Anti-War Voices

The anti-war perspective has been something both seriously stereotyped and egregiously silenced since the beginning of time, largely sprouting from our failure and urgent need to restore the protection of dissent in this country. Some of the first instances that come to mind when thinking about anti-war voices is that of the Vietnam War protests and—fearing a repeat of World War I— the infamous America First Committee protests; which are specifically interesting to look at given the flip-flop in anti-war sentiments the moment the Pearl Harbor attacks took place. It is not of importance where we look on the timeline of this nation, if there’s a war (or a sentiment to begin a war), there’s going to be people protesting it, whether the government tries to silence them or not because the power of dissent is something the government still, and will always, fear. 

With that being said, this conversation would be obsolete without discussing the ways in which the government has legally attempted to silence anti-war voices throughout the years. This can be best seen in the Sedition Act of 1918 and the benchmark case of Schenck v. United States (1919). The Sedition Act, most known for its pairing through the “Alien and Sedition Acts,” curtailed free speech rights of U.S. citizens during time of war by prohibiting speaking out against the government, with the consequential punishment of deportations, fines, or imprisonment. For obvious reasons, this act was met with many great challenges, one in particular being Schenck v. United States in 1919. This Supreme Court case upheld the Espionage Act of 1917, by concluding that Charles Schenk and Elizabeth Baer did not have the First Amendment right of freedom of speech to speak out against the World War I draft. Through this ruling, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote his infamous decision, stating that there needs to be a “clear and present danger” for the government to limit speech. It is said that later down the line Holmes regrets this statement, as it is highly subjective, and allows the government to speculate to draw their own conclusions (ie. it was too vague and vast).

Citing this precedent and these experiences of the past, we can look at the anti-war efforts of the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War was one of the most protested wars in United States history. Given the context of the time, this was also the first televised war, in which citizens could physically see all the bloodshed and damage war entails, thus allowing the public to empathize with the soldiers being sent overseas. Whether those opposed war due to seeing it be portrayed on television, it lacked clear objectives as to what we wanted to accomplish, or was a war we were not obligated to be a part of in the first place, many united and protested nonetheless. With hundreds arrested, and some even fatally injured, this protest initially started by college students took the nation by storm, and the government’s previous “damage control” plans were just not enough.  The protests additionally inspired many artists and musicians to follow suit in support of bringing our troops home, keeping the ideas of anti-war up in the air with a smell of permanence.

When taking a look at the Anti-War website, these radical ideas were anything but a minority; the website is like an encyclopedia for anti-war movements. They even had an article dedicated to the Vietnam War, and how we can learn from it. This website was interesting to view for sure, and it was unsettling the amount of protests and news I had never heard of or seen on any news channel. My favorite thing about this website is the perspective it offers. To be able to form an opinion freely, we must be able to see both sides of an argument. And, after seeing some of these articles, I’m now realizing that no decision or opinion I have made about the government or their actions seems to have been a conclusion drawn on my own. Although the website itself is slightly disorganized, this anti-war perspective revealed many things to me, especially some things about the government that I’m sure they don’t want anyone knowing. I mean, this is an entire organization that sells t-shirts, has weekly updates, and is essentially its own functioning business, and I have never heard of it before in my life; and that says something. As mentioned in this blog and many of my other posts, the government loves images. They love how they are perceived, and how the masses see them. In layman's terms I guess you could argue they’re like a southern family in a small town. Typically corrupt, always hiding the truth. (This of course being a stereotype made from my experience as a northerner with both real life southern families and those types created on television). To our government, protecting themselves, their image, and their power trip they have on the world is all they will ever prioritize, even if it means harming “normal” Americans and their beliefs in the process.  

Another website I viewed was called the American Conservative, in which the first thing that caught my eye with this website was its name, and the opening title of “Realism and Restraint.” This was very interesting to me, as right off the bat it is seemingly a website implying its credibility, which is complimented by its professionalism and clean cut layout of the website. Coming to no shock to myself, most of these articles I read and explored topics I never even knew existed or were even problems within this country. The more I explore, the increasingly frustrated I get with how out of touch I seem to truly be with both the world and how our government governs. Continuing with the professionalism, this website does not seem to be as antagonistic and disorganized as the anti-war website, rather they present a more moderate argument for topics important to them through reputable sources. Similarly, this website does not seem to be taking the radical anti-war approach too seriously, rather they are looking at avoiding war for a more economic argument, by arguing we are wasting money on war and certain levels of law enforcement when reflecting upon their performance.I also feel like it is important to revisit the name of the website to get a better understanding of why this may be. “American Conservative” is its name, and this website is just that: conservative. It is, when comparing the two, the most conservative and reserved, whereas the anti-war website is more directly and outright  anti-government with their certain decisions. 

One thing I additionally wanted to include before the conclusion of  this post is this piece of artwork created by Banksy. In the image, we see a child wearing a gas mask with the words “If at first you don’t succeed, call an airstrike” written in red next to him. This is a great example of anti-war propaganda, done by one of my personal favorite artists. Banksy, being from the United Kingdom, made this piece in San Francisco, California to use his large platform and following to vocalize his opinions on how prone the United States is to violence and war, with airstrikes in particular. This doesn’t have a ton to do with internal U.S. anti-war efforts, but it was something I felt was important to share, as this is an example of how the United States is often perceived by non-citizens. Upon reflection, these two websites along with similar examples all propose both interesting and thought provoking questions and ideas, especially in terms of how often these views are silenced by the government and media alike. Image is everything to the government and media outlets, and if it won’t fit some sort of agenda or agree with some decision they’ve made, these opinions are often swept under the rug or ignored as a whole.