Johnson: “We must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny; We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954 every American President has offered to support the people of South Viet-Nam.”
Potter: “Vietnam, we may say, is a laboratory run by a new breed of gamesmen who approach war as a kind of rational exercise in international power politics.”
If those two quotes from the addresses of both politicians doesn’t distinguish their opinions on America’s involvement with the Vietnam War, I don’t know what will. Johnson’s point in concerning America with the Viet-Nam War is apparently purely for the reason that Viet-Nam needed help and the United States has been their ally and therefore needs to offer aid. His reasoning is help an ally in need, which could’ve resonated with many Americans for the reason that should America need help, its ally would do the same as it did for Vietnam.
Potter’s view on the Vietnam War, however, differed dramatically as it accused the American government of using the war as an experiment for political power. He says that the war has done nothing for America but extend the governmental power to manipulate foreign countries. Potter didn’t believe that the freedom of one country is only obtained by destroying another, and because of that, his view on the Vietnam War focused solely on the intentions of the government. International power politics is what he said American government used Vietnam for–control of foreign countries, beneficial to the United States as the government saw fit.
In terms of treatment between the volunteers in the Tuskegee study and people of color in Americao in general, a common theme of unfairness pops up again and again. This time, however, the unfairness in treatment comes in the form of lack of information. The subjects in the 1972 study were not given the information of what the real purpose of the study was, which made it an unethical project. In addition to that, penicillin was available for syphilis since 1942 but were not given to the test subjects of the syphilis study. Looking at America’s history in the violent, unfair, and uncaring treatment of non-whites, their behavior and unethical procdures in the 1972 Syphilis Study wasn’t so surprising. African Americans and other non-whites have been victims of violent oppression, discrimination, murder, and riots that the Syphilis Study did nothing more but to add on to the list: bio death. It’s more sickening than surprising reading the article because one would think that a human life would mean enough to not use volunteering as a way to kill.
From all the sources that I’ve read in the past week, a common theme has popped up when it came to when U.S. Government used violence in the treatment of non-whites. Their justification for violence against non-whites is necessary assimilation to the white culture. The traditions or culture of non-whites are so different from the white men that they believe that non-whites are in desperate need of help in becoming civilized. For the Native Americans, they were forced out of their territories, some even killed, and put into schools where they learned how to cook, talk, speak, and write English, and dress English/American. Filipinos, though they were not forced to learn the American life, they were forced to live the American way as the U.S. Government sought to take over the islands into becoming territories, subjecting the Philippines under American law. Assimilation to the white culture is what drove the U.S. Government into taking forceful actions against the non-whites, and wether they felt it was wrong or necessary is unknown but it is clear that they were willing to kill to “help” non-whites into becoming accustomed to the white culture.
Between previous sources on Indian Affairs, the biggest difference on the treatments of Native Americans was the investment on their assimilation. While in previous sources, such as The Trail of Tears, it’s clearly shown a voilent approach in getting rid of Native Americans like forced reloacation, tthe Congressional Report on Indian Affairs the approach changed to a more “humane” way: assimilation. However, although the treatment of Indians differs in both sources, one common theme replays: getting rid of their culture. Relocation forced Native Americans to leave their territories which played big roles in their history and traditions. Assimilation stripped them of their identity that they have grown with and were forced to adapt a culture where they were most likely not comfortable with.
The Polk’s Message on the War with Mexico source clearly stated that Mexico had shed American blood in American soil (Texas), and that justified the reasoning of going into war with Mexico. To kill an American in American grounds meant war, however, Polk’s intentions seemed a bit suspicious. In his Inaugural Address, he stated that Texas was part of the United States that “was unwisely ceded” from the nation; about a year later, he declared war against Mexico over Texas. How convenient is it that Mexico supposedly killed shed American blood not even a year after Polk’s statement in his interest in annexing Texas. Why did America go to war with Mexico? Because Polk was able to manipulate the situation into something big enough to go to war against a nation, gain more land, and possibly earn good reputation. It was a triple win for Polk and America did not see through it.
Ownership of land was the biggest motivator in stripping the Native Americans of their homes. While the Native Americans did not claim the land as their own, they believed that it should be shared by everyone. However, the settlers did not see it that way, and because they saw the Native Americans as barbaric and uncivilized creatures, they saw it fit to force them to leave their homes, even if it meant death. This act shows that the settlers were desperate and craved to own land so much so that they were willing kill for it. Native Americans, too, were not just looked down upon but they were regarded as evil creatures, and that justified the actions of settlers against them even if it was murder.
The 1770s in the New World was known for one great and historical American event: The American Revolution. American Colonists rebelled against Great Britain because of unfair ruling. The Colonists felt that because they were basically a separate nation away from Great Britain, that they as colonists have the right to rule themselves. The were paying taxes for wars that the British were fighting, not the Colonists. They were subjected to British laws, yet they most of the Colonists weren’t even born in Great Britain. The Colonists rebelled that led to conflicts such as The Boston Massacre and The Townshend Acts. Along with numerous other clashes with Britain, sparked the American Revolution.