Bloody Conflict in America and Ireland: 1968-69

At a time in society where media platforms (and our choice of settings) have the ability to censor and filter the information that individuals receive, I felt myself growing curious as to what the media would have been like in the late 60s and early 70s. Watching the video clip of Huey Newton in class, I noticed that, although he said otherwise, he was an entertainer. And, I assume, in those days you had to be entertaining in order to fit the TV culture at the time, and to get people’s attention. Today, with platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, an individual with a voice can record himself or herself proclaiming his or her message about anything — freedoms, politics, religions, or ideologies. That is both the beauty and the downfall of technological innovations: how can we digest all of this material and decide if we agree with, disagree with, resonate with, or abhor any and every sentence?

Would people have resonated with Huey Newton as a leader of a movement today? Would his messages be censored by Facebook or Twitter? I would argue that Huey Newton and his method of speech — the fast-talking, repetitive, sarcastic and ironic speech calling out the leaders of today and the issues that are prevalent in the country would get people to watch, listen, and try to understand. If that truly is the case, would the media publish the ten-point program and showcase Huey as a hero of 2020?

When reflecting on the themes found throughout all of the literature we have read up until this week, what really resonated with me was the frustration expressed by the authors. This frustration was not directed at any one thing, and seemed to be an overall feeling of the era. This struck a chord with me, as I feel the sentiment is very similar to the overall feeling of our time right now. I think that this feeling might have come from the absurd amount of time it actually takes to make substantive change. Sometimes it can feel that one is fighting so hard and continuing to push forward but not moving at all. Although many of the people we have read about are famous for making change, it took so long for them to accomplish each thing that the frustration is completely understandable. While reading the platform of the Black Panther Party, the language used and the principles being fought for are almost identical to what the movement is trying to accomplish today. Overall, it seems as though our society has progressed by leaps and bounds since the time all of this literature was written; but, looking more closely, one would think that in the 50 or so years that have passed since the Civil Rights movement that our country would have fixed a lot more than they have.

The same applies to the Irish texts we have seen. The Catholics and Protestants have been at odds since before 1916, and as Eamonn McCann shared with us, not too much has changed, aside from being less violent today. Justice for Bloody Sunday has never been served, and the communities of Northern Ireland are still pretty segregated.

I think that the overall frustration found in all of the texts is the same thing we see today– people do not want to wait centuries for progress. It seems that the system is extremely hard to change, which results in a general feeling of helplessness, frustration, and anger directed at nothing specific.

One of the biggest themes we have looked at this semester is hope. Hope for change and hope for love. Following the readings, we have looked at so far, hope plays a big role in the conflict and the actions of the characters. The characters in the texts use hope to drive them in the fight for change.

In MLK’s texts, The Voices of the Chicago Eight, and Catonsville nine, all of these individuals fought for equality of all people. In MLK’s texts, he was fighting for equality between races and he used hope to drive the movement and the people fighting for equality. Additionally, an important metaphor was presented to the class in the video on Huey Newton. Newton states that the Black panther group is the tip of a spear while the people are the butt of it. He explains that without the butt (of the spear) the tip would be as dangerous as a toothpick. This metaphor is important because it shows that the leaders of the movement are important, but the people and their hope is what drives change. When considering MLK, he had a huge impact on the Civil Rights Movement but the hope of the people is what made more of an impact.

Another important theme is hope defeated by violence. This theme can also be seen in the texts above. When looking at this theme, we can see that the people and their hope are hit with opposition from the “higher power.” This “higher power” in most of these pieces is the Justice system. Specifically, the police are seen as exerting violence onto those that are fighting for change and those that have hope. This hope is shot down by this oppressor and it either becomes fear or anger. This change in emotions significantly alters the momentum and trajectory of the movement because it threatens hope.

One of the themes I have noticed throughout many of the texts we have recently read is the idea of “martyrdom.” This usually does not mean actually dying for a cause, but instead displaying oneself as a victim of something. This is especially evident in the last two texts, Voices of the Chicago Eight and Trial of the Catonsville Nine. In both cases the defendants do not seem to be very invested in actually proving their innocence, at least that is the way the authors portray the trials. Instead, it seems that the point of the trial was really to display injustice to the general public. This seems clear to me; however, I am not entirely sure if this was their mindset before all the events took place. Did the Chicago Eight and the Catonsville Nine intend on becoming “martyrs,” or was it something that they were simply willing to accept as a side effect? You could certainly argue that they set out to be “martyrs” because this would draw more attention to their causes. There is no doubt that suffering for a cause you believe in is more powerful in the public eye. In fact, we probably would not be reading about them right now if they weren’t these “martyrs.”

This power from “martyrdom” also requires the role of an author, or at least someone to tell your story. The point of being a martyr is to amplify your message through the idea that you are willing to suffer for it so that others can be drawn to your message, and therefore the actual dispersion of your message is critical. These authors are critical for actually carrying the message, but they also profoundly impact the message itself. A lot of people might say that is bad thing, and that authors and journalists should not put their own analysis on things. However, it seems to be more complicated than that. Analysis is important, but it’s impossible to analyze anything without skewing the original idea or message. Is the cost worth it? Does analysis provide a more narrow-minded message, or does it add layers to the discussion of an issue?

I felt there were many parallels to be drawn during our close reading and discussion of John 5 and Catonsville Nine. Namely, I was interested in the discussed concept of martyrship. What exactly makes someone a martyr? I certainly think that this concept is quite subjective. Officially, a martyr is someone who dies for their beliefs. Previously, I had never been exposed to martyrship being bestowed on anyone outside of religion. That is, I had only known the honor to be given to religious figures that had been killed for maintaining their faith. I do feel that this honor can and should be further extended to those that die for social causes. For example, Emily Davidson, the suffragette, should most certainly be considered a martyr for her efforts. I feel that it is, at the very least, equally as honorable to die for the betterment and rights of others as it is to die for one’s faith. And perhaps Father Berrigan felt as though he was acting for both as his faith is interwound with his belief that war is immoral. However, I think it was a stretch to consider the Catonsville Nine to be martyrs. They did not die for the cause; they were simply fined and jailed. Admittedly, it was a bold and positively good effort. However, I am simply unconvinced by the claim that they should be considered martyrs. I would be interested to see if martyrship is regularly extended to mean simply risking one’s freedom and well-being in other contexts. Is death a necessary parameter to be given such a high honor?

Over the past few weeks, we have studied two plays that have spoken quite extensively about how people expressed their displeasure at issues that affected them. For this blog post though I want to focus on my favorite of the two plays to read, that being ‘The Trial of the Catonsville Nine’. This play was written by Father Daniel Berrigan who based it on a partial transcript of the trial. Fr. Berrigan was an avid anti-war protester associated with and supported the Catholic protestors who had burned draft documents resulting in the trial. For me, the most interesting aspect of this play and the events which created it is the fact that it is based so heavily on religion and especially Catholicism. As we are at a Catholic university, I find at least for myself that we are in a unique position to discuss this play as well as the anti-war protests by Catholics.

As we discussed this play, I noticed that the general Catholic theme of unity without division and ‘toeing the line’ simply wasn’t present in this situation. Those members of the nine had clear and defined convictions, they felt that the sending of young American men around the world in order to fight and potentially die in war was abhorrent and should be stopped. It is so interesting to me that in such a time of division and disruption in the United States these men and especially Fr. Phillip Berrigan were so determined and bolstered by their beliefs that they were willing to risk their freedom in order to potentially save lives. Of course, it is impossible to tell whether their actions did in fact save lives, and yet I have a sense of admiration for what they did (both the Baltimore four and the Catonsville nine).

These men addressed a problem that they saw both in their Church and their state, they did not dither, rather they acted and it seems that this later becomes very very common. People are bolstered by these actions and what they perceive to be other issues within their society.

This past summer, I read the novel Trust Exercise by Susan Choi (note: this blog post will contain a spoiler about this novel). This book inspired several conversations that I had with my friends who borrowed the book about fact, fiction, and memory. The book is about students at a highly competitive performing arts high school and their experiences at the time. The reader is taken by surprise when on the 131st page, the story ends and a new perspective is given from a woman at a book signing. We find out that the first hundred so pages were from a book written by her classmate and was about their high school experience. We are challenged as the truths that we read in the first third of the novel are challenged by a new perspective. With the element of sexual assault coming in to play in the story, it causes readers to think a lot about what and who we can trust. Our discussion in class about Voices of the Chicago Eight, A Generation on Trial reminded me of some of the conversations I had over the summer. As we discussed if we could trust Tom Hayden’s memory and compared it to the other literature, my perspective shifted. I used to focus on if it was true or not and the importance that had, instead of paying attention to why the author chose that to be their truth. There were moments in the courtroom that were not included in the play. Some of the moments may have been dramatized, and more. The question for myself has now changed to why was the story shared that way? What was the goal? The trials in real life consisted of a lot of theatrical protesting, and this has been confirmed by transcripts, and we see the same thing in the play. Yet, why skip all the “boring” stuff. For the purpose of storytelling or something more? Personally, I trusted the play because I took it as the author’s truth and since he was there and experiencing it, his perspective is valid. The highlighting of the theatrical moments may have been to bring back the theme of reclaiming power, owning their rights, and that the fight never ends. The actions of the defendants were symbolic and they reflected their sentiment of not feeling like they belonged in the United States due to the treatment of the system and them trying to assert their rights. I am curious to see what other people in the class believe, do you think it is more important to focus on fact/fiction or the stylistic purpose of sharing the experiences in the ways the author did? If your answer is the latter, what is your take on the message the author is trying to send, do you think he was effective?

These past two weeks we’ve read two plays with similar backbones: a group of people finding something wrong with society, showing their displeasure about it, and being brought to court as a result. However, the two plays read extremely differently, which I believe is a result of one thing in particular: the judges of the trials. Judge Hoffman in the Chicago Eight trial is blatantly dismissive of the defense. He attacks their attire and mannerisms, rejects their attempts to voice their opinions, physically silences one of the defendants by utilizing an out-dated law, and restricts the defendants’ free speech. Judge Hoffman’s actions are so flagrant and biased that every single conviction he hands down is eventually overturned on appeal. In contrast, in the trail of the Catonsville Nine, Judge Thomsen gives the defendants a fair trial. Although setting the nine men and women free was unlikely to ever be an option, Judge Thomsen did everything Judge Hoffman refused to do, including allowing the defendants to speak about the social injustices they had been protesting. The men and women on trial in Catonsville were ultimately sentenced to prison, however their goal of spreading awareness about the atrocities, and inhumanness of the Vietnam War succeeded. After reading the Trial of the Catonsville Nine, I couldn’t help but wonder what would’ve happened if the judges in the respective trials were switched. There was nothing essential to either Chicago or Catonsville, Maryland in either event, as the protests were about American society as a whole. Therefore, it is reasonable to wonder if the results of the trials could’ve been different under different judges. Personally, I believe both trials would’ve ended much differently. Judge Hoffman’s outrageous biases against the Chicago Eight clouded the fact that there was really no sufficient evidence to charge the defendants (hence, why the US government declined to re-try them after the successful appeal). The Catonsville Nine incident led to an increase in anti-draft and anti-military protest – movements that eventually morphed into anti-nuclear weapons protests. Had the trial of the Catonsville Nine been made under a judge who did not allow the defendants their right to air their grievances against the nation, perhaps these corollary movements never take off. While the answer to this thought experiment will obviously never be known, I think it’s worth thinking about how often random chance can influence how we remember history.

You don’t see a lot of “Catholic” protests, that is, a protest that is remembered by history as specifically Catholic. But, in the scope of 1969, the Catonsville Nine, though still incredibly important, were just another protest, if they can be referred to in that way. What really strikes me about the Catonsville Nine is the connections that they have to other Catholic movements in recent times with similar motives and ideals.

In one of my political science classes, I learned about the idea of “liberation theology,” which is a form of radical Catholicism pioneered by a handful of Catholic priests in the later 1900s. Liberation theology is radical in that it presents the life of Christ as not the gold standard of Christianity, but the only standard: the poverty, the persecution, the love of others. According to these priests, this was the true way of Catholicism, because it followed the radical teachings of Christ to the letter, and took precepts such as helping the poor to the most extreme level possible. But, similar to the ideals of the Catonsville Nine, the idea of liberation theology has seen some pushback among both the laity and Church authorities, though it is now highly touted by Pope Francis.

In his time in the trial, Father Philip Berrigan called out both the United States government and the bishops of the United States, who he called out for being “cowards” and insisting that they “learn something of the Gospels.” Many people believe the Church is or must be a fully cohesive, unified organization, but the Catonsville Nine saw a problem within the Church and their country and addressed it, despite what their superiors might have believed. That sort of commitment to justice, along with that proposed by the creators of liberation theology, is precisely what is required of Catholics, even though certain individuals in the Church may have disagreed.

In the brief blogging hiatus that we enjoyed the previous few weeks, each student in this classroom had the opportunity to peer review several of our peers rough drafts for the research paper due at the end of this semester. This gave each of us a more in depth opportunity to explore and appreciate the perspectives each of our classmates took on the literature we have reviewed thus far this semester. I appreciated this opportunity, as the blog posts we previously commented on were a more niche perspective on specific issues. This paper, however, is a much larger picture, and more accurately reflects each individuals take on the material that we have been examining in this class.

From these papers, we can see the true interests of our peers. We see the influences of previous education, their ideals, their worldview and their interpretation of the events we have discussed in class. For political science students like myself, these tumultuous decades we have examined are often viewed through a political sense – for English, or literature majors – they often can do a more effective in depth analysis of the rhetoric used by the authors. For STEM majors – the literature reviewed and the historical perspectives often can be seen through a more analytical, statistical lense.

Overall, I truly did appreciate the wide spread views that these papers allowed me to read in depth, its a really cool experience to see the material we have all learned together interpreted in different ways, influenced by the backgrounds each individual has compiled throughout their life experiences, time in school, and courses taken.