Harold ‘Bizz’ Johnson received a letter from July 31,1972 from one of his constituents in Susanville, California. The body of the letter is to voice out one man’s opinion over what should be done with regards to the Vietnam War. Robert Woods write in his letter about the upcoming foreign aid bill that will be voted on by Congress. Woods acknowledges that his support for the war efforts has ended wit the Nixon Administration. He states, “I supported LBJ’s (Lyndon B. Johnson) policies on the war, but I think it’s time both of us made a change.”
This call for change is to Bizz. Many who from the beginning supported this war for half a decade started to realize that it was no longer necessary to occupy a foreign sovereign state. Robert Woods shared this sentiment with those in his community and in the nation.

The upcoming vote on the foreign aid bill would approve a provision stating,

” the involvement of United States land, sea, and air forces, for the purpose of maintaining, supporting, or engaging in hostilities in or over Indochina shall terminate and such forces shall be withdrawn not later than October 1, 1972, subject to a cease-fire between the United States and North Vietnam and those allied with North Vietnam to the extent necessary to achieve safe withdrawal of such remaining forces, and subject to the release of all American prisoners of war held by the Government of North Vietnam and forces allied with such Government and an accounting for all Americans missing in action who have been held by or known to such Government or such forces.”

The primary function of Congress is to create and modify laws. In the legislative branch domestic and foreign issues are brought up and voted upon by elected representatives. Congress holds the power and authority to approve or reject these laws. It was amended and passed. It would take six months for Robert Woods and the rest of America to see the war come to an end.On January 23 1973, the U.S and the Republic of Vietnam signed a peace agreement and ended the war.

Works Cited

Belasco, A., J., C. L., Fischer, H., & Niksch, L. A. (2007). Congressional Restrictions on U.S. Military Operations in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia, and Kosovo: Funding and Non-Funding Approaches . Washinton D.C: Congressional Research Service.

Project Vote Smart. (2015). votesmart.org. Retrieved September 13, 2015, from Vote Smart: https://votesmart.org/education/how-a-bill-becomes-law#.Vfmr97RRe-8

’73 Foreign aid authorization dies in conference. (1973). CQ almanac 1972 (28th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal72-1250890.

     In the April of 1970, President Nixon announced the United States involvement and expansion in Cambodia to end the Vietnam War. At this time, there had been many opposing sentiments about the war, particularly among students who wanted to avoid further foreign conflict and drafts. On May 4th, 1970, while students gathered to demonstrate at Kent State University against the President’s decision, National Guardsmen shot and killed four students while injuring many others during the protest. This awakening experience further antagonized and unified the nation against the Vietnam War as the betrayal of the government to protect its citizens fueled a crusade for justice. (http://www.jstor.org.summit.csuci.edu:2048/stable/23380315?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents).This document calls attention for a national student strike in which three “demands” are made to end repressing incidents like that of Kent State by the students of American University in the Committee for Community Involvement. According to the committee, the Paris Peace talks, the repression of the Black Panther party and using the National Guard on students have all exceeded the powers government should have over its people. The document serves as a template to reason with the reader why a mass rally is essential in maintaining free will and basic rights with protection against the government.

   The committee writes in their first statement that the Paris Peace talks had been weakened due to unceasing bombings in North Vietnam, also insisting to withdraw from the war. Right before the university incident, the Paris Peace talks were negotiations being held by the U.S. government as well as with the North and South Vietnamese leaders to end the war in Vietnam. These peace talks started with President Johnson in 1968 after the escalation of war seemed better fit through the arduous process of diplomacy.(http://www.jstor.org.summit.csuci.edu:2048/stable/41392953?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents).The peace talks occurred over the course of years, with new negotiations and conditions being altered or stagnant depending on the how the other parties would respond. When Johnson pronounced that there would be no more bombings in North Vietnam, there was hope that this would be the beginning of the end until Nixon came into office and approved the expansion into Cambodia. In the U.S., college students were overwhelmingly against the decision to invade Cambodia because of the draft they considered unnecessary. The students at American University considered Nixon’s approach a threat to their liberties and they wanted to show their disapproval through a strike.

   The second reason why the students are rallying in this document is to end political repression domestically. According to the Committee, the Nixon administration has breached the Constitution to object any challengers of their policies. In their example, the Black Panther party has been constrained by the administration because they are considered “radicals” although they help protect the people from the government. The Black Panther Party was an institution that brought the African American community together in times when the government did not and that unity really threatened the system. In the 1960’s when civil liberties and racial tensions were high, the banding of African Americans was seen as militants trying to take over by the non-minority mass. For the minorities, the black panthers stood as an organization that aimed for the equality of the oppressed. The FBI however did not see the social movement that way and in 1968 the Panthers were declared to be the “single greatest threat to the internal security of the United States”. (http://www.jstor.org.summit.csuci.edu:2048/stable/41392953?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents). The students at American University are on the side of the organization and call for an end to the oppressive interfering government.

   The final reason why they were holding a national student strike was to protest the involvement of the educated becoming the leaders of the CIA as well as other agencies and taking lives abroad and at home. The document ultimately shows the student’s disapproval of Nixon’s foreign and domestic policies by pointing out the injustices that have occurred under his term.

A woman named Leitha Van De Grift wrote to Harold T. (Bizz) Johnson on April 15, 1970. She was opposed to the Vietnam War that was taking place at this time, but she did not condone how protesters and demonstrators were expressing their distress with the government. Her letter sounded concerned but still very respectful as she addressed multiple controversies pertaining to the Vietnam War. Some of the affairs mentioned in her letter included the Moratorium, the demonstrations and protests of the war, and the My Lai Massacre. Johnson’s response to Mrs. Van De Grift explained that he wanted peace with Vietnam as well, but he also wanted a peace that would last and this had the potential of taking longer to come to an agreement upon. He also asserted his worries about the violent behavior of the Vietnam War protesters.

In her letter, Mrs. Van De Grift, mentioned some national events that took place during the war that today’s reader might not understand.

1. The first ambiguity revealed in her letter referred to a national student strike referred to as the Moratorium. Moratorium, as described by dictionary.com, is a suspension of activity, which in this case referred to the suspension of classes. During the Moratorium, students organized marches and demonstrations, did not attend class, and held “we won’t go” petitions, in an attempt to portray their contempt for the war, it’s draft, and the poor economic status the nation was left in due to the war. Twelve days preceding Mrs. Van De Grift writing in to Johnson, on April 3, 1970, Nixon disclosed to the nation that the military would once again begin the bombings in Vietnam, only adding fuel to the student striker’s fire (Amherst, Hampshire, Mount Holyoke and Smith, pars. 1).
2. The second ambiguity presented in Mrs. Van De Grift’s letter made reference to the protests going on. Protests began after the military began the bombings in Vietnam in 1965. These liberal protesters were made up of mostly students and artists all in opposition of the war. Increasing casualties, cost, men called to service, and Martin Luther King Jr.’s opposition elevated tensions. More than 100,000 protesters congregated at the Lincoln Memorial on October 21, 1967. 30,000 of these protesters advanced to the Pentagon to be affronted by soldiers, leading to the arrest of hundreds of protesters (History.com Staff, pars. 1).
3. The last ambiguity brought up in the letter was the My Lai Massacre. At this point in the war, the energy and attitudes of the soldiers were at an all-time low due to the Tet Offensive (History.com Staff, pars. 2). The Tet Offensive was a sequence of attacks on numerous South Vietnamese cities by North Vietnam (U-S-History.com Staff, pars. 1). On March 16, 1968, Charlie Company was set lose by a Lieutenant William L. Calley to destroy the village of My Lai. All of its residents were considered opposition, and troops were given orders to kill all its inhabitants. This was done so in a brutal, unjust, and cruel manner that would now be considered excessive and unnecessary. Throughout the entire search-and-destroy process, there was no return fire aimed towards United States troops (History.com Staff, pars. 2-3). It was not until eighteen months later that this event and its details were revealed to United States citizens. Once brought to light, this event was later investigated and numerous soldiers were held responsible (Hersh).

1. Amherst, Hampshire, Mount Holyoke and Smith. “Student Strike of 1970 Files, 1968-1971 : Biographical and Historical Note.” Student Strike of 1970 Files, 1968-1971 : Biographical and Historical Note. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2015. http://asteria.fivecolleges.edu/findaids/smitharchives/manosca31_bioghist.html
2. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.
3. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moratorium
4. History.com Staff. “Vietnam War Protests.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2010. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.
5. http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/vietnam-war-protests
6. “Anti Vietnam War Protest -.” YouTube. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2015. https://youtu.be/Bk09F1fTs1E
7. History.com Staff. “My Lai Massacre.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2009. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.
8. http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/my-lai-massacre
9. Hersh.”My Lai Massacre.” YouTube. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2015. https://youtu.be/VWchy6ykNnQ
10. U-S-History.com Staff.”Tet Offensive.” Tet Offensive. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.
11. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1862.html

On May 15, 1972 the President of the California Democratic Council, Nathan N. Holden, wrote to the President of the United States, California Senators and Congressmen, including Harold T. “Bizz” Johnson in an effort to express the opinion of the California Democratic Council about the Presidents actions to escalate the war in Southeast Asia. The escalation of the war in Vietnam came after the North Vietnamese Army began the Nguyen-Hue campaign to collapse the South Vietnamese and remaining American forces. On March 30^th, 1972 the NVA launched the “Easter Offensive”, which was the largest NVA offensive of the war. The escalation of the war in Southeast Asia in which Nathan N. Holden was referring to was President Nixon’s response to the “Easter Offensive.” President Nixon responded with a massive air campaign utilizing the only tool left in his arsenal, the B-52 Bombers. This strategy included “the bombing of urban targets in North Vietnam” and was referred to “as ‘war by tantrum’ and an act of senseless terror.”

Nathan N. Holden expresses that the California Democratic Council has passed a unanimous resolution in that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution should been repealed. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was passed after the Tonkin Gulf Incident, were NVA vassals attacked U.S. ships in Southeast Asia. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution states “Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repeal any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent any further aggression.” The problem with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in the views of the California Democratic Council and many other Americans at this point in history is that it conflicted with the Constitution. The Constitution divides war powers into two sections in the federal government between legislative and executive branches. Article II, section 2 states that “the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that “Congress has the power to make declarations of war.” With that being said, the legitimacy of Nathan N. Holden’s argument that “the President acted unconstitutionally” is justified through Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution regarding war powers.

Nathan N. Holden also explains in his resolution that “the expenditures of money on the war are destroying the economy.” In fact, the effects on the economy were felt quickly starting with “withholding rates on wages and salaries” that were reduced immediately at the state of the war. The economic implications as the war escalated were as predicted, taking a tremendous toll, “with real wages declining, interest rates soaring, and the price of energy and food escalating.” After Mr. Holden lays out the foundation to his argument he demands on the behalf of the California Democratic Council that Congress, including Harold T. “Bizz” Johnson, “reasserts its Constitutional prerogatives” and in doing so Mr. Holden proposes that congress should cut all funds for the Vietnam war. This contextualized document exemplifies the cause and effect of the series of events that took place during this period of time and brings life to this chapter in American history.

In his essay entitled “What We Said of It Becomes a Part of What It Is: Rendering Real Places,” Bob Cowser, Jr. speaks about how a sense of place is essential to one’s writing. Growing up in the small town of Martin, Tennessee, Cowser always felt like an outsider. He carried with him a sense of “placenessness,” as he says (110).

Even though he lived there throughout his entire infancy, childhood, and adolescence, he was still seen as “a Yankee whose daddy taught out at the college” (110). In regards to Martin as a place, Cowser mostly saw it for what was on the outskirts of town, and how tempting it was to leave. In one of his essays, he writes about this concept, how the lines “drawn between Martin and surrounding communities” “meant ‘wild begins here’” (112).

Through his depictions of his hometown, he realized that he had not portrayed Martin in the best light, and that the people he grew up with that either used to or still do live there would not be too pleased about that. Because Martin is a very real place for them, they could possibly take offense to some things he has said about it as it reflects poorly on the town as a whole. This ties into the main concept that Cowser is dealing with in his essay: depending on how a person feels about the place he or she is writing about, their words will personify that place, making it a character of its own that readers will either choose to like or dislike. If people are reading a piece about somewhere they have never been, they may see it as an accurate representation, even if biases are present. Therefore, “what we say of a place becomes a part of what it is” (114).

Without the stories that live inside all the nooks and crannies, a place is “merely landscape” (114). There have been consequences to Cowser’s depictions of Martin. Cowser wrote a book entitled Green Fields that explores his personal boyhood and upbringing while also dealing with the murder of a child he went to grade school with and the man who killed her. He received some backlash from the victim’s family. Her step-grandfather thought that Cowser hadn’t been sympathetic enough to the community and that his impatience with the place made him near-sighted (122).

With this, Cowser ends his piece with one final thought: can one really see a place for what it’s worth while living there, or is it necessary to leave and give it some time and distance in order to find clarity?

Space vs. Place

^(That is a link.)^

The two images above are the same exact location—the City of Edmonton in Canada. On the left, the space is empty, while on the right, there is some sort of event going on in the very same space. How could this difference affect a person’s view of Edmonton?

If someone were to visit Edmonton at a time that this event was not taking place in what seems to be the town center, they would see Edmonton only for its external attributes—a landscape, something to look at. Unless they further explored the depths of the city, they would see it only as a space, and they probably would not make any strong connections to a sense of place. If a different person were to visit at a time that this was taking place, he or she would feel more of a sense of community. This would be for a number of reasons, but the most obvious are that there are many people there to socialize, and everyone is there for the same thing.

In another example on the differences between space and place, the Canadian artist Susan Kordalewski held an exhibition in 2011 that examined “the reprocessing of memory and the complexity of location and identity.” 

These images are part of Kordalewski’s piece. They showcase that even though the displaced object looks similar in both photos, when put in a different location, it does not maintain its essence… Or does it? This is what Cowser is getting at.

Making Further Connections

The concept of place can be incorporated into many aspects of writing. For example, I even equate the idea of place with time. When I think about The Great Gatsby, I think of materialism at its finest: beautiful women in black flapper dresses with red lipstick, men in fancy suits smoking Cuban cigars, etc. Although all the glitz and glamor of The Great Gatsby may truly showcase some parts of New York in the 1920s, for others it could be viewed as the Hollywood version of real life. Whenever I hear someone mention the “roaring ’20s,” Gatsby is the first thing that comes to mind. It goes to show that Fitzgerald’s novel had, and still has, a strong impact on how we view even the history of our country. Is this dangerous?

Another great example is Los Angeles. Any time I have ever talked to people that have never been to Los Angeles, they always refer to either books, movies or TV shows to provide them with the context for what it’s like. They think of LA as this beautiful, glamorous city where there are celebrities around every corner and something fun and interesting to do every couple blocks. I have actually had people say how excited they are to see the Hollywood sign. To me, a person who has lived in Southern California her entire life, this is almost bizarre. In fact, any time I hear this, I fear for them that their expectations of LA may not meet the reality of it, and will therefore leave them disappointed. While in some regards I do see LA as an artistic community at the very foreground of creativity, I also see it as transient, dirty, and superficial.

I will end this with the last thought in Cowser’s essay. After dealing with the angry family of the little girl that he wrote about in his book, Cowser turns to Joan Didion, a famous American author and literary journalist, for advice. Didion once said,

A place belongs to whoever claims it the hardest, remembers it most obsessively, wrenches it from itself, shapes it, loves it so radically that he remakes it in his own image.

And with that, Cowser replies, “Okay then. Game on” (122).

Questions for Further Discussion

1. How might you consider place when writing your creative works in this class? Will you do extensive research in hopes of capturing its true essence, or will you base your writing off of what you have either seen or heard about a place? How could either choice help/harm you?
2. Cowser states that for Hemingway, he was able to see his hometown of Oak Park, Illinois more clearly when he was in Paris. Faulkner, however, was able to live in the actual place that he was writing about, and in doing so, he could see it for what it truly was. How can this apply to you and your writing?

Works Cited

Cowser, Bob Jr. “What We Said of It Becomes a Part of What It Is: Rendering Real Places.” River Teeth: A Journal of Nonfiction Narrative 12.2 (2011): 109-122. Web. 15 September 2015.

Male, Mack D. “Space for Place: Placemaking in Edmonton.” MasterMaq. Mastermaq, 22 April 2015. Web. 15 September 2015.

“Space vs. Place.” Kordalewski, Susan. Kordalewski. Kordalewski, n.d. Web. 15 September 2015.