very painful for people, horribly painful. And I have no doubt that this will go on until we are all dead. 1:16:49 SM: I think if there is one other quality here, too, and your thoughts on this, then jealousy. I have always been taught by my parents and from others that sometimes people who admire what others have done, who dislike people who have done things, oftentimes think, jeez, I wish I could have done that, or I had the freedom to do that because I did not have the freedom to do that, or the initiative or drive, you know that I am going to attack them. You think that there is a jealousy conflict here within the other side, too, you already talked about the Young Americans for Freedom. 1:17:22 TH: I do not think it can be psychoanalyzed that way, but certainly, there is a grievance, as I have said, it is a loser grievance number one, and I know even in saying that I will antagonize people further but let us be frank about it. It has all the characteristics of know, the grievance of the losing side and, and a resentment that becomes fuel and motivation to fight back. To recover ground after you know you have lost. Some in the south never ended the Civil War, some say it still is not over, they do not even call it the Civil War. So that is a little different than what you are describing, I think. I do not think they want to be like us at all, I think that they think they are better than us and they are, they have, you know, a lot of capacity to blame everybody starting with the media for they are not being understood. And it is strange, because even when they have the White House and majority in the Supreme Court, they still have the mentality of Young Americans for Freedom fifty years ago, who felt that they were they were the real Americans, and they were being bypassed by the emergence of the student movement, and kind of written out of the history of the (19)60s and I am not exaggerating, I mean, these people go back that far. Karl Rove was a president of Young Republicans, I believe, in (19)68 - (19)70, somewhere in that era, and was ranting about SDS and myself, even in those days and was they are very involved with Young Americans for Freedom, which became the Goldwater movement, which became the modern republican party so their grievance goes back it is nothing seems to soothes it and I expect it to go on until you know, we all are pulled into our graves. 1:17:26 SM: Here is a couple of quotes. 1:19:57 TH: By the way, I do not spend much time on this subject. 1:20:01 SM: I know you are involved in a lot of other things; you have got your book. 1:20:05 TH: I live my life, but it is the nature of this interview its locking me into a discussion of the (19)60s and it is not new terrain for me. But I just want to remind you, I do not spend much of my time write about the past, I am interested in how the (19)60s influences the perceptions of people in the present. 1:20:35 SM: There is two quotes- 1:20:36 TH: Its long lasting the (19)60s, continues to be. 1:20:42 SM: Two quotes here, I want to put it in the record from your book, The Long (19)60s and that is, there is so many of them, but "The paradox is that what is won in real history can be lost in later telling." And the second one is, "It is no accident that the fight over memory began with the challenge to the dominant curriculum in the schools and colleges in the (19)60s and continued as a so-called culture wars up to the present more than forty years later." And being a college administrator for my whole life; you are right on there. 1:21:17 TH: Yeah, I know I think that is true. Yep. 1:21:20 SM: And I think one thing you talk about here, you already mentioned about the counter movement. And you so we do not talk about that again. But you talk also about the complacency of former radicals and reformers now in their twilight period. Have you been disappointed in some of the other activists who, as they have aged, have just gone on to make money? Is that what you are saying? 1:21:44 TH: I think I overgeneralized there. I do not mean complacency in the sense of, you know, consciously changing their beliefs or selling out or something like that. I mean, there is an inevitability to complacency as you become older, and you have families and, and other obligations and your, your, your time becomes your time for new ideas or new ventures becomes limited. For example, no one in their right mind would want their kid to go to a bad school. Most people I am talking about now had kids, for example. And you see, in this generation, just as saw in the past, and we will see in the future, that people can if they can afford it, to put their kid into a private school, because they think and they may be right that with spending money, they can get little educational advantage for their kid, and I have not met any parents that would not do everything for that purpose. So that, you know, they find themselves as you know, in effect, making a choice to abandon public schools, as far as their own children are concerned. And in order to offset that bill, if they are liberals, they will support taxes for schools, for other people. It is similar with public hospitals, if they can help it, they are not going to give it to the public hospital. It is similar with in any other ways, our society is already stratified or segregated. We find ourselves you know, caught up in the system that once we would have, you know, try to avoid at any cost see what I mean? 1:24:20 SM: The convention in Chicago in 1968 is very historic and a lot of my questions are geared toward when young, the boomer generation or the I do not like the term either, so when they were young, but the Chicago convention in 1968, what did those days in Chicago say about America, in your view? And secondly, the trial itself. What did the trial say about the American justice system? 1:24:49 TH: Here is another example of perception versus historical realities, the right will have a grievance forever and somehow, this motley group of revolutionaries were put on trial, and one and became famous as a result. You know, we are, we are the ones that got away and I am not kidding these people, and I have met with them have civil relationships and they think to this day that we are guilty, and they have a deep grudge about our, our having gotten off the charges and they will not stop. And on the other hand, filmmakers like Spielberg and countless others, who were teenagers then, still tell the story they want to tell the story. They think it is the perfect showcase drama of our generation and I have seen four or five versions on stage and on television and film, and each of them is different in its own way and I suspect that the transcripts of the Chicago trial will be played theatrically again and again, decade after decade. Why? God knows. Maybe it was an understandable morality play with all the forces of freedom versus law and order dramatized and individuals, kind of a historian or journalists or screenwriter’s dream. Others will say, no, it is genuinely captured. The time and I do not go farther than that, I will just say that it is going to be, the trial is going to be replayed over and over for decades. And what it was actually about is hard to discern from the drama. 1:27:14 SM: Could you comment on what this is something that not too many people talk about. I have not gotten a whole lot of feedback on this question from some of the people I have interviewed, I do not ask everybody this question. But please comment on what activists in the movement in all the movements of that period, had to go through as a price for their beliefs. We hear the horror stories and COINTELPRO, the infiltration within groups where spies came in. Do you have any anecdotes or stories of efforts to destroy life simply for speaking up? You probably had many, but- 1:27:55 TH: The truth is we do not know enough. We do not know what happened in a lot of incidents that occurred overseas in Vietnam. We do not know what happened with those young people that were killed in Mexico City at about the same time as the Chicago demonstration in (19)68. In many cities, and in many countries, records have been declassified, disclosed. And some of them even in this country, are still kept secret. So, it is a big subject, and I am not quite sure. From what point of view, you think the question should be answered. 1:28:46 SM: But I am interested in the effort to destroy the lives after, you know, they can infiltrate a group like SDS but the ongoing desire to destroy lives and future careers, just because you spoke up. 1:29:06 TH: I do not know if anybody goes around, consciously wanting to destroy somebody's life. There is all kinds of filters and defenses, you know that you might think, instead that we brought it on ourselves if you behave differently, it would not be necessary to apply the screws as tightly and so on. So, I think that there are many distinctions to be made here and we do not have infinite time to make them but one of the most important is between targeted individuals or groups like the, the shooting of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark of the Black Panther Party Chicago chapter, December 1969. There are a number of cases like that where somebody was shot and killed or wounded or, or put away for no understandable reason and so on, then there is you know, the kind of collateral damage, which is usually excused as you know, shit happens, you know, it is accidental sorry. But it really never is. I am thinking of Kent State in Jackson State. There it is hard; it is hard to deny that the shooting by the guards’ troopers was not deliberate. And they had live ammunition. But you see who is killed and wounded. These were individuals chosen by faith. They were, they were random. Nearly all of them, for example, were shot in the back. Some of them were going to meet their boyfriend and were killed are, if you look at the people, person who was killed in People's Park in Berkeley accused of I do not know being a rioter. But in actuality he is sitting on a rooftop, and he got hit with live ammunition and fell off the roof and the guy sitting next to him, who I know, was blinded. And they were just sitting there or in Newark, twenty-six people were killed. And I did a case-by-case study of how they died and shot for the way they looked or shot because they were carrying a six back of beer out of a store. Shot because they are looking out a window. Shot because you are crossing the street just most of the people who were shot and killed by police in the urban disorders or riots or rebellions, whatever you may want to call them. It had to be in the hundreds and hundreds of people were shot at random. And so that is another category. 1:33:21 SM: Right. Right. 1:33:24 TH: And then the final category that I would include for your examination is well, I have two more. One is people who were singled out to have their, you know, careers destroyed. For no good human reason. What is his name? The disabled Ron Covid? No, you are going to include him no, the fellow in Georgia who was in the United States Senate. 1:34:11 SM: Max Cleland. 1:34:11 TH: Max. Good man. Came back from a war with limbs missing and taken out, not by Vietcong bullets but by Republican hate mail arguing that he was not a patriot. That is what I mean by- 1:34:44 SM: Right. 1:34:45 TH: Conscious attempts to destroy somebody's reputation. And then I think the final thing is in any conflict, like the (19)60s There are casualties, where it is very difficult to define a line of causality. You know, I am just talking about all the people whose lives were lessened or wasted or diminished. Because burnout, or because of incarceration, or because of mental illness that they would not have suffered, if it were not for traumas, they went through people who endure serious sacrifices and losses, who will never be compensated or recognized, but they were all part of the, you know, the great collision that occurred. Certainly, like this all the time, you know, because I am, you know, an open public figure, and people like me do not like me, they email me all the time I run into somebody every day with a story. So, I think I get, I do not get all of it, nobody can, but I get a lot of it. 1:36:32 SM: I do not think a book has ever been written about the number of college presidents who lost their jobs because of the student protests and actually the number of college presidents and administrators who actually died of heart attack and all other kinds of things, during this. 1:36:45 TH: Oh yeah, I would love to know, know the numbers at least. 1:36:49 SM: How did you survive financially in the (19)60s and (19)70s? 1:36:53 TH: I do not know! Let us just say the standard of living was very cheap. And the lesson learned was the best way to prevent social protest, or containment is to through unemployment and inflation of college fees and housing and rents and the rest of it. I mean, University of Michigan was one hundred bucks as semesters I recall. 1:37:26 SM: You know, I am a Buckeye. 1:37:27 TH: It was probably one hundred bucks at Ohio State. Rent was, I do not know, one hundred bucks a month if you had six or eight roommates. Food was cheap and plentiful, at least as I recall. So, this first question that comes to a lot of people's minds, either because they themselves, you know, we are seeking affluence as a primary goal in life. Or they look through the filter of today's world and they just cannot imagine where the money came from. No, it came from all over the place from parents from odd jobs from part time jobs, but basically there was enough money to pay for everything if you believed in living with dignity. 1:38:43 SM: Hold on one second. Tom. One of the things that by the way, I did meet you and Jane Fonda at Kent State. I think when you came to West Chester, I was there when you came there at the fourth remembrance. 1:39:04 TH: It was (19)74 but I would be, I could be wrong. 1:39:06 SM: Yeah, it was (19)74. Julian Bond was there, and Dean Kahler obviously, that is when he was a lot younger. 1:39:12 TH: I have seen Dean since. 1:39:11 SM: And Holly Near performed. 1:39:13 TH: Yeah, I see her. 1:39:17 SM: Yeah, but it was great. We were in that room with you and Jane, you went into a you were there, and you went into a room and that was a time, and you were there for about an hour, hour and a half just talking with us. And it was fantastic. The room was packed. You had been married to some very powerful females. Some very powerful female activists in Casey Hayden and Jane Fonda. What made them special in your eyes and how will history treat them legacy wise? 1:39:54 TH: You know, they are almost opposites because Casey who I am in reasonably close touch with is living in Arizona. And she is like an invisible heroine of the (19)60s protest generation. People read her writings, they tell stories about her, they ask about her. You know, in her own right, she claimed to have, you know, started the women's liberation movement, not that anybody actually does any of these things. But her writings with Mary King, circulating around the South electric effect going around the country when women were forming small consciousness, raising groups, and so on. So, she is kind of adored. And at the same time, invisible in most histories, not all. Whereas Jane is visible, if she scratches her ear, you know. She gets credit and blame for things that she had nothing to do with. She is one of the most well-known people in the world and cannot live a private life, does not live a private life. So, it is not that we can choose these things, but you know, start to measure how, I mean, evaluate how either of them would be remembered or evaluate or where they would fit into things depends on who tells the story. And I think a lot of (19)60s people are telling their own stories now in this kind of alternative narrative that has developed, triggered by our old friend Howard Zinn's writings, but everybody's writing their memoirs and blogging, and I was at a SNCC reunion this year was fiftieth reunion. 1:42:29 SM: Yeah, I wanted to go to that. 1:42:31 TH: There were a thousand people there and they were fit and healthy and ready to go. 1:42:36 SM: Wow. 1:42:37 TH: Interesting. 1:42:38 SM: Yeah, Julian was a master of ceremonies, was not he? Or something like that? 1:42:41 TH: For one of them, uh huh. SM: 1:42:45 What is interesting about is I saw Phil Donahue interview Jane Fonda well, you have probably seen this too, when she came back from Europe. And she was on the Donahue show, you can see it on YouTube, and I think it is the best thing that people that do not like Jane should watch this. Because I think you understand her more because she really felt that she was away from what was happening in the world. And she came back to the United States. And I think what is great about it is, it was the time that the women's movement was becoming strong. And that she did not want to always be looked upon as some pretty woman she wanted to be. She had a mind too. And I wish more people would understand that about her. My gosh. 1:43:34 TH: Well, the intersection of the personal and historical you know, the moment that you come of age is extremely important. I will give you one story and then we can move on but in the early to mid (19)60s, when she was the budding actress, daughter of Henry Fonda living in Los Angeles. The Civil Rights Movement was breaking out in the south Netcat offices around the country that were mainly fundraising, and Jane was inspired by the early movement, and she went down to the SNCC office knocked the door nobody was there, of course, and she left a letter in an envelope under the door, volunteering to join that cause. She never heard back. So, you can imagine what might have happened if somebody had opened the letter and seeing the name and made a phone call and set up an appointment. Organizers beware! Do not lose emails! Keep all the cards that you collect. One of the things I have learned over fifty years is how hard it is, for sociological reasons, organizational sociological reasons for people to actually join groups, because the tendency once a group is viable, and it is humming along, for it to be content with its size and its dynamic, and it becomes a little fluffy on the inside and newcomers are not. It is not so easy for newcomers to break the circle. Hold on a second. Yeah. Hello. Okay. Yeah. 1:46:11 SM: Okay. I actually am going to be interviewing Casey. And then sometime in the next hopefully month- 1:46:20 TH: Good for you. 1:46:21 SM: And, of course, I had tried to get hold of Jane a long time ago, but I know he is not doing interviews on this. But I know that Jerry Lemke just written a book on her I do not know if you have seen it. 1:46:32 TH: I have. 1:46:32 SM: Yeah. And actually, she was up at Harvard. And she called Jerry to talk to him about some of the commentaries in the book. And I interviewed Jerry up at Harvard, about a month ago. 1:46:46 TH: I encouraged her to talk to him. It is pretty good, I think it is a little sensationalistic, and she does not need it. But the evidence he compiled about the mythology of splitting, I thought was one of the more important historical discoveries or confirmations, about the (19)60s that I have ever seen. Because that had everybody completely brainwashed. And I still run into it, but the value of doing very hard, hard core systemic research. I can do without the psycho analytic construction of her as a feminist movie star, but I liked the research, and I liked the data. 1:47:45 SM: No, I think I read her book. And I think more people need to understand her more in the area of why she became who she became. And she is not just an entertainer and I hope more people try to understand her better as time goes on. 1:48:06 TH: Well, she has the means to communicate. There is no question about that. 1:48:09 SM: Right? Around the time of Kent State, African American students and white students were splitting this is around 1970 one concentrating on racism and black power and the other white students on the Vietnam War. What are your thoughts on the split? Did it hurt the civil rights movement or especially, or just, you know, the antiwar movement because you know, Kent State was really a barometer normal expected that to happen there? But at Ohio State and other universities, there was a big strong split going on between those two groups. 1:48:48 TH: It began in the mid (19)60s, after the perceived failure of the Mississippi Freedom Summer. And this was, as the years go by, I have to look on it more as a sociologist and historian, like since it happened, and it happened everywhere. It happened locally. There is a sense in which it was inevitable. Maybe inevitable in the Shakespearean way but inevitable. There is no going back or undoing it or reversing it. A lot of people think this was a mistake, that was a mistake, but what has done is done and you know, I think what to generalize. White America's power structure was not ready, or willing to mobilize for desegregation and equal opportunity rapidly enough. And to make matters worse, they invaded Vietnam and escalated a war that they promised they would not enter into in the 1964 election, but by (19)65, they were in so to me, those things kind of guaranteed that, that black and white would be driven down different paths, because there was a reinforcement of the stratification, you know, whites were just generally always going to be better off. And in, you know, without any particular qualification to lead movement of black people, which, which it was in the early (19)60s, there could be co-equal leadership of a struggle that became apparent to all. And I know, there been a long history of white people trying to lead other people's causes. 1:51:28 SM: Right. 1:51:29 TH: God bless them. But, but at a certain point, it just became completely unworkable. I headed up a project in Newark, that was mainly white community organizers in a black community. We did not know what we were getting into, we thought that there were there was there were the prospects for an interracial organizing project in Newark, but the white, black disparity and antagonism was so great, that was impossible. But we did very well from (19)64, (19)65, (19)66. But you know, you can just feel it coming, that by the time Black Power emerged. It did not, it just made less and less sense for us to be heading up an organization composed of black people in the ghetto. I am not saying it was immoral. Just since society was heading into deeper and deeper division, as the Kerner Report pointed out. We were like relics of the early optimism of the (19)60s, at a time when that optimism, you know, had a declining basis. 1:52:59 SM: It is interesting when I read James Mitchner's book Kent State and I know the students that can state that we are like Allen and others, they, they do not like they hate the book. But there is one, there is one area that is truthful in the book and that is that what I talked about here that he made a commentary about African American students were not supposed to be seen on the quad or anyplace and there was one student that was out there in the summer, and one of the other African American students took him away. And I thought it is ironic. You look at the pictures, you do not see African American students yet the president of student government at Kent State at that time was African American. 1:53:41 TH: Oh no there was a very active Black Student Union or BSA, BSU. 1:53:46 SM: Right. 1:53:47 TH: Very active, sort of marginalized in history. But if you look at the footage of the documentary that is out about can state it completes the story is quite fast. And the same with Colombia. There is a very strong Black Student Union, if you look at the Columbia footage, you suddenly get a rebalancing of the image of the reality of what was going on. 1:54:17 SM: James said. 1:54:18 TH: I see that as a reflection of what they call institutional racism that is, in every way we live in a stratified world and it also includes our own brains wiring our consciousness, and it takes a very dedicated and trained person to be mindful of this at all times. For example, very few people I know practice affirmative action in life. In other words, I do not go to any, you know, party in the west side of LA and it is always all white people. You go to a dinner; it is all white people. I have been to dinners, birthday parties, for people who have been through all these movements, all white people. But you could say I am not having a party unless it is, it is mixed. And you know, make a list of friends, if you do not have enough friends of all backgrounds, you should learn to make those friends. It is not so difficult. As what I was saying earlier about how you get caught up in the silos of stratification, and it becomes extremely difficult to, to integrate any room on the natural. It has to be a commitment. It has to be willed, and that is, that is not common. 1:55:59 SM: James Thal I interviewed him, the writer. 1:56:02 TH: Who? 1:56:03 SM: James Thal. 1:56:05 TH: Yup, Yeah, yeah. 1:56:06 SM: He gave me a great interview. And he mentioned that when he was at Harvard, that he evaded the draft, like many of the students that were at Harvard, yet he at the very, within a year's time, or within a short period of time, wrote a piece where he criticized himself. Yeah. And he criticizes fellow students, because he said, if you really were against the draft, you should protest against the draft, he did not just should not evade the draft. So, he was very critical of those who evaded the draft. Your thoughts on that? 1:56:44 TH: Well, I think Jim is a good man, and an old friend. And I think he is a bit obsessed with this point. Because you know, in any situation only a few will stand up to the powers that be where, you know, the risk is that you go to jail and also have your reputation damaged and done. And you know, there is different degrees of evasion. You can, you can evade because he did not want to spend time in jail, you can evade and still belong to the antiwar movement. You can evade and help create an underground railroad for more evaders. You can live your life consciously knowing that as evasion grows, it is definitely an obstruction to the continuation of the war. I mean, there were 50,000 people went to Canada, a lot of them to British Columbia where my wife is from and, you know, I see them all the time. Naomi Klein's dad. Does Jim think that Naomi's Naomi Klein's dad, you know, is morally weak because he refused to go to Vietnam and refuse to go to jail? That is just rhetoric. But I mean, when I say these people, I say to myself, who is you know, who is the judge? That it is, it is, it is not a bad thing, that many people feel a certain moral ambiguity about having gotten out of the draft, out of the army, by whatever means getting a deferment, which meant, inevitably, that somebody with fewer connections would serve and possibly die or be wounded. Oh, that is a, that is something that a lot of people should carry on their conscience. But not so heavily as not so heavily as he seems to your conscience. That means for the rest of your life, you try to do little things to you know, to make a difference to prevent future wars, for example. 1:59:55 SM: Yeah, I think he has moved on from it. Because I was, he was also in that symposium that I mentioned that add one that had so many things. And he was really against those who did not protest he feel if you are really going to evade then you get up there and protest too. People admire you for your lifetime of activism, and your writing and all the other things you have done. And of course, we have your critics too. But who do you admire for their longevity and staying the course like you? I mean, who were the writers? I know, you have Howard Zinn is someone we all love. 2:00:35 TH: Howard, I knew back in 1960, I mean, he and Roz had actually made a commitment that I never would have imagined least as far as I can imagine, now, to go on a venture of reverse integration. In other words, they were white couple that joined the community at a historically black college in Atlanta during a time of segregation. So that is an indicator of a person who is very strong willed, and very, very confident that he can make a life by going against the wind, Scott Lind met him at the same time, same, same thing. But I think we have enough heroes. And I am, I am sort of antihero, but it is, it is just, I think it is the wrong way to look at things. Everybody has some little heroism in themselves and that should be cultivated. Everybody has a little nonconformity that should be cultivated, to be appreciated, should be congratulated. And to see since the test since the (19)60s, I think, because of the assassinations and because of the wreckage of many movement organizations, we do not we do not see people hero-worshipping as a method of building a social movement anymore. Sure, during the Obama campaign, there was a resurgence of it and electoral politics lends itself to a worshipful attitude towards an individual. But for the most part, you know, the movements that are happening today. They are not leaderless; they are not anarchistic. They are not unorganized, but they seem to have learned from the past, that building the social movement is the essential thing. And that leadership may be tactically necessary. For instance, somebody has to speak at a press conference, but I think people are wary of it, and they prefer leadership that is accountable. And that is rotational. And some of this is because of the defense mechanisms that grow when you see so many people get killed or go astray. and everything in between some of it is just a learning experience that becomes greater with the development of the online technology that you know; the, the idea of a participatory democratic method becomes more attainable. And leadership can quickly evolve into celebrity culture you write with little result of it. Now, Glenn Beck would not agree with that. But you know, I do not think Glenn Beck has far to go. He will run into the contradictions on the right. Whatever happened to Jerry Falwell bless his soul, but I mean, he was an early Glenn Beck, Pat Robertson, I mean, there are these Sarah Palin now is flying high, but I would not want to be her, and her family facing the, the stuff that they have already had to take and the more her celebrity increases, the more she will be attacked. And it'll become more and more about her. And you raise where is the movement? I might ask, 2:05:14 SM: Tom- 2:05:14 TH: A lot of little Palin-ites palling around with Palin, it does not do it for me. 2:05:24 SM: Yeah. Dr. King used to always say when he gave his sermons that it is about we are not me or I, and I think you would be very sensitive today about Martin Luther King Day. He certainly earned it. But- 2:05:36 TH: I am not sure I am not sure that he could, I am not sure that there could be a Martin Luther King today. 2:05:41 SM: You are probably right. But he always talked about the fact that he looked out in his congregation, he was said you can all be will not do the things that I am doing me. It is the young unheralded people that who lived and died, who were involved in that movement, people will never know. 2:05:57 TH: Well, he was quite eloquent about that. But still, the organization that he headed, was built around the promotion of his identity and fame and power. And others resented it and maybe because they had egos too. And it is after his assassination it foundered and splintered, and you know, many other leaders from Andy Young to Jesse Jackson, you know, came out of it and built their own organizations but, you know, it is not. I do not know if it is a model that we want to adhere to. 2:06:47 SM: I know was Vietnam speech in (19)67, drew criticism from within the ranks of the church, but he was going global. He was not just local, as they say. 2:06:59 TH: Well, no, that was a great speech. And we all appreciate it. But God, I mean, it was. It was very strange that the media and the power structure paid so much attention to so much emphasis on that speech, and how important it was, and how negative it was. And some said it was positive. But the reason he gave the speech is because he was responding to the disproportionate number of voiceless African Americans who were being drafted, dying on the front lines in Vietnam. You have to give the speech because of the constituency. It is like what Gandhi said, “They are going my people, I have to, I have to lead them.” 2:08:03 SM: What? 2:08:04 TH: So, I do not know that it is a model. 2:08:07 SM: Very good. What did it mean to you to work within the system as a California State politician? Since early on, you were perceived as a person who attacked the system, or the system did not work, as an activist? Was this move more about growing and evolving as a person? Or did you see that being outside of the system takes more effort, with fewer, positive results? 2:08:37 TH: No, none of that the (19)60s had ended and we had succeeded beyond what some of us expected. And so, a number of us who were old friends sat down to try to figure out our future by now we were all in our early (19)30s. And I remember, some people said they wanted to go into the labor movement, and they wanted to organize working women, office workers, clerical workers, immigrants, etc. Other people were kind of interested in the consumer and environmental movements that Ralph Nader, speaking of other celebrities, got sparked and they wanted to build what was known as citizen action organizations. Others wanted to go into solidarity work with movements in Central America who were opposing United States intervention. And there was a fourth category, which was electoral politics, and very few people who were deeply involved in the social movement, the way I was, chose that path because it was so antithetical to the way we believe that social change should take place. However, there was a perception that we had sort of banged on the door and broken the system open. And it would be somewhat folly to not try to go through the door. Knowing full well, that would, it would lead us into temptation into opportunism, and so on. And that might actually be a dead end for movement building. But the alternative would be to, to reject the space that we had created. Right? So, for some of us, was an experimental venture. And that is why I ran for a big office, the US Senate as opposed to city council, because we wanted to build a movement, there was a base in California, we wanted to mobilize thousands and thousands of people and win or lose and frankly, you know, we knew that the chance of winning was, was, was highly doubtful, we would build chapters around the state networks around the state and out of it would come and ongoing movement that had used the political process, to bring in a whole new generation of activists, not leaving movements behind, but bringing a movement presence into politics. And I think we were very, very successful for five or ten years. But, you know, the limits began to be reached, because you had the Reagan counter revolution against the (19)60s. And, you know, a trough not much going on in the period (19)79, (19)89, (19)99 and those were the years I spent eighteen years in California Legislature. Sixteen of those years under Republican governors. And I am not saying that the two years under a democratic governor were any better. But I found that, you know, I do not think people out there in America know this. It is not a small thing to California Legislature later, it is full time year-round. I had a staff budget of six or seven hundred thousand dollars, I had offices in Santa Monica and in Sacramento, I chaired committees that were very important to the welfare of the state, the Labor Committee, the environmental committee, the Higher Education Committee. And there was an opportunity to bring protest and outsider consciousness into the inside. And I recommended but I do not think I was very unusual because I had this twenty-year background of really hardcore radical activism and you know, I had a following, I had plenty of enemies too, but sometimes your enemies help contribute to the cause by, by bringing more of a spotlight on what you are actually proposing. So, it is not for everybody. And I can understand how few people you know, John Lewis, comes to mind a few people went into electoral politics because it is so unnatural to come from a social movement background. 2:14:06 SM: Bobby Rush is another one. Bobby Rush. 2:14:10 TH: Bobby Rush? Yes. The numbers are so small that if you can draw your own conclusion, it is pretty obvious. 2:14:17 SM: You know, when I used to read about you and your work in Sacramento, the first thing that I remember reading was that you were respected across the aisle. And that does not happen a whole lot to a lot of people. So, my next question is really about higher education. Listen to this for a minute and then when done your response, I would like your thoughts on today's universities and what they learned from the students of the (19)60s and (19)70s. My perception, this is me, is that universities today frown on the term activism because it brings back memories of one real student power to student demands that cannot be met three, participation in a major decision-making process of where funds go and what funds are accepted in the university in other words, money's not going to our war effort. Number four, the disruption of classes and number five, the constant fear by leaders, by leaders of being let go. I mentioned earlier about so many presidents who were fired. That is what I am going to interview Father Hesburgh about due to protests and the teach-ins on the tough issues of the day. And finally, the strong faculty-student alliances, the challenge administrations at the time, including the no ROTCs on campus. What I am basically saying is that the activism at that time seemed to be 24/7 on the parts of many of the students. Yet today. volunteerism is very important and a term that is accepted, but activism is not. And because it is not 24 to 7 is a great quality, but it is required by many of the departments, many of the schools, and many of the student organizations that people belong to. And today's youth does not seem to have that activist mentality, and the challenging attitudes that the students of the (19)60s and (19)70s had. And finally, my commentary here is that colleges are run by boomers today, who experienced the (19)60s and then some of the Generation X people that followed the boomers who were the up-and-coming leaders of universities oftentimes did not get along with boomers. So, what I am saying is and I'd like your thoughts, is that the universities today are really afraid of even using the term activism. 2:16:58 TH: I hear you. 2:16:59 SM: Volunteerism is okay. 2:17:02 TH: You are reading from your remarks. 2:17:04 SM: Yeah, well, yeah, but what is interesting is that when you came to the University as part of our series, we had Daniel Barrigan we had Philip Barrigan. We had you, Tori Osborn we had to end the series because they said that that is not really what our students want. It is not what our campuses have. So- 2:17:25 TH: There is a lot there to unpack. Some I agree with, some I do not. I do not even know what the question is. 2:17:33 SM: The question is, are universities afraid of activism? Did they learn anything from the (19)60s and (19)70s? 2:17:43 TH: You know, I think I think SDS was prophetic in the sense that, you know, many prophets do not even realize that they are being prophetic. They are almost channeling. And the prophecy of the Port Huron Statement was that, unlike other progressive eras, the university itself would be a pivot for the transformation of American society that is in coalition with other forces. And the mistake that was made, which often happens with prophecy, is that you know, we did not think of the university as a permanent institution, similar to all other institutions in the sense that Max Faber described. We were confusing our ranks, student hood and faculty, with the university as an institution. But what was prophetic was the carrying out the idea that 1960 was the dawn of a youth movement that would face increasingly an economy that was high tech and based on information that is based on the stuff of intellectualism. I remember a fellow in 1964 showed me my first computer, and it was in a room that was the size of not a warehouse but a very large room. It was this gigantic IBM machine that spit on all these cards, the very cards that students at Berkeley objected to being compared to, and he said, Tom someday, you know, pointing to his wristwatch, they are going to be computers this size. And I did not take it seriously because I was unable to my mind could not wrap around this thought. But it was people like that that created the web. And so, the students were the forerunners of the, the C.E.R.F not surf or CERFing surfs in the information economy, you know, whether you were working class, middle class, upper you. That was the discovery. The Port Huron Statement was kind of like discovering gold in California, it was an accident and then people said Eureka! You know, this is a sudden insight. And that is always stayed with me. So that is still the case. Now I think where we were not wrong, but you know, utopian in the belief that we could transform the university, to make it an institution that would be an institution of resistance against the matrix of other institutions in our society, military industrial complex, corporate finance and law, etc. That we could not do. But we swiftly understood that because by the late (19)60s, there was, there was a huge rush of materials about how universities like Columbia, viewed from their board of trustees, were actually part of the system that we were opposed to, and would never reform without some combination of serious confrontation on the outside and inside, which is what happened, you know, parallel to the eighteen-year-old vote. Suddenly students could read Noam Chomsky without getting kicked out of school. Suddenly, African Americans, Latinos, women, found themselves recognized in the curriculum. Suddenly, there was a whole new field of environmental studies that simply did not exist, except as biology until Earth Day came along. And those reforms were very real, and they were won through painful confrontation. And they opened the door of the university, to a flood of a more diverse student body who the same time came to believe that social change was easier than it had been for Abbie Hoffman, or Bobby Seale. That it could be done from within. Some say that generation was co-opted. I think it is the same as my running for elected office. If you bang on the door, and the door gets knocked down, or opened up, or you are invited in, you know, it would be bizarre to say no thanks, we did not intend to do that anyway. So, the left may not understand this, although I think to some extent, they do but certainly the right does and there has been a torrential countercurrent of abuse and attack on eggheads, intellectuals, universities. You know, it is almost, you know, a strike against you if you are running for office and you have been to one of these places. They still have not defeated the universities threat as they, as they perceive it. And I do not think that they will. I think that what you will have is a standoff with the university divided between the you know, the fundraising apparatus, the representative of finance capital, like Larry Summers at Harvard, the representatives of the Pentagon who need the information technology. And on the other hand, you know, departments that are filled with women and people of color who never were employed before. I do not think it is over. I think it is at a stalemate. 2:25:27 SM: It is interesting, because when I interviewed Arthur Chickering, the great educator who wrote Education Identity. At the very end, I asked him one final question, because he is into Student Development Theory. And the question was whether- 2:25:41 TH: He is a college guy. 2:25:42 SM: Does he have any criticism of the university today? And he says, yes, the corporations have taken over again. And I thought that was a very prophetic comment because when you think of Mario Savio, you bring his name on many times in your books and, you know, his challenge, and his words were the universities about ideas, the university students come to a university because it is a place where ideas and flow, not only in the classroom, but outside the classroom. And yet we are not just some corporate cogs. And yet, you hear Arthur Chickering say that, you know, he is disappointed today that the universities are the bottom line is what is important. He may be even over ideas. 2:26:27 TH: So, I think it goes in waves and particles, I think anybody is wrong who thinks that the battle is ever over and if you look at my book, my model would predict this temporary outcome. 2:26:41 SM: Right. 2:26:44 TH: What you know, the university is not safe from dissent, it cannot be preserved from protest. It is true that administrators, by the very nature of being administrators of an institution, inherit an institutional memory of protests, and so they invent ways to prepare for it, to contain it to channel that, as you said into service, but not protest. And students are always turning over so there is always a new group of, you know, eighteen-year-old on the incoming who have to have to learn what they can by doing by improvising. But you know I speak everywhere at universities, and I think I have a much more complicated view of students then, you know, than the stereotype I think, any campus you go to, you can find a percentage who are in the forerunners of social change a lot about sweatshops, you can find an extraordinary base of environmentalism and so on. 2:28:02 SM: We are down to our final three questions, actually, there is four here so I may have to choose a tape here in a minute. What do the following quotes from the (19)60s and (19)70s mean to you just in a few words, you do not have to get into much detail. 2:28:15 TH: Yeah, no, you are not going to get much of a response on this but go ahead. 2:28:18 SM: As an activist, when you hear of the "I Have a Dream" of Martin Luther King, what does that, what does that mean to you? 2:28:30 TH: Well, that is almost the holy incantation because I was there. 2:28:37 SM: You witnessed it? 2:28:39 TH: I was standing there. Yeah. 2:28:40 SM: Oh, wow. 2:28:41 TH: Yeah. So, I put it in another category. I actually, you know, was there, I was standing under a tree. 2:28:52 SM: John Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you as what you can do for your country." 2:28:58 TH: I watched that on television and I immediately; it sent me into a scramble to try to deconstruct it. It did not know if that was good for us or not that. I did not know what he was saying. 2:29:14 SM: How about the National Organization for Women and when they started, they were prophetic in their statement "The personal is political." 2:29:25 TH: Yeah, I found that very challenging. 2:29:33 SM: Malcolm X, "By any means necessary." 2:29:41 TH: Another challenge. 2:29:45 SM: Timothy Leary's, "Tune in, turn on and drop out." 2:29:51 TH: My response to that? 2:29:52 SM: Yes. 2:29:52 TH: Uh oh. 2:29:56 SM: Very good. Martin Luther King also had another one, "Judge not by the color of one's skin, but by the content of one's character." 2:30:15 TH: I thought it was, at the time, a little utopian. I understood where he was coming from. And I think it anticipated and foreshadowed the appeal of Obama, who then was five we have to remind ourselves. 2:30:38 SM: Right. Bobby Muller is pretty well known for, well other people said this too, but he was very much in the forefront when he came back from Vietnam and went through the experience. "I realized for the first time that the US is not always a good guy." 2:30:58 TH: Yeah, well, that was the experience of a whole generation. 2:31:02 SM: And then Kim Phuc, the girl in the picture from the Vietnam War, I actually know her. I am actually going to interview her in a couple of weeks. We had her on campus. And just a simple thing. "I forgive." 2:31:22 TH: Powerful. 2:31:23 SM: Yeah. One of the questions here I have about the Port Huron Statement. How long did it take to write it? I know you co-wrote it with another person because I believe his name, Richard Flax. 2:31:43 TH: This is the last question. 2:31:47 SM: Oh, okay. What was anyway? Basically, how long did it take? Do you remember the experience of starting it? And 2:31:59 TH: Yeah, I can give you a very specific answer. In steps. I was, I was in jail on my birthday in 1961, in Albany, Georgia and I knew that I was going to a meeting of SDS in the north quite soon and I sent a letter from jail saying that we had to, we had to formally organize this group SDS with a vision that was based on the Direct-Action Movement among students in the south. So, then I went to Ann Arbor, very soon after, long meeting fifty-sixty people and they said, we are going to have this founding conference and you know, Sharon Jeffrey's going to try to get her mom to get us a UAW Center to have the meeting in. It is going to be. When is it going to be? It is going to be in June when school's out, and what are we going to do there? We are going to formally adopt organizational rules and we have to have this vision statement. So, I was delegated to write the vision statement. There were very few parameters or details. I went to, I forget the exact details, but it was in the south and then I went to New York, and I holed myself up in an apartment in New York City with books and it seemed like months, it must have been weeks but I you know I pounded out this long statement that was ten times longer than what anybody had in mind. I think it was sixty or sixty-five pages single spaced and mimeographed it. I do not know if you know, if you remember mimeographs. And off it went in manila envelopes and boxes to people that were coming to the conference, and they just got it in time for the conference. And the first reaction is, you know, throw it out this, we cannot deal with this. And it was kind of a force of will, on my part, insisted that people deal with it. I was sorry that it was so late and so long. But there was a lot at stake here and we could not just go home with it was nothing and somewhere along the way Dick Flax who was a graduate student friend of mine in Ann Arbor, got into the writing, he'll have to tell you when I do not I do not remember, but we broke into small groups that dealt with each section like the economy and foreign policy and civil rights, and everybody in a small group would read the draft, and then they would discuss whether they agreed with it in substance, if they did, that was fine, if they did not, that had to be debated and voted on and then they discussed smaller changes, technical changes, stylistic changes. And then each of these groups, which were, you know, functioned as committees, having met 2,3 or 4 days, I do not remember’ would come back to the body as a whole, report their recommendations, and people would vote yes or not to accept it. And it actually got done! And it had this participatory element to it, like people were involved in birthing their own creation, not only of the structure of the organization but the actual founding document, and then I was delegated at the end, to go back with all of the suggestions, recommendations, and rewrite the whole thing in one clean writing. And then to get around the question of, how would it ever be fully approved, since we were all going home, we agreed, this interesting formulation, that it was to be seen as a living document, a provisional document open to changes in the future. And it was issued as kind of a statement to our generation of activists, which is quite different from the usual political platform or Manifesto, you know, that goes through formal adoption and so on. Off we went, in the summer of (19)62, we stopped in June of (19)62. We had no idea what you know what the reception would be and the thought that we would be discussing it 50 years later was beyond our- 2:37:14 SM: I have two original copies. 2:37:16 TH: Yeah, I got a couple also, and it has been reprinted a couple of times, if you want to copy, I can resend it to you. You could spend a whole semester or weekend talking about this, and you never quite understand where this came from and how it came about. It is one of those mysteries of social change. 2:37:45 SM: Well, I think it is a great document. And I just have one more question if it is okay. 2:37:54 TH: No. (End of Interview) Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Description 2 Microcassettes Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Tom Hayden Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Hayden, Tom ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Political activists--United States; Civil rights workers; Legislators—United States; Radicals--United States; Chicago Seven Trial, Chicago, Ill., 1969-1970; Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Protest movements; Hayden, Tom--Interviews Description An account of the resource Thomas Hayden (1939-2016) was a social and political activist, author and politician who was best known for his major role as an anti-war, civil rights, and radical intellectual activist. He was the author of the manifesto Port Huron Statement and stood trial in the Chicago Seven case. Hayden won seats on both the California Assembly and the California Senate. He was also the director of the Peace and Justice Resource Center in Los Angeles County. He received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003-11-14 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.197a; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.197b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 157:57 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/efe8765bb6f08aeb73e174d64a397a2a.jpg 7cf0040f5b0e5e71fed8340105ccb07a https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/7408df7b8256f4f5206599cf616b0257.mp3 23faea88a00e74e06173990854e5de75 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2003-11-25 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed John Morris Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;John Morris, a native of Downingtown, PA, joined the Army Security Agency in 1965 and served two years in Vietnam. Following Vietnam, he was stationed at Fort Wolters, Texas, to train other operators in route to Vietnam until 1969. John Morris is a life member and active with the Vietnam Veterans of America. He is also a life member of the Veterans of Foreign War and the Disabled American Veterans. He received the Chapel of the Four Chaplain’s Legion of Honor Award.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:4487,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,5099745],&quot;5&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;}">John Morris, a native of Downingtown, PA, joined the Army Security Agency in 1965 and served two years in Vietnam. Following Vietnam, he was stationed at Fort Wolters, Texas, to train other operators in route to Vietnam until 1969. John Morris is a life member and active with the Vietnam Veterans of America. He is also a life member of the Veterans of Foreign War and the Disabled American Veterans. He received the Chapel of the Four Chaplain’s Legion of Honor Award.</span> Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Veterans; Bill Clinton; Watergate; Dwight Eisenhower; George Bush; Dr. \\nMartin Luther King Jr.; Anti-war movement; Lyndon Johnson; Richard Nixon; Eugene McCarthy; Muhammad Ali; Baby boom generation.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:513,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;12&quot;:0}">Veterans; Bill Clinton; Watergate; Dwight Eisenhower; George Bush; Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; Anti-war movement; Lyndon Johnson; Richard Nixon; Eugene McCarthy; Muhammad Ali; Baby boom generation.</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 230:02 Subject LCSH Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Interviews; Morris, John--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: John Morris Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 20 November 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM: And yeah, I tested this beforehand. When you think of the (19)60s and the early (19)70s and when you were young, what is the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of that period? JM: With the question? I will answer the draft. Okay. The draft was something that was always there hanging over my head from the time I left high school until the time I was finally drafted. And it sort of controlled a lot of things that happened to me. For example, it was hard to get a job because you might get drafted. It was hard to start a relationship because you might get drafted. So that would be the first thing to come to my mind. The draft itself. SM: Do you think that was also on the minds of many of your peers? JM: No, absolutely. SM: In terms of their futures? JM: Well, and of course back in those days a lot of guys forced their way into college just to stay out from under the draft for some period of time, just to get some relief from it because it is always there. And you always knew who was being drafted that week or that month and where you stood in line to be drafted. How many months did you have before it would be your turn? SM: Do you remember what your number was? JM: Oh, I was before numbers. SM: Oh, you were before the numbers. JM: Before the numbers, yeah. SM: Okay. JM: Numbers were for wimps. Come On. SM: Okay, well, I remember the numbers. JM: Yeah, no, I was in the service when the number thing started. SM: One of the things about the boomer generation, which is often defined as individuals born between (19)46 and (19)64, some people say there are people born between (19)42 and 1960, give or take a couple years. But when you look at the boomer generation, in recent years there has been a lot of criticism of this generation of 70 million for the breakdown of some of the values in our society and our culture. And I would like your thoughts on people who make those kinds of comments on that particular generation. And of course they are making comments on the drugs and a lot of different things. JM: They are mostly right. We were the most pampered generation up to our time. Our parents, who we now refer to as the greatest generation, fought a war and depression and did not have any of the benefits we have and gave them to us. And we turned around and acted as though they were some sort of birthright. So we, the group that you are referring to, the boomers, of which I am a point man since I was born in (19)45, we were spoiled. We really were. We did not know about hunger. We did not know what it meant to have to get up and help around the farm and things like that. And in a sense, we probably had it too easy and drugs became a passage for us. Most people of my age smoked marijuana, perhaps just things that were quite a bit harder. I believe we almost all drank. So we were out for a good time and we were not very mature. So yes, they were right. SM: Do you think a lot of this stuff has been passed on to their children? Because right now what you are seeing on college campuses and all over America is the children of boomers have been in college for a lot of years. Now we are starting to see the very beginning of grandchildren of boomers coming, although it is still mostly the children of boomers. What sort of an influence do you feel that they have had on their children in terms of not only these issues dealing with our culture, but involvement in caring about America, but most involvement in voting and things like that? JM: Well, I am probably one of the luckiest people. My children are great. They have turned into two very sparkling young adults. So I can only speak from a very narrow point of view and I am lucky in that their friends also fall into that category. So I see mostly the good of the younger generation. And I think that is mostly the majority of the younger generation. And this newer crowd seems far more levelheaded than that X generation that came between the boomers and the new generation. And this newer crowd is, I will say from 18 through 25, seem to have their act together at a very young age. I am encouraged, but also, again, I see a very small segment of that grouping. SM: It is always hard to generalize an entire generation of 70 million. But I think the individuals that have been making these comments over the years have been people like George Will. And he always likes to get a jab at the Boomers whenever he can. I know Newt Gingrich had his time when he made commentaries, yet he was a boomer himself. JM: Yeah. SM: So there is a lot of thoughts on this particular thing. Have you changed at all in terms of your thoughts on the boomers over time? What were your thoughts of your generation at the time you were young and here it is now, believe it or not, 30 plus years hence. Have you changed your opinions on your generation over time or are they still the same? JM: Well, at the time when we were younger, say high school, mostly what I feel we felt was pressure. We looked at our parents as our role models, promptly decided that was not who we wanted to be and yet did not know how to go out and forge a new way. And we did find a way that we may call those the (19)60s, especially the late (19)60s. I think we turned everything upside down during this period of time looking for a way to become anything other than our parents. Now, looking back on that, that was again part of our selfishness. We decided we had to make our mark. And even today I think we are still doing that same thing because we are changing healthcare, we are changing retirement, all the other things. And I guess it is because of the great numbers that we have and you move that many people around, things change. Especially if they wanted them to change. SM: All right. That leads into something about one of the most unique things about the generation is its size. There has never been anything like it before, whether 65 to 70 million is the count most people give to the generation. Is there anything that is unique to this generation beyond its size? Because obviously its size stands out. JM: Yeah, selfishness there, both individually and collectively. And I say that and I put myself in that category. I was selfish. I still look at everything and think how does it affect me? How's the best going to be in my favor? Things like that. And I think that is be part and parcel of being a boomer. Yes. Other people are that way who are not boomers, but I think we pretty much set the stage for that or gave them the role model. But again, selfishness. SM: Thing is, a lot of the people our age and boomers as a whole used to always say amongst themselves when they are young that we are the most feeling, that we are the most unique generation in history because we are going to be the change agents for the betterment of society. We are going to end racism, sexism, homophobia. We are going to end war, we are going to have peace, help the poor, and all these other things. Well, if selfishness in your thought is number one, what happened? Because a lot of the people got involved in the causes to help others. JM: And I think they got disillusioned because they had a very low threshold for that sort of thing, that they could not get instant results through gratification. They just moved along. That is not to demean those folks that stayed in it for the long run. More credit to them. But going back to your question, yeah, well, we wanted to change all those things and we have not done a whole lot of good about it. And those things still exist today and probably will for far too long a period of time. SM: Looking at the generation now and kind of looking at characteristics, both positive, negative, if you were to list, and you have already talked about selfishness, but if you are going to list some of the negatives and some of the positives, what would they be? JM: I think part and parcel we are a very creative generation. I think a lot of the inventions we now take for granted came from our generation. That is definitely a positive. I think we had a work ethic taught to us by our parents that we continued. I think we picked some of the good out of the greatest generation and kept it going forward. That is one of them. The negative thing would be, I am not really certain there is a large number of us who are active in controlling our governments, both in the local and national levels. I think the ones that are in that are the ones that would have always been political, whatever generation they were born to. A large number of us get apathetic about things. It is that old fa- JM: Large number as get apathetic about things. It is that whole thing again, we wanted to make such a change in the world, at least in our country. And then when it could not happen, we thought, What the heck. Cannot be done? If we cannot do it this generation, then it just cannot be done. And we became that apathetic. It has been a fun group to be involved with. I think humor has been cranked up quite a bit since we took over the reins. I think industry and commerce and all business has changed quite a bit simply because we were in there now pulling the strings. We were the power seats. We were the guys in their (19)50s that are controlling everything. And I think for the betterment of business everywhere. And I think some of the things you see in today's workforce that were not there 30 years ago are there because boomers put them there. We were the guys that put in the baby nursery rooms for people of schools. I think were the ones that probably cranked up the healthcare coverage. These are things I do not think you went to work and expected back in 1965. SM: Of course your main negative one was the selfishness aspects. Do you think the generation X, the generation of now, were equally selfish? JM: I think they might have even been more selfish, but they were also... What is the word I am looking for? I think they played angst too much. They wanted to be un-understood, not understood, and they made that their mask. So the selfishness was inner and was in focus and they did not want you to know who they were. SM: Peter Mack was a Painter of that area. He is actually still doing paintings. He is a multi-millionaire now. But back then he was up and coming and struggling and then very successful Artist. He had a painting with words that said, You do your thing, I will do mine. If by chance we should come together, it will be beautiful. Your thoughts on that in reference to the boomer generation and the youth of the (19)60s and (19)70s? Because I put them together. Okay. JM: Well, the phraseology you used sounds very (19)60s, does not it? Do your thing, I will do mine. Come together like The Beatles. Well, first thing I hear in there is this overwhelming granting of permission. I am going to let you go ahead and do whatever you want. I am expecting that in return. I am expecting you to grant me the same permission. That is a nice overall way to explain what I think this boomer generation wanted. They wanted to do what they wanted to do and they wanted other people to feel free to do it. And I think the last part of that is a great phrase because if you come together, it is even better. But it is very difficult to go do your thing and then not conflict with other people doing their thing. Example might be, I want to have children, but I do not want to get married. What a burden that puts on society. That is the selfishness I was talking about. And bumping it up a generation, I think that phrase probably would have stuck in their throats. They probably would have said that is my mom and dad's thing. I do not want any part of that. They wanted to be left alone. I do not think necessarily they even thought about their own thing in doing it. Might be way off base, but that is just what I would say. SM: John, when you think of that period, is there any one movement that stands out above all others? And I mean, we are talking about a generation that saw so many movements, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, the women's movement, gay and lesbian, the Chicano, the Native American, they all seem to be together. But was there one movement that you feel stood out amongst everything else that when you talk about the (19)60s generation and the boomers, that is the movement? JM: Well, as you asked that question, what came to my mind was the sports industry. Back in the (19)60s, we all lived for the World Series, sports athletes were heroes to us. It has changed so much in the past 35, 40 years that I do not recognize it anymore. And I think what they have done is we still put these people up on pedestals and then we try to follow their example. And that is where I think we get a little off. And as you were saying that the first thing that, like I said, just went right to the front of my mind is sports world. I know they do not have a whole lot of effect on our society, but they have changed quite a bit. I am very disappointed in what they have done. I used to be a great fan of all sports. I hardly watch anything anymore. I cannot put up with it. SM: Do you think that what has happened to your thoughts and what has happened to the athlete is a symptom of, again, a generation which covers the (19)60s and the (19)70s of people who, because they did not trust leaders and they saw so many things that they were disappointed in that, they have even got to find something wrong when something is right, even in an athlete? That no athlete can be pure and clean anymore. You have always got to find something negative on a person. Is there something there on that? JM: That is a good point. Back in the (19)60s, they used to hide these things about athletes. I mean, look like Mickey Mantle is an example. I had all night party and drinking hard and waking up from a drunken stupid to go four for four. And we did not know about that. Yeah, it was not until you told us, he got out. But now today, let us use Darryl Strawberry is an example, we knew his every movement. If he did not come to practice that day, we knew about him. And yesterday it was easy to find fault with a guy like that. Whereas we still idolized Mickey Mantle. And I think that what I was trying to find is the gist of your question is how fair has that been, it is our view of these athletes. Yes, they are like the poster child for the people that are in it for themselves. And it is probably been the way it has always been with sports, but it has changed so much. I can remember when the local sports teams in Philadelphia would not play Wilt Chamberlain a hundred thousand dollars a year and now they are paying guys like that that kind of money a game. SM: And the minimum for a rookie, I think is a quarter million or something like that today, if you sit on the bench and get to bat 40 times. Amazing. Getting back to the movements, I want to get back to the anti-war movement in America and what was happening on the college campuses. How important, in your opinion as a veteran, because you are coming from a different perspective here than maybe some other people I have interviewed, how important do you feel the anti-war movement was on college campuses over the (19)60s and early (19)70s in ending that war? JM: Well, it sure got a lot of press. From the time I can remember, maybe I should give you a little background here. When I went to Vietnam, that was 1966, there was hardly any type of protest anywhere against the war. I got back in (19)67 and that was just starting the White Heat of the protest movement. So I went from nothing to intensity within a short period of time, pan of year, not knowing anything. That information was not given to us over there. We heard about it from the new guys coming in. So I think what they did, they got a lot of press. The newspapers and TV people loved them. So they got up there a lot. And I think they bumped the service people off of the stage. And I think they behaved, my word is childishly, is that right? They behave like children and they wanted to spotlight. And in the long run, I do not want to cast this aspersions to anybody's beliefs, but I think a lot of them were just in it for the fun, for what they think they could do. It might have been that part of their lives where they thought they could make a change. And were trying very hard. And I think they cluttered up as they clogged up the works, in my opinion. And then the final question was, do I think they helped bring me in into war? I think what they did was they made it sound as though their opinion was so prevalent throughout the United States that it was the common opinion. And I think Nixon being the consummate politician he was, decided to bring war to some form of an end, his peace with honor to get it behind us. I think he probably saw that along with his cohorts, that America was not going to go anywhere as long as the war was going on and people were still protesting it. So in a sense, yeah, they did. I think they may have prolonged the war is another aspect because if we had have been able to go in and do what we needed to do militarily, we would not have been there until (19)72. SM: All right. When you are talking about the anti-war movement, again, could you give me a little bit about your background when you went to school, high school and how right out... If you had college or you went right into the military, just a little bit of that background and the years. JM: Graduated in (19)63. Bishop Shanahan just had our College Reunion this past Saturday, and went to work. I did not go to college. And there is that drafting again. So (19)63 through November of (19)65, I was under the cloud of the draft. Went to work here in West Chester near the college. Now I will think about it, I did not pick up on anything anti-war moves. I did not pick up on any student activities one way or the other. Well, I worked in West Chester at Mosteller, the old department store. Left that in 1965 to start my own business. And I started out in dining town and became oblivious to everything else that was going on in my life. I was not married, I was starting a business. I was working 16, 18 hours a day. I was not reading the paper, I was not watching television. I do not know what was going on. Anything I cared about was where am I in the draft. So long behold or round about September, October, I knew my number was going to be up. So I looked for alternative ways to do my service. And most of those doors were slammed shut. There was no openings in the National Guard or the reserves. Getting into the Navy was difficult. Air Force was almost impossible. And for some reason I could still never explain even to myself, I joined the Army to avoid getting drafted. SM: I heard that before, but- JM: I joined the Army to avoid being drafted. I signed up for four years where I could have got out in two of being drafted. Now if you ever want an example of a bad decision, that was it. My time spent in the military till November of (19)66 was in training. No contact or no attitude or anything like that about anybody else who was doing anything else. The college kids, other people of my generation. Drafted to go in November 29th, which was my birthday. I thought that was cruel that the government could do that to me. Joined on the 17th of November and November 17th, 1966, left Boston for Vietnam. Stayed over there till November of (19)67. Came back here. And now looking back on it, I was going into a world I did not know. We were told not to pick fights with civilians when we got off the plane. I am thinking, nobody ever said that to me before. Why would I pick a fight with a civilian? We did not know. The big thing then, Steve, was the mini-skirt. Oh yeah. Okay. All right. SM: I remember that. JM: We were all anxious to get home and see these mini-skirt things. And we were in the airport at 3:00 in the morning, there was not much going on. There was Austin, there was a group of other people. And probably for the first time I encountered that coldness that people of my own age had towards the military. When you are just hanging out, there is people your age. You gravitate together. Well, as I gravitated towards them, they gravitated away from me. They did not want [inaudible]. When I finally got that through my sleepy head, I just walked away. That was my first in contact with that sort of thing. And on the way home, I encountered another one time, right here in West Chester. And I just pretty much said, They were a bunch of jerks, and went home. So that was my background. Now it was November, 1967. The summer of love is over and the demonstrations, the protests are starting to really heat up. And I am looking around saying, Did I do something wrong? And some people bother to tell me that yes I did. By agreeing to go in over there, I was branded a coward by people. SM: Could you explain again, just your thoughts on those moments when you were on that plane flying to Vietnam and when you were on that plane returning from Vietnam? JM: A little background, I did not go over on plane. I went on a boat, ship. That took, I think 11 days. Mostly what that was, the whole time spent was we were apprehensive. They tried to fill our days in with the DS classes and things like that. [inaudible], Jalapeno gun for the thousand time in your life. They try to do that, but the whole time all you know is you are going to Vietnam. And they tried to keep it... What is the word I am looking for? Not somber. Professional. There was no partying. Nobody was in the mood to party. The night before we landed in Vietnam, they let the marines land by letting them crawl down those ladders they put down the side and into those sand pants and take them off to the beach. And we are watching these guys and often the distance, we can see the flashing lights, what we assume were some mortar rounds, bullets, whatever. And we are watching these guys going in there and we are just saying, poor some of bitches, man. They are drawing into the heat of the... They are going at night. How smart is that? And then we got Marines. He expected. So next day it was our turn. And rather than climbing down rope ladders, they just had some kind of gang wave for us to walk down. We just walked with our stuff and we were not Marines. So I had our stuff, which is double bags, rifles, whatever else we had on us. And we got into the same sand pants and we were hardhats when we were in gear, we had all our gear on and we were riding to the shore to where they were going to let us out. And all I am thinking about are those movies I have seen where they were sitting in those metal targets and this big thing goes dropping down like that. And there was this Major standing there taking pictures. And I thought how could it be. So we just drug our shit out of there. And he was just there, just taking pictures. And he directed us to some people who told us where we needed to go. And that was the way over. Now, the way back, that was quite a bit different story. I have written an article about this one. They lined us up on the tarmac and they put us alphabetically. So I was able to tell a guy who had been ragging me for a year to put my time in, to put his time in, because I was M and he was S. So it was, put your time in. I was leaving Vietnam before. So we got into the Continental Airlines. I cannot forget. First Miniskirt. First mini skirt on a regular American girl, because we had entertainers over there and they wore the miniskirts on purpose. First American girl with the miniskirt. So we got into the plane and we were sitting there and there is this feeling you get, it was almost like, okay, move this effing plane. And you feel the runway. You feel it running down the runway, I should say. Just as the wheels lift, you get that weightless feeling. Just as they lifted, the plane went nuts. We all started cheering and slapping fires, all that stuff like that. And the plane took off and it settled down for five minutes later. Guys did not know each other. We were just congratulating to each other. Things like that. And it was wonderful on our way home. Plane had not cleared space yet, we were not going to wait to party. We were on the air off the ground, We were an American territory now. And I will never forget this, the Crown Royal comes in that blue bag, purple bag. This old guy got up there. He was like [inaudible], and he said, Would anybody like to drink? And he held up, and of course we went, Whoa, yeah. He says, I got one thing to ask you, is do not drink, I got a toast. And okay, so we passed on little plastic cups. Rule was, and they told us this, if you open a bottle, it must be finished before the plane lands. Yeah, you can have your alcohol, but if you open the bottle, it has got to be finished. You cannot walk off a plane with a bottle with booze in. So that bottle was going down. So we all got our cups, and the sole guy, he says, I do not know any of you guys on this plane. I just got one thing to say to you. And that old Sergeant Gruff, he says, Well done. And then, hear-hear. These Stewards came by and says, Would anybody else like a drink? Yeah, mama over here. SM: Yeah, my friend is going to move his seat so that your miniskirts can down. JM: And he woke us up about every three hours to eat. I will never forget that. SM: And how many hours to get back from Austin? 22? It is a real long flight. JM: It was 24 hours total. So part of that was spent in a wide waiting, which was the hard part. The hard part, meaning there were guys who were getting off the plane to meet their... Guys on R and R. That was where they were going. They were going to pick up other flights to go to other places. I was going to stay on the flight to San Francisco and people got off were Military, and the people who got on were civilians. And all of a sudden we were contagious. We got the looks that leave us alone. Can you be more quiet please? Type of attitude. That was the first of that I encountered anywhere that, oh my God, I have to sit with soldiers, type of attitude. And they were rather snotty about it. SM: These are all ages, these people? JM: All ages. Yeah. Forgive them now, probably guys who were in World War II. I do not know if it was just that group of people who knows who they were. They were going back to America and they had to suffer in a ride with a bunch of returning Soldiers. But it got better. It got better because the plane I picked up in San Francisco and flew into Chicago. I was sitting back in what we call coach now, that was second class, but those days, and the Steward just came up to me and said, Come with me please. I thought, yeah. What do you have in my mom? Right after the first class, first seat on the right-hand side on the aisle, she had, The Captain instructed me to put you here. You have been upgraded, because I was new. SM: That is wow. JM: And I sat next to a guy who was a Korean War veteran, and we talked the whole way over. And he was not a snot, he was one of the good guys. And we talked and I told him I did not do combat. I said, I almost used that as a sort of, “Hi, my name is John Morris. I did not do any combat. First thing I wanted you to know about me.” And we talked. And it was nice. Of course, you did not buy any drinks. The Stewards just came by and talked all the time to me. It was nice. SM: And that was a long flight. JM: Sam says it was a Chicago. Chicago got a little uglier in that. That is a hard airport. The ride back was great highs and great lows, followed by great highs and then great lows. Chicago was one of the great lows. Get to your plane, remembering the admonition. Do not pick any fights. Hang together. Military guys were clustering together. That is what would happen. Probably the only time I can remember that guys like Marines, Navy, Air Force would get together on purpose. Usually you break off into your own little groups, but we sit with Marines and Airmen, Sailors and all that stuff. SM: I remember my dad in World War II when he was in Japan two weeks after they dropped the bomb and they were told to be together because if they went individually, they would probably be dead. Getting back to some general questions here, I want your thoughts again about the boomers. The thought was that they were going to change the world. A lot of people thought they were going to change the world. There has been a lot of good things that have happened since they have... Hopefully we still have problems with race relations, but there has been a lot of laws passed on outlawing segregation. There has been quite a few positive things from respect to women's and women's equality in the United States and so forth, but just overall was that hubris on the part of the boomers that were going to change the world, that were going to be different or that were going to be the greatest generation, and in the history of this place, there will be no group ever like us? JM: Yeah, you make a good point. A lot of the things that we see now has improvement since we took over, things happened because we changed them. There are a lot of things now, although the women's rights movement is a good example. Women are now equal to men, as in some areas it did not happen for a long time, in the employment world, for example. The idea of a woman owning a company back in 1960 was unusual using that woman inherited it from her father. Today it is common. And we applaud women who step forward and take roles in industry and politics and things like that. And it is okay for them to still want to be mommies. And I think that is a great change that this generation has made that, Go back to Peter or Max, do your own thing. SM: Yes. I am trying to ask veterans their thoughts on the Nurses, the women who served there with the men. John, could you explain how the Vietnam vets looked at the women who were over in Vietnam? What were their thoughts? JM: Well, I never encountered a Nurse the whole time I was over there. Does that help you any? SM: Yeah. Or women in any other positions, whether they be like the services I mentioned earlier, or people in civilian positions, or the Donut Dollies. There were a lot of women in different roles and not just Nurses in the medical area. JM: I ran across civilian women in two categories, Donut Dollies, who were wonderful women. And for the most part they were not attractive women. And it is probably not a nice thing to say, but they were not the decent ones I met. But they were just common American women who wanted to do something. They came over from America to Vietnam to hand out the donuts, to talk to the soldiers. And they were always very nice. They would always very nice of us. They would serve us chow, which was a surprise when you went into the chow line because there you were covered in mud. Chances are good. You had those metal eating things and messier that we had. You did not expect to look up and see a woman of any caliber standing. It is like, ugh. The ones I had met always made it a point to call you Mr. Morris. Not specialist or private. Mr. Morris. And I always thought that was a nice touch because they brought you back home. You were not a private, you were not a number anymore. This nice lady was calling you Mr. And then you say, Well, call me John. SM: One of the things about the Vietnam Memorial in Washington DC is that the wall was built to help with the healing process for the Vietnam veterans and their families, and certainly to heal a nation. Anybody who have read Jan Scruggs book knows it was supposed to be a non-political entity. It is to heal and to pay tribute to those who served, those who were wounded in the families and so forth. To heal. I like your thoughts on where are the Vietnam veterans, just in your thoughts in terms of obviously the healing, how important that wall is toward the healing and had the divisions that were so strong at that period between those who were against the war and the people who served, has there been any healing with respect to those two groups? JM: Let me start with that one. When you had the wall here, that is probably the most dramatic example of what you are just talking about. As you might remember, we had a bunch of guys who were bent out of shape about some of the problems you had with that. The political problems. The guys I encountered that put me off were the guys who seemed to be expecting me to agree with them that what they did was, and the only thing I could say is, Well, if you did the right thing, if that is what you thought at the time was right, I am not going to say it was wrong. But they wanted me to say what they did was right and say, Well, you have to be more comfortable with that than me. That is an example of one of the situations that come out for this particular issue. I still think today that these baby boomer protestors who are in their (19)50s and (19)60s right now should get comfortable with what they did, accept it and move along and not try to get confirmation from people like me and other veterans that what they did was right. And for most part, I will speak for the veterans I have had contact with, we do not care about the protestors. We do not hate them, we do not like them. They were there, they existed, but that is done. And we are dealing with our own issues and we are trying to get through it all. And we have to deal with that same issue. Are we comfortable with what we did? If the answer is yes, then we are happy. If it is no, then you have to find a way to get to yes. And hating somebody else that is not going to get you there. But every now and then, I run across an old protestor and they push that button on me. They are looking for me to validate what they did. That is fine. SM: During that, we have had those individuals who were here, who were protestors during that conference. And of course a lot of people have met Professor Davidson here on campus who had been the founder of SDS. And he is very comfortable with what he did. But he never needs to have validation. JM: Good friend. I liked him. SM: Yeah. And he is so genuine, that is why I am finding out between a lot of vets that I have interviewed is the fact that they are... And I like your opinion- SM: ...between a lot of vets that I have interviewed is the fact that they are... And I would like your opinion. Maybe they may never like the person totally, but do you feel there was a greater respect toward the person who was truly against the war, not trying to get out of the draft, but it was just truly against the war, was sent to jail oftentimes and paid a price for what they did than the person who was just trying, as you said, playing the game to get out of the draft, having a good time? Is there a difference or are all protestors the same? JM: No, not all protestors are the same. I am trying to remember his last name. David something, married to Joan Baez. He went to jail. SM: David Harris. JM: David Harris. He burned his draft card, did all the protesting, went to jail. For that, I think he could be admired. He, to this day, is a very strong war protestor. He is one of those guys that keeps trying to explain why he did what he did. Probably that is the only reason he is on TV is because of what he did. Now see, I do not have a problem with a guy like that. I do not know if many other people will. Muhammad Ali, there are guys in my chapter who said what he did was fine with them. With me it was not. I had to answer the call. I had to do the step forward. Anybody who did not do that to me was not as forthright as David Harris was. Now, if Ali walked through the door I would shake his hand, absolutely. But that particular thing he did with his life, I did not approve of then and I still do not. SM: The wall. Sometimes when you ask people there is an obvious answer, but every answer I have ever received is totally different. And the unique effect that that wall has had on them, just your thoughts on the importance of that wall in the veteran community, period. JM: It is mecca to the Vietnam veteran. It is where we go because we are drawn there. I did not go there until my 40th birthday and I told my wife that I was going to take my 40th birthday off work and I was going to go to the wall and I wanted to go alone because I did not know what I was going to do when I got there. I did not know if I was going to get half a mile away and back down. I did not know. So, that is what I did on my 40th birthday. And it was somewhat cleansing for me to do that. The reality still never hit me until I went with my chapter. And there I think is where I am headed with this answer. I think it is groups of veterans versus veteran singular. It is what it means to the groups of veterans, the VFWs, the Vietnam Veterans of America, all those guys. To us it is our home away from home. It is our mecca. And on a personal level, I am tickled to death that Jan Scruggs was able to do that. It probably took somebody like him to get it done, but thank God he was there to do it. SM: Yeah. You know about the politics of Washington to be able to get through the crap. Well, I will not even go into that, but you got to admire the person. You just have to admire him. You have really said some really good things on the healing process. I have a question here. Actually, it is going to go into the section where we are talking about when the best history books are written. My background is in history and the best World War II books are being written right now, 50 years after World War II. There has always been some good ones. But the historians will always say that the best books on any particular period begin 50 years after an event. Now, we are 30 years out from Vietnam and a lot of the books have been written and so forth, and a lot of books in the (19)60s have been written. But when the best history books are written on this particular era, what do you think they will say about this generation of Americans born over a 20-year period of time defined as the boomer generation, their impact on America, and I am including in this for your answer, those who served and those who did not serve? JM: Okay. Starting with those who served. Those- SM: You are fine. JM: Okay. Those guys were put into a no-win situation and when they ever had any movement towards winning, they would change the game. And then when they did not win, they were blamed for not winning. So, that has to be probably the most frustrating thing about that time for veterans who are boomers, the hell that they put some of those guys through over there, the combat veteran, to not make it worth anything in the long run. What we did in 1975, we bugged out. We left everybody behind and we just turned our back on all the hard work that was done. And that is probably going to be what those best books are going to talk about, the frustrations of the wars. Why did we go out every morning into the rice paddies and the jungles and recapture the same land that we captured the day before, only to leave it again at dusk day after day after day? That is senseless. If you want to lose a war, that is what you do. It is almost as though our leaders sat down with that purpose in mind. How can we lose this war? We cannot go into Cambodia even though we are being shot at from there. There is all these rules. Our hands were tied. SM: If you were to ultimately place the, it could be a combination of a lot of things, but if you were to just simply say point blank, the reason why we lost this war, who is to blame? Is it our leaders or lack thereof? JM: Our civilian leaders I think are responsible because they never had the intention... Well, first I think they found themselves caught in the war. The early stages of the war, we sent advisors under that catchall phrase. And I think as things got worse and we started to commit troops, we got stuck there, the quagmire that was Vietnam. And then our leaders decided for their reasons, which maybe in 50 years we will find out, that they did not want to do anything to actually win this war. And that is who I lay the blame at. Now, if you want to say Johnson and McNamara and Nixon, Kissinger and that bunch. That bunch. And whoever pushes their buttons, that bunch too. SM: But it is interesting. Military leaders report to the civilian, which is the President of the United States. But in the end, the joint chief of staff can still have tremendous influence. Are military leaders part of this blame here? Because ultimately oftentimes military leaders can persuade civilian leaders and the president that we must continue. Obviously, we are doing it to continue the war and they were getting reports. Is there some part of blame on the military leadership? JM: Yeah, the blame I think they should accept is the fact that they let it happen. And they could have easily done exactly as you said, use that influence. Explain to the civilians that that is not how war is waged, won today. But they did not. Maybe it is because they could not. Maybe the deck was stacked that much against them. Maybe they did not know how to do it. They have never been in that situation before. Maybe they just were not the Lee's and Grant's that we once had. SM: You go to the wall though, and you see the ceremonies there at the wall, the reverence they have for the leaders of their troops and the war is amazing. General McCaffrey, he has his whole big section there of people that served under him and he is almost like a god to them. Obviously, he cares about his troops. JM: What was he during the war? What rank? SM: Yeah, he was pretty high up. I do not know what his rank was during the Vietnam War, but I do know he always has a lot of people there at a wall that really... And of course he was involved in the Middle East War with George Bush and he was responsible for the killing of all the people that were going back to Baghdad. He oversaw that. So, he was off with his troops. He had troops during that timeframe as well. He became [inaudible] there for a short period of time. JM: Well, there certainly were those people who, if we had more of them, there would have been a different outcome. SM: I am going to finish up my last question and then I am going to just name some names here and if we want to take a break in between, it is okay too. JM: Sure. SM: But I want to get back to, again, this healing business you have talked about within the veteran community and as a nation, but do you think there is an ultimate responsibility on the part of Vietnam veterans or people who care about this issue to really try to heal people in a group, a generation, before they pass away? I say this because through history books, oftentimes even during the Civil War, I use the Civil War as an example, that there were years and years of opportunities for the north and south troops to come together to try to heal and respect each other as a warrior, and people who did not serve. But just simply say, "We got caught up in the times and I respect what you did." But I am not sure if I see that here as a generation. And it is like a funeral. I am leading into a question here, but it is like a funeral when a person has died and all the nice things are said about a person, but that person never heard it in their lifetime. Is there an inherent responsibility, particularly among Vietnam vets who have gone through hell upon their return, but they were the leaders in creating a memorial for the people who served in Vietnam, which has become a model for the Korean War veteran... It has become a model for the World War II veteran. They have become leaders in so many areas. Should they also maybe be a leader to make this nation better, to heal it and could do anything in its... Not only to heal within themselves. And you have really put it beautifully in terms of, "I do not have to heal for someone who was against the war. We have our own issues." But can we ever think as a collective, as a nation, so that this does not happen again? And we might be in one right now for all we know. JM: I think- SM: And John, I am going to turn this... JM: To answer your question, the single veteran can do a lot. He can run for political office. He can work within his community, things like that. But what I see more now, mostly because of my activities again, are the organizations stepping in now trying to not make change so much, but make things that are good better and make things that might not be good at all good, working within the communities as a powerful force within the community. Now, as far as healing, there are a lot of guys in my chapter who hold strong hateful feelings towards groups of people because of the war. There are people in my chapter that do not like the Vietnamese, no matter what side they fall on. They do not like the protestors. Never will. Those guys have their problems. And until we can heal those guys, we cannot let them out into the general population because they will just create more havoc. So, what we try to do is we try to work with those guys, not so much to change them, but just try to show them another way. And after that is done, then I guess it is the old story about if you want to change the world you change the person. And again, I think the veteran communities, the veterans organizations are doing a lot behind the scenes. And if you go to a VFW or an American Legion and ask them what they have been doing lately, you will think all they do is sit there and drink. But they do a lot of good. If nothing else, they put on the parades every patriotic holiday. They are in the schools working with the kids. And when somebody needs a helping hand, they are there. If there is an organization that needs some funding, some children's organization that needs a few bucks, they are there to help out. And I think they are doing a lot to heal. I just think the healing process is so long and the pain is so great that the pain remains the same size, it just becomes less intense. SM: When I interviewed Gaylord Nelson too many years ago when I first started this project and then I stopped for three years when my parents were ill, he point blank said that no one goes around Washington DC who's a boomer, who is in a political position or any kind of position, looking down on their arm and saying, "I am not healing. I am not healing." People do not think that way. But he did say one thing that really struck me and that was that forever the body politic of America has changed. The body politic. That is where the change happened. It will never be the same again. And as a United States senator, co-founder of Earth Day and all the other things, and ousted in 1980 like so many of the Democrats were... He was an anti-war senator. And course he was one of those ousted along with McGovern and Birch Bayh and a whole other group. He paid the price for his beliefs. But he thought the body politic had changed forever. I have some names here. Would you like to take a quick break or get a- JM: I am fine. SM: These are some names that I have been asking everyone. Just some quick thoughts on each of them and let me go on to the next one. Tom Hayden. JM: Married Jane Fonda. I think he was strident. You probably use that word quite a bit with the protestors. Articulate. He was good at making a point. I just think that the points he made were off the mark. SM: Jane Fonda. JM: We will never forgive Jane Fonda. Never. For what she did. And probably their biggest mistake was to become so visual, so much in the spotlight about what she did. And even now these many years later when she did try to make some sort of amends, it even came up sounding hollow. So, we just said, "Pfft." She is the second most beautiful woman in America. The first one is everybody else. SM: Lyndon Johnson. JM: The only thing I know about Lyndon Johnson, of course, is what they tell me. But I saw him as someone who was extremely good at working the political game. He was the guy who got us from the point of intervention into quagmire in Vietnam. And I think basically had a testosterone problem in that area. I think he wanted to prove something. He wanted to prove Americans had balls and that he was the head ball holder. That, I think, was his classic mistake. And I think he was probably the top dog in a kennel where there were a lot of little small dogs nipping at his heels all the time. And those people probably in the long run won out. SM: Hubert Humphrey. JM: Yeah. I do not whole lot about him. Seemed a likable kind of guy. SM: Some people believe, again, if he had had the courage to stand up to the president and he was pretty close to winning and beating Nixon, if they had said the election had gone any further, a week, Humphrey probably would have won and we had have been out of the Vietnam War even faster. We will never know. But- JM: No, not much. SM: How about the individuals that were the Black Panthers of that era? Huey Newton and Bobby Seale on the Black Panther party. JM: Opportunists. SM: Angela Davis and that group. JM: Opportunists. They saw a way to cash in, either for money or for fame, and maybe that hate that may seed in every Black person in America, they were able to exemplify and point it out. Which in a way is a benefit, because up until that point, we all thought that they were happy in their life. We did not know there would be angry Black people. I knew of a militant Black man in the army and probably he is the most responsible person to break me from my fog about race relations to a little bit of clarity in my conversations with him. But I think the ones you mentioned were opportunists. They saw, "Oh, here is a way to cash in some fashion." SM: Right. You had your thoughts on Martin Luther King Jr. and of course Thurgood Marshall who went through all the [inaudible] approach. Mostly Martin Luther King Jr., who also was upset with America. And just your thoughts on the civil rights leaders of that era, of which Dr. King was the central force. JM: I was working in Texas the night he was shot. I was working. I was helping deliver televisions as a part-time job. I was in the army. And all of a sudden the news was, he was shot. Well, remember, I am in Texas. And the people are dragging me in to watch TV into this TV repair shop, and they are talking about, "It is about time somebody shot that nigger, and we are going to be better off because of this." And I am sitting there and I am in some sense of sorrow. I am thinking, "Oh my God, somebody shot that poor guy. Here was a guy," this is what I was thinking, "Here was the guy who put it on the line. He got his whipped ass a lot for doing what he did. He probably had to have tenacity we cannot imagine to get anywhere with what he did and how he did things. And now some cretin has shot him down in cold blood. And at this stage in his life, he is on his way out of the limelight. He is being downgraded. There are others who are coming to the foreground that are pushing him aside. And at this stage of his life, he gets assassinated like this." And as it is turned out now, I do not know how many years later, he is reached near sainthood in America and to the point where his birthday might even become a national holiday. So, my major remembrance of Dr. King was the fact that the night he was shot, I was in room full of these rednecks. They were in their glory because this guy had been killed. And all I can think about is a life wasted and all that work and all that hard work that he did, maybe all that work he did will never really be appreciated. I was wrong. It has been appreciated. SM: How about Malcolm X? JM: Anything I know about him probably I saw in this movie. I read the book, Malcolm X's autobiography, while I was still in the army, compliments of my friend. He also gave me Soul on Ice to read. SM: Oh yeah, Eldridge Cleaver. JM: Eldridge Cleaver. SM: Yep. Classic. JM: And I think with Malcolm X I could just say, that anger that most Black people feel had a very eloquent voice. From what I understand, I only learned this from the movie, he was changing quite a bit towards the end of his life. And then again, he is assassinated. It seems though, when they are at a point in their lives where there is major changes going to happen to them, maybe for the good. They are taken from us. SM: Leads me right into John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy. JM: Well, we all remember where we were. SM: Yeah. 40 years ago. JM: With Kennedy, I had reached the point in my life where my world was shaken because it gave me that feeling that I was not safe. If the President of the United States could be murdered like that, how safe am I? Because he had all those cops around him. Everything about his movements are scheduled and you cannot get near him, yet he was killed. He has been murdered. And where are we going? Well, who is the next guy in line? Well, Lyndon Johnson. Is not he a buffoon? What is happening? What is going to happen to us? That is what I remember most about John Kennedy as far as the assassination goes. It is a shame he has been reduced to how he died versus how he lived. We will never know what kind of president he could have been. And if he would have lived, maybe he would have been a lousy president, just one of those ones we forget about, but we will not know. We lost all that promise. Bobby Kennedy, I think he was a warmed up version of John. He tried to recapture that Camelot spirit, bring us back to where we thought we were with Kennedy before the assassination. Naturally I was sad at his murder, but not nowhere near what it was like with John Kennedy. SM: Right. Eugene McCarthy. JM: Clueless. He had a thought. It was a good one, but he had to have more thoughts to put them together and he just did not have the talent for that. Probably was a brilliant guy. Some of the things that I read he wrote were very well written. So, he was probably a brilliant guy, but he did not have the political savvy to bring it forward. And unfortunately, they made mincemeat out of him. SM: How about George McGovern? JM: McGovern is somewhat like that too. I think he probably just was a little bit more politically strong. I think the thing with McCarthy is that he could easily be led astray, and I think he was. Whereas McGovern, I do not think you could easily lead him astray, but you could still do it. SM: Some other characters from that particular period. Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, the hippies. JM: Yeah. Oh, I think they were over the top. I think that is how they played it. They wanted to be that in your face, loud guerilla protestor. And I think that is what they wanted. And Abbie's book says it best. Steal This Book. He wanted to be so out there that you had to kind of admire his audacity. And I think Rubin was just annoying. SM: You ever read his book, Do It? Rubin's book. Rubin's book. JM: No, I never read that. SM: I will tell you a story beyond this interview about him. It is kind of hilarious. Timothy Leary. JM: He was in a position to have caused a lot of harm to this country because he was an admired person because of his position. He was pressing drugs on young people who were impressionable. And I can remember when LSD was the then popular drug. He was pressing it and people had a tendency to believe that it must be okay, or at least not as bad as our parents are telling us it is if this guy is for it. But I think in his sense he was probably more harmful to our country in the fact that he presented that false impression of how are, how drugs work. Thank God he is probably being seen for what he really was. And I think what he really was-was just the guy who wanted his 15 minutes and snapped it up. SM: How about the Berrigan brothers, Daniel and Philip? JM: The priests? SM: Yes. Daniel and Philip. JM: They were both Jesuits, were not they? SM: Mm-hmm. JM: Okay. Not that that has any bearing on anything other than my answer. I am Catholic. Jesuits are considered the tip of the spear in the Catholic religion in that if there is any goofiness going on, you can find a Jesuit. And I think that is where they fit in. They became involved with the anti-war movement and they put the Catholic face on the anti-war movement. SM: What about Benjamin Spock? JM: The protestor or the doctor wrote the kids’ books? SM: Both. JM: Okay. SM: He is one and the same. JM: The doctor wrote the books that our parents used to raise us, probably relatively harmless that. I think that he was too certain of his thoughts and his beliefs and he tried to ram them down people's throats. I remember that from the interviews I saw on TV. It was almost as though, "Sit there and listen. I am going to tell you how it is. Dare not challenge me." And that bothered me. SM: Richard Nixon. JM: God, we elected him twice? SM: Not me. JM: Not me either, but- SM: No comment. JM: ...in my opinion, a lot of the problems we had at the time we had because we elected him president. He was a polarizing force in America. If you loved him, he did no wrong and you would drink the Kool-Aid for the guy. If you hated him, he could do no right. And everything seemed to go down the hill because of it. SM: What about Spiro Agnew? JM: A buffoon. I am saying that because of how he exited the political arena. He was taking kickbacks when he was the governor and things like that. He was doing all the things that politicians do that make us hate them. And Nixon plunked him out of nowhere. And I think Nixon got screwed by the people who are supposed to do their work by presenting this guy to him. SM: How about Daniel Ellsberg? JM: Daniel Ellsberg. Pentagon papers, right? SM: Mm-hmm. JM: I do not know a lot about him other than the movie I saw. Well, first of all, by the movie, he was in Vietnam. And then he came back here and became a reporter. He supported the war, then he went against it. I know nothing. I believe his psychiatrist's office should not have been ransacked. That is wrong. SM: Robert McNamara. JM: I think he was an extremely brilliant and smart man who probably did not have a lot of inner courage. And I think he probably did not see big pictures. He saw details, and it was the details he would focus on to the exclusion of the big picture. And I think he screwed up and I think he will admit that. SM: How about Gerald Ford? JM: I think he was just thrust into the limelight probably because he was a good soldier for the Republican Party. It was fun when he was president. You did not expect much of the guy and if he did anything, you were happy. And when he screwed up, he probably just smiled. That is all I remember about him. And his stupid WIN buttons. What the hell was he thinking? SM: Well, history will oftentimes say the war ended. He ended it. JM: By supporting Nixon? SM: No-no. We got out of Vietnam on April 30th, 1975 under his watch. So, a lot of people give him the credit, and I am not sure if history has really looked at him. I think the role that he played over that two years... I forgot. Nixon was kicked out. I am not sure what people think really of him in the long run. JM: It is amazing you brought that up because I would not have remembered he was president when the war ended. In my mind, the ending of the war was an event in place and to happen, and it just so happened under his watch, as you said. I do not think he consciously said, "Let us end this war now." It was just ending. Somebody else ended it for him. He was just doing the leg work. Somebody else ended it for him, he was just doing the leg work. SM: You had already made reference to Muhammad Ali, but I bring him up again. Muhammad Ali and all the COs, conscientious objectors, from that period. He stood up late to the forefront. But your thoughts on Muhammad Ali and the conscientious objector. JM: Well, I will start off with general conscientious objector. If they indeed did their service, which was an alternative you had, you could go clean bed pants at the Valley Forge Hospital. SM: Mm-hmm. JM: Do your time there. SM: Mm-hmm. JM: Then fine. As it turns out, they were actually aiding the war effort. Because that was one less thing that we had to pay for. And the ones I had known in my life were pain in the asses because they would always try to make me feel that because I would do something like going to the military, that they were much better than I was. They would not lower themselves to harm somebody. And in my mind, I would always say, "yeah, until pressed." Anyone can be pushed into a situation where you will defend yourself, if nothing else. So I did not really think they had the courage of their convictions. As long as it was easy to be a conscientious objector, I think that is when it was fine for them. When it became difficult, it may have separated a bit. And if anyone held that belief today, after being a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, then I will admire that person. But I think a lot of them now will probably be just as bloodthirsty as anybody else. SM: And Muhammad Ali again in terms of... JM: I think he wanted to prove that no matter how much we are told that you have no choice. You have a choice. If you are willing to pay the price, the choice is there. He did. He paid an awful price for what he did, I do not think he paid enough, but he paid. He lost his championship, he lost his right to earn a living, and he lost a lot of respect of Americans because of it. SM: Barry Goldwater. JM: He ran for president, right? SM: You run against Johnson (19)64 or the big one. JM: Well, I guess the only thing I can remember about him was people went out of their way to convince me he was so conservative that he might just be the end of us all. And I am thinking to myself, "How can anybody be that bad, that evil, that stiff- necked, that if we put him in the President of the United States, he is going to get us into a war? A bombing war? A hot war? Nah." And then Johnson did the same thing. SM: Right. Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, the women who were in the forefront of the women's movement. JM: Betty Friedan wrote a very good book about aging for women. I will probably be affected by that book that I read. As I understand those two women were front-runners for the women's movement, which was when it first came out, was somewhat laughable in that they did not seem to have a platform that was something you can get onto. Where things like inequity and pay for jobs, that was an issue and that is something they should have gone after and did, but there were other things that they harped about, excuse the phrase, harped about that seemed, "Why are you concerned about that when they had so many other bigger issues to deal with?" SM: The music of the period, how important was the music of the period in your life? The music of the (19)60s, in terms of both positive? And secondly, I have two-part question here, your thoughts on the music of the (19)60s and the (19)70s, impact on your life, and your thoughts on the musicians who were anti-war. And there were a lot of them. JM: Mm-hmm. SM: Joan Baez, was very obvious. Everybody knows about Phil Ochs. But of course you can even say John Lennon and The Beatles. There is a lot of things in there. And certainly Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix. And you are dealing with a lot of the musicians of that period who were anti-war, just your thoughts on that, through their music. JM: Let us see. First part of the question. What effect did it have on me? SM: Mm-hmm. JM: Profound. I actually believe that I changed as music changed. In early, well, in the late (19)50s, early (19)60s, I was into that, what they called, " doo-wop music," and The Platters and The Drifters and The Coasters and all that stuff. And then The Beatles arrived, changing music the way they did, British Invasion, I feel I changed. Some of my favorite singers, Janis Joplin, for example, to this day when I am feeling low, I put her music on to give me a list. I have got Joan Baez tapes at home. I love her music. A woman? No. SM: Right. JM: Now, she was too strident. She and Tom Hayden, they were both strident. So, now I think music had a profound effect on my generation because it was the thing we created. And I do not know how many of our people did, but we created it by liking it. There had not been a market for rock and roll. SM: Right. JM: There would not have been there any rock and roll. And then as we grew up and became the rock and rollers, we changed it once again. SM: Is there any one musician that stood out for you? Group or musician? JM: Well, I will say Janis. Yeah. The first time I heard Janice sing, the hair on the back of my neck stood out. SM: Oh. JM: It was a moment I will never forget. We had the album, Big Brother & The Holding Company- SM: Oh, yeah. JM: Cheap Thrills. SM: Yeah, the cover is unbelievable. JM: Yeah, Robert Crumb. SM: Mm-hmm. JM: We brought into the barracks and we had waited. I mean, we were literally salivating, because none of us had ever heard this phenomenon sing. So you put it on and playing it on your basic record player. SM: Right. JM: And as I said, as she started to sing, the hair in the back of my neck stood out. And what she would do for me is she would get me there, and then she would make me profoundly sad when she sang. And then the next thing out, she would make me feel excited. I would feel the blood pumping in my veins. She could do all that for me. SM: And when you heard she died, and the way she died, you may not remember where you were, but what were your thoughts on how she just passed away? JM: I remember where I was. I still feel to this day that I wish I would have been there that night to put my arms around her and talk her out of it. Maybe I could have saved her. Now, obviously that is ridiculous. But that is how I felt. SM: Mm-hmm. JM: And I was really, very sad. And of course, when Pearl the album came out, which was just finished as she died, that was sort of like her gift to us. SM: I am almost done. JM: Okay. But you did ask me about the ones who protested the war. SM: Yes. JM: So what did I think about them? SM: Mm-hmm. JM: I enjoyed it. The guy who wrote Draft Dodger Rag, was that Phil Ochs? SM: I think Country Joe McDonald was another one of the singers that was a protester. JM: Yeah. I enjoyed that. I thought that was great. I loved the protest music. Did it make sense that I liked the protest music? I did not care. It was funny. It was interesting. It was fun. SM: Your thoughts, I will not mention the name, one of the individuals that I interviewed, is a very well-known Vietnam veteran, pretty high up. And he has a problem. And his problem is that he had no problem with those people who protested against the Vietnam War who were musicians and entertainers. But he has a tremendous problem today with entertainers and musicians who protest against their current war in Iraq or are just out there protesting. He was making references to Ed Asner, Mike Farrell, the people that have been out there that have been so visible. And he says, "I do not understand my problem because I had none and I almost died in Vietnam. Yet I have a problem today, and I am trying to deal with this." I do not know how Vietnam vets look at it. Whether you think that Vietnam vets have problems with today's people who protest the Iraq War? Or they do not make that kind of thinking, "This is just one person's thoughts." JM: Well, there is a connection really between the singer protestors of our era and the ones today. And that is they should just sing and entertain us and just shut up. SM: Okay. JM: I do not want to hear Naomi Main's opinions about Bush or Ed Asner myself. SM: Right. JM: Entertain me. That is why I am looking at you. I want you to entertain me. SM: Right. JM: So I am bothered by the fact that they take the stage the way they do and the platform and then use that to preach to me about things like that. Just sing, just act, just do what you do. Do what puts you here. SM: Right. JM: Do not use it as a format to come after this. Yes, there is a lot of difference now of how people feel about entertainers who protest as compared to what it was in the (19)60s. In the (19)60s, it was almost the thing to do. Everybody was against the war, so you have to be against the war. SM: Right. JM: And then if you say, "Well, I am for the war," people would think there was something wrong with you. SM: I got a couple terms here. I just want your thoughts to these terms. SDS. JM: Students for Democratic Society. What is the young guys pretending they are at war with their government? [Inaudible]. SM: Counterculture. JM: Good phrase. My problem with that phrase goes back to when the counterculture became the culture. And if you did anything else, there was something wrong with you. And back in those days, if you wore Chinos and got a short haircut, you were counterculture and they would not accept you. SM: Right. Yeah. Pentagon Papers, I have already gone through that, but just maybe mention to the (19)60s and (19)70s, people had thoughts about the Pentagon Papers. JM: All I know about that is the movie I saw. And James Spader was the actor in it, I do not know. That is all I know. SM: Chicago Eight or Seven depending on- JM: Yeah. They were found guilty of leading the riots in Chicago, as I understand it. What I remember most about them, other than the fact they were loud and a little bit obnoxious, was they used the trial as a format, as a springboard for their idealism. They did not care if they were going to become guilty or innocent, they just wanted the rest of the world to hear them one more time. And it was tiresome. I filed it very little because I got tired of hearing about it. SM: Kent State. JM: Oh, true tragedy. In all honesty, I think if they would have sent a regular troops there, it would not have happened. But they did not. I guess I am saying something against the Guard and Reserves, but I think regular troops would have been a little bit more disciplined and would not have happened, more likely, would not have happened. A true tragedy. Probably a pivotal moment in the way our society viewed the world. SM: What is that? JM: Love to have been there. Sat on a foot locker waiting to be mobilized to go there to keep the crowd controlled. SM: Oh really? JM: I was in Kansas. SM: Oh my God, you really wanted to be there. JM: We were ready. They told us that we had to, all these classes were canceled, we had to be there. SM: Mm-hmm. JM: We had to be able to move within a four, five hour notice. We would be in the barrack. We were sitting on foot lockers listening as much as we could about what was going on at Woodstock. And that is Woodstock for me. I would love to have been there, but I was in Kansas. I think it probably was that [inaudible] of a boil for the summer of love. Got to build off to it. SM: The leaders of Vietnam, during that timeframe- JM: Excuse me a second. That was (19)68, was not it? SM: That was (19)69. JM: (19)69, yeah. SM: And Reverend Pastor [inaudible] was there. JM: Okay. SM: I think 17. But it certainly does not let us [inaudible] JM: They used the term, "Summer of Love" and that was (19)67. SM: Right. JM: So [inaudible] SM: That was in San Francisco. President Q and General Call Key, those are the two people that ever remembers who were the leaders during the (19)60s and right after the war. And then they had a couple toward the end. But your thoughts on the leadership of Vietnam? JM: In most part, I will say that those who served in the army of South Vietnamese were mostly brave people. They lived a life where the war was never going to end for them, really. We went home after a year, they stayed. So, you know, hear the stories about the South Vietnamese soldier not being a good warrior and everything. SM: Mm-hmm. JM: But I think that was an unfair assessment. The leaders, I think, fall in that category where you kind of hoped they were not corrupt, because they were putting people's lives in jeopardy for the wrong reasons. Maybe they were or maybe they were not. I think they probably had good solid generals to lead them. I think they probably got told what to do by the American generals there. Mostly it was our show. SM: Your thoughts on the generals? Because when you think of the Vietnam War, I think of three, I think of General Maxwell Taylor, I think of General William Westmoreland, and I think of Creighton Abrams. Those are the names that come to the forefront over this war. Your thoughts on them as leaders in the military? A war that, I hate to keep saying the term, the only war we have ever lost, but I think I am wondering if history's really going to say in the long run that we truly lost it. That is why I believe history books, who people are unbiased will tell the truth. JM: They will say we lost the war and won the peace. But now to answer your question, I think earlier we talked about the generals, and I think I had mentioned that I thought they were just unable to not have the civilians call the shots. They probably were as good a general leading man as generals generally are, but they just did not have the political clout or the savvy to pull it off. They probably could have used a patent, that might be the best way for me to put it. Just a son of bitch who did not care. He knew he was right and he was going to do it. He would have gone to the Delta and marched all the way up through Hanaway, and they did not let us do that. SM: Just a couple few more names and then we are done. John Lennon; I would bring him out because he stands to the forefront of all The Beatles. He was killed in 1980, but he was this "give peace a chance," he was as anti-war as you can get. The United States, he is as high up on the enemy's list as you could find. They wanted him out of the country. John Lennon. JM: And you succeeded getting him out of the country too. SM: Yeah. JM: And he had to go on radio wearing a fatigue shirt with the, I think it is the second Army patch on it, I remember that clearly. I will go back to what I said earlier. Sing, entertain me, do not talk. I tuned him out. If he had an opinion about the war, it did not matter to me. It sort of just bounced off the wall. SM: But you listened to his music stuff. JM: Oh sure. SM: Yeah. JM: Well the music is a great equalizer. SM: How about Ramsey Clark? Of all these former attorney generals, he is the most anti-war person you could get. He was anti-war during the (19)60s, the (19)70s, he still is today. JM: Well then, I congratulate him for holding onto his beliefs. I know very little about the man. SM: It has been pretty consistent. And I am going to end this with actually two questions. One of them is a question centering around Country Joe McDonald, who was here back in (19)98. JM: I remember. SM: And he made a statement in the room when Jan Scruggs was at dinner, I think you were there, John, I think there is a group here at this dinner, and I am not sure if he caught everybody's attention. He made a comment that, and I want your thoughts on this comment. JM: Okay. SM: His comment was the reason why Vietnam vets have such a problem upon their return, particularly he was emphasizing the combat vets, is that that there were no POWs left. There were no North Vietnamese POWs. And he was making a reference that, "You figure out what happened to him." And that is part of the reason why there is guilt on the part of some vets toward what happened over there. They cannot heal mainly because what may have happened to the people they captured who were the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese troops, who they in turn handed over to the South East were in turn just plain killed. It was a pretty strong statement. And it was just a reference he made and it was a joking kind of a reference, but it was dead serious. I may be interpreting him wrong, but I think that is what he was referring to toward the combat, that is not all Vietnam vets. Because you have the story of the POWs of American troops and of course we lost many and they were treated poorly, so we were not talking about that, but we were talking about why were not their POWs, those individuals who a lot of them were captured and that is what he was referring to. And that is why he thinks there is so much of a problem with the combat vet in their healing, reference to the guilt of handing them over to the South Vietnamese troops, who they knew what they were going to do them. JM: Well, I will say I do not know what they did with POWs. I know I was there when they had captured them. SM: Mm-hmm. JM: I mean, I heard the stories, but I do not know if there was an internment camp for them. Well, let me finish my thought on that. I know that there was a strongly held belief that if you brought in a Viet Cong warrior and fed him and gave a place to live and worked with him, taught him that Americans are not so bad, he would probably convince you that you had won him over and then as soon as your back was turned, he would be going back out in the bushes with his buddies. That was the strongly held belief. SM: Mm-hmm. JM: So I guess what I am saying is there was everybody believed there was no way you would ever get this POW from either Viet Cong or the Northern forces ever to stop wanting to go back and fight against you. That to me, that is the first thing that comes to my mind. I think if you took that issue away completely, the same guys you are talking about, the combat vets who have problems dealing with the healing process, but still have problems dealing with the healing process. It may be a part of that problem that they face, but without it, they would still have the same problems. SM: Mm-hmm. JM: And I heard about the guys that did things like that, but I never did it, nor did I know anybody who did, nor did- SM: And I may be in misinterpreting Country Joe, but he just made a straight comment, "What happened to him?" That is what his reference is to, then you be the judge. JM: Yeah, there was 300,000 of them missing, right? SM: Right. JM: And there is plenty of Viet Cong and North Vietnamese POW MIAs. SM: Right. JM: There is 300, 000 of them. SM: Yep. JM: We are complaining because we have 1,800 missing and we want ours back. SM: Was there one particular tragic event in your young life, and I am not referring to your service in Vietnam, is there any one American event that had the greatest impact on you? JM: When you say young life, you mean when I was younger? SM: When you were younger. Or it could be even today, but it is basically during that period, during the (19)60s and (19)70s. The thing that stood out, that may have had the greatest impact on you. It could have been a tragic event or it could be a very positive event. JM: I will give you what came to my mind first, the assassination of John Kennedy. That feeling that I was no longer safe. If they can get to the president, they can get to me. And I did not know who they were, but they scared me more. There is a bunch of crazies out there running around and I do not have any way of protecting myself from them. You cannot be protected from them. Kennedy was proved positive of that. So if there is any one thing, yes. And I will give you another example; I remember growing up as a kid, not being able to look at horizon without thinking of a mushroom cloud. And I, to this day, drift into that. I will be somewhere just looking out the horizon and I will mentally envision a mushroom cloud. So maybe it was the understanding of what nuclear weapons were, how devastating they could be, and how unsafe I was. Because here I am looking at this nice bucolic scene and who knows, some bomb may go off. SM: The last question, I guarantee. JM: I hope not. SM: I will certainly ask you for final thoughts if I did not hit something that you may have thought I was going to ask. This gets into the whole concept of trust. We are dealing with it here on the college campus. We are going to be bringing a speaker in next semester on the leadership of trust. Because I am wondering your thoughts on how that period in American history, because of the failure of our leaders, the very obvious failure of, and the lies that were told to the Americans by President Johnson and probably President Nixon, the enemy's list. But you can even go back to the Eisenhower when he lied about the U-2. And then you can go into President Kennedy. Well, did he have anything to do with the DM murders or killings? Then you go to Johnson, then you go to obviously Nixon, then you getting into the Reagan era about The Iran-Contra. But what I am getting at here is do you feel that in your youth when you were young, you as a teenager and in your twenties, that the trust issue, the lack of trust, the impact that young people had, whether they were veterans or non-veterans, had toward leaders. And I refer to not only leaders in the White House, but leaders of our churches, leaders of our corporations, leaders in university presidents, leaders in any capacity. The youth did not trust them because they have been lied to. And I want to know if your thoughts on whether this trust issue is something that I am over exaggerating or that really is part of the boomer generation, generation that is not trusting, and they have passed that on to their kids, who in turn do not trust who now will in turn pass it on to their kids, because they are seeing some things even today. Who can you trust in this world? I see that personally, and I mean it is not my interview, but I see that as a major issue in the boomer generation. But I may be totally wrong. Just your thoughts. JM: Okay. Well first, I think that a certain amount of distrust is a healthy thing. It is what stops children from talking to strangers and things like that. I am going to deal with the distrust you are talking about though. When I was growing up, Eisenhower was the president. We had complete faith in this guy. Well, here was a five-star general hero of World War II, builder of our highways. SM: Mm-hmm. JM: Almost a Scratch Golfer, right? This guy you could trust. SM: Mm-hmm. JM: And of course that guy, he had his vice president. He was a little seedy looking. But I grew up in an era where you could trust your leaders or at least you felt like you could. Obviously, I was wrong because we go back in that period of time, you can find lots of examples. SM: Mm-hmm. JM: I think what happened was there was this explosion of distrust during the (19)60s that happened. "Do not trust anyone over 30," common thought. Now those people, the guy who said that, is something like 65 now. I think we used that distrust as one of our shields, one of our weapons, when we went to try to make changes when we went to exert our own personalities, we were distrustful. And yes, we have passed that along to our children because we have gotten so good at it that it does not seem to be a yoke or a cloth we want to shed. We want to remain distrustful to some extent. And yes, there is a sadness in that. Now, I would like a world where we can feel a little bit more trust towards people. And yeah, it is probably just as strong today as it was back then. And in that sense, it is sad because I think, along with a lot of things that went right with how the boomers changed things, this might be one of those things that did not go quite right, it went wrong. SM: Mm-hmm. JM: By this time we would, I will use me as an example, I would want people my children's age to trust me. And if I ran for Mayor of Downingtown, I would want those young people to trust that I have their best interests at heart. I do not know if they believe that. And if you cross racial lines, I would know they do not believe that. SM: I am finished. Is there any other final comments or thoughts you would like to state on anything linked to the interview or a question that you thought I may ask that I did not? Any final thoughts? JM: Question that maybe you should have asked that you did not? Yeah, okay. We hit on it briefly, but I mentioned earlier that when you were 20, you have a tendency to gravitate towards people your own age. And when I came back and we would go to a party or something and the subject would come up, "now I am in the army, I just got back in Vietnam," or "I am going to Vietnam," or something like that. Actually, after I got back, I should be more clear. After I got back, I sensed the people my age who did not have my experience turned cold. Were maybe distrustful, but all of a sudden somebody, I should have something in common with I no longer do. And to add to the worst thing, I did not seek out those people that I had something in common with for 25 years. I did not do anything within the veteran community. I did not join the VFW, I did not do any of the things I am doing now. SM: [inaudible] hold that thought, I am going to change- JM: I was talking about being young and losing the trust of people of your own age group. And then I segued into not seeking out those people that I would have something in common with, other veterans for 25 years. And I think that was pivotal to me in my life, that I at one point 25 years later decided, "There is something in here inside of me that needs to get out." And I think I found an avenue for that, and that was joining veterans organizations and becoming active with veterans. And I think if I could add any one thing, it would be to tell any veteran out there who is not home yet to try and come home. Go to your VVA meeting, join your VFW, work through it. Because it made the most difference to me in my life to have done that. SM: And in the veterans community today, is it a strong unit? In other words, World War II and Korean vets, Gulf War Vets and Vietnam vets, there is no animosity toward them, there is a feeling of [inaudible]- JM: I am glad you asked that question. I think the Vietnam veterans actually changed that. When we came back, they did not accept us. World War II, Korean guys did not accept us. We were not veterans. I heard that. It was said to me. And we, the Vietnam Veterans of America, we decided that is not right. Never again should any generation of veterans turn its back on another, which is our credo. And we went out there and we said, "Okay, fine. World War II and Korea, we forgive you. What you said is forgotten. Now, let us be veterans together." And with the passage of time, the aging of the World War II, Korea guy, turning over the mantle of responsibility and power to the Vietnam veterans at the organizations, they have come now to understand we were not the people they thought we were. There was a cohesiveness within the veterans’ organizations that did not exist 25, 30 years ago. And we were not the force that was creating the problem either. It was the World War II, Korea guy who did not accept us. SM: Again, to clarify, why did not they accept you? JM: [inaudible]- SM: And was it combat vets or was it non-combat vets? JM: You would like me to give you their answers? SM: Yeah, their answers. Yeah, from their perspective. JM: That is the only thing I have, because their answers would be, "I spent four years in the Army. I did not know when I was going to get out of Germany. You guys went over there for what, 12 months? And maybe you did not even see any combat? You went on R&R; I did not get any of that. I was fighting for the world's freedom. What were you doing?" These are things that people said to me. Basically, what I tried to do was become wallpaper. I did not want to talk about it. People talked to me about it. Short story, buddy of mine was at the VFW, this was in the (19)70s, Vietnam veteran. He was the kind of guy that would go in there and say, "I do not give a damn if you accept me as a veteran. I am joining. Here is my DD 214, now sign me up." They signed him up. He became active. He came like vice president, vice commander, whatever they call that. And he would drag guys like me there to join. I mean, that is a good veteran. He is a good member of any organization. And one night he dragged me to the VFW in Downingtown. And I am sitting at the bar and my friend is going around the bar talking to his buddies. And he has told the bartender, whose name was Bernie, I will never forget, "Bernie, get this guy an application. He is with me," like that. No application; drinks, no application. Finally, he goes, "Hey Bernie, give this guy an application. He wants to join." Now, he did not ask me if I wanted to join. He just wanted to get the application in my hand. Guy sitting over to my left said, "I think we have enough Vietnam veterans in this club." Not under his breath. And then there was that missing shock that did not come. Nobody said anything to him, like, "Shut your face," or, "You are out of line." None of that happened. My friend, I am expecting him to go ballistic, but nobody else did. So I pushed my drink back towards the bar and I said, "I am out of here." And I never walked back into that VFW again until the night I joined the VVF, which had to be, I do not know, 15 years later. And that happened. And people will say, "Well, cannot you forgive?" Yeah, we did. We forgave these guys. That is why the veteran’s organizations today are so good. And that is why these guys coming up from first Persian Gulf War to this one now, it is going to be much better. We paved the way for these things to work for them. There is my answer to your question. SM: And of course, that experience you had with the World War II vets, and then you had to deal with all these Americans who treated the vets poorly upon their return and trying to figure out why... in your estimation, as to why vets were treated poorly upon their return, do you think it went back to how the media portrayed the vets in terms on the news, the bad things that happened in Vietnam, whether it be the My Lai massacre, the drug scene, as we got into the late (19)60s? And actually, there was a lot of people did not want to fight in the late (19)60s that were actually over there. When you look at the American population as the whole, and their very poor treatment of Vietnam vets, I know each one has their own individual story, and probably each person has their reason for not treating vets properly, but in general terms, why do you think Americans treated vets so poorly upon their return? JM: They were confusing the war with the warrior. They did not like the war, so ergo, we were the problem. And a couple young people would confront me in my lifetime, I should say, and ask me, "Why did not I not go? Why did not I just stand up and say, 'I am not going'"? Well, I was in the Army. They would court-martial you, they would throw you in jail for that. "Well, if I would have been in the service, that is what I would have done." I said, "But you are not in the service. You have this right to say this. I do not have that choice. When I signed up for the army, I gave away, in my mind, the rights to do that." And I pretty much always would never do anything that I could not live with. I could not live with that, saying, "Well, I am not going to fight. I am not going to go to Vietnam. Even though you are trying to send me over there, forget about it. I will not go." I could not live with that decision. I would not be happy today if I would have made that decision. SM: Would you agree that one of the commonalities of all veterans, no matter what war they faced, and that would be World War II vets, Korea, Vietnam, and maybe even the Gulf War and the young people coming back today from Iraq, is that it is such a private thing that oftentimes vets in general just keep quiet and do not tell themselves... Because it is all too common now in the stories of World War II vets about parents who never came back and told their families about anything. They just went on with their lives. Korean War vets were that way as well. We know about the Vietnam vets. Is this just something that is common to the warrior? JM: Yeah. I once wrote that silence is the language of the veteran. We know silence and we are more comfortable with it. I did not talk about it. I was with the Rotary Club of Downingtown for nine years. And after I made my transformation into becoming a veteran, I spoke in front of them and I said to them, "My name is John Morris. I am a Vietnam veteran." That group never heard that from me before. Yeah, that silence is our language. We were comfortable with it. We were miserable in it, but it is more comfortable sometimes than talking. I know if I start talking to a veteran and I can just see he is uncomfortable talking, we drift right into silence. And it is that acceptance, that thing, "I am not going to make you talk, sir." Fine. I understand. It is that acceptance that works. SM: In conclusion here, could you just state your name again and your date of birth and what you are currently doing and where you live? JM: My name is John Morris. I was born 11/29/45. I work selling concrete products for Binkley and Ober in Lancaster, and I live in Downingtown. SM: And also, and proudly state your position with VVA, because I know you are an ... John, you are. You are an outstanding citizen of Chester County, and just some of the things that you have done once you joined the veteran organizations and what you have done for vets over these past few years. JM: Currently, I am on the board of directors, have been for about five years. I am just finished my eighth year of writing a monthly newsletter we call the Voice of 436. I am fortunate enough to have the local newspaper, daily local news, republish my articles that I write in that newsletter. I have been in every chair there is for the Vietnam Veterans of America. I have been the vice president, I have been the president. One of my proudest moments as president was working with Steve McKiernan to bring The Wall That Heals here to West Chester University. I think of that as my crowning moment, as my year of ... as a veteran. The other things we do, I work with other newsletter editors throughout the country. We swap our magazines and we trade ideas, things like that. Other than that, I think I have a few other things, but that is pretty much got it covered. SM: Well, John, I just want to say, as I always do when I see you and all Vietnam vets, welcome home. JM: Thank you, Steve. SM: And thank you very much for the opportunity to interview you. JM: My pleasure. SM: ...with that in mind, when you think of the 1960s, and actually when you think of your youth, what is the first thing that comes to your mind for that entire period? JM: My military service, of course, without a doubt. And that was (19)65, (19)67. SM: Explain a little more detail why that was the defining moment in your youth. JM: It was when I left home. I graduated high school, went on to college, and then got a job going to night school, and bam, suddenly I was out of town, and not on a vacation to Atlantic City. I got to see a piece of the country that had the culture, that had no idea existed. SM: What culture was that? JM: It would be a culture where you saw people who had never worn shoes before they were drafted into the military, they came from the boondocks; a culture where the Civil War was not ancient history, it was current history, things like that. SM: And the community that you were stationed in that you saw this? JM: Everywhere from, let us say, Fort Gordon, Georgia... we are talking about the military community, to Fort Bliss, El Paso, Texas. For example, when I got to El Paso, there were signs above the restroom doors in the train station that said, "Whites" and "Colored." And it was like you might have seen that in the (19)60s on a newspaper during the marches, but it was like that is on TV, but damn, this really exists. SM: How were you treated as members of the military during the time you were stationed there? JM: The people treated us extremely well. El Paso, Texas is a military town. Fort Bliss, Fort Bliss at that time was probably the largest military installation in the United States. Something like 65,000 troops were there. It is huge, absolutely huge. And it was also a ... not just Fort Bliss, but it was also an Air Force base, a strategic air command base built up against it, and White Sands Missile Range, which is also up against it. So you could drive for 100 miles and not leave to the military installation. SM: How many years you was stationed there? JM: Almost a full two years. SM: And those two years, again, were... JM: Two years were 1965, September (19)65, to September (19)67. SM: When you think of that particular period and you think of the boomer generation, one of the things that comes to mind often amongst people in that age group is that they felt they were the most unique generation in American history, that they were the generation that was going to change the world for the better, a generation that was going to end, racism, sexism, poverty, end all wars, bring peace to the world, bring general harmony. And this is the commentary not of boomers as they age, but boomers when they were young. Your thoughts on that kind of a mentality from the (19)60s and (19)70s? JM: At least my viewpoint was there was nothing that this country could not do. Putting a man on the moon, not a problem. We had the engineering, we had the talent, we had the vision, we could do it all. I found myself working for GE Missile and Space in Philadelphia, doing nothing significant other than playing with these things, which were eventually to become warheads. And that was just the way it was. Every now and then you would have somebody try to picket a building that we were working in because we were making nuclear nose guns. That is fine with me. I am glad we are making them, and I am glad we are making them better than the other guys, I hope. And that is the way I looked at that. But a different kind of a mindset I think than [inaudible 00:16:39] but again, it was a positive attitude that we could do things. Again, it was also the realization that there is this tide of, "Let us get rid of this racial persecution. It is terrible." And for the most part, it was like I never really cognizant of it. It was not something in our house that was done except the N word, as they say today, was periodically used. And when I went into the military, again in (19)65, I left a lily-white environment, for the most part, into a racially more integrated military than you would find in my neighborhood, I think. SM: Your neighborhood is? JM: My neighborhood is northeast Philadelphia. I do not remember the year, but I remember it was either in (19)57 or it would have been like 1960 when Northeast High first opened up, or one of the first early years of it. And one of the Black teachers had her son transfer in, and he was the first Black student. And again, Northeast High was huge. We had about 3,800 students in that high school, and one kid was Black. And it was nothing like, "Oh, that is unusual." And that was it. But it was one of those things that you remember. SM: One of the things in recent years from pundits on television or around the radio, whether they be George Will or when Newt Gingrich took over in the Republican Revolution, (19)94, you heard the commentary, that there is an overall criticism of the boomer generation as the reason why we have so many problems in this world today and why our culture has, some would say, gone backward. And this is not me, this is others. The criticisms are leveled at the breakup of the family, the use of drugs, disrespect for authority, and all these other things. Your thoughts on the pundits of the world who will generalize the boomer generation as being more negative than positive with respect to our culture today? JM: I would have to say that it was not so much them as the media and the media revolution. Everybody by the (19)60s had one TV in the house. I grew up with a TV in the house from 1949. I remember us having a TV when we lived in South Philly, and I remember neighbors coming in to watch TV in our house. It was a big deal. Today, our kids run around with cell phones. Our children run around with cell phones. But the communications revolution has been, I think, a major player in the perception of what the boomer culture was for, was against, and was it 80 percent for or 80 percent against? I think the spin on that came from the media, which I will go to my grave believing is a liberal, left side of the continuum, the political continuum. And they are biased. And I do not stamp all of them as being unethical, but you have got to be balanced in reporting. And I do not think they were balanced, and I think it holds true to today. SM: So you are talking about the (19)60s and 2003? JM: Correct. A huge span of time. And the biggest difference is now that if you want a different slant on what you are seeing, you can go to a different cable channel. You can press a button and you can get the BBC and you will see, "Whoa, wait a second, let me rethink this. I am hearing something different than what I am being spoon-fed every day from Channel 6," I will pick on Channel 6, "every day." It is different if you go to CNN. It is different if you go to nbc.com. It is different if you go to BBC. [inaudible] well, that is a different opinion. But the fact that whoever controlled the media back then really controlled what the people were being fed and educated with. And that is my two cents on the media. SM: So when you are talking about George Will and you are talking about New Gingrich, were they off-key? They were conservatives, packing the liberals. JM: It is like point, counterpoint. On one side, you can have George will, and on the other side you can have George Stephanopoulos. SM: [inaudible] I do not believe somebody is phoning me. Hang on one second. When you look at the boomer generation, could you give me some of the qualities... And by boomers, I mean the young people from the (19)60s and early (19)70s or middle (19)70s. When you look at that generation, what are some of the positive qualities that you saw in these young people, and some of the negative qualities? JM: Again, just I guess the positive ones is that we seemed focused. It was go to college. It was get a career. It was really just try to be that next rung of the socioeconomic ladder than your parents, because the parents would tell us, "I do not want you to work like a dog like me. I want you to get an education. I want you to do good things and get out there." It was a generation of Boy Scouts. It was not so much community service as it was you do the right things. And if you did something wrong, by the way, out on the street doing some mischief, you did not have to worry about your parents coming after you. The neighbors saw you. They would grab you by the scruff of the neck, drag you to your house, then you were really in trouble. But nobody got away with a whole lot. It was the eyes and ears of a community that kept a bunch of the kids straight. Now, there was always a couple of kids who were going to get into trouble, but I think that is what makes us great. Some people get misdirected, some people get to channel it in a different direction and do good things. But it was pretty pleasant. There were the screw-ups that came with the times, and how we viewed it. This is the week of the Kennedy assassination, about 40 years now. That is hard to believe. I mean, sitting here, that is hard to believe, that I am 58. That was 40 years ago. But where were you and what was your action? In hindsight, my actions were deplorable. When I say deplorable, in my family, the Kennedy name was not a very good thing. My father would take his name in vain frequently, which I think he tied back to Kennedy's dad, Joe Kennedy, in the liquor business. My father had a saloon. Actually, both sides of my family were in the booze business before Prohibition, during Prohibition, and until the early (19)70s. So when Kennedy died, I know exactly where it was. I was jubilant almost. And again, I apologize to whoever I offend, but it was like... And I knew who got him, in my mind. It was the military who got him because he did not succeed in turning the missiles away from Cuba. He did it by trading off our missiles in Turkey, which we had six months later. So it was like, what a cowardly thing to do. Again, this is hindsight. What I know now, what I knew then, two different things. And I remember my wife, who lived five doors away, as it turns out, she [inaudible] terrible things on me and said, "Oh, how about Kennedy getting" ... I said, "No loss." And again, this is a very politically aware, historically-oriented person at that time, at the ripe old age of 17, 18, whatever, and saying, "You know what? Hey, I am glad he is gone." Hindsight, I am an idiot. What a terrible thing to say. You would not do that. Even if you truly believe that, you are insensitive, totally insensitive to everyone else who was mourning. And I was in front of Bucky's Sticky Buns, Margaret and Orthodox, in Philadelphia bus station when I got to work. So do you remember where you were? Yes. I can almost smell the sticky buns cooking. SM: Brings it all back from- JM: It does. It really does. It is funny, different things triggered it. Again, this is Kennedy on every channel. But in our house, the Kennedy name was not something that you touted. And after he was assassinated, again, the marksman in me is... I grew up shooting in the Scouts. And I am saying, "The guy is a good shot, but nobody is that good." So to this day, I will still watch who shot Kennedy. And my younger brother who is only 13 months younger than me, if we want to really bug each other, say, "Which time do you want to take?" And we will go at the two-player conspiracy theory, go back and forth. And I am a shooter to this day, and I am extremely good. I do not care what anybody says, there were two shooters, one from the front, one from the back. And I am willing to bet it was the military, some... I will say a general, for lack of a better word, but some general who basically had the same upbringing or background that I was given, that "Kennedy is a bad guy, he sold the country out, the Cuban missile crisis was mistake, the Bay of Pigs invasion [inaudible] Kennedy's doorstep also. We are not going to let this guy do this anymore and make us look like fools." I do not know, but people have been shot for a whole lot less than that. SM: If you were to, again, look at your generation, if you were to list some things, adjectives to describe their positive and negative qualities, what would they be? JM: Focused, forward-looking or forward-thinking, very optimistic, until about the Vietnam War, mid-(19)60s. And then it all came home. I am trying to think of another word... almost idyllic. It went from idyllic to chaotic to unfocused. And I think it almost bred the next generation that came along and said, "I am the me generation. I am not worried about the world. I am worried about me, and I want my share. And I do not care whether you have your share or not." I think it was the (19)80s when they came around and said, "The company is worth more if you sell it off in parts. It may be worth $10 million as an entity by itself, it is worth $20 million to chop it up and sell it. To hell with the people whose lives are affected. Do not care. It is the bottom line. I am a Wharton MBA, and it is strictly business. No offense." My father's words to me was, again, "Go to work for a big company. They will take care of you. You take care of them. And 25 years, you will retire with a gold watch." I saw that die, but that was my upbringing. The happiest day in his life almost is probably when I went to work for General Electric Missile and Space and came back with a $ 10 check, which I guess is worth probably about $100 today, that said... He turned in a suggestion, "We are not going to use it, but hey, keep those ideas coming along. Here is a $10 check." And he was just thrilled to pieces with that. He said, "See, I told you. You take care of them, they will take care of you." And then Secretary of Defense McNamara would open his mouth, kill an Air Force contract, and they would let 2,000 employees go in a heartbeat. Strange times. I think we were a generous generation, and I think we were very much focused on that. Of course, culturally, I think the pill came around in (19)63. Did not do me a whole lot of good. SM: At home or away? JM: Either, either. And I will not go into that detail, thank you. SM: I want to get right into the Vietnam War, especially on college campuses. How important do you feel, in your own personal feelings, the anti-war movement was in ending the war in Vietnam? And anti-war is defined as primarily a lot of college students and youth from that period, as well as priests and political leaders. JM: Boy, like I said, that is a chunk right there. How important were they in bringing the war to an end? SM: Mm-hmm. JM: I think they were very important. And I would have to flip a coin as to whether I hold them accountable for prolonging the war or shortening it. Along those lines, I am thinking, again, it just ties in with today with Iraq. If I was an Iraqi general, I would look back on history and I would say, "You know something? When the American people lost faith that they could win the war, when it was day after day of protracted combat with no light at the end of the tunnel, the Americans gave up." When Nixon decided to pull away from the peace tables and bomb Hanoi- JM: ...From the peace tables and bomb Hanoi. I said, bomb them back to the Stone Age. When 9/11 hit here, my first thought was we were at war, and I am glad my finger is not on the big red nuclear button. Because I would have pressed that sucker just to get even with somebody. Not the right thing to do. Again, this is me, not the 18-year-old, but this is me, the 58-year-old. I look at what happens again with the news media, the coverage of the war, body bags every night. And the station saying, "Hey, a couple of troops were dragged out of their shot-up Humvee and beaten with stones." And then the military comes out with a version that says, "That did not happen." "The wounds they suffered were..." And again, that is today, the story will change again tomorrow. "Was caused by the impact of the blast," or whatever. I think if I was Ho Chi Minh, and I think you can go back and check his history notes, you will find he was ready for a 100-year war. They have been fighting for a hundred years. If it was not the Chinese, it was the French. If it was not the French, he will take on whoever comes along. Iraq is probably the same thing. They got the Sunni, the Shia, the Basque. It is the same thing. They have been fighting each other for years. You do not walk into the middle of the Civil War. It is just a nasty turf. Ho Chi Minh, I am sure him and his followers sat there and said "You know something? We can take a bombing, but we can watch them rioting in the streets. We can watch them protesting on the campuses and it is just a matter of time. They ain't going to go. And we just have to wait them out." And again, with the electronic revolution, I said, our troops are watching this thing. It is not us watching them in Vietnam on 24-hour old footage. It is they are watching us live on a satellite down link to a phone in their hands. They are watching us protest. What kind of support is that? When you make a decision to send troops into battle, you support them a hundred percent. You do not give aid and comfort to the enemy. To see a picture of Jane Fonda over there. And I am just like, I know what she was feeling, but what was she thinking, when she sat on an anti-aircraft gun? She is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And God bless America, she can do that. But if you are at war, realize that, if that had been World War II, the previous generation, the greatest generation. She would have been tagged with the name of Hanoi Jane as opposed to Axis Sally, or, what was the other one? Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose, and she would have done jail time. If they would have caught her back in the country. That was the generation that brought me into the world. And then all of a sudden what went differently that people would allow the First Amendment to be stretched that far, that we would not support the troops. Different story. SM: When you look at the movements of the time when you were young, because there were a lot of movements in the (19)60s and the (19)70s. Obviously the Civil Rights movement was in the (19)50s, when you were even a lot younger. And of course the anti-war movement and the women's movement, the gay and lesbian movement, Chicano movement, Native American movement, environmental movement, a lot of movements during that era. Is there one movement that you think truly does define the boomer generation and truly defines America? When you think of the youth of the (19)60s, and when I say youth of the (19)60s, I mean people who were born and obviously raised in the late (19)40s and (19)50s through their mid (19)60s and then of course going to college in the (19)60s and (19)70s. So what movement would you say, is there one that stands out? JM: There was several that stand out. Number one, all the Vietnam vets. Every last one of them. And I think there were like, I do not know the numbers, probably 3 million of them. And again, guys like myself who I got orders for Vietnam and never went, had to go, got very lucky. But I did my battle on Temple University's campus. Again, I got out in (19)67, went to Temple University, back to school, (19)68, (19)69 and (19)70. The height of the anti-war movement. The cubicles next to our, we had a group called Veterans at Temple, just veterans who gathered together because we did not fit in. We were not your normal students. Besides being older, we had just seen a whole lot of other stuff. We had been outside the campus. We had left home, and come back. But next to us we had Students for a Democratic Society, we had Veterans Against the War, Veterans at Temple. We had some Black student league, I think was the name of the first Black organization on campus. There was a Black veterans' organization we also had who banded together in our own group, strictly Black, strictly veteran, strictly to become teachers and go back and teach their own, and pull them out of the ghetto. So a unique environment. SM: So you are really Civil Rights, or anti-war was there or... JM: Civil Rights was huge. Absolutely huge in the (19)60s and the war movement were probably the two biggest movements. I do not think the women's movement was that big. And again, I hope nobody horse whips me for blasphemy, but I am going back into history. I remember saying in high school, I had no problem with a woman getting a scholarship to college if she takes it and does more with it than just marry a guy. If she uses that education. Because for the most part, and to this day I know it, women are far smarter than guys. I do not know, we are good for hunting and getting dirty, but I think ounce for ounce, women have a certain intellectual evolutionary advantage on thinking on the guys. And I do not know what, it is all testosterone or lack thereof or what. But I remember feeling that. SM: Do you remember at the time, did you sense that when you were at Temple University that there was a togetherness amongst the African American students who were fighting for civil rights and certainly there were many white students who were in Freedom Summer. And was there ever a split where African American students went to strictly work on civil rights and white students went to work on the anti-war movement? Did you see that at Temple when you were there, particularly in the late (19)60s? JM: I would say so. I recall my disassociation from the Black movement. I forget who the speaker was, but Cecil Moore, who now has a street named after him in Philadelphia and his entourage of thugs/bodyguards, came to some kind of a demonstration on campus. And literally one of those guys shoved me out of the way, from the back. Like cold cocking me. Well, I turned around and I was going to take a shot at the guy, but again, I learned something in the army, you do not take on an army if you are a patrol of one. He had the biggest guys surrounding him. And the Black movement was getting very militaristic. You had the Black Panthers for a number of years already. I felt unsafe on Temple's campus. Matter fact, my only word to my daughter to this day, I will swear to it. And so will she. She had her choice in any college she could go to take that thing from Bill Cosby. And I said, "You can go to any college you want." Bill Cosby chose Temple. I had no choice. I took Temple, the only one I could afford under the GI Bill. There was no way in hell I would let her go to Temple University's campus. To this day, I think it is unsafe. When I was there, it was unsafe. A white student was gunned down two hours before I was across the same spot by a bunch of kids who just wanted to kill a whitey. Memories of the (19)60s? Yeah, those are some of the memories I had. There was that schism. I do not think any the Black students were doing anything other than saying we are not going to go to Vietnam, because I think the rumor was, percentage wise, they were directly more Blacks than Whites. To this day, I do not believe that I is true. And I think the statistics of whoever you check will go one way or the other. But it is not like 90 percent, it is more like you want to be 40 percent or you want to be 60 percent? SM: I am going to get into another area here, commentary. When you look at the Vietnam Memorial itself, the Vietnam Memorial is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to America. I am pretty biased on that. This is your interview though. JM: Yeah. SM: How do you feel the Vietnam Memorial has done with respect to the Vietnam veteran and their families, number one, but secondly, what the wall has done for America as a nation? Have we healed? JM: I think we are still healing. I think it has been tremendous. I remember personally being against the design when I first saw it. I do not think you can appreciate it until you go there. And that is like watching TV, that is one thing. You actually go there, whoa, that is a different thing. It is priceless. And the impact I think it has will probably go one for at least another a hundred years. It will be like, who do you go to see? Do you go to see the Lincoln Memorial? No. You go to see the Vietnam Memorial. It was a turning point in our country's history, when people suddenly again stood up, took notice, and either pro or con, voiced their opposition or voiced their favor, and clashed over it. And I think the last time that happened was the Civil War. Indeed, it pitted family against family. Well, Vietnam did the same thing. You had in the same family. Brother, pro-war, sister, peacenik. In the same family. And a lot of them took years to mend from that animosity. And that wall, I think it just has shown its healing effect. SM: One of the questions I have asked everyone in the interview process is, I have actually gone out and dwelled on the issue of healing. Because how important is it, with respect to the future of our nation. And what do veterans owe society to give back? What do people who were against the war owe society to give back? Overall with respect to healing, do you still feel, and I know I have a leading question here. That the divisions were so strong at that time in so many different ways, talking (19)60s and through the early (19)70s, that I think those divisions are still present in our society today because no one forgives? No one forgets, no one forgives. JM: No one forgets, no one forgives and it is just under the surface, it is just under the skin. Scratch it and it will surface. Again, yeah, we are looking back in retrospect, a lot of things that I did I would not do today. For example, there were anti-war marchers who blocked the staircase in one of the buildings on Temple's campus because a recruiter was there. You are not going to stop me from going to see a recruiter. We are talking about a company recruiter, a GE or DuPont or whatever. I basically stomped up the whole staircase stomping on my fellow students because they were getting in my face. And I was telling them, no you are not. In hindsight, I probably would have talked a little bit more, probably should have talked a little bit more, but I was just pissed. And it is like when you are young, you know everything. And when you are older, the more you realize that you do not know everything. Again, as hindsight is 20/20. SM: People have even asked me as a person who was not a vet. One of the things that I learned early that to gain trust of Vietnam vets or Vietnam era vets is to say who you are, where you were, and why you did not serve. And I have been very honest my whole life about that. Breaking an arm and there is a lot of things there. I will not go into that. But getting back to the healing process, when people go to the wall who did not serve in the war. It is my perception that there is a lot of guilt feelings, amongst individuals who now upon being older are reflecting on what they did. But not necessarily the true anti-war protestor, they got arrested, were in the service. And was really against the war. Your thoughts on whether there are guilt feelings and whether Vietnam vets feel that there are a lot of guilt feelings amongst the boomer males who did not serve? JM: Good question. Again, I know there are Vietnam vets who have guilt feelings about admitting that they are Vietnam vets, because they were not in a combat role over there. And I am one of those, and what do I tell people that "Gee, you are a Vietnam War vet. Where were you, Pleiku, Da Nang?" I said, "No, El Paso, Texas. Beautiful Fort Bliss, El Paso, Texas." And as great as I thought I had it, I know one guy who was a lifeguard in Hawaii for his tour. So it is the flip of the coin. I was in orders once; the orders were shot down. Two guys on one side, one guy on the other, they are in action. Whether they alive today or not, I do not know. It was the luck of the draw. I think there were people who went to Canada, and then Carter gave them an amnesty. And I think that changed history right there. Where if you would ask me would I allow my daughter to be drafted, and would I tell her "No, go to Canada." I do not think I would tell him to go to Canada. We would have the discussion. We really would, "Do you want to do government service as an alternative? Do you want to do like Muhammad Ali/Cassius Clay?" He basically said, "You can take my prize fighting title, and you can send me to jail. I ain't going." I respected that. The ones who basically said, "Nope, I am going to Canada." I do not hold them as high as Ali. But it is like there is a ranking. It is not just everybody into certain categories. If there was extreme religious reasons, for one. But the times I think really changed with Carter's amnesty as to how we need to look at that question. The precedent has been set. We can run, just 50 bucks to get you across the border. And you are safe for the duration, which we are pretty darn sure is not going to be another 10-year war. I do not think we will ever do that again. which is why I do not think Iraq will run 10 years. Closer more to 10 months. Where we get to the point that says, "We are declaring victory." As we probably should have done it in Vietnam, and then leave. Or you bomb them back to the Stone Age and open up a jihad that the world has never seen before. It is going to go one way or the other. It might be Armageddon. All I know is there was the Cold War that we grew up with, with nuclear annihilation, just a shadow away. And then we went to this new war, that we have been fighting since I think the (19)80s and the (19)90s, which is a religious war that we are still fighting. And people are just realizing this war did not happen... The World Trade Tower was hit with a car bomb, a truck bomb in (19)93, not 2001. 2001 was a couple of years back. That plane was targeted, those buildings were targeted years ago. And we have been taking hits. A lot of it, we cannot prove, a lot of what we can prove. But we are in a totally new communications and literally a global world war. This is a world war like no one has ever seen before. Make World War II look like a turkey shoot. This is going to be huge, and it is going to be huge, and it is religiously driven. Which means in our country, we open our doors to everybody. SM: How does the Vietnam War have the continuous relevance in our society today with all these, the war on terrorism, Iraq and 9/11? I can answer that personally myself, but I want other people to answer that. Does the experience of the Vietnam War have lasting and forever impact on America? JM: Looking back at it, the Vietnam War, and again in hindsight, is if I decide to go to war, I turn it over to our military men. And I basically say, "This is what I want done, do it." I do not say you cannot go above the 38th parallel in Korea, as in the Korean War, you fight wherever the enemy is. And by the way, you do not fight on your turf. You fight on their turf. Vietnam, classic example of a screw-up of not looking at history. We had North and South Korea, it was a civil war. We have North and South Vietnam. And we could not bomb North Vietnam for the longest time. I would have bombed them back to the Stone Age. If I could not buy them off economically. I mean, my first move is to take B52's and load them with food and radios, and I drop them on the enemy. Take a look what the rest of the world is doing, and have a good meal while you are doing it. And here goes $50 million, let me buy you out of a war. We can reach an agreement. Now if I cannot do that, if I have to go to war, it is not an interdiction. I would ask the military, I would say, "This is what I want to accomplish. Do it. And you have no limits. Get it done." They will come to me with the game plan, and it gets a political decision. We either go to war or we do not. But before we put one service man at risk, we make that decision. It is all or nothing. SM: I am going to switch this. JM: Again, it is an evolutionary thing. Where we are at right now is a global conflict. And I do not think the media is playing it up. The media is just basically saying, "We are in Iraq." Yeah, but they are blowing up in the Philippines, Muslims. They are blowing up here. Whether it is just Muslims or whether it is the... I am not sure [inaudible] just off the African coast. But if you have a religious war, guess what, that is nothing new. We have got the crusades. Go back before that. It just goes back way-way-way back. SM: Got the ongoing battle in Ireland between the Protestants and Catholics. JM: The Israelis and the Palestinians. When was the seven-day war? SM: (19)67. JM: (19)67? SM: Yep. JM: Okay. I was a Jewish chaplain's assistant in a country at war with Vietnam, with an allegiance to Israel, a religious allegiance. We had a contingent of Israeli Air Force taking this training, the same missile training I had taken. And the debate was, "How do we get off the fort? How do we get to Israel? How do we fight for a war that we could personally relate to?" The war ended before anybody could do anything really stupid. But boy that was a piece of history right there. The conflict that you are presented with, do I go to Canada? No. My case was "Do I go to Israel?" I mean that was the only thought in my mind. SM: There is a good point there. Because I am not sure anything has been written that much on our Jewish Vietnam era or Vietnam vets who truly cared about what was going on in Israel in 1967. They were willing to go over there and risk their lives as American citizens to help the Israeli citizens. JM: And just an aside, in basic training, one of the first formations we went to after we got to Fort Jackson, or Fort Gordon, Georgia, for training, was a chaplain's orientation. And they basically announced, okay, all the Catholic troops over here, the Catholic chaplain will see you, and all the Protestants and all the Baptists. And oh, by the way, if there are any Jewish personnel, the Jewish chaplain's assistant will meet you over here. Then they dismiss back to the company level and our company commander says, "Okay guys, I have had all the Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, whatever. Oh, by the way, are there any Jewish personnel? Please step forward." 10 of us stepped forward in our company. And he stepped back, literally stepped back, and said "Jewish, right?" said, "Yeah." He says, "How did I get 10 Jews in my company? I do not think there are ten in the whole fort." Uh oh. But as it turned out, he was just being... But again, from his vision, his perspective, he usually was used to maybe one or two. Again, percentage wise, the population, but here they were drafted out of Philadelphia, New York City, Jewish ghettos. SM: Right. Yeah. I knew a lot of Jewish Vietnam vets in Philly. Lots. I want to, before I get into the next segment of the interview, since you served the late (19)60s. JM: Mid (19)60s. SM: Or mid (19)60s, when that helicopter, when the news was showing on April 30th, 1975, the final evacuation of the few Americans that were left in Saigon. And then of course their allies there, the South Vietnamese troops and families that were linked to America. What were your thoughts when that was on the nightly news? JM: Thank God the war is over. The retreat is over. To me, that was the end of the war. We were literally pulling out the last troops and the war was over. We had lost the war. We had left with our tail tucked between our legs, and the war was over. It really was a good feeling knowing it was over, and to me that was at the end of the discussion. There would be no other photographs of Vietnam. No, it was over. SM: No thought of what might happen to those who were left behind and... JM: Yeah, I had thoughts about that and my thoughts were that they would be treated no better or worse than the Korean vets. If they were in custody, they would eventually be turned over, repatriated. We would have found out that they were grossly mistreated, because that is the way it has played in the Third World nations. It is the nature of the beast, the Japs did it in World War 2. The Germans did not mistreat the prisoners, military prisoners, but that was a separate little niche. Korea was a different story. Vietnam was a different story. I think you see the same mistreatment now in Iraq or Afghanistan. I think Mogadishu is, I guess, the one that goes back about 15 years, maybe? We were trapped there for a while. But Mogadishu, they dragged that trooper through the streets. The press played that up, and at that point it was, we were declaring victory in Mogadishu and getting out of town. Because we were not going to make a stand here. It is a civil war, it is warlord against warlord. We learned from Vietnam, we are not going to get involved in that again, it ain't worth it. SM: Following up on what you just said. When you think about when President George Bush Sr. Was president, in the Gulf War, we heard a lot about, even in Ronald Reagan's administration, that the Vietnam syndrome is over. And George Bush emphatically stated that the Vietnam syndrome was over. What do you think he meant by that? We all know what the Vietnam syndrome means, but was he prophetic or was he not telling the truth? Because it seems like there is still constant references back to Vietnam no matter what conflict we get into? JM: And I think that has to be said. Because it is the yard stick by which you measure, I guess, two things. How you execute a war, and how you treat the veterans who return. The war in Vietnam was prosecuted poorly. Reasons aside, that is political. It was militarily executed poorly, and the troops were basically shunned by their own people when they returned. After the 100-day war in Iraq, George Bush Sr., there was a full military parade. And it was like, yes, the objective was to get him out of Kuwait. That was done. The troops did an outstanding job. It was a military victory, clear cut without any argument whatsoever. And the troops were welcomed home. I believe the Vietnam troops led the parade in Washington DC, as their homecoming. And to people who have not been in the military, perhaps it does not mean anything. But to those who have served, there was that camaraderie, loyalty of saying, yeah, you recognized that whether we served as a lifeguard in Hawaii or a chaplain's assistant in El Paso, Texas, we put our lives on the line. I mean, I volunteered. I was asked to serve the chaplain. With the [inaudible], it is the same. Hey, let us face it, you are an expert rifleman, and you know how to drive, and I will probably get sent there and that is what you will be doing, is being my bodyguard. That is the only way you would describe it, I did not have to go. My military specialty at that point was a Nike Hercules missile crewman. 30-foot rocket. It only goes to Korea or Germany, fairly decent duty assignments. And nobody is shooting at you. Or I took Plan B, which is be the chaplain's assistant, and run the risk. SM: Did you volunteer? Or were you drafted? JM: I was drafted. But by the way, that is another thing. That it was surprising how many people who, oh, they watched either the football game or they listened to Bandstand. They had no idea that when the president upped the draft, the Secretary of Defense of McNamara upped the draft 50,000 a month. I mean, I knew. But when he did that, I called the draft board. I knew my number was out there, and I had been looking at different military branches. The Air Force offered me a seven-year deal, to a 20-year-old, "We will send you back to college. But you have got to get another degree, can only take it two or three years to do it. You give us four years after that." That is what, six, seven years? To a 20-year-old? That is one third of your life. And I said, "What else have we got out here?" The joke of it was I took my chances with the draft, thinking that military intelligence would make a wise decision how to use Private Mo Green. Again. Got lucky. SM: You have said a lot of things here. If someone were to ask you tomorrow at work, come in and there is a survey done, and "Please write down in one sentence the reason why we lost the Vietnam War." Why did we lose the Vietnam War? JM: Failure to pursue a military victory. And total failure to support the troops on the line by the civilian population. SM: If you were to evaluate the military leadership, not the civilian, and that is certainly the President of the United States, who gets a lot of criticism, but if you were... SM: ...and certainly the President of the United States, who gets a lot of criticism. If you were to evaluate the military leaders, the General- JM: William Westmoreland [inaudible]- SM: ...William Westmoreland and Abrams, and even Maxwell Taylor early on, how would you rate them, and their leaders underneath? JM: Yeah. Probably a little foolhardy and a little ignorant of history, or more concerned with their career and not arguing back, and I do not know that they did or did not, with the presidents, saying, "Let us not do this. What do you want me to do there? You do not want me to go into North Vietnam? Where is the enemy? North Vietnam, that is where I am going. If you do not want me to go there, let us not [inaudible]." Again, you can have the general spout off like MacArthur did to Truman in Korea, saying, "I am going up there, I am going to raise hell." I think that would have worked. I do not think the Chinese would have flowed across the border if they really thought we were serious. Now, they did. But I think at that point they said like, "They are not going to nuke us." I would have nuked the Chinese. I will tell you that right now. I would have nuked them. I would have done the same thing that was proposed by some generals, to put nuclear minefields between the north and the south; hindsight, really stupid. Probably a bad idea. It is like building canals using nuclear devices. If you do not mind the leftover radiation in the canal, not a problem. Very effective way of doing it. I would have used nuclear blackmail. I would have drawn a line in the sand and said, "Hey, you go back and you stay up there and we work these things out. And oh by the way, here is 20 million bucks, and all the rice you can eat, and education for your people." And that is cheaper than a war. SM: That is exactly some of the criticism leveled at Barry Goldwater and the reason why he did not win the election, because they had that one advertisement that showed the little girl. It was only shown once, and it really cost him probably the election. It made him look like a warmonger. And President Johnson followed suit with the Gulf of Tonkin. JM: "In your heart, you know he is right," was the Republican defense for him. And the counterculture said, "In your guts, you know he is nuts." Boy, it is coming back like was yesterday. SM: He did not turn out to be a bad senator, either. JM: No. SM: And this is just a note, I find it very ironic that he and Senator Scott of Pennsylvania were the two senators that walked in and asked Nixon to resign. What irony, what irony. JM: I recall Senator Scott coming to General Electric when I was working there in (19)65. I had gotten out of school, was an electronics technician working in GE, and I remember telling him, "Do not go into Vietnam. If you are going to do it, do not do it like Korea." That is all I said to him. But I literally had the handshake and told the guy. I remember telling a college professor, we got [inaudible] talking about the Vietnam War. This is (19)64. I said, "I hope we do not do it like Korea." As it turns out, he was a Korean War vet. He said, "You do not know what war's like." I said, "You are right, but I know you do not fight it like you fought Korea. You do not draw a line and say, 'You can escape over there.'" I said, "Let me tell you what I am going to do. I am going to kill every one of you, or we make a deal. You want to make a deal? Let us make a deal. We will stop all that stuff. You do not have to lose all of your cities, because by the way, on Monday I am going to take out this one. On Tuesday, I am going to take out this one. You can call it Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or you can call it Seoul. Call it whatever you want. But I will bring you to your knees militarily, and I will do it real quick." I think that is what Colin Powell meant during the 1990 Iraqi war, the Kuwaiti war: "I am going find the leadership, I am going cut its head off, and I am going to kill it." And that is what you do. When you go to war, that is exactly what you do. But you ultimately have to have a game plan. What do you do if things do not go the way you want? Declare victory? Respectable option. Who's to say otherwise? B, go for everything? Or just with withdraw with your tail between your legs? Not an acceptable option. SM: Some might say, though, that cut the head off, you heard this during the Iraq war, you cut the head off by killing all the leaders, but you still got the tail. And we are seeing the tail right now. Even though Saddam Hussein's alive, but if he were gone, this would still be happening. And so I find it interesting, you strongly believe that you would have used strong force and they would have come to their knees, but there is no guarantee they would have, because you explained also the Vietnam War, and then thousands of years and the enemies and we are willing to wait. Do you think that our lack of patience was another reason why we may have lost that war? We had been there a long time, it was a long war. JM: We had been there far too long. World War I was five years long. The Korean War was three years long, not even three years long. Vietnam was over 10 years. And we were not going to do that again. SM: The best history books, they are often written about 50 years after an event. The best World War II books are being written now. There has been a lot of them; Stephen Ambrose, even though he was criticized recently before he died. When the best history books are written about the (19)60s generation, I know a lot of them talk about Vietnam, but it is so part of the boomer generation and how they formed as people in our society, that when the best history books are written, what do you think the historians are going to say about the boomer generation when they were young? JM: They were presented with challenges that people had not been presented with before. And they had to make a decision at a very, very young age. I am sure you could probably go back generation, generation, generation, there is probably a turning point for all of them that they had to come contend with what they can do and what they cannot do. I do not know if that answered the question, but Vietnam, for the (19)60s generation, the boomer generation was it. And it marked people as to whether they said, "Well, I will take my chance with the draft," like I did, or some people said, "You know something? It is more convenient for me to be drafted next week. Let me volunteer for the draft." And other people who said, "I am going to Canada. I am not participating." They opted out. They made a decision to go to another country. That is a tough decision to make at the age of 19, the age of 20. I think the same decision was made during World War II, but we were the victim of a sneak attack. And the perception is it is the right thing to do. We are defending the country. We have been attacked. Vietnam was not we were attacked. We were going there to nation build, we were going there to defend liberty because the domino theory was that eventually... wind up with the commies in Camden and San Francisco. San Francisco would probably be a better breeding ground. SM: Right. Also during the (19)60s, President Nixon had the enemies list and it was a long list and included people from the media, leading activists in the country, Black liberation individuals, Catholic priests, to doctors. JM: [inaudible] sure. SM: What does that say about America too, though, the enemies list of leaders looking at people who do not agree with a foreign policy? [inaudible] ... surveillance of individuals who are against foreign policy or... JM: Now, we are not talking McCarthy in the (19)50s, right? SM: No. No, we are not talking about that period. We are talk- JM: I am looking at it as a continuation of... it is something that in my mind, even back then, it was nothing new. The fact that today we can look back at Kennedy's womanizing after Clinton, it is like, "Well is this something new or was it a cultural thing that was tacitly condoned all these years?" I mean, [inaudible] was supposed to have dalliances with his driver during the war [inaudible] but I just hope... I am not going to say that. This is just a continuation. I think once you crossed... there were certain boundaries, again, with the media, certain things are private, certain things are public. I do not think there is anything now which is private. Now, just a matter of the way you look at it, I myself am looking for a president who is part Boy Scout and also has the ability to look at the enemy in the face and lie through his teeth to the advantage of this country. I need him to lie through his teeth to our people, to our citizens, only in that remote instance where it is to the benefit of the country. But after that, I expect him to be a straight shooter. When Clinton obviously lied with his arms raised up, to me, that was the okay, the cart blanche for all future generations to lie, and sworn testimony does not mean anything, perjury does not mean anything, as long as you can get away with it. And that was condoned by the press. I would have crucified the guy, not what he did, but for lying about it. That is not politics. It is what I expect from a man. I expect a man to be with all the niceties of the gentleman, but with the ability to lie and play poker. But once you have been caught, I expect you to own up. I do not expect you to lie to a court of law. It just sets precedent. And the precedent is now set that they gave him a pass. I would not give him a pass. And I do not know how many of my generation would, other than my wife, who gave him the pass. I looked at her like she is an alien, but we are just diametrically opposed. Is that because I am five years older than her? I do not know. SM: You get into this whole area of leadership and trust, the impact that leaders had on us and boomers in general when we were young, and obviously possibly continuing through as we aged. When you look at President Johnson and the history books of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which we do not have to go into that, but we know what happened there. JM: Sure. SM: We know about President Eisenhower, and he did lie to the public about the U-2 incident. He did lie. And I can remember him being a little boy and seeing him on television, and I admired him. We saw President Nixon with his enemies list, which then of course we know about Watergate. Some people claim that even during Reagan in the Iran Contra, but maybe it is more Reagan's people than it is him. And then some people are complaining now about Bush not being up upfront and honest, and Tony Blair and others. What I am basically getting at is, was one of the impacts of the (19)60s and the (19)70s is that we do not trust anybody anymore, or have the American public ever trusted their leaders prior to? JM: Well, I think that they trusted their leaders, and I think they still trust their leaders, but giving them an ounce of doubt today would have been like a ton of doubt before. There has got to be that faith in your leader. But again, and I keep bringing the media into it, the media flavors the doubt, the media builds the doubt, the credibility. And they do it in such an obviously biased manner; and again, my jaundiced view of the world. But if the press says a Republican has done something, I give that 12 ounces worth of credibility, as opposed to if they say it about a Democrat, it is like no credibility at all. They are just not going to say it. So gee, who is more guilty, the Republican or the Democrat? There is probably a shred truth of both of them, but the media will play it up, again, in a biased fashion, condemn one party over the other. And for the life of me, I think they can play both sides of the street, condemn them both, and make twice as much news, but they do not. SM: What influence have you had on your kids? And I share that with respect to all people who were young in the (19)60s and (19)70s and what they passed on to their kids with respect to public service, the ideals that the (19)60s had that we were going to change the world, that everybody is equal; I am going to vote; giving back. We have seen this past week that slogan over and over, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country, which so many young people of the (19)60s and (19)70s took into it. What happened with the boomers, the 770 million who heard that and went through all the experience of civil rights, Vietnam, all those who we have been talking about, and passing this on to their kids who became Generation X? And then we got another generation of kids in here right now. Just your thoughts on that. JM: Well, I have got one of those kids. She is 26 years old. And again, very socially aware, very giving to the community, very generous. And I hope that she got those beautiful thoughts from myself and my wife. I think we passed on all the good stuff. I think she sees me go a little over the edge on occasion. And she recognized that dad's over the edge again. We are talking about a 26-year-old. And got her head screwed on straight and has the values that I have, which I think are pretty good; I am slightly biased [inaudible]. But again, a very generous individual. She will help out fundraising. She has volunteered for... the Coatesville VA Hospital veterans Thanksgiving Day dinner at the Stadium Grill is Thursday. This Thursday? Yeah. She will be working there, just feeding the [inaudible] the hospital. SM: [inaudible]. JM: And she brought that to my attention three years ago. It is an annual outing for us to do that. But that is just typical of what she does. She graduated number one here in West Chester. She could have gone on to a high paying job anywhere. She said, "No, I want to do something else." She helps manage the Chester County SPCA. And she has got a heart of gold. So am I saddened that she did not marry a millionaire and support her daddy in the manner to which he has got accustomed? No-no. But she is very generous and she does want to justice. So it is like big plus, big plus, big plus. And I think all of her friends, to a large extent, are of a similar grain. I think it is a wonderful generation. I think they are looking at what their parents have been through and recognize it and say, "Well, if we can do anything that makes their life easier or avoid making the same mistakes that they have told us not to make," they are pretty good. They have their heads screwed on straight. SM: We hear often from the pundits and the media and everybody else that is out there that the parents rarely share their experiences of their youth with their kids. And if they do, it is either when a person's dying or has had an illness or something as they get older. And we also hear all too often that vets, no matter whether they served in Vietnam or World War II or Korea, just do not like talking about it. But as they age, their stories have to be told, Vietnam era and Vietnam vets. And I will get to that after the interview, about a project that I would like to see Chester County do [inaudible] every single vet that ever served in Vietnam are taped for historic record, male and female. But your thoughts on that in terms of the sharing? Because obviously you have shared. Do you feel just from talking to your veteran friends and maybe some people that did not serve but were on the other side of the anti-war movement, that they have not really sat down with their kids, that their ideals have not been passed down to their kids; what went wrong, kind of thing? What happened? Your story is a positive one, but- JM: Yeah, but [inaudible] I have seen vets in tears publicly in front of their families. Now, in our good old cowboy, Texas president attitude, we do not do that. You do not cry in public. Well, that is dumb. Do anti-war guys of the same generation, same timeframe, do that? They might. I do not think that they do. I do not think that they do. As for talking about the experience, again, there is some guilt that says, "Hey, nobody shot in me. I did not go in the Jones. I partied almost every night. So I do not want to bring that up." I mean, I am comparing myself to a combat vet. And for the most part, there were very few combat vets. An awful lot of people got wounded. 300-some-odd-thousand got wounded. But during that time, that 10-plus-year time span, an awful lot of people went in. It is one of those crazy things. In basic training, I caught a ricochet bullet up against my neck. How close do you want to get? That was an eye-opener, when you say, "You know something? It did not break the skin." It put a little burn mark. I thought, "Bullets are hot." So when you get shot, it is not only, "Ouch, that hurts," but it is like, "Ouch, that burns." So it is like, "Well, how do you tell somebody about that?" Well, I told my daughter. I said, "Hey, touch wood. I am the luckiest guy around. I caught a ricochet and all I got is little burn mark from it." They would not let me keep it either. SM: Oh, my God. JM: But I share everything, except the girls that I dated. But it has helped me build an open relationship with my kids and with their friends. I suspect from the comments that she brings back to me that all parents are not as open with the kids as we are. There is no subject we will not touch. And is it because while we have touched all subjects there is to touch? It has always been, "Talk to me. And you got a question? What about this and what about that?" It is an open relationship with the kids. SM: One last question before I get into the names here, which will be the last third, is very bluntly, what will be the last legacy of the boomer generation, the 70 million born between (19)42 and (19)60 or (19)46 and (19)64, depending on what you want to say, of which 15 percent sociologists will say were ever involved either in service in Vietnam or involved as an activist in any protest movement? So we are talking 85 percent of 70 million who never served and were never involved in any anti-war or any movement of any kind. JM: Can you rephrase it for me [inaudible]- SM: What do you feel the lasting legacy of this generation will be, I guess when they are all gone? I raised this because I am a historian by trade and before I ever got into higher education with my major. And I have read an awful lot of oral histories and thoughts on the Civil War and how the Civil War people never healed. They went to their graves hating the South or the North, never forgiving, although they had had the great ceremonies in Gettysburg where they tried to come together, but many would not. And all too often the sadness that historians have written about the Civil War veterans who just never, ever healed or wanted to heal. And part of the lasting legacy is the sadness of the bitterness that so many of them had when they went to their graves. So just your thoughts on the lasting legacy of a generation. JM: I do not think it would be bitterness going to our graves. I think it is more like we showed the world a different way, or I should say we showed the wrong way to treat veterans returning from a conflict, and to separate the military from the political. The military is a tool to be used with great discretion. And something which is, again, basically a great bunch of people who are willing to put their life on the line and not question the order, to achieve the hopefully correct politics of the country. And it also taught us that you just do not go to war without a game plan. And regardless of how it comes out, the soldiers who returned are the heroes [inaudible]. I do not think anybody will ever go to war again, and this includes the current Iraqi war, without a whole lot of thought and ongoing thought. But the thought has got to be constructive, the actions, the discussions, the politics. Rioting is counterproductive; not rioting, protesting, I think, is counterproductive. I do not think it will be tolerated unless it is done with respect. Again, trusting the politicians, we trust them as far as the next election. We do not have 100 percent faith in them. We know they are not pure. We know they are not perfect. We expect a level of honesty from them and we damn well better get it, or we will vote them out. SM: Which leads right back to trust, just right back to the whole issue of trust and how important it is. Well, the last part of this interview is just going to be your thoughts on names from that era, people who were in different positions, older or younger, during the (19)60s and early (19)70s, just your comments and thoughts on them. The first one is Tom Hayden, who just happened to be on our campus a week and a half ago. JM: And I am sorry I could not make it. He is a protestor. I do not think he helped the war end any sooner. I think he actually added names to the wall by protesting. But I respect his right to protest. SM: How about the other members of that Chicago 8 group? Because it was Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, and I am going to get into Abbie Hoffman- JM: Abbie Hoffman [inaudible] Bobby Seale. SM: ...Jerry Rubin and Bobby Seale. I will go right into Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin from the Yippies. JM: Yeah, another group. SM: [inaudible] another, different group? JM: I think they could have been far more effective by being far more in suit and tie than clown makeup. I think if they wanted to end the war, as I told people way back when I was on campus, "You want to make a difference, go to senator so-and-so's office. Get an appointment, talk to the guy, send him a postcard. Show him that you are his kid and you have got serious concerns." But the whole idea that tipping over trash cans, setting fires, burning buildings, that creates a backlash and it is counterproductive. Make the system work. The system works. It is not perfect, it is not extremely fast, but it does work. SM: How do you feel about the Black liberation? There was Black power people who were... Bobby Seale, Huey Newton, Angela Davis. JM: That is Angela Davis over there, is not it? SM: Yes, it is. She is a professor at University of California Santa Cruz right now. JM: How do I feel about them? SM: Yeah, the whole Black power group. JM: I remember having to step in between a Black soldier and a white soldier during the riots of (19)65 or (19)66, I think. One guy's uncle got I think killed by a Black man. And I stepped between them and said, "Hey, look. We are in the Army. We are a unit, we are together. I know it hurts. And I know the guy used the N word, his uncle, his brother was killed by it." I said, "We have got to stand together." I think that they did the right thing, but again, it is the method that they used. They were far too confrontational, and it was counterproductive. But it could have [inaudible] it was productive. It could have been far more productive, I think, if they would have used Martin Luther King type... If you are looking in a mirror and the only difference is I am Black, I think you are going to have a tough time disagreeing with me if I am using your language, if I am using your wardrobe. Again, I appreciate this is the land we can be different. Thank God for that. But it is like if you want to accomplish a mission, you have got to be willing to make some concessions. SM: It goes right into the other... Of course, you got Martin Luther King, Jr. Then you have got Malcolm X. Those are two central figures of the period. JM: [inaudible] a guy wore a white shirt and tie, excuse me, a white shirt and bow tie, but a jacket. But he was different. If he would have put on a regular necktie, I think it would have been to his benefit, but he was creating a uniform. Good, productive steps and then a counterproductive move could have been more effective. SM: Dr. King, of course, is known as the civil rights leader who became involved in the anti-war movement. In fact, he got heavily criticized in the civil rights movement amongst his peers. Bayard Rustin, right here from West Chester, along with Dr. King, were two of the very few African American leaders who went big time anti-war. And your thoughts on ... Dr. King always [inaudible] Bayard Rustin is that they made the comparison of being Black in America to being the yellow skin over... concerned about people of all colors. Just your thoughts on Dr. King overall, and Bayard Rustin, who were civil rights leaders who were against the war? JM: And again, being against the war, I do not have a problem with that. It is how you manifest that and the effects on the troops who are over there fighting the war. If it is perceived as giving aid, comfort to the enemy, I do not think that is good. I think it is counterproductive, and you are going to make enemies. But talk about a span of time from their days, Martin Luther King's days, if you would have asked Martin Luther King 40 years ago, "We have got this guy named Colin Powell and people are talking about him as being President of the United States and has a big groundswell of support," he would say, " 400 years from now maybe, but not 40" [inaudible]- JM: 400 years from now maybe, but not 40. Hell no. And again, while Colin will not run, if he did, there is no doubt in my mind that he would probably win. He is squeezing. But again, here we are. It is only 40 years later. And how many years was Martin Luther King after the Civil War? That is like, do my math, hundred years. SM: (19)65, right. (19)63. JM: It is a hundred years to him. And that is forty years to Colin Powell [inaudible] Condoleezza Rice. SM: Right. JM: Very powerful, influential people today. Now is that because the media now puts them out front because they are black? I do not care. They are extremely talented individuals by what little I know to judge them by. But that is time. That is communications. SM: Can I take a two-minute break and go to the restroom? JM: Sure. SM: And then we will finish. All right. Make sure this is working properly. It is. All right. Jane Fonda, I know you have been waiting for- JM: I just thought of the- SM: How about that in Washington? JM: And I have seen that at other VFW posts around the country. Again, I know what she was thinking. I know what she was feeling. But what was she thinking? Counterproductive. And I literally rank her with Tokyo Rose, Axis Sally for World War II. As simple as that. What she did was deplorable. if she wanted to give an interview in Hollywood saying, "I have thought about it and I see no reason whatsoever for us to be there. I think it is a big mistake." That is one thing. But to sit there in an anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi while we have got prisoners over there languishing, and giving the photo op. No, no. To me that is, that is treason. SM: How about Benjamin Spock? Dr. Spock, he was involved in the anti-war movement. He was a baby doctor. JM: Yeah. Mr. baby book himself. I do not have any thoughts one way or the other about him, other than saying he was against the war. And I am sure he was in some rallies and stuff like that. But I cannot picture him being here. And other than the suit and tie, he may not have been. But... SM: How about the Berrigan brothers? Daniel and Philip, right from Baltimore. JM: Yeah. SM: But Philip died last year. JM: Yeah. Not a whole lot of thought about him. SM: From the Catholic movement. How about Lyndon Johnson? JM: Lyndon Johnson. I feel sorry for the guy. I think he either just did not ask the right questions or he got somewhat fraudulent, bogus answers from the military. When he asked, again, we can speculate as to what he asked the generals, but like Gulf of Tonkin. That is a fuzzy area that really, I do not believe that somebody said, "Hey, let us Trump up charges that the torpedo votes attacked the Turner Joy, the destroyer." SM: Right? JM: I do not believe that. I think somebody said something. They saw something and relayed, it got a little blown out proportion. Then he made a move, said, "Oh, okay, fine. Well I have got to have congressional war power because we have been fired upon." And he does not have that? I thought he always did. But I think it says as the nuclear commander, he always had the power to declare a war at a button's press. And he had the button. SM: Richard Nixon. JM: Talk about being at the wrong place at the wrong time. I do not hold him in as terrible a position. He got caught trying to do a coverup and he did not fess up. If he would have fessed up, I think he would have stayed in office. Just as Clinton got caught, Clinton did not fess up. He went to whole nine yards and stonewalled, unlike Nixon. So I hold Nixon in at a higher level than I hold Clinton if I am going to rank my presidents. And for that very reason. SM: And of course James Buchanan's the top. Gerald Ford. JM: Gerry Ford, well, I think he was just trying to do the best that he could. Not a whole lot of thought on that. SM: He ended the war. JM: Yeah, But I think the options he were presented was, we can either stick in there another 10 years, we can end it overnight with a nuclear catastrophe, or we just give up as nicely as we can. [inaudible] SM: Hubert Humphrey. JM: Again, I think he is probably a good anti-war advocate as could be described. SM: Spiro Agnew. JM: Piece of [inaudible] comes to mind. Anybody gets caught with their hands in a cookie jar like he got caught... He was a quirky personality. I do not think he could ever have been president other than by Nixon dying. But just I was impressed by his vocabulary, as was everybody. And his sense of humor. But that is all I remember about the guy. SM: How about Eugene McCarthy. JM: Gene McCarthy. SM: Not Joe, Eugene. JM: Yeah. Again, on the flavor of Humphrey. Anti-war, had his reasons, he ended very professionally, if I can use that term, with decency. SM: George McGovern. JM: Not a whole lot of thought on George. SM: Presidential candidate, 1972. JM: Yeah. SM: Symbolized him as the far left. JM: But no. SM: Timothy Leary. JM: Timothy is up there in one of those big clouds of smoke, I am sure. I could never understand him, like I said. And again, you are talking to somebody who I have never taken a drag of a cigarette. Okay. Let alone marijuana. SM: Never inhaled. JM: Never dropped LSD. Can honestly say I probably never inhaled other than might have been secondary. SM: From a rock concert. Yeah. JM: From somebody else. SM: Yeah. JM: Timothy Leary I just told was a nut case. Always did and company always will. SM: John Kennedy. JM: We discussed that earlier, going in. I think, again, because hindsight is 20/20, he is an overrated president. Camelot was almost a Hollywood manifestation by the press. They created an image, they fell on it. See, like all of a sudden, let us do cop shows on TV. Then it lasts about six years, comes back 10 years later. Let us do real life or shows. Let us do trading places. Let us make overage hotels. And here is another one. Let us do the Kennedy's love life. Okay? We cannot do that. So we got kid gloves first thing. What is his face? Clinton came along and all of a sudden, hey, we did not do it Kennedy. But that was then. This is now. He is fair game. But let us not overdo it. We do not want him getting impeached. We just want to play it for as long as we can. Let us wag the dog at the movie ring. SM: How about Robert Kennedy? JM: Robert Kennedy. Mostly kind thoughts about him other than against Sirhan. Killed him, but no great big thoughts one way or the other. Teddy Kennedy I did not particularly care for. SM: What were your thoughts of the general Cao Ky and President Thieu of South Vietnam? Those are the people that come to mind at least after the Diem regime. JM: Yeah, General Ky who I think is still a very, he is still alive in this day. SM: I would like to bring him here to pull it off. JM: Yeah. I think he, like the aristocracy of Vietnam at the time, Was doing whatever he could do to succeed. Whether he was militarily inept or not. I do not know if anybody could be a military genius, a Colin Powell of Vietnam. Unless the circumstances were different. I am glad he came here. I think he probably contributed to the country and is doing whatever he can do to make a buck. Just as he did in Vietnam. SM: Go back to, you see someone that when people remember the most for the longevity. JM: And I am just drawing a blank with him, to be honest with you. SM: Ralph Nader. JM: I bought a Corvair and the car was unsafe at any speed because you could not get it to run half the time. No. Nader, again, I think is like anybody else's. He just, while he wears the suit, he does not wear it well. And in fact you are telling us you have worn the same suit for 20 years, it is probably not the best thing you want to tell us. You would lose credibility. He could have been far more effective with a little bit of coaching. SM: George Wallace. JM: George Wallace. Interesting. I remember being judge of elections in Philadelphia when people were trying to vote for him. And we were told that you have to write his name in because he was not going a ballot in Philadelphia. We had people going crazy. But I respected the truth of what he said. If he said, "I do not want blacks in here," he was telling you, "I do not want blacks in here." Okay. There was honesty about him. I do not think the guy would lie about something like that. Of course, he got paralyzed and shot from that nut job. SM: Daniel Ellsberg. JM: Pentagon Papers, right? SM: Yep. Vietnam vet. JM: Leaking government papers is a no-no. I admire the fact that he did it. I think he could have done it better. Again, hindsight is 20/20. Do not ask me how, I think he could have been far more effective than having himself portrayed as a traitor. SM: How about Robert McNamara? JM: Think that is a guy I do not hold in very high opinion. I think he made a lot of very, very stupid, ill-informed snap decisions that really do not matter a big deal when you are manufacturing cars, but costs tremendously. I think he prolonged the war. I do not think he helped a whole lot. I think he was counterproductive. I think the war would have over far sooner. And if you want to call it a victory, it would have been a victory without McNamara. SM: The women's movement leaders, and you always think of Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. Those are that kind of the- JM: I think of Bella Abzug, myself. SM: Oh yeah, definitely. JM: Yeah. Some people had credibility, some did not. And I feel sorry for the women's movement when we talk about, well these were the front-runners or the initiators of the women's movement who stood by with President Clinton and basically, by their silence, endorsed his behavior, which says, "Well, the hell with what I have been saying to you folks in the past 30 years." Now stands behind his president, were so forgiving of him and forgiving by their silence. If I was a woman, I would basically tell them all to go jump in a lake. SM: When you are looking at women, it is interesting that during the (19)60s and (19)70s that during all the movements, men are in most of the positions of power and women are in secondary roles. That is why many ended up starting the women's movement. But they have learned from the civil rights movement. How important were women in the (19)50s and (19)60s with respect to not only the women's movement, but other movements, period? And we were finding out now how important they were in Vietnam. They were always important that it took a long time for women to be recognized some of their [inaudible] with respect to their contributions in the Vietnam War. JM: I think the whole idea of, or I should say the growth of use of contraceptives opened the door to women fulfilling themselves to the max. Being in the working world, making a decision to have a career or a family or both on their own terms. I think that was the advantage that came out of the (19)60s was birth control, which totally reshaped what they could do. Again, my biggest argument has always been their far superior to men, mentally speaking. I can still take most of them in fight. SM: Right? JM: Five out of 10 times. SM: Right. JM: But it always been, I have always said it was a waste of intellectual capacity for them to be just barefoot pregnant down on the farm. What a waste. They should be out there. I am thrilled when I see a leader who really excites me, who has got the talent and the guts, the everything. Condoleezza Rice I mentioned. There was a sharp, sharp woman. I would follow her orders into battle if she was a military person like Colin Powell or I believe what she says. She has got that much credibility in her voice. And I do not think she is acting. That that woman is pure talent, pure influence. SM: I am a firm believer that Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, will be running against each other in four years after Bush is done. JM: Condy will kill her. SM: Well, yeah. And the question is, if President Bush wins, because I think she is going to leave his administration, that is another story to go back and run consent. I just think there is some things going on there. Muhammad Ali. JM: I, looking back at the time, I said, "Boy, is that a dumb thing to do." He could have had it all. He could have done just like Elvis Presley, put a uniform on, be a spec for, tour the camps, be promotional and run [inaudible] machine and still retain his championship. He decided to leave or to not to leave but to serve. I respect his opinion. It was as I believe a religious based opinion, like a total respect for that. I think he should opt for military service. That is his call. SM: People like Ron Kovic and the people like John Kerry, the Vietnam veterans against the war, because when they came back, they were as adamant as Tom Hayden. Your thoughts on them and their involvement in prolonging the war. JM: Again, I think they could have done a better job, but they looked like longhaired, dope smoking, Commie free person. And I have not used that term in what, at least three days. But it is like, again, do not shoot the messenger, however, if the messenger looks like the enemy, you are probably going to take a shot at them. They could have done better. Wearing fatigue shirts, it was very symbolic. But smoking pot and growing your hair long and using F this and F that it is counterproductive because they are far more productive. SM: A lot of them threw their medals away. JM: Yes. SM: Purple hearts. John Kerry being one of them. JM: Yes. SM: The people linked to Watergate, which would be the John Dean. Just your thoughts on him, because he is the guy that brokered everything. JM: It is a fine line. Watergate again, I think was one of those moments in cultural history where the communications media, the press, the news, the TV crossed the line and said, "You know something? We are going to pursue this story. And we do not care whether we find a woman under the bed or a burglar at the door. We are going to take no prisoners. Because we have got to have something for the 11 o'clock news." I think in World War II they would not have done it. They just would not have done it. What, make the President look bad during a time of war? We are not going to do it. But that was that generation. Here we are 60 years later. SM: Great. Barry Goldwater again, I brought him up. He has become a big hero in the conservative movement. Just your thoughts on him. JM: I remember backing Barry in high school. I do not know whether I passed leaflets out at the polling place or something like that. But I remember closely watching it and I very much liked the man's style. I thought he was an honest, straightforward individual. SM: And I am going to finish with just some terms from the, well, one of them is your thoughts on the music, your thoughts on the thoughts on the music of the (19)60s and the thoughts on those musicians and entertainers who were anti-war and the effect that they had on the war itself. JM: I think the musicians served as a rallying point because they were so different. I think they were an easy way to grab the audience. And oh, by the way, the change of music style to acid rock drove me to country western in the (19)60s, which as it turns out, was great because my father-in-law happened to like country western music. Of course he did not become my father-in-law for a couple of years after that. I think they were a tool. Again, the media will focus on Woodstock. It is a happening. It is a gathering. It is the 11 o'clock news. We have got something. And again, who went to these? Kids who were almost ready to be drafted or who were drafted. And I still cannot stand. I can stand rap today a little bit better than I can stand acid rock and I cannot stand acid rock. SM: Did you like Janice Joplin and Jimi Hendrix? JM: Not really. I mean, if I could not follow the music and let us say you are talking to a guy who cannot dance. Let us be honest about this. No, I just thought were, again, they were just tied up with the movement. And who linked them together? The media by accident probably. But it became one and the same. SM: The folk singers were very important in the anti-war movement. Joan Baez, Phil Ochs, Peter, Paul, and Mary, the list goes on and on. Holly Near, I mean, there is many of them. Just your thoughts on the folk musicians and Bob Dylan. They were people that really had an effect. JM: Again, they were part and parcel of the whole culture. I mean, there was another piece that was, gee, are you a long haired, dope smoking Commie, pre [inaudible] rock musician, anti-war protestor. All that shape. And each new layer was added to that. Did they contribute to elongation of the war? Probably a little. I do not think a whole lot. SM: I know at the Vietnam Memorial they have certainly invited some of the musicians or the singers, but that is never been any of the folk singers. Joan Baez at the wall? I do not think so. JM: I think he was here in (19)99. (End of Interview) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with John Morris Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Morris, John ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Interviews; Morris, John--Interviews Description An account of the resource John Morris, a native of Downingtown, PA, joined the Army Security Agency in 1965 and served two years in Vietnam. Following Vietnam, he was stationed at Fort Wolters, Texas, to train other operators in route to Vietnam until 1969. John Morris is a life member and active with the Vietnam Veterans of America. He is also a life member of the Veterans of Foreign War and the Disabled American Veterans. He received the Chapel of the Four Chaplain’s Legion of Honor Award. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003-11-25 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.134a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.134b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 230:02 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/2346829a59430b280601739ac04ca54f.jpg a7de9fa6b396d16fc0908ed434bfd1dc https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/7f34de1b4e77bd47fe8729e357998745.mp3 be54ec1b9aa3acd930edad7338922dc3 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2003-12-10 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Sheldon Hackney Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Francis Sheldon Hackney (1933 - 2013) was a scholar, author and a professor of U.S. History at the University of Pennsylvania. He earned his PhD. in American History at Yale University. After earning his Ph.D., Hackney served in the Navy for five years.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:15105,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Francis Sheldon Hackney (1933 - 2013) was a scholar, author, and professor. He earned his PhD. in American History at Yale University. After earning his Ph.D., Hackney served in the Navy for five years. He was the former President of Tulane University and the University of Pennsylvania</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Civil Rights Movement; Montgomery Bus Boycott; University o Michigan; Anti-War Movement; Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement; Cambodian incursion; Kent State; Ronald Reagan; Women's Rights Movement; Conservatives&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:2,&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:14281427}}">Civil Rights Movement; Montgomery Bus Boycott; University of Michigan; Anti-War Movement; Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement; Cambodian incursion; Kent State; Ronald Reagan; Women's Rights Movement; Conservatives</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 83:46 Subject LCSH Authors; College teachers; History--United States; University of Pennsylvania; Sailors; Hackney, Sheldon, 1933-2013--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Francis Sheldon Hackney Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 10 December 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:05): Into my first question, and this is working, I know it is. When you think of the (19)60s and the (19)70s, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? SH (00:00:17): The civil rights movement actually, because that is where my primary interests lay at that time and now, but I lived through the period, so I have a very complicated idea about it. And I have been teaching a course on the 1960s for the last 25 years, so I know it both as a participant and as a professional observer. SM (00:00:45): What was that very first experience as a participant when you went from an observer to a participant in that movement? Do you remember the very first time? SH (00:00:55): Well, I was a participant first, I think, because I was born and grew up in Birmingham, Alabama. For reasons that I have never been able to figure out I emerged as a southern white liberal who thought that segregation was just wrong. And that happened to me when I was in the eighth grade, actually, when I suddenly began thinking about race prompted by nothing. I was a Methodist then, and I think my religious training had something to do with it, but I cannot be sure. So I was conscious of the racial situation in the south. All the way through college I was the liberal of my group in a way, all the way through college, and then married a woman who came from a family that was quite active in various ways. The Durrs from Montgomery, Virginia Foster Durr was- SM (00:02:15): Oh yeah, there is a brand-new book now, The Letters. I just bought that this weekend. SH (00:02:17): Oh, good for you, yes. SM (00:02:18): I did buy it, yes. SH (00:02:20): Oh, super. Well, she is my mother-in-law, actually. SM (00:02:24): Oh, wow. SH (00:02:24): Freedom Writer. SM (00:02:25): Oh yes. SH (00:02:26): I got married. I mean, I met my wife when I was still in college and before the Montgomery bus boycott started. So I was aware of the Montgomery bus boycott all the way through it, though I was also in the Navy then. She and I got married and I went through the Navy and came out of the Navy in 1961 and went to graduate school. The civil rights movement was already raging, and I was sympathetic to it, of course. Now, I went to Yale, the graduate school, so that did not set me apart from people at Yale where the standard opinion would have been sympathetic to the civil rights movement. But in that sense, I was already engaged in the (19)60s, not that I did anything terribly heroic, but I was a participant before anything else. I do remember the first anti-war meeting that I went to in the spring of 1965 when Johnson was escalating the war in Vietnam and the University of Michigan had a sit-in protest. And that caught on, the notion of a big sit-in to protest the war or to teach about the war actually it was. Well, there was one at Yale several weeks later, two or three weeks later, and I went to that. I remember there was even someone there from the University of Michigan to bring greetings from the academic community of the University of Michigan. And then it was along, it went all night at Yale and there were pro-war people there as well. And in fact, I did not become actively anti-war until good bit later actually. I was slow. SM (00:04:39): When you look at the movements, obviously the civil rights movement is the one that you were involved in, had the greatest impact on your life. What are your thoughts when historians or commentators talk about all the movements, that it was the civil rights movement, that was the model for the anti-war movement, the women's movement, your thoughts on those other movements and linkage with the civil rights movement? SH (00:05:02): Well, the civil rights movement did provide the paradigm for the others, both in the tactics that were used and also to an extent on the goals, if you will. I mean, the women's movement quite consciously copied some of the rhetoric and tactics of the civil rights movement, but as did the other social justice movements as well, [inaudible]. Not so much the Disabilities Movement, but others, the gay and lesbian rights movement, which really starts late in the (19)60s, but also comes in the wake of, into the atmosphere that had been prepared by the civil rights movement and the war movement as well. SM (00:05:56): When you look at, and I am looking at the boomer generation, and sometimes it is hard to define, a lot of people put parameters, they put anybody going between (19)46 and (19)64, and some say between (19)42 and (19)60. But when you look at the civil rights movement, how important were the boomers in that movement? Knowing that people like Dr. King, they were a little older and some of the civil rights leaders were a little older, but how important were they in civil rights itself, in the movement, whether it be college students, or? SH (00:06:29): It was, the civil rights movement changes several times. It began, if you think of it beginning as I do in the Montgomery bus boycott as a mass movement, the Brown decision was in (19)54. So December (19)55 Rosa Parks stands up for justice by sitting down, as they say. And the Montgomery bus boycott was basically a middle class movement. I mean, it was the whole black community of Montgomery that was mobilized for that. Same might be said for the Little Rock school integration crisis that came out of a lawsuit. It was a very orderly NAACP process that located the kids, sort of trained them about how to.... Brought the suit, got the federal court to order their admission into Central High and then followed those kids all the way through. Things changed then. That is as to say that the boomers did not have anything to do with this. The civil rights movement was coming anyway, right? But things changed with the sit-in movement in early 1960, because those young men and women at North Carolina A&T were from the boomer generation, and they had come along at a period when the black community was much more assertive about itself, where the experiences of World War II had had their effect. And African Americans in general were improving their position in American life, and as we know, improvement breeds ambition to improve. There is this escalating expectation, and I think the city movement begins that, and then when younger blacks and whites come to the fore and begin as the arrowhead of the movement, if you will, but they are out on the front lines. So the boomers take over in the (19)60s. SM (00:08:52): Leading into a question, in recent years, if you go back to even (19)94 when Newt Gingrich came to power, and of course he is out now, and also George Will always likes to do his digs whenever he gets a chance. Some of the commentators talk about the boomer generation and the reasons for the breakdown of American society, but some of the values that these young people had, their involvement with drugs, obviously the sexual revolution, the counter culture mentality, lack of respect for authority, your thoughts on the attacks on this generation? SH (00:09:29): Well, it is interesting, because we are still living in a politics that has been fashioned as a reaction to the 1960s basically. And if you look at those aspects of the (19)60s that were making for change in American life, the social justice movements, all of them, the counterculture in particular, those were profoundly upsetting to a lot of Americans. And it is easy to dismiss, especially the counterculture, but the young people in general was simply pursuing sex, drugs and rock and roll in the (19)60s. But I think that is simplistic and does not get at the essence. My own attitude toward the (19)60s is that it contained both a very hopeful, bright upper side, if you will. The social justice movements in particular, the bringing African Americans into the mainstream of American life, providing justice a bit for the disabled and for minority groups and protecting the rights of women as never before. All of that changed America fundamentally. And we will never revert to the way things were in the (19)60s when there was only one imagined America, and that was a white Anglo person. We were most much more pluralistic now in our thinking and in our actuality. The counterculture is somewhat different. I think it is more mixed. The counterculture has its roots in the 1950s in the Beat generation and the challenge to middle class American suburban values, if you will. Because those values were stultifying. Well, I think in a way they were. The counterculture is the first movement I know of that consciously identifies their enemy as not a class or a group, but as the values of society itself. The counterculture is saying, "These middle-class values are stultifying limiting, and we have got to, if we are going to be free, we need to overthrow and live by, overthrow those middle-class values and live by a different set of values." I mean, I am making it sound prettier than it was, but I think that is what they were saying. And they imagined liberty for them than being able to choose what values to live by, which is really quite radical. SM (00:12:30): During that timeframe, when you look at the boomer generation, if you had to look at those years, anywhere between 60 and 70 million people were born and can be categorized from the beginning of the boomers in (19)46 to (19)64. These same individuals that attacked that generation always to say that the only 15 percent really were really activist- SH (00:12:51): That is actually true. SM (00:12:52): ...involved in things. And by using that, even those numbers are pretty high. Only 15 percent was involved. Your thoughts when they used that? That only 15 percent of that group was ever involved or cared about anything. SH (00:13:06): That is true, absolutely true. There is this study of Harvard graduates in 1969 or (19)70 in which the pollster asked Harvard students to identify themselves along the political spectrum, 75 percent said that they were much more conservative than the typical Harvard student. Think about that a minute. Which means that the mood was set by the small minority that were active and that were out in front doing things that were different. They got the media coverage, they moved the culture, basically. Those 85 percent who did not demonstrate, did not even sign a petition, were still sympathetic to the 15 percent that were more active, but were more passive about their sympathy. At times of crisis, for instance, I am thinking here of the spring of 1970 when the Cambodian incursion occurred and campuses everywhere exploded. That gives you some notion of the campus mood. But even though very small percent of people had been active in the annual movement statistically on college campuses, when that happened and those small numbers organized a mass meeting, the whole campus showed up. It was not that the 15 percent was forcing the others, it was that it is just the passive and more aggressive. SM (00:14:51): When you look at, especially when you look at student development and how when you look at students, sometimes they develop at different stages. Their leadership may not come out when they are in college, but it may be in their late 20s. Has there anything ever really been done in that 85 percent with a respect to how that era affected their subconscious? SH (00:15:15): Good question. SM (00:15:15): So that they have gone on in their lives and they may not have been involved during that period, but certainly in their later lives those experiences played a part and they came forth? We always believe that students. SH (00:15:27): I were not aware of a study, but that is really a good question. My guess is I think, I can assume that the implication of your question, my guess is that the people who live through the (19)60s on a college campus probably were easily engaged by social issues later in their lives, or had their values set a little bit differently. SM (00:16:00): If you were to look at that generation again, and we are concentrating in on this boomer group, their greatest strengths, some of their greatest characteristics, and their weakest characteristics? SH (00:16:13): Well, the greatest characteristics is they had a social conscience if you take the generation as a whole. That whether this is not genetic certainly, but it is just that when that group happened to hit college age, it meant that universities were growing rapidly, very rapidly. It was a heady period on college campuses in general. And so they were there and more easily mobilized as college students always are. And they responded because the (19)50s, this was a reaction against the quintastic (19)50s, and the (19)50s of course were a reaction against World War II and the Depression. People wanted to live more subtle lives that had a bit more material wellbeing to them. And the (19)60s were a reaction against that in the direction of being more socially involved and creating a society in which everyone could lead a more fulfilling life. Social conscience, I would say, is the leading characteristic on the upside. More creativity. Start an accident, that music- SM (00:17:48): Oh yes. SH (00:17:49): I mean, of the (19)60s, it is quite remarkable that it is still played, and college students today is still familiar with that music. That is 40 years ago. SM (00:17:57): Simon and Garfunkel performed last night at the inspector, filling next door, and two of our administrators went and they said it was packed with boomers. They were all in their 40s. It was like, and then when they did that Bridge Over Troubled Water, Coming Home To America and Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio. In fact, Tom [inaudible], director [inaudible] said he almost had tears in his eyes. Because it was bringing back memories of a trip he took, Coming Back To America, that song there. And he was involved in a very serious issue with his family at that time, and he was at Alfred University, and I thought it was interesting. It all came back. That song brought everything back and tears came like it did 30 years ago. SH (00:18:48): Yeah. SM (00:18:49): Unbelievable. SH (00:18:51): Oh, it really is. Well, it is interesting that in my seminar I gets a good sense of how today's students think of the (19)60s and how they view it. And there was a time in the (19)80s when students were rather nostalgic for the (19)60s, because that was a time when it must have been great to be a college student. Things that is where the focus of the world was. Television were watching what was happening on college campuses. Also, it is a new experimentation going on, real sense of excitement. They thought, "Why could not things be like that now in the early (19)80s?" Well, today's students see the (19)60s as not very attractive, because sex, drugs and rock and roll get you into trouble. And if you are interested in a career, you can get off track awfully easily with all these distractions and with movements and marches. Those students of the (19)60s looked pretty bedraggled. They did not bathe all that much or did not cut their hair, so it is quite a reversal then. And it is not that they are unsympathetic, because the values, especially the women, it is interesting, women students now, if you ask whether they are feminists, they will say, "Absolutely not, I am not a feminist." Then you talk a bit more and you will find that they intend to have a career. They know about the women's movement of the (19)60s and (19)70s. They appreciate what that women's movement did for them, but they do not want to be known as feminist. They appreciate, they want the rights that were earned. They want equal pay for equal work. They want careers to be open to them, but they do not want to be identified as radicals. It is really quite remarkable. SM (00:21:00): Could you comment on the social consciousness was the main positive? What was, in your eyes, the main negative? SH (00:21:06): I think self-indulgence, without a doubt, just self-indulgence. In two senses. One, if you come to see middle class values as imprisoning and stultifying and you want to open up life to all of its possibilities, it is very easy to tell yourself that LSD is going to do it. And it is very easy to tell yourself, "If I lie around and take drugs and drink booze and do everything else that feels good, that I am really part of the revolutionary movement." When actually what you are doing is indulging yourself just and not doing anybody any good, much less yourself. The other self-indulgence that is there is really responsible for causing those social justice movements to fragment at the end of the (19)60s and disappear. And that is, the sense that this is a revolutionary moment and we are the revolutionary vanguard and we are going to bring off the revolution, and therefore violence is okay, and uncivil behavior is okay. Treating other people badly is okay because they are not likely to be in the revolutionary vanguard. That is kind of political self-indulgence, pseudo revolutionary self-deception. SM (00:22:40): One of the slogans from that period, I can remember the Peter Max poster that was very popular when I was a grad student in Ohio State, and I had it on my door and people always talked about it. We had even talks about it in my room, "You do your thing, I will do mine. If by chance we should come together, it will be beautiful." SH (00:23:02): Right-right, yes. SM (00:23:06): And when I see Peter Max now with all the millions that he has made and all of his paintings, Peter Max has become quite of an entrepreneur off of this. But he would be interesting in terms of his comments. SH (00:23:20): Well, the other, sort of the irony, the same vein, the irony of the music of the (19)60s, which is closely identified with protest movements. There is Bob Dylan with consciously political lyrics to his songs, but the music in general is part of this (19)60s feeling of, do your own thing, live for the moment, spontaneity, do not recognize any constraints. Of course, the music groups that were making that music and identifying with the forces of change were practicing 18 hours a day, were rigorously disciplined, were engaged in a catalyst economic activity, and were making tons of money by all of their effort and work. So, I do not know whether that is [inaudible], but it is quite interesting. SM (00:24:21): And we will look at the Grateful Dead and the impact that they have had ongoing. In 1970, I get back because this is your interview, but I just want to make a comment. In 1970, I was a senior SUNY Binghamton, and the night of April 30th I broke my arm and almost had an amputated, that was in a serious accident, and I was graduating on May 17th. And so that was the night of the Cambodia speech that President Nixon gave at nine o'clock, and I was in the operating room for five hours. Then I was in the hospital for nine straight days and I made out fine and went to my graduation and everything. And Bruce Deering was our president and the great philosopher, but I missed a concert that was at SUNY Binghamton, which was the Grateful Dead in the brand-new gymnasium on May 2nd, 1970. SH (00:25:08): Right in the middle of all this? SM (00:25:11): Right in the middle. It was after the invasion, after the bombing of Cambodia. And it was two days before Kent State on May 4th, and I was not there. And you cannot buy that tape, except through the Grateful Dead website. And a student brought this to my attention and the Grateful Dead considered this one of their top five concerts of all time- SH (00:25:35): Wow. SM (00:25:35): ...because of the intensity of the audience in the new gym. And I graduated in that gym only 15 days later. Well, you bring up the invasion there and everything that happened and the violence, because that was happening in Binghamton too. Could you talk your thoughts on how important the anti-war movement, particularly the college students, the anti-war movement was not ending the war in Vietnam. SH (00:26:03): Controversy was subject. I have asked my students the same thing and I get various answers, each of which has good rationale behind it. I think that it did have an effect, especially after the Tet Offensive when the credibility gap was so evident and the mainstream public opinion began to turn against the war. It was another year before majority of Americans were telling posters that they were anti-war. But it was, the anti-war sentiment went up into the 40-percentile range right after Tet in the spring of (19)68, (19)68 was the turning point. The phenomenon that I find extremely interesting is that as the public was... And I do not think, it is not just Tet in the credibility yet, I do not think the public would have reacted that way if there had not been already a constant anti-war movement that was reminding people that the war might be a bad thing, might be wrong. It was not just that it was on television. It was that there was an opposition group there constantly saying, "We should not be there," for a range of reasons. When it then becomes clear that our leaders had been lying to us, then the public reacts very strongly. Now, the interesting thing is that as the public began to agree with the anti-war protestors, the antagonism toward those protestors also went up. That is the public did not tell themselves, "You are right. I am going to agree with you." They said, "I am anti-war and I do not like those anti-war protestors either." And that divides the country in a very interesting way. Seems true about the urban riots that were going on in that period as well. Urban riots, oddly enough made the public feel that something had to be done, that there were injustices in the urban centers of the country that could not be tolerated and that the population would not tolerate in that circumstance. And we could not go on having major riots in urban centers every summer. At the same time this is the origin of the law and order movement basically. I mean, one of Nixon's big campaign slogans in the 1968 is Law and Order. Because the public both was prepared for social policies, public policies that would address the complaints of the rioters. They were also wanting to repress the rioters at the same time. It was the same sort of dichotomous reaction, simultaneously dichotomous reaction. "I am going to do something to respond to your complaints, but I am going to put you in jail as well." SM (00:29:34): When the best history books, I got a lot of, I am going around here, but when the best history books are written on the boomer generation, and oftentimes the best history is you as a historian know that oftentimes the best history books are 50 years after an event. Some of the best books on World War II are coming out now. And so hence, 25 years from now when books are being written on the boomer generation in the (19)60s, what do you think they are going to say? How are the historians going to define the boomers and that generation in that period? SH (00:30:07): If you take the boomer generation to begin to make its effect in the (19)60s when they got to college, then I think there are two things that will be said. One is that in 1960s it was a watershed in American history. It really did change America fundamentally, shifted the values. The Immigration Act of 1965 was a response to the new consciousness of the 1960s. Immigration Act did away with the National Quota system and allowed a much more diverse immigration into the country. That is when Latin Americans and Asian Americans began to arrive in much greater numbers. Now, we are a much more diverse society than we were in the 1950s, and we are a society that has pluralism as one of our guiding tenets now, in a way that was not true in the (19)50s or before, fundamentally changed. The Civil rights movement fundamentally changed both the public policy and American attitudes towards discrimination. In all sorts of ways the (19)60s really do mark a new beginning. And since there was a conservative reaction against all those changes, we are still living with the politics that was created by the conservative reaction. I mean, the new conservative movement, both the neocons but also the religious right and the current conservative hegemony in the United States begins as a reaction against the (19)60s, so we are still living with the (19)60s in a way. Because the new conservatism has its agenda undoing the (19)60s, if that makes sense, so we are still living with it. SM (00:32:18): What are your thoughts as to why? Because the conservative or the people to the right know that if they really go toe to toe with liberals that they will lose? That they always have to go back to find the Achilles heel within the, and that is really a symptom of the whole body? So, they are going to try to destroy it in any way they can? SH (00:32:42): And they do it kind of surreptitiously in a way. Because if you simply look at, this is what give you a data, if you will. If you look at the policy positions of Ronald Reagan on social issues all the way through the (19)80s when he was president, there was a majority of Americans who was against all of them basically. Yet he prevailed basically. And the same thing is true now. I will make a partisan remark because it makes the point, and I am not sure I believe all this. But the Medicare Act that was just passed amid great fanfare yesterday probably is the first step in dismantling Medicare. But it is sold as a great step forward, makes it much more complicated, makes it somewhat privatized. But this is what the conservative movement has learned over the last 30 years is that if you go frontally against policy positions that are liberal, you lose, because most Americans agree with those liberal policy positions. So, you find ways to chip away that are not noticed basically, or can be camouflaged in some way. Now, that sounds partisan, but actually you find some conservatives who say that. David Brooks, for instance, a conservative I have a lot of respect for, says that the building up of these think tanks, conservative think tanks from the (19)70s, (19)80s and (19)90s has given the conservatives not only a lot of intellectual depth to what they are doing, but some very intelligent ways of dismantling or attacking the liberal positions. SM (00:34:58): I interviewed Dr. Lee Edwards down at the Heritage Foundation, and he teaches a course on the (19)60s as well, and at the Catholic University. And in there he wants to make sure that the conservative movement against the Vietnam War is also known. SH (00:35:13): It is interesting. SM (00:35:14): Because there has been a couple books, or at least one really top book, I think at Rutgers University Press that has really gone into detail about how the conservative students of the (19)60s were against the war, and they have been excluded a lot in a lot of the history books, so Pete brought that up and talked about it. And I do not know if there is any thoughts you have because of whether that group has been excluded? SH (00:35:39): Well, not really excluded, but his feeling that they had been excluded is an example of a conservative reaction. But it is interesting, this is a good example of how a position that claims support across the ideological spectrum and across the class spectrum is seen by conservatives who have the other position who are against it. Is illegitimate, I am not saying this well. But the anti-war movement, there was a very strong Catholic anti-war movement. The Berrigan brothers- SM (00:36:21): Oh yeah. SH (00:36:21): ...for goodness sake, were out there way out in front of everybody, just as the Catholic Worker Movement has been there. So, the anti-war movement was much more complex than the pro-Viet Cong stereotype that is pasted on it by the current day conservatives, if you will. There are other examples of the same sort of thing. The women's movement really irritates a lot of conservatives. But if you ask, I mean, you take a poll of American women and they support all of the fundamental elements of women's rights, even if they do not want to be identified as a feminist. SM (00:37:19): You were given the qualities, the strengths and weaknesses of the boomers, how would you feel about a generation of students? And I can remember being college campuses and my peers saying this, "That we are the most unique generation in American history. We are going to be the change agent for the betterment of society. We are going to end racism, sexism, homophobia, bring peace to the world. Money is going to be secondary to serving others." This was an attitude that a lot of the young people had at that time. Your thoughts on that kind of an attitude that they had then, and whether in their personal lives they really have fulfilled this as they have gotten older? Because in a Fortune 500 magazine article about in the last two years, again, it was a way of attacking the boomer generation is that some of the wealthiest people are boomers and it goes on and on. And in reality they fell in just like their parents, trying to make money and get ahead in the world and serving others became very secondary. Is that true? SH (00:38:30): Yes. SM (00:38:30): Okay. SH (00:38:33): In a word, all right? Hubris might be used. But I think this goes back to the 15 percent, 85 percent split. Those sympathetic 85 percent folks were always headed toward a normal life and a career. They just had these ideals that they also wanted to honor along the way. So, it is no surprise that they reverted to middle class ways and values. One thing that I wanted to say earlier was that the boomers are so powerful, not only by creating the (19)60s, but they are a huge market. So, you track them through their lifecycle, and you will find American tastes changing in response to the demand, if you will, of the boomers wherever they are in the lifecycle. It is such a huge market that manufacturers and advertisers focus on them. When they get to be middle-aged, in their 40s and 50s and luxury goods go up, they are selling these huge gas governed vehicles, because that is what the boomers want. They move to suburbia, so you have got all sorts of things catering to suburbanites. Everywhere now they are on the verge of retirement. And Medicare is going to be a huge fight, because the boomers are going to catch on and will insist on. SM (00:40:19): Do you feel that they will change old age- SH (00:40:21): Yes, they would. SM (00:40:24): That development? It is interesting whether the boomers are going to retire in a way that their parents may have retired. By the retirement meaning they are going off and taking trips and moving to Florida and that kind of stuff. Will they really never retire? They may retire from their job, but they will always be giving back to society in private. I am sure we do not know that, the answer to that yet, but- SH (00:40:48): We are taking from society. SM (00:40:48): We are taking from, I am kind of wondering. SH (00:40:53): Opportunity. Well, no, that is a really good question, because retirement may change. SM (00:41:00): One of the issues of this whole thing was the Vietnam Veterans Memorial has become a very important symbol for healing within the Vietnam veteran population and certainly within the families of Vietnam vets. And Jan Scruggs wrote the book To Heal a Nation, which is this entity being a non-political entity, just paying tribute to those who served and caring about those who served. Your thoughts on whether this nation has healed since the (19)60s? I know you have brought up the divisions between conservatives and liberals in the political arena, but the overall healing process from the tremendous divisions of that war did in this society. I preface this by saying that some of the people that I have interviewed thought that we were near a second civil war at certain times with the riots, especially in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s, and then started to wane in -73. But just your thoughts on that? SH (00:41:57): Well, there is still wounds there that have not healed. If you think about, what did Newt Gingrich say about the Clintons in 1992 when they were running for office? He called them the counter cultural McGovernics, which is to say they are right out of, they are tainted with communism and right out of the (19)60s with no values at all. And they probably voted for McGovern, as indeed they did. So, if it was useful in (19)92 to invoke, to taint the Clintons with that aura of being countercultural- SM (00:42:42): Try this here. Okay, just called slow. SH (00:42:49): Then I think the (19)60s are still alive. The other place to look is in the lessons of the Vietnam War are still very much on our minds and in our military policy, so we worry about that all the time. But we just violated one of the biggest lessons of the Vietnam War is to have an exit strategy. SM (00:43:13): Healing, that wall was, I think in (19)82 when it was supposed to heal the generation. I do not know if you have ever thought about this, probably had, as a person who teaches the (19)60s, when people go down to that wall, especially those who are against the war, the feelings that must go through their mind. SH (00:43:32): Well, I give you my own experience. I was in Washington for a higher education meeting sometime in the three or four years after it was up. Had never seen it, had sort of seen pictures, but they do not give you a good notion of it. And I am a jogger, or was then, so I went out for my morning run and ran down, going to the mall, and actually stumbled across it. I did not know where it was, and just suddenly I was there in front of it. And I was moved to tears. I just thought it was so effective, and all those names of people who gave their lives. For the nation, actually, in my opinion that was the wrong war. We had no national interest in being there. There was no way to win it. We should not have been there. But those folks who went were doing their patriotic duty. And I think I would have done the same thing in that age. And for me, as an old sort of anti-war person, it was, I think, doubly effective, because I saw the tragedy and sadness of it all. And I respected all those names that were there. I also loved the way it is done. And the fact that the two arms of the wall point to the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument is as if to say, "This is the nation." The meaning of the nation is captured in the symbols that are involved in this association between the Vietnam Memorial Wall and the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. SM (00:45:34): Beautiful observation, because when you talk about your observation and how when you were running and you came to the wall, I interviewed Tom Hayden who was under campus a couple weeks back, and it was hard to get an interview with, he was on the way to the airport. But the most prophetic comment he made during that entire 35-minute interview was the fact that he looked at, it is the way he looked at the wall. He looked at on it as like that is the casket. That the wall coming together with the grass on top, the grass over the casket, and the wall comes together like this, and that is the body within the casket. And of course, all the people who served. So he looked upon it like a cemetery. SH (00:46:25): Yeah, I do not think that is right. SM (00:46:31): That is the way Tom looked at it. But I thought that was a prophetic statement from him, because he had been, and of course he did not regret anything he ever did- SH (00:46:39): Yeah, that is true. SM (00:46:40): ...in the anti-war movement. SH (00:46:42): Well, let me, one other observation about the wall. His reaction gets the juices going a bit, but if you walk along the wall, you are walking into it, but you also walk out of it, and both are correct. And the other thing is, if you stand in front of the wall, there are two ways to focus your eyes. You could look at the names which are etched in the wall, but then if you shift your focus a little bit to the wall, you are looking into the wall as a mirror. First you see the names, and then you realize that you are also looking at yourself, looking at the names which connects the individual onlooker to the names and what they mean. SM (00:47:36): Your thoughts on boomer generation or kids, and whether- SH (00:47:41): The children of the- SM (00:47:42): The children of boomers, which obviously is Generation X, and actually a few of the kids who had kids later in life with a current group. Just your thoughts on the concept of empowerment, because one of the concepts that I do not see, and I am just, this is my prejudice, it is just me, is I do not see a sense of empowerment among students. Not only it either desire to have power or even if they were able to have power, how to use it. And just the whole concept of whether parents have actually sat down with their kids and talked to them about this era and that your voice counts, that you are empowered. SH (00:48:23): I think you are right. The parents have not done that. It is interesting, and in my seminar, I hear so often from students who go back and talk to their parents. These are fairly recent students, because the parents of the students I have gotten now in for the last five years have lived through the (19)60s on a college campus generally. My students go back and talk to their parents and they come back and report that they, first, it was fulfilling. It was wonderful to talk to your parents about something that you can share and that the parents have the experience and the kids have, it is kind of the knowledge, the book knowledge, so it brings them together. But the students report that they learn things about their parents that they had never heard before, never knew before. I think the parents have not talked to their students very much about what they did and where were you during the war, dad, sort of thing. And I think that you are right, maybe they should have. And the other observation about current day students, I think you are right as well. Their goals seem to be much more private, personal. They do have a vague sense of wanting to be of service to society. That they do want to give, but it is generally, they do not want to change the world so much as to do a little good in it while they are pursuing their own careers. SM (00:50:25): The issue of trust is something that really did have an effect on students of the (19)60s, and even all young people in the (19)60s. As a college student and for other people I have talked to, look at what happened with Lyndon Johnson, the Gulf of Tonkin. I know what has been written about it. McNamara, the numbers game during the Vietnam War. You can even go back to Eisenhower and the U2 incident, and standing before the American public and lying. You can talk to how much was President Kennedy involved in the killing of Diem? And then of course, Richard Nixon, the Enemies List. SH (00:51:13): I am no crook. SM (00:51:16): I am no crook. The whole issue of trust in leaders that has been written about were, boomers did not trust any leader, whether they were in the White House or the head of a church. But how, did they pass this on to their kids, and do today's young people trust? Is this one of the weaknesses of our society, a lack of trust in anyone who is in a position of leader? And you would know more than anyone being a university president, not because you are a university president, but because you are a leader. Just a leader. SH (00:51:50): This is the point of attack for a lot of conservatives. Now, the worst thing about the (19)60s, the argument is that the (19)60s taught America to distrust authority. Not that authority is always right, but you do have orderly procedures in society for making decisions and you have to have leaders, people who have a bit more authority than others, who get things done for the community. That was certainly true. I mean, their analysis, the (19)60s is absolutely right, the (19)60s was anti-authority. It was the anti-leadership virus, as some have called it. That does not seem to have lasted. I think you are absolutely right in that you can see a kind of atomization of society since the (19)60s. It started in the (19)60s, and you could actually trace it in public opinion polls to today that people are less engaged in their communities in various ways. This is the Bowling Alone argument issue. SM (00:53:05): Oh, yeah, following- SH (00:53:07): Putnam's book and what has come out of it. And I think he had something right, whether he made the argument in the most convincing way, and I think he was on to something. There is this disaggregation of society, gated communities, suburbs. We are increasingly segregated by class, as well as by ethnicity and race. And there is less that brings us together as whole communities to solve problems. I think that is a problem for us. And it is in the wake of the (19)60s that that has developed. SM (00:53:53): You would not agree though with the conservatives that the boomers are responsible for this, and so they continue to use that. When in reality, some of the people today who are leadership roles, you cannot trust because of the things they do. SH (00:54:09): I wish, I mean, part of me says, "I wish the public was a bit more suspicious of the leaders." But there is no evidence that Clinton, they certainly distrusted. But there was a huge campaign to get the public to do that. Reagan did not suffer from it. The first President Bush did not suffer from it. Carter did not suffer from it. He made other- SM (00:54:33): How about President Bush? Students that you see every day here at Penn, do they trust this president? SH (00:54:42): I think it would be better to say they do not distrust him. They do not see any reason not to think what he is saying is, I mean, they are not outraged by him, which I think in the (19)60s, if President Bush, if the students in the (19)60s were on the campus today, they would be marching and ridiculing and pointing out the problems. SM (00:55:10): I think you mentioned this earlier in the interview, but if you could say it again, when did the (19)60s begin? What was the magic moment, very magic, you think the (19)60s began? SH (00:55:21): Well, I will have two answers. In general, they began for me with the Brown decision in 1954, because the civil rights movement set the paradigm for the whole (19)60s. And they end with Nixon's resignation, because even though we still were involved in Vietnam for another year, it was a minimum involvement and the fate was already filled, basically. So, it is Nixon's resignation that ends an era. And the (19)70s are spent trying to put the country back together, not only from the (19)60s, but from Watergate, which also destroyed trust in authority. That is one answer. I think that is the right answer. But the way people generally think about the (19)60s is the sex, drugs, and rock and roll and radicalism and unkempt students, I think begins with the sit-in movement in 1960. And because that is also the time when the Students for Democratic Society is being formed, 1961. Tom Hayden you mentioned was the leader of that, and they were aware of the sit-in movement and the civil rights movement in the south, so they are modeling themselves a bit after the civil rights movement. But that is the first sort of organized general attack on American society as a whole. SM (00:56:55): You had mentioned some of the simplistic approaches people use to describe things. One that comes on more and more is the fact that the (19)60s began with the assassination of John Kennedy. And 1963, because really the first three years were like the (19)50s when Kennedy was the first president. And I interviewed Marilyn Young down in New York City, and she said the (19)60s began with the Beat generation. SH (00:57:21): Well- SM (00:57:22): And she talked about that, because of they were different. SH (00:57:29): I think there is an argument. SM (00:57:29): And she said it is the (19)50s. It is those bad groups. SH (00:57:30): If you take that view that it starts with the Brown decision, you get the Beats because that is when they are getting going as well. In fact, that is the year, when was On the Road published? That is about then. (19)56. SM (00:57:45): (19)57, I think (19)56, (19)57. SH (00:57:47): Yeah, you are right. SM (00:57:49): I basically am going to the next part of my interview, which is basically just listing... How are we doing time wise? SH (00:57:55): [inaudible] now. SM (00:57:58): I am just going to list some names for, I am going to do the second slide here, because this is pretty well done. Thing that I did not ask you- SH (00:58:13): No, this has been a working conversation. SM (00:58:15): Yeah- SH (00:58:16): You are into this. SM (00:58:17): Well, I am really into it, but I want to give back to society and I want to do a really good book. And I am doing a 100 interviews. Someone said, "Why a 100?" I am doing a 100. SH (00:58:27): Yeah, thanks for [inaudible]. SM (00:58:30): If you could just respond to these names with a few comments, and I will start right with Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda. SH (00:58:36): Oh, well, gee, I have some respect for, Tom Hayden is the founding member of the Students for Democratic Society, which had a democratic focus to it. The Port Huron Statement laid out a critique of America in the 1950s basically that needed to be made. They belonged to a wing of the 1960s that I did not belong to, the going to... I was against the war, but I was never pro-Viet Cong. And so I think pitching the anti-war rhetoric in terms of being pro-North Vietnam or pro-Viet Cong or pro-communist, I thought was wrong both technically and substantively. SM (00:59:42): When Lewis Fuller, before he passed away, he was one of the ones responsible for getting Bill Clinton to the wall, when we came, and I think James Crux for that too. Bringing some people, doing the best they could to heal. And he was pretty open to a lot of ideas. I did not know if it would have been interesting if he had stayed alive, if McNamara might have been invited, or even a Jane Fonda or a Tom Hayden would be. And I have gotten to know so many Vietnam vets now, and I have gotten to talk to them, that the two people that they would never want at the wall are McNamara and Fonda, it is just the hatred against them. In fact, I will get back to the interview, but I have been to the Vietnam Memorial for the last 10 years Memorial Day and Veterans Day. And three times, in retrospect the book has been placed at the wall with bullets through it. SH (01:00:39): You talk about which book? SM (01:00:41): In Retrospect, the McNamara. And I have pictures of it one year, it is three times over 10 years, but it is probably the same person doing it. But they take the book and they put bullets through it, and then they leave it at the wall, so it is pretty strong. SH (01:00:54): Yeah, I understand that. SM (01:00:56): The black power individuals, Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, Angela Davis, those [inaudible]- SH (01:01:02): Oh, the Black Panther people? SM (01:01:03): Yep. SH (01:01:05): I will answer about black power. I think black power destroyed the civil rights movement basically. And was, for America was the wrong answer at the wrong time. The Black Panthers, I would not go so far as to adopt the conservative critique, which is that the Panthers were hustled. But I guess they were accepted by the black community as their champions, some black communities as the champions of the black community. And they were doing some good things in the communities. I thought they developed into a revolutionary class-oriented movement, they did not include me. SM (01:01:57): How about the Yippies, Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin and the whole Yippie group? SH (01:02:01): Entertaining. And they were effective in making Americans think about the issues that were before the country at that time. SM (01:02:12): Any thoughts, when you talk about beyond the Yippies, when you look at Abbie Hoffman's life and when he died in Bucks County with a note, when he committed suicide, "No one is listening to me anymore." SH (01:02:24): Yeah, sad. SM (01:02:24): Is that- SH (01:02:26): Well, it indicates that he was hooked on celebrity, but that celebrity is a failing of American society. We are radically equalitarian, except we love celebrities. And if you get used to it, if you get hooked on celebrity, then you are like coming down, I guess. I have never been high. SM (01:02:50): How about Daniel and Philip Berger? I have interviewed Daniel for this project, Philip and Daniel Berger. SH (01:02:55): You just have to admire their devotion to their principles. And those are not my tactics, but those are men of conscience, and they live by their conscience. SM (01:03:10): How about Dr. Benjamin Spock? SH (01:03:12): Oh, the man who created the (19)60s? SM (01:03:16): With his baby book. SH (01:03:20): I guess that was raised out of stock, though. SM (01:03:23): I have his first edition of that book. I found it in a used bookstore and I could not believe it was first edition- SH (01:03:30): Oh, I have not really thought about him. I do not think that is fair to accuse him of raising the Boomers wrong. And I see him as a sympathetic figure. I mean, he joined the anti-war movement and used his celebrity for a good purpose. SM (01:03:48): How about Daniel Ellsberg? SH (01:03:51): Oh, I think Ellsberg did the country a huge service when he wrote the Pentagon Papers to light, so I have got respect for him as well. I think he is one of the good ones. SM (01:04:09): But the politicians of the year, I will start with certainly Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. SH (01:04:14): Well, it depends on which Malcolm X you are talking about. The later Malcolm X I admire, that is the Malcolm X who solve the problems of the world with human problems rather than racial problems. This is after he went to Mecca and became less of a race conscious critic of America and more of a human rights leader in a way. And his story is compelling, his life story. And indeed, the book, the autobiography of Malcolm X, is one of the great documents of American letters. Martin Luther King I have, even despite the personal flaws I have understanding admiration for the great man, one of the great figures of the 20th century. SM (01:05:10): What do you think of his stand on the Vietnam War? SH (01:05:12): Principled. That is people, especially people within the civil rights movement with the thought of King as being that bold enough and not radical to accommodating, because he was doing business with the White House, for goodness's sake, which was a no-no for real radicals. But his stance on the war, even Stokely Carmichael admired. And I thought it was, as everything he did in public was a principled stance and took a lot of guts because it caused him a lot of status, a lot of position in American life. SM (01:05:52): Your thoughts of that really? Of the blank leadership that included Dr. King, James Farmer, Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young, and of course, John Lewis? SH (01:06:00): John Lewis statute, a special affection for, I think he is a man of just unyielding integrity, who is stuck by his principles all the way through, even though it got him tossed out of SNCC. And we will see, the metaphor here is that Stokely Carmichael ousted John Lewis in a coup, in 1966 it was. And Carmichael became the chairman of SNCC. Two years later, one year later Carmichael left. Two years later SNCC did not exist anymore. John Lewis is now a member of Congress. There you are. SM (01:06:45): Stokely went off to Africa, I think, died of cancer. SH (01:06:47): Exactly. SM (01:06:48): Changed his name and everything else. The politicians, Lyndon Johnson. SH (01:06:54): Tragic figure, both a great man on the upside and on the downside, man of gargantuan appetites. SM (01:07:02): Hubert Humphrey. SH (01:07:04): Sad figure, because he was the man of great principal. And as vice president he had to compromise that principle. And I think it crushed him. SM (01:07:16): Barry Goldwater. SH (01:07:18): I am not among those who think that he is a person of integrity and therefore one should have affection for him. I just think he was a retrovirus. SM (01:07:35): Richard Nixon. SH (01:07:36): An evil man. SM (01:07:37): [inaudible]. SH (01:07:43): A crook. SM (01:07:46): And Jerry Ford. SH (01:07:48): Oh, a decent man who tried to bring America together and did the right thing. I thought his partnering of Nixon was the right thing to do, and that probably caused him any chance of going further in public life. SM (01:08:01): And Ronald Reagan. SH (01:08:03): Oh, I have trouble with Ronald Reagan, because I recognized that he was a strong and effective president, yet I think his policies were bad for America. SM (01:08:15): How about his role as the governor of California? SH (01:08:18): I do not know enough about that. He fired Clark Kerr who just died. And I thought, I think Kerr is one of the great figures of higher education in America, so I know I have a bit of trouble. They said, I had two opinions about Reagan. SM (01:08:33): John F. Kennedy. SH (01:08:38): I am not captured by the Camelot myth entirely, though I think he came to be committed to civil rights. He was not originally, and it was not until 1963, probably that. But he became committed to doing something about the status of blacks, even though he had been saying the right thing all along. He was fundamentally interested in foreign policy. That is where he spent his time, and he did extremely well there. But if you test for leadership is recognizing the most pressing problems of your organization at your time, and then mobilizing support to identifying also a solution, something to be done about it, and then mobilizing support for that solution. He fails on the domestic side until quite late in a way that Lyndon Johnson, of course, succeeded on the domestic side and then was the masters on the international side. SM (01:09:34): Bobby Kennedy. SH (01:09:35): I was a Kennedy supporter in 1968, rather than a McCarthy supporter, because I thought Bobby Kennedy had grown, had become passionately committed to civil rights and social justice, and had the toughness to win the nomination and the election. SM (01:10:04): People from the, actually, I want to say Robert McNamara too, because you have got to mention that name in the (19)60s. SH (01:10:09): I see. McNamara, see is a tragic figure also, who was, and his tragic flaw was his commitment to rational analysis of policy. And it led him into thinking that the war could be fought by the numbers and that we were winning. I do not know what to think about the fact that he understood that we were losing and could not win, and resigned and said nothing about it until 30 years later. SM (01:10:41): Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem and some of the women leaders, the early- SH (01:10:45): Oh. SM (01:10:46): The women's movement. SH (01:10:48): Heroic or heriotic, or whatever the term is for their time. I think they mobilized and created a movement that made changes in American life that needed to be made. SM (01:11:01): Muhammad Ali. SH (01:11:08): Oh. Actually, you have got to admire Muhammad Ali. He had principles, and he became a Muslim and he lived by those principles that he adopted. It cost him dearly in money and in fame as well. And he was not only a great boxer, he was a great entertainer, but he was a great boxer. Just a great boxer. SM (01:11:33): Speaking, he was out for at least two years, not three. SH (01:11:40): At the peak of his career. And those careers are not very long anyway. SM (01:11:41): George McGovern. SH (01:11:44): Oh, I would like to think well of him. He was not a good candidate in (19)72, though I certainly voted for him. But gee, I think he was on the right side, but did not have the wherewithal to bring leadership to the Democratic Party. SM (01:12:10): Eugene McCarthy. SH (01:12:13): The opposite figure. But it is pretty much the same. I thought you have to admire him for stepping forward in this fall of 1967 and agreeing to challenge the sitting Democratic, the president of his own party. That took guts and commitment, but he was always a bit mystical and witty. It was not clear that he really wanted to be president. Even some of his close supporters, his campaign workers say that he kind of quit in the summer of (19)68 before the convention, quit running, because he wanted to bring a message to the people, which he did, but he did not really want to win presidency badly enough to do what needed to be done. SM (01:13:05): You did not mention the music of the (19)60s. When you think of Janice Chaplin, Jimmy Hendricks, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Simon and Garfunkel, Baez, The Folk Singers, Phil Ochs, goes on and on. Arlo Guthrie, what do you- SH (01:13:20): Amazing. SM (01:13:20): When you think of, I mean the list goes on and on and on and on and on. SH (01:13:25): Just so much talent. SM (01:13:26): How important was that to an era? We hear about the big band being the music of the World War II generation. SH (01:13:32): Yeah, I think it was huge. Even though a lot of the lyrics coming out of the folk music, the lyrics are not necessarily specifically political, but there is something community building and even subversive in all that music, even though the Beatles were rather consciously non-revolutionary. I mean, we do not want to make a revolution. So whereas the Stones of course were their opposite numbers. If you look at the lyrics that they were singing, they were going in different directions. But if you look at their music and its effect on the audience, they were both making for a generation that differentiated itself from those that went before, so it made your boomer generation that music. SM (01:14:32): I have to mention one of the Beatles, John Lennon, because he was killed in 1980 and he was like one of the tops on Richard Nixon's enemies list. Just your thoughts on John Lennon separate from all the other Beatles. Just him as a person? SH (01:14:47): He is interesting. And he grew more than the other Beatles, I think, during his fame, and that is very hard to do when you are caught up in ... Their career as a group was relatively short. But he was a first-rate musician with an inquiring mind that led him in quite different directions from the other Beatles. And you got to admire that. And maybe Nixon was right. He was the most dangerous one because he was thinking. SM (01:15:19): He wanted him out of the country so bad. SH (01:15:21): Yeah. SM (01:15:22): I remember the Dick Cavett show when he was on there with Yoko Ono, is just a classic hour interview. And that is what Nixon was trying to get rid of. I am going to end the interview with a couple just terms from that era, just your thoughts on them? SDS. SH (01:15:38): Students for a Democratic Society, the Radical Wing of the movement outside the civil rights movement. A very small cadre of activists who made more change than their numbers would have predicted so you have got to think that they were brave. I did not agree with everything they did. SM (01:16:03): How about the Weatherman? SH (01:16:06): I think they were terrible. They were a part of that self-deluding, pseudo revolutionary group that did the American left a huge disservice by thinking that violence could work in America. SM (01:16:24): The communes. SH (01:16:26): Some of those were brave experiments in an alternative way of living. America has been the host country for a huge number of utopias, utopian communities. Intentional communities they came to be called in the 19th century and in the 20th century. None of them lasted very long, but the [inaudible] being an example of one that lasted longer. If you think of the Mormons as one of those utopias, you could say they lasted longer. But those experimental intentional communities are quite useful for democracy, because they try out ideas. SM (01:17:07): Counterculture. SH (01:17:10): Upside and downside. It is a good thing to challenge accepted values and to try to stretch the limits of individual freedom, which they did. It is a bad thing to think you can do that by self-indulgence of all kinds. SM (01:17:35): Let me get down there, Chicago Eight. SH (01:17:38): Oh they were, I am glad they were. Well, that is a more complicated thing, because they did go to Chicago with the intention of creating a ruckus, though they became the victims of a police riot more than the other way around. So, I was, again, the history is correct to see them as more heroic than what would be the opposite turn, the villain of the peace. SM (01:18:18): Yeah, that 1968 year was quite a year with the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King and the Republican and the Democratic conventions. SH (01:18:29): Yeah. And the Tet Offensive. SM (01:18:29): Yes. SH (01:18:29): And all that. SM (01:18:30): If you were to pick a year that you think was the most, what was, I would not say most violent, but they had the greatest impact on America during the... Would (19)68 be that year? SH (01:18:39): (19)68 would be it beyond a question, yeah. SM (01:18:43): Kent State. SH (01:18:44): Tragedy that maybe caused America to stop and think a bit more carefully about what the war was doing to the society. So, those deaths may not have been in vain. SM (01:19:00): Chris Jackson State. You always have to include that in there too. SH (01:19:03): Same stuff. SM (01:19:04): Because they died a couple weeks later. And last but not least are just some of the figures that were linked to the war itself. The leaders of Vietnam, which was General Q and General Cao Kỳ. They are part of the (19)60s, the Vietnam leadership. Just your thoughts on them? SH (01:19:20): Oh. Well, they were corrupt and autocratic and that is why there was no way we could win the war, because we did not... The South Vietnamese society could not have been democratized in the same way. SM (01:19:40): And I cannot end the interview without talking about the space program. You talk about the (19)60s and- SH (01:19:44): The upside of- SM (01:19:45): The upside of the (19)60s. Could you talk about space program and a few more of the upsides? SH (01:19:53): Well, it is ironic. There is so many other things happening in the (19)60s that are unambiguously wonderful. I like the landing on the moon, the space program in general. Art was, the music we have already talked about. But classical music also was, contemporary music was terrific in the (19)60s. Art was also going through a revolution. Some great figures emerged in the (19)60s. The economy was doing extremely well. So, this was a time of huge prosperity. In fact, it is probably true that the (19)60s could not have happened, except in a period of great prosperity. Have always thought that the college students who did get involved in movements and protests of various kinds could do so because they assumed that their future was going to be secure. That America was great and the economy was going to grow and they were going to be educated and they could always do very well. So they could take time out. SM (01:21:10): And they will not read about it being put in jail, being on their record and affecting them getting a job, whereas today- SH (01:21:17): Yeah, that you- SM (01:21:18): No way am I going to do that. SH (01:21:20): Yeah, exactly right, wow. SM (01:21:23): I think that is about it. There was one other term here, I think. Yeah, I guess the other thing is Watergate. Yeah, just Watergate itself? SH (01:21:34): Watergate did not really surprise me because that was suspicious of Nixon all along. It depressed me though, because in one way it depressed me, because the thought that someone who was elected President of the United States and gathered people around him was capable of such subversion of basic values. On the other hand, the system worked, did not it? I mean, we found him out and Republicans and Democrats together drove him from office. That is pretty good. SM (01:22:14): In closing, is there anything that I did not mention or ask that you thought I was going to ask today before the interview started? SH (01:22:20): No, I think if you would send me a transcript of this, I will just give it to my (19)60 [inaudible]. SM (01:22:27): Great. This was very good. I guess- SH (01:22:31): I enjoyed it, I must say. SM (01:22:32): Yeah, thank you very much and if you could, as I could do with closing everything, you would just state your name, and the day, and your title, and- SH (01:22:42): Oh. SM (01:22:43): Because- SH (01:22:43): I am Sheldon Hackney, I am a professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania. And this is December the 10th. SM (01:22:53): December 10th, 2003. And the interviewer has been Steve McKiernan. Thank you. Dr. Hackney, could you comment on Earth Day in 1970? SH (01:23:05): The first Earth Day is another one of those things that started in the (19)60s that is evidence of a new consciousness that is dawning there and a new emphasis on saving the world for future generations. I think it is totally admirable. SM (01:23:24): Do you think that that is still happening today, or is it falling on the back burner? SH (01:23:26): Environmental movement is still there, but it is much more sedate. And I am afraid it is not in the front of our consciousness. I mean, all of our environmental regulations are being stripped of their power at the moment and nobody is saying much. SM (01:23:41): Thank you. (End of Interview) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Francis Sheldon Hackney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Hackney, Sheldon, 1933-2013 ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Authors; College teachers; History--United States; University of Pennsylvania; Sailors; Hackney, Sheldon, 1933-2013--Interviews Description An account of the resource Francis Sheldon Hackney (1933 - 2013) was a scholar, author and a professor of U.S. History at the University of Pennsylvania. He earned his PhD. in American History at Yale University. Hackney served in the Navy for five years, after earning his PhD. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003-12-10 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.14 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 83:46 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/b5c283fccadf7918c75f56bd48fc090a.jpg dbb17fb20fd2552e16d27af3a9d4280f https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/c66f08ecf1d856579133f47d17b70fff.mp3 b50e4e4333d44609e4021bc361dd7509 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2004-07-23 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Arthur Levine Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 65:09 Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Arthur Levine is scholar, educator, author and administrator. Dr. Levine is currently the president of of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation. Previously, he was president and professor of education at Teachers College, Columbia University and Bradford College. He is the author of several books and articles. Dr. Levine received his Bachelor’s degree from Brandeis University and his Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Buffalo.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:15107,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Dr. Arthur Levine is a scholar, educator, author and administrator. Dr. Levine is currently the president of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation. Previously, he was president and professor of education at Teachers College, Columbia University and Bradford College. He is the author of several books and articles. Dr. Levine received his Bachelor’s degree from Brandeis University and his Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Buffalo.</span> Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;College in the Nineteen sixties and Nineteen seventies; Baby boom generation; Generation gap; Vietnam War; Civil Rights Movement; Watergate; Vietnam Memorial; Ronald Reagan; Lynden Johnson; Kent State; Jackson State.\n&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:769,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0}">College in the Nineteen sixties and Nineteen seventies; Baby boom generation; Generation gap; Vietnam War; Civil Rights Movement; Watergate; Vietnam Memorial; Ronald Reagan; Lynden Johnson; Kent State; Jackson State.<br /></span> Subject LCSH Scholars; Authors; Woodrow Wilson Foundation; Levine, Arthur--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Arthur Levine Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Levine, Arthur ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Scholars; Authors; Woodrow Wilson Foundation; Levine, Arthur--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Arthur Levine is a scholar, educator, author and administrator. Dr. Levine is currently the president of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation. Previously, he was president and professor of education at Teachers College, Columbia University and Bradford College. He is the author of several books and articles. Dr. Levine received his Bachelor’s degree from Brandeis University and his Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004-07-23 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.79 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 65:09