As a historian, you're probably used to thinking, "It's a bit more complicated than that." Here are some possible complications.
None of the students at Kent State were armed, and two of the dead weren't even demonstrating. They were walking between classes when the National Guard opened fire. So, while you're right to remind us that the protests were far more violent than the protests today and that they've been sanitized, they didn't pose an imminent threat to lives of the people firing the guns.
And then there was Jackson State, where the killings were justified by the State Police claim that they were shot at, by protestors. The FBI found no evidence of any gunfire except by the State Police. Given the frequency with which the State Police used that word we don't use now, I think it's fair to say that the violence at Jackson State started with Jim Crow, not with students damaging property.
And the union guys shooting at the National Guard? That violence started with the Pinkertons.
The criticism I'd make of people like Rudd, and, in 1968, 15-year-old me was that young white campus radicals inserted ourselves in violent struggles that had been going on a long time, thinking we could play around without anybody getting genuinely hurt. Boy was that stupid. And in the end, incredibly damaging to the causes and people we sympathized with.
I don't think these elements you're calling complications modify any of the complications in the post, but if wasn't clear that I already knew that the students who were killed were unarmed and, in some cases, not demonstrating, I'll add it. I don't concur in your assessment of Rudd himself as assuming nobody would get hurt.
You know Rudd's thinking better than I do. Point taken.
Please interpret my intervention as an attempt to add to, rather than correct. The fundamental point you're making--there are important differences between then and now, and then was far less benign than we make out--is exactly correct, in my view.
I also believe and believed you were analyzing rather than blaming, which is a tough thing to pull off.
We all love and admire Rick’s work, but please acknowledge that there has been much more literature about Columbia, Kent State, Jackson State, etc. since Nixonland (published 16 years ago) that tell a more accurate story of college student protests of the 60s.
Kent State’s own May 4 archive is available online below. I’ll send you my book, a reading list, anything to get people to understand that the students who were killed did not provoke their own deaths.
As should be obvious from the post itself, the last thing I'm saying is that the students who were killed provoked their own deaths---nor does Perlstein's book. But in case it's not obvious, I've added an update.
As a historian, you're probably used to thinking, "It's a bit more complicated than that." Here are some possible complications.
None of the students at Kent State were armed, and two of the dead weren't even demonstrating. They were walking between classes when the National Guard opened fire. So, while you're right to remind us that the protests were far more violent than the protests today and that they've been sanitized, they didn't pose an imminent threat to lives of the people firing the guns.
And then there was Jackson State, where the killings were justified by the State Police claim that they were shot at, by protestors. The FBI found no evidence of any gunfire except by the State Police. Given the frequency with which the State Police used that word we don't use now, I think it's fair to say that the violence at Jackson State started with Jim Crow, not with students damaging property.
And the union guys shooting at the National Guard? That violence started with the Pinkertons.
The criticism I'd make of people like Rudd, and, in 1968, 15-year-old me was that young white campus radicals inserted ourselves in violent struggles that had been going on a long time, thinking we could play around without anybody getting genuinely hurt. Boy was that stupid. And in the end, incredibly damaging to the causes and people we sympathized with.
I don't think these elements you're calling complications modify any of the complications in the post, but if wasn't clear that I already knew that the students who were killed were unarmed and, in some cases, not demonstrating, I'll add it. I don't concur in your assessment of Rudd himself as assuming nobody would get hurt.
You know Rudd's thinking better than I do. Point taken.
Please interpret my intervention as an attempt to add to, rather than correct. The fundamental point you're making--there are important differences between then and now, and then was far less benign than we make out--is exactly correct, in my view.
I also believe and believed you were analyzing rather than blaming, which is a tough thing to pull off.
Thanks--and I'm not saying I literally know Rudd's thinking but that I have a sense of it different from the sense you were expressing.
We all love and admire Rick’s work, but please acknowledge that there has been much more literature about Columbia, Kent State, Jackson State, etc. since Nixonland (published 16 years ago) that tell a more accurate story of college student protests of the 60s.
Kent State’s own May 4 archive is available online below. I’ll send you my book, a reading list, anything to get people to understand that the students who were killed did not provoke their own deaths.
https://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/kent-state-shootings-may-4-collection
As should be obvious from the post itself, the last thing I'm saying is that the students who were killed provoked their own deaths---nor does Perlstein's book. But in case it's not obvious, I've added an update.