href="http://www.redbubble.com/people/meganbuff" title="See my profile on RedBubble">
My roommates are watching the movie Across the Universe. The song “Let It Be” made me stop in my tracks. In the movie, the song underscores a scene with a race riot and two funerals (those of a black boy and a white soldier). I think it’s a combination of visual impact and amazing gospel singing that always gives me the chills during that scene.
The race riot scene makes me wonder what it was about the 1960s and ‘70s. Why did things come to a head then? Was it the war, the senseless killing, the nonsense that we couldn’t “win”? Was it that people finally got tired of being oppressed and ignored? Was it that enough charismatic people came to the fore to lead the way?
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any particularly charismatic leader in the anti-war movement. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a part of it – but most people criticized him for concentrating on beating both the war and segregation.
You could argue that Vietnam was the first conflict which didn’t involve us directly. The average person in the United States saw no difference in their personal life whether Vietnam was united or not, Communist or not. Citizens felt as though they were being driven to fight, to sacrifice, to die, for something other than home and family.
Yet the current war in Iraq is much the same way. Baghdad is halfway around the world. Most people in the U.S. don’t speak Arabic – we can’t communicate with them. So why are we not speaking out? This Wednesday marks the five-year anniversary of the war. It’s been going on long enough. What is it about our era that makes us so apathetic? Do we need a wake-up call? What would ring the alarm?
“Music’s the only thing that makes any sense anymore. Play it loud enough, it keeps the demons at bay.” – Across the Universe
About Me
- Megan
- I am a writer, a photographer, a student, an artist. I strive to make life make sense even in the dark moments. I love beauty, though I'm not always sure what either love or beauty are. Art is life -- life is art.
3 comments:
It's an interesting question. But I don't think that distance is a good enough reason for speaking out against a war. If we're simply opposing violence because we have nothing to gain from the conflict, doesn't that simply make the pacifist position selfish? (the constant accusation of pro-war conservatives). Although the end results may be better, I shudder to think that this generation will return to the anti-Vietnam mindset simply because we're tired of getting no return for our blood. I wish we'd wake up for the opposite reason: because we're tired of getting no return for THEIR blood. The Arabic speakers who we don't understand. That we'd reach for peace, not because they don't touch us, but because they do. Because, by laying down our lives (so heroicly), we're forcefully taking theirs. Tearing their blood out with our own.
What will it take to make us sweat blood? For us to cry tears for someone other than ourselves . . .
I completely agree. But you could say the same about the Vietnam conflict -- that we needed to be aware of the cost on their side, of the pain caused by the war. I just wonder what it was about Vietnam that made us rise up against it, and why that's missing in the current conflict. Maybe it's compassion, maybe not. Maybe we were tired of spilling our blood, maybe not. What will it take for us to get angry?
No, I think you're right. Vietnam-angst seems to have been heavily fueled by distance, and a sense of injustice leveled against us. Which is why I'm not sure Vietnam sentiment is what we want. But perhaps it would be a step up. Proof that America is actually awake . . .
Post a Comment