The Bay of Pigs
Few events of the 1960s have had the impact of the American invasion of Cuba in 1961, for this marked a turning point in both international relations and the way in which the American people perceived their own government. As has been revealed over time, this was an attempt on the part of the U.S. to assassinate Cuban President Castro and overthrow a communist regime seen as threatening U.S. interests and furthering Soviet power. In fairness to President Kennedy, the Eisenhower administration had the operation well underway before Kennedy took office, and calling an end to it would have created enormous problems for the new government, particularly in regard to its relationship with the powerful CIA (Farber, 1994, p. 36). Nonetheless, the immediate consequences of the invasion, as well as the legacy when more facts were revealed, profoundly altered America’s standing in the world and generated a new kind of mistrust in the people.
In pragmatic terms, a succession of actions gone wrong, or badly planned and implemented, led to the invasion’s being a disaster. There is the enormous factor, for instance, of the covert nature of the operation, a secrecy abetted by Kennedy’s own influence in keeping news of it out of the press. There was also the unconstitutional – and inherently unethical – bypassing of Congress, which must be consulted regarding any act of war, as the government elected to fund the invasion secretly (Farber, 1994, p. 36). Perhaps most damaging of all was the mistaken impression supposedly given to Kennedy, in that the Cubans would respond positively to the invasion as a “liberating” force. Then, as the operation became an abject failure, there was the final flaw of a lack of support from Kennedy for those troops then being struck down (Farber, 1994, p. 37). The effects of this chain reaction of poor ;policy were striking. U.S. prestige was seriously undermined on international levels, with the nation seen as a violent aggressor. Cuba’s relationship with the Soviet Union became stronger, and it was inevitable that the U.S. government’s attempts to deny the action would create further damage to its own integrity. Sadly, Cubans suffered further as Castro tightened the repression of his government on them (Farber, 1994, p. 37). The entire episode was an immense and lingering source of disgrace for the nation. At the same time, however, it may be said that this spectacular failure did some good for the America of the 1960s. More exactly, if the post-World War II years had been marked by a consistently patriotic trust, the Bay of Pigs disaster taught Americans a hard lesson in assuming a government will always act correctly. It may be argued that this legacy of cynicism, created by Kennedy’s inexcusable actions and secrecy, paved the way for a more active public attention to the workings of its government.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Remembering the ’60s Martin Luther King’s Speech at Riverside Church".
Martin Luther King’s Riverside Church Speech
In April of 1967, Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered an extraordinary speech at New York City’s Riverside Church. Long acknowledged as the leader of the Civil Rights movement, it was a departure from what was usually expected from King, yet powerfully reflecting his Civil Rights ideologies all the same. Essentially, this was a speech echoing increasing social unrest in the nation regarding America’s involvement in Vietnam. Year by year, American youth was leading the way in open resistance to a war perceived as unjust and immoral. This tide of feeling would grow after 1967, but King’s timing was critical. In using his authority and presence to make a statement about this international issue affecting all Americans, King was also able to further affirm the standing of African Americans as equal citizens in the process.
The text of the speech reveals, first and foremost, King’s immense gifts as an orator and leader in ideology. His language is exquisite, yet fully accessible to all his listeners, and he employs elegance of phrasing to reinforce the convictions he offers. There is a substantial part of the speech devoted to King’s assessment of the tragic state of Vietnam, as well as to the hopelessly misguided, if not corrupt, nature of the American involvement. Before this, however, Dr. King addresses what he knows must be a major concern in his audience: why he, the champion of Civil Rights, would seemingly deviate from his central commitment. King’s response to the unvoiced question is strong. He makes it clear that, as a clergyman, he is obligated to address such important transgressions of right as the war, an obligation made more potent by his having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Racial justice, he suggests, is meaningless if his people achieve it in an unjust state. He also cites specific reasons, as in how the American focus on Vietnam was detracting from investment in the poor: “I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such” (King, from American Rhetoric). Morally and pragmatically, then, King attacks the war because his standing demands he do so.
However, and even as King seeks to convey to his followers how the different subject is worthy of their concern, he powerfully links it to the Civil Rights movement, and in a disturbing way. Given discriminatory policies in place at the time, King speaks of how disproportionate numbers of black men will go to die, and fight beside white men they would not be permitted to associate with back home. While his speech is focused on the immorality of the war, there remains this distinct connection to the social concerns of the day, and King’s influence was something be be considered. There was great concern in the government over this speech, chiefly because even King’s greatest detractors recognized how powerful and influential he was. The feeling, in fact, was that King would be responsible for untold numbers of young black men suddenly identifying themselves as conscientious objectors (Eldridge, 2012, p. 100). The speech itself is lengthy, and it covers a variety of issues. What is primarily expresses, however, and brilliantly, is how the concerns of an oppressed people must expand to take in concerns of the greater society. In a very real sense, King is relating the message here that empowerment translates to responsibility, and his speech marries antiwar protest with Civil Rights issues in a seamless way.
- American Rhetoric. (2013). Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence.” Retrieved from http://www.americanrhetoric.com/
- Eldridge, L. A. (2012). Chronicles of a Two-Front War: Civil Rights and Vietnam in the African American Press. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
- Farber, D. (1994). The Age of Great Dreams: America in the 1960s. New York: Farrer, Straus, and Giroux.
