Daniel S. Lucks argues that “the civil rights movement was a casualty of the Vietnam War.” Why does he say this? Do you agree or disagree with his perspective?
2 thoughts on “Week 6 Day 2 Discussion Question 1”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Daniel Lucks wrote that the Cold War helped the Civil Rights Movement advance, but that the movement became a casualty of the Vietnam War. Lucks says the Vietnam War took attention away from the Civil Rights Movement as it became the center of international dialogue. No longer would a lynching in some southern state get attention around the world. There was now a very violent and controversial conflict that took everyone’s focus. Civil rights leaders had been aware of the fine line they walked in helping make small advances in their movement during the Cold War. If they went too far in their criticism of the government they could lose ground and be accused of being subversives, communists or anti-American. And once the Vietnam War really became active this line became much thinner. President Johnson had been very helpful to the Civil Rights movement and now his administration was promoting this war. Many were surprised that Martin Luther King Junior, the most vocal promoter of non-violence, kept quiet on the Vietnam War for so long. But finally in his Riverside speech King blasted the administration for its involvement in the Vietnam War and accused the government of being the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” These were very strong words following a long silence, and there was a strong reaction against them. This reaction was from obvious corners, but also from other Civil Rights leaders. King’s speech is not what caused the Civil Rights movement to lose steam, but the negative reaction to it was a strong sign that his movement had lost ground. There was no appetite for his sentiments. Little by little the world’s attention had moved away from the struggles of oppressed African Americans and toward the intense movements of the War. Pro-war or anti-war, whichever you were, it was the War that took center stage.
In his article, Daniel Lucks claims that the civil rights movement was a casualty of the Vietnam War. Based on the evidence he presented, I do agree with his assertion that although the Vietnam War did advance certain aspects of the civil rights movement, overall, it negatively impacted the movement as a whole. This statement can be evaluated through a number of different examples. First and foremost, the Vietnam War created a massive distraction that caused “the great society” to be put on hold. President Johnson’s “great society” initiative, if left uninterrupted by the Vietnam war, would have created far more effective and timely legislation regarding civil rights while simultaneously implementing programs to fight poverty and boost public education. Additionally, the Vietnam War created controversy regarding the treatment of African soldiers at home and abroad. The question that plagued the African American community during the war can be summarized as “why should we fight a country that does not fight for us or provide us with equal rights.” Figures such as Muhammad Ali brought this controversial question to the forefront of public debate and only created a further divide between races in America. It also created a divide between the African American community when figures such as Jackie Robinson spoke out against Ali and his comments, supporting the bravery of the African American soldiers fighting in Vietnam. Although positive elements such as the advancement of black power and the black panthers emerged from the Vietnam War, the splintering of unity within the civil rights movement itself created an overall negative effect. Therefore it can be concluded that the civil rights movement was indeed a casualty of the Vietnam War.