7 ms·

"Back in Kent, Ohio, local business owners ran an ad thanking the National Guard. Mail poured in to the mayor's office, blaming "dirty hippies," "longhairs" and

"Back in Kent, Ohio, local business owners ran an ad thanking the National Guard. Mail poured in to the mayor's office, blaming "dirty hippies," "longhairs" and "outside agitators" for the violence. Some Kent residents raised four fingers when they passed each other in the street, a silent signal that meant, "At least we got four of them." Nixon issued a statement saying that the students' actions had invited the tragedy. Privately, he called them "bums." And a Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Americans blamed the students for their own deaths; only 11 percent blamed the National Guard." "Back in Opa-locka, Mary Ann couldn't go to Royal Castle for a burger without reporters and hecklers following her. Death threats filled the Vecchio family mailbox. "It's too bad it wasn't you that was shot." "What you need is a good beating until you bleed red." "I hope you enjoyed sleeping with all those Negroes and dope fiends." "The deaths of the Kent State four lies on the conscience of yourself." When I read things like this I wonder: what the fuck is wrong with people that they are so vicious and lacking the smallest shred of empathy for a mere child who did nothing to deserve any of this, nor for the victims of a mass murder by people who's duty it was to protect them?

happytoexplain 6y ago
The day after the shooting, a banner was hung in the West Point cafeteria stating, "Us: 4, Them: 0". America has a non-negligible percent of population who I can only describe as "bloodthirsty for no good reason". They've been here a long time, and remain here today. When we try to discuss the problem, the noise from political side-taking usually overtakes the conversation.
- adamcstephens 6y ago
  As long as we ignore the violent things done by our country for the past few hundred years, it will continue to poison our society. Reparations for slavery could be one approach, but it doesn’t account for enough of the pain we’ve caused. Genocide, slavery, civil war, imperial conquest, overthrowing democracies in favor of repressive regimes, to today’s bombing of people in other countries with drones. We don’t discuss these things because they’re painful, conflict with the narrative of ourselves we’ve been told, and are drowned out in modern media because both “sides” agree with the policies. America is bloodthirsty because we always have been, and have taken no meaningful steps to change it.
  - throwaway1090 6y ago
    Many of these are addressed in the book 'Understanding Power' by Noam Chomsky. It's very readable. It's got hefty footnotes that are available as pdf [1]. Another book is 'How to Hide an Empire' by Daniel Immerwahr. [1] http://understandingpower.org/ http://understandingpower.org/
  - PostOnce 6y ago
    But we do discuss those things... constantly. It seems to be all we talk about. America's wrongs. To play the other half of this argument: America engaged in slavery, but also fought its bloodiest war to end it, played a major role in ending the Holocaust and freeing Europe from the Nazis, ended Japan's conquest of Asia, freed South Korea, and brought about through hyperpower probably the longest peace between major powers in millennia, among other notable counterpoints. It's almost as if the world isn't black and white. America and everyone else will continue doing both wonderful and terrible things, but we'll keep discussing only the half of those things we disapprove of, especially if it feels like it's helping us win an argument. Hand-wringing over the past doesn't make tomorrow better, it's a distraction from doing things that will. To be clear, basically the whole of human history is misery and privation, and only in this era of long peace under the aegis of American hyperpower have we witnessed a glimpse of lasting peace and prosperity. So, no one will disagree that great wrongs have been wrought, but it seems intellectually dishonest to overlook the staggering good.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > To play the other half of this argument: America engaged in slavery, but also fought its bloodiest war to end it It was only “its bloodiest war” because a sizable fraction of the country was fighting to protect slavery. Much of the rest of the world that had chattel slavery ended it without similarly bloody wars—and generally sooner. The fierce defense of chattel slavery in the US that produced its bloodiest war isn’t a positive.
      - PostOnce 6y ago
        It would have been bloodless had the Union just said "okay let's have slavery." But they didn't do that. They laid down their lives instead. Like I said before, picking out only the things we dislike and overlooking positives isn't productive or honest to ourselves.
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  I think things like that are more a result of how information gets disseminated, and how it's framed, than bloodthirst. I'm sure if you took the people that hung that banner and made them hold hand with one of the students as they died, their enthusiasm would quickly fade. The word 'death' is just an abstraction that feels small when you're young, healthy, and haven't had to watch it happen. It's only easy to look at it like a point on a scoreboard when you don't know anything about it. I think a lot of the divisiveness is a result of the same effect. It's easy to dismiss other people's perspective and think they are 'just stupid or malicious' when you don't know them. We need to get back to assuming the people that disagree with us are potentially as smart as we are, but with different values or information.
  - a4isms 6y ago
    I applaud your optimism and boundless faith in humanity. But as a POC, I point out that America has a long tradition of taking children to witness lynchings, and the children would cheer. Or to beat foxes to death with sticks. I don't think it’s as simple as “people don’t have emppathy when death is abstract and indirect.” Lots of people don’t have empathy when they’re socially conditioned to believe a certain type of person is a subhuman. Today, we have police suffocating citizens and murdering adolescents, and there’s a certain type of person who cheers this, provided the victims are member sof a class deemed “subhuman." I do not believe for a moment that witnessing the murders would change their minds, because even as video circulates showing the murder happening, they continue to cheer. --- I also don’t think we can conflate this with arguments about “people you disagree with.” We’re not talking about people sitting down and debating free love or long hair. We’re talking about people who believe that other people are literally a disease infecting society that should be exterminated as quickly as possible, preferably in such a way that it sends a message to others.
    - losvedir 6y ago
      Yeah, savagery can certainly be a natural state for people. Executions used to be public and people would cheer. The Scarlet Letter had a woman put in shackles in public to be abused for the audacity of having sex. People used to torture cats for a bit of fun downtown. I'd like to think as a culture we're not so much like that anymore, but it certainly persists in certain ways and places.
- cochne 6y ago
  Is there any source for that? I tried searching but the first result is this comment!
  - gostsamo 6y ago
    Search for "victim blaming" or "she was looking for trouble dressing like that and walking late at night on the streets".
- sigzero 6y ago
  Some people just want to watch the world burn.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  Or they view justice differently: > Justice: The world may be a difficult place to live, but it is basically just; people usually get what they deserve. The difficulties in one's life serve as a test to sort the deserving from the undeserving. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book)
  - spoonjim 6y ago
    Anyone who views the Kent State killings as “justice” is deeply dangerous to the health and well-being of those around them.
    - redler 6y ago
      There are state laws now being passed that make “blocking roads in protest” a felony, while legalizing running over protestors with your car.
      - throw0101a 6y ago
        > while legalizing running over protestors with your car. Oklahoma: A motor vehicle operator who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual shall not be criminally or civilly liable for the injury or death, if: 1. The injury or death of the individual occurred while the motor vehicle operator was fleeing from a riot, as defined in Section 1311 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, under a reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to protect the motor vehicle operator from serious injury or death; and 2. The motor vehicle operator exercised due care at the time of the death or injury. * http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22%20ENR/hB/HB1674%20ENR.PDF http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22%20ENR/hB/HB... Florida: 870.07 Affirmative defense in civil action; party convicted of riot. (1) In a civil action for damages for personal injury, wrongful death, or property damage, it is an affirmative defense that such action arose from an injury or damage sustained by a participant acting in furtherance of a riot. The affirmative defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of a riot or an aggravated riot prohibited under s. 870.01, or by proof of the commission of such crime by a preponderance of the evidence. * https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1/BillText/er/PDF If you are trying to flee for your (perceived?) safety during a "riot", then it seems to be treated as a form of self defence (?). From: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26931096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26931096
- fit2rule 6y ago
  When you try to discuss the problem you either a) get booted off the site for being 'disturbing', or b) get called a Russian shill, or c) both. The Russia-hate these days is a classic example.
- pmarreck 6y ago
  > America has a non-negligible percent of population who I can only describe as "bloodthirsty for no good reason". They've been here a long time, and remain here today. There's more to unpack here (such as anonymity being somehow an enabler of aggression) but hey... Let's arm everyone and see what happens!
lazulicurio 6y ago
FWIW I think that this attitude is at the core of issues such as mass shootings and police violence. That I think it's largely cultural is also why I'm not convinced that gun restrictions will be super-effective at combating it. I think that all humans experience some measure of schadenfreude at seeing people they dislike get a comeuppance, but I don't think that enjoying physical retribution is innate. I remember one year we were over at my sister's house for the holidays and watching A Christmas Story. My 2yo niece was with us on the couch when the scene where Ralphie beats up the bully came on---you could tell that she was horrified whereas noone else seemed to think twice of it. Unfortunately cultural issues are difficult to solve. Christianity brought "turn the other cheek", but 2000 years later look where we are.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  > Christianity brought "turn the other cheek", but 2000 years later look where we are. I've no interest in a debate on religion, but Christianity is the religion that brought "bad people burn in hell for eternity".
  - supernovae 6y ago
    Since they're borne to sin, they can do whatever they want.. God will forgive them
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      Genuine question. Does Christian god forgive everyone? Or only the repentant? Or only the baptized-believer-repentent? If the answer to the first question isn't yes, can you still go to hell with god's forgiveness?
      - fortran77 6y ago
        Christians hold that non-believers will spend eternity in a hell.
throwaway_isms 6y ago
With so many people so enthusiastic about the war and death...it makes you wonder why the US needed to implement the draft in the first place. I guess its easier to write death threats to a 14 year old girl and terrorize her behind the cowardice of anonymity than to live up to ones own ideals, no matter how misguided they may be.
space_fountain 6y ago
Not at all making it ok, but in addition to burning down the rtc building, the protesters ransacked downtown. Lots of broken glass etc. Also a lot of the protesters were from outside Kent (not that that means they deserved to die)
- msteffen 6y ago
  I knew about the vandalism but not in detail, so I'm glad someone brought it up. My opinion, fwiw: I think people really want to believe that collective punishment works, but it really doesn't. People on the right who were excited about the violence at the time wanted the deaths to teach the vandals a lesson. People on the left chanting "shoot him with his own gun" wanted to teach sadists within law enforcement a lesson. But this woman's first exposure to Vietnam war politics was this specific protest, so how is shooting a student in front of her supposed to prevent vandalism? Maybe the violence was born out of impotent rage? Everybody had people on the other side they disagreed with and no way to reach them or change their mind.
yosito 6y ago
Wow, I grew up in Kent and I never heard this side of the story. All of the circles I grew up in, despite being conservative, were on the side of the students and thought what the national guard did was an unspeakable tragedy.
- adamcstephens 6y ago
  I grew up in Kent too, and this is the first I’d heard this side as well.
fruity123 6y ago
There is no doubt that a similar reaction would occur today from the left if it was a Trump rally. Why? Trump supporters are nazis, etc, etc. They are dehumanized. It’s easy to be outraged when it’s a cause you support, but the true test is when it’s someone for a cause you don’t support.
- objectivetruth 6y ago
  Are there any other imaginary situations you've dreamt up that you think are applicable to this thread?
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Not to be petty, but, while there is plenty of merit to the idea that there are persecutors on the left, my experience has unfailingly been that the right continues to hold (to the misfortune of all reasonable conservatives) an incomparably large share of the kind of hatred and desire for violence against one's own countrymen that is illustrated by the parent post. So it was in the 60's, and so it has been since. In fact, Trump's support for that attitude and that segment of his base is a big part of why the left reacts so strongly to him.
antattack 6y ago
It's meant to convince you that how you feel is in minority. Those in power are working hard to control the narrative. "Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." — Geo. Orwell, 1984
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  You think the article is trying to convince the reader that the majority of Americans hold the quoted views to their specific extremity, and that this is part of a larger effort by "those in power"? Combined with your dramatic quote (Orwell is getting a little tired these days), this seems like an exaggeration to paint a conspiracy for the purpose of playing the victim.
  - antattack 6y ago
    My comment was in regard to propaganda that followed the incident, working to belittle victims and participants and promote government actions.

happytoexplain 6y ago

The day after the shooting, a banner was hung in the West Point cafeteria stating, "Us: 4, Them: 0". America has a non-negligible percent of population who I can only describe as "bloodthirsty for no good reason". They've been here a long time, and remain here today. When we try to discuss the problem, the noise from political side-taking usually overtakes the conversation.

adamcstephens 6y ago
As long as we ignore the violent things done by our country for the past few hundred years, it will continue to poison our society. Reparations for slavery could be one approach, but it doesn’t account for enough of the pain we’ve caused. Genocide, slavery, civil war, imperial conquest, overthrowing democracies in favor of repressive regimes, to today’s bombing of people in other countries with drones. We don’t discuss these things because they’re painful, conflict with the narrative of ourselves we’ve been told, and are drowned out in modern media because both “sides” agree with the policies. America is bloodthirsty because we always have been, and have taken no meaningful steps to change it.
- throwaway1090 6y ago
  Many of these are addressed in the book 'Understanding Power' by Noam Chomsky. It's very readable. It's got hefty footnotes that are available as pdf [1]. Another book is 'How to Hide an Empire' by Daniel Immerwahr. [1] http://understandingpower.org/ http://understandingpower.org/
- PostOnce 6y ago
  But we do discuss those things... constantly. It seems to be all we talk about. America's wrongs. To play the other half of this argument: America engaged in slavery, but also fought its bloodiest war to end it, played a major role in ending the Holocaust and freeing Europe from the Nazis, ended Japan's conquest of Asia, freed South Korea, and brought about through hyperpower probably the longest peace between major powers in millennia, among other notable counterpoints. It's almost as if the world isn't black and white. America and everyone else will continue doing both wonderful and terrible things, but we'll keep discussing only the half of those things we disapprove of, especially if it feels like it's helping us win an argument. Hand-wringing over the past doesn't make tomorrow better, it's a distraction from doing things that will. To be clear, basically the whole of human history is misery and privation, and only in this era of long peace under the aegis of American hyperpower have we witnessed a glimpse of lasting peace and prosperity. So, no one will disagree that great wrongs have been wrought, but it seems intellectually dishonest to overlook the staggering good.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > To play the other half of this argument: America engaged in slavery, but also fought its bloodiest war to end it It was only “its bloodiest war” because a sizable fraction of the country was fighting to protect slavery. Much of the rest of the world that had chattel slavery ended it without similarly bloody wars—and generally sooner. The fierce defense of chattel slavery in the US that produced its bloodiest war isn’t a positive.
    - PostOnce 6y ago
      It would have been bloodless had the Union just said "okay let's have slavery." But they didn't do that. They laid down their lives instead. Like I said before, picking out only the things we dislike and overlooking positives isn't productive or honest to ourselves.
BobbyJo 6y ago
I think things like that are more a result of how information gets disseminated, and how it's framed, than bloodthirst. I'm sure if you took the people that hung that banner and made them hold hand with one of the students as they died, their enthusiasm would quickly fade. The word 'death' is just an abstraction that feels small when you're young, healthy, and haven't had to watch it happen. It's only easy to look at it like a point on a scoreboard when you don't know anything about it. I think a lot of the divisiveness is a result of the same effect. It's easy to dismiss other people's perspective and think they are 'just stupid or malicious' when you don't know them. We need to get back to assuming the people that disagree with us are potentially as smart as we are, but with different values or information.
- a4isms 6y ago
  I applaud your optimism and boundless faith in humanity. But as a POC, I point out that America has a long tradition of taking children to witness lynchings, and the children would cheer. Or to beat foxes to death with sticks. I don't think it’s as simple as “people don’t have emppathy when death is abstract and indirect.” Lots of people don’t have empathy when they’re socially conditioned to believe a certain type of person is a subhuman. Today, we have police suffocating citizens and murdering adolescents, and there’s a certain type of person who cheers this, provided the victims are member sof a class deemed “subhuman." I do not believe for a moment that witnessing the murders would change their minds, because even as video circulates showing the murder happening, they continue to cheer. --- I also don’t think we can conflate this with arguments about “people you disagree with.” We’re not talking about people sitting down and debating free love or long hair. We’re talking about people who believe that other people are literally a disease infecting society that should be exterminated as quickly as possible, preferably in such a way that it sends a message to others.
  - losvedir 6y ago
    Yeah, savagery can certainly be a natural state for people. Executions used to be public and people would cheer. The Scarlet Letter had a woman put in shackles in public to be abused for the audacity of having sex. People used to torture cats for a bit of fun downtown. I'd like to think as a culture we're not so much like that anymore, but it certainly persists in certain ways and places.
cochne 6y ago
Is there any source for that? I tried searching but the first result is this comment!
- gostsamo 6y ago
  Search for "victim blaming" or "she was looking for trouble dressing like that and walking late at night on the streets".
sigzero 6y ago
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
throw0101a 6y ago
Or they view justice differently: > Justice: The world may be a difficult place to live, but it is basically just; people usually get what they deserve. The difficulties in one's life serve as a test to sort the deserving from the undeserving. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book)
- spoonjim 6y ago
  Anyone who views the Kent State killings as “justice” is deeply dangerous to the health and well-being of those around them.
  - redler 6y ago
    There are state laws now being passed that make “blocking roads in protest” a felony, while legalizing running over protestors with your car.
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      > while legalizing running over protestors with your car. Oklahoma: A motor vehicle operator who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual shall not be criminally or civilly liable for the injury or death, if: 1. The injury or death of the individual occurred while the motor vehicle operator was fleeing from a riot, as defined in Section 1311 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, under a reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to protect the motor vehicle operator from serious injury or death; and 2. The motor vehicle operator exercised due care at the time of the death or injury. * http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22%20ENR/hB/HB1674%20ENR.PDF http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22%20ENR/hB/HB... Florida: 870.07 Affirmative defense in civil action; party convicted of riot. (1) In a civil action for damages for personal injury, wrongful death, or property damage, it is an affirmative defense that such action arose from an injury or damage sustained by a participant acting in furtherance of a riot. The affirmative defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of a riot or an aggravated riot prohibited under s. 870.01, or by proof of the commission of such crime by a preponderance of the evidence. * https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1/BillText/er/PDF If you are trying to flee for your (perceived?) safety during a "riot", then it seems to be treated as a form of self defence (?). From: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26931096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26931096
fit2rule 6y ago
When you try to discuss the problem you either a) get booted off the site for being 'disturbing', or b) get called a Russian shill, or c) both. The Russia-hate these days is a classic example.
pmarreck 6y ago
> America has a non-negligible percent of population who I can only describe as "bloodthirsty for no good reason". They've been here a long time, and remain here today. There's more to unpack here (such as anonymity being somehow an enabler of aggression) but hey... Let's arm everyone and see what happens!

lazulicurio 6y ago

FWIW I think that this attitude is at the core of issues such as mass shootings and police violence. That I think it's largely cultural is also why I'm not convinced that gun restrictions will be super-effective at combating it. I think that all humans experience some measure of schadenfreude at seeing people they dislike get a comeuppance, but I don't think that enjoying physical retribution is innate. I remember one year we were over at my sister's house for the holidays and watching A Christmas Story. My 2yo niece was with us on the couch when the scene where Ralphie beats up the bully came on---you could tell that she was horrified whereas noone else seemed to think twice of it. Unfortunately cultural issues are difficult to solve. Christianity brought "turn the other cheek", but 2000 years later look where we are.

klmadfejno 6y ago
> Christianity brought "turn the other cheek", but 2000 years later look where we are. I've no interest in a debate on religion, but Christianity is the religion that brought "bad people burn in hell for eternity".
- supernovae 6y ago
  Since they're borne to sin, they can do whatever they want.. God will forgive them
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    Genuine question. Does Christian god forgive everyone? Or only the repentant? Or only the baptized-believer-repentent? If the answer to the first question isn't yes, can you still go to hell with god's forgiveness?
    - fortran77 6y ago
      Christians hold that non-believers will spend eternity in a hell.

throwaway_isms 6y ago

With so many people so enthusiastic about the war and death...it makes you wonder why the US needed to implement the draft in the first place. I guess its easier to write death threats to a 14 year old girl and terrorize her behind the cowardice of anonymity than to live up to ones own ideals, no matter how misguided they may be.

space_fountain 6y ago

Not at all making it ok, but in addition to burning down the rtc building, the protesters ransacked downtown. Lots of broken glass etc. Also a lot of the protesters were from outside Kent (not that that means they deserved to die)

msteffen 6y ago
I knew about the vandalism but not in detail, so I'm glad someone brought it up. My opinion, fwiw: I think people really want to believe that collective punishment works, but it really doesn't. People on the right who were excited about the violence at the time wanted the deaths to teach the vandals a lesson. People on the left chanting "shoot him with his own gun" wanted to teach sadists within law enforcement a lesson. But this woman's first exposure to Vietnam war politics was this specific protest, so how is shooting a student in front of her supposed to prevent vandalism? Maybe the violence was born out of impotent rage? Everybody had people on the other side they disagreed with and no way to reach them or change their mind.

yosito 6y ago

Wow, I grew up in Kent and I never heard this side of the story. All of the circles I grew up in, despite being conservative, were on the side of the students and thought what the national guard did was an unspeakable tragedy.

adamcstephens 6y ago
I grew up in Kent too, and this is the first I’d heard this side as well.

fruity123 6y ago

There is no doubt that a similar reaction would occur today from the left if it was a Trump rally. Why? Trump supporters are nazis, etc, etc. They are dehumanized. It’s easy to be outraged when it’s a cause you support, but the true test is when it’s someone for a cause you don’t support.

objectivetruth 6y ago
Are there any other imaginary situations you've dreamt up that you think are applicable to this thread?
happytoexplain 6y ago
Not to be petty, but, while there is plenty of merit to the idea that there are persecutors on the left, my experience has unfailingly been that the right continues to hold (to the misfortune of all reasonable conservatives) an incomparably large share of the kind of hatred and desire for violence against one's own countrymen that is illustrated by the parent post. So it was in the 60's, and so it has been since. In fact, Trump's support for that attitude and that segment of his base is a big part of why the left reacts so strongly to him.

antattack 6y ago

It's meant to convince you that how you feel is in minority. Those in power are working hard to control the narrative. "Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." — Geo. Orwell, 1984

happytoexplain 6y ago
You think the article is trying to convince the reader that the majority of Americans hold the quoted views to their specific extremity, and that this is part of a larger effort by "those in power"? Combined with your dramatic quote (Orwell is getting a little tired these days), this seems like an exaggeration to paint a conspiracy for the purpose of playing the victim.
- antattack 6y ago
  My comment was in regard to propaganda that followed the incident, working to belittle victims and participants and promote government actions.