Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Aug 22, 2020

Sterling Hall Bombing 50th Anniversary Marked in Madison

Updated - Madison, Wisconsin — The 50th anniversary of the Sterling Hall bombing is being marked with wide commentary, (WMTV, UW-Madison News, On Wisconsin, WKOW, Isthmus, Wisconsin State Journal).

Anti-war protesters set off a bomb at 3:42 A.M., May 24, 1970 in a bid to destroy the Army Math Research Center housed in Sterling Hall. They wanted to highlight the American invasion of southeast Asia, state repression and operations of the Vietnam War machine at home.

The intent was to bomb an empty building, but one man was killed, others were injured.

Few here believe the bombing was not tragic, a life was inadvertently taken.

Most, it seems, also understand the state and the police are the worst purveyors of violence domestically, and that the Vietnam War was a crime against humanity. 

Vietnam veterans often say the same thing: The war was a slaughter supported by lies.

In Madison, the presence of the Army-Math Center was not a slow burn leading to an August 24, 1970 crescendo, just a constant reminder of how deeply state violence is embedded throughout society.

Writes James Huberty in UW-Madison Campus Voices today:

It was obvious to me that something was going to happen [to the Army-Math Center] because this is, I mean, where could it go? It wasn’t going anywhere, it wasn’t getting less tense or less violent or less anything. It was getting more and more and more. You know, somebody is going to do something. There was stuff being said, you know. I mean, I didn’t personally hear anything at all from anybody, but it was just that sense of, you know, it’s, you know, it’s going to happen. Something’s going to happen.

One of the four men responsible for the bombing, Leo Burt, is still at large, which is to say he has escaped state violence that some characterize as being brought to justice.

Leo Burt

Burt was a crew member at UW-Madison. 

The Rowing News ran a piece this Summer, quoting a teammate of Burt's who said, "The Leo we used to know was not the Leo who committed this crime. The war changed him tragically."

Actually, Leo Burt remained outgoing and friendly, according to Don Kosterman, a friend of Burt's. Caricatures about mad Sterling Hall bombers seem off the mark.

Kosterman, a professional photographer and retired journalist in Dane County, attended UW-Madison from 1968-1970, later obtaining a Master's in Journalism degree on police repression of Kaleidoscope, an underground newspaper. [Kaleidoscope: An underground newspaper and the law. Kosterman, Donald John (1975)]

Kosterman met Burt when they were classmates in a Photo Journalism class, and the two with other students enjoyed "close" friendships, taking a trip together to Racine as part of the Journalism School class, attending several anti-war rallies and marches, among other typical pursuits of college life.

Kosterman came home from Vietnam after two years with the Army in the mid-1960s, and transferred from UW-Milwuakee to UW-Madison.

"I was very good friends with Leo," Kosterman recalled in an interview in Fitchburg.

Kosterman recalled 1968 when the two were drinking beers at Memorial Union when a third party happened by and spoke furtively with Burt.

Moments later, Kosterman and Burt were introduced to two Weathermen fleeing Chicago after the 1968 Democratic National Convention, looking for a community to "get lost in."

Kosterman and Burt shared love interests, academic work and a general ethical sense that good works were demanded of individuals.

Asked what Burt was like, "kind-hearted," Kosterman replied without hesitation

"Oh, absolutely. Leo was a just a regular Catholic kid from Pennsylvania. He felt strongly about things," recalled Kosterman. "Put it this way, not knowing what was going to happen, Leo and I hit it off really well. Out of the whole class, he was the guy that I become friends with. It wasn't the fact that we hung around the same girlfriend."

During the Summer of 1970 in the weeks before the Sterling Hall bombing, Kosterman recalled walking out of the Journalism class, down the Henry Mall, and hearing a voice from an alley where a van was parked.

"Hey, Don, you going to the demonstration?" shouted Leo Burt from the passenger seat of the van.

"Oh, yeah. How about you," replied Kosterman.

"I'll be there," said Burt laughing, and he dangled his gas mask outside the window.

An anti-war rally on the UW-Madison campus in 1970 was planned; attendance was casually contemplated between freinds. 

Within weeks Burt and others struck at what they believed was an immoral enterprise in an act that 50 years later defies easy explanation and clear meaning.

The legacy of the Peace Movement continues. 

Wide skepticism of the type Kosterman and Burt shared towards military and police units dehumanizing populations as targets has kept a lunatic in the White House from starting wars to this point.

Domestic police remain militarized against populations raising concerns and hopes that something is going to happen, and state violence has to stop now.

That something may be a September-October surprise intended to show Trump commanding a killing machine. 

However, thanks to the modern peace movement, such crimes may not result in a beneficial electoral result for the perpetrators.

This seems an important legacy of the war at home, and recognizing history and debating it will continue to inform the American experiment.
--
The underground newspaper, Kaleidoscope, ran an exclusive statement from the New Year's Gang on the bombing some one week after the Aug 24, 1970 bombing in its Aug 31 - Sept 6 edition, (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Libraries).

Kaleidoscope cover is below:

The bombing of Sterling Hall on Aug. 24, 1970, was the shocking culmination of years of dissent and despair over the Vietnam War. The bomb killed 33-year-old Robert Fassnacht, a postdoctoral researcher in physics and father of three young children. It injured four others and damaged 26 buildings. UW Archives

Jan 28, 2010

Ellsberg on Howard Zinn

A Memory of Howard
Jan 27, 2010
By Daniel Ellsberg

I just learned that my friend Howard Zinn died today. Earlier this morning, I was being interviewed by the Boston Phoenix, in connection with the February release of a documentary in which he is featured prominently. The interviewer asked me who my own heroes were, and I had no hesitation in answering, first, “Howard Zinn.”

Just weeks ago, after watching the film, I woke up thinking that I had never told him how much he meant to me. For once in my life, I acted on that thought in a timely way. I sent him an e-mail in which I said, among other things, what I had often told others: that he was, “in my opinion, the best human being I’ve ever known. The best example of what a human can be, and can do with their life.”

Our first meeting was at Faneuil Hall in Boston in early 1971, where we both spoke against the indictments of Eqbal Ahmad and Phil Berrigan for “conspiring to kidnap Henry Kissinger.” We marched with the rest of the crowd to make citizens’ arrests at the Boston office of the FBI.

Later that spring, we went with our affinity group (including Noam Chomsky, Cindy Fredericks, Marilyn Young, Mark Ptashne, Zelda Gamson, Fred Branfman and Mitch Goodman), to the May Day actions blocking traffic in Washington (“If they won’t stop the war, we’ll stop the government”). Howard tells that story in the film, and I tell it at greater length in my memoir, “Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.”

But for reasons of space, I had to cut out the next section in which Howard—who had been arrested in D.C. after most of the rest of us had gone elsewhere—came back to Boston for a rally and a blockade of the Federal Building. I’ve never published that story, so here it is, an outtake from my manuscript:

A day later, Howard Zinn was the last speaker at a large rally in Boston Common. I was at the back of a huge crowd, listening to him over loudspeakers. Twenty-seven years later, I can remember some of what he said. “On May Day in Washington, thousands of us were arrested for disturbing the peace. But there is no peace. We were really arrested because we were disturbing the war.”

He said, “If Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton had been walking the streets of Georgetown yesterday, they would have been arrested. Arrested for being young.”

At the end of his comments, he said: “I want to speak now to some of the members of this audience, the plainclothes policemen among us, the military intelligence agents who are assigned to do surveillance. You are taking the part of secret police, spying on your fellow Americans. You should not be doing what you are doing. You should rethink it, and stop. You do not have to carry out orders that go against the grain of what it means to be an American.”

Those last weren’t his exact words, but that was the spirit of them. He was to pay for that comment the next day, when we were sitting side by side in a blockade of the Federal Building in Boston. We had a circle of people all the way around the building, shoulder to shoulder, so no one could get in or out except by stepping over us. Behind us were crowds of people with posters who were supporting us but who hadn’t chosen to risk arrest. In front of us, keeping us from getting any closer to the main entrance to the building, was a line of policemen, with a large formation of police behind them. All the police had large plastic masks tilted back on their heads and they were carrying long black clubs, about four feet long, like large baseball bats. Later the lawyers told us that city police regulations outlawed the use of batons that long.

But at first the relations with the police were almost friendly. We sat down impudently at the very feet of the policemen who were guarding the entrance, filling in the line that disappeared around the sides until someone came from the rear of the building and announced over a bullhorn, “The blockade is complete. We’ve surrounded the building!” There was a cheer from the crowd behind us, and more people joined us in sitting until the circle was two or three deep.
We expected them to start arresting us, but for a while the police did nothing. They could have manhandled a passage through the line and kept it open for employees to go in or out, but for some reason they didn’t. We thought maybe they really sympathized with our protest, and this was their way of joining in. As the morning wore on, people took apples and crackers and bottles of water out of their pockets and packs and shared them around, and they always offered some to the police standing in front of us. The police always refused, but they seemed to appreciate the offer.

Then one of the officers came over to Howard and said, “You’re Professor Zinn, aren’t you?” Howard said yes, and the officer reached down and shook his hand enthusiastically. He said, “I heard you lecture at the Police Academy. A lot of us here did. That was a wonderful lecture.” Howard had been asked to speak to them about the role of dissent and civil disobedience in American history. Several other policemen came over to pay their respects to Howard and thank him for his lecture. The mood seemed quite a bit different from Washington.

Then a line of employees emerged from the building, wearing coats and ties or dresses. Their arms were raised and they were holding cards in their raised hands. As they circled past us, they held out the cards so we could see what they were: ID cards, showing they were federal employees. They were making the peace sign with their other hands, they were circling around the building to show solidarity with what we were doing. Their spokesman said over a bullhorn, “We want this war to be over, too! Thank you for what you are doing! Keep it up.”

Photographers, including police, were scrambling to take pictures of them, and some of them held up their ID cards so they would get in the picture. It was the high point of the day.
A little while after the employees had gone back inside the building, there was a sudden shift in the mood of the police. An order had been passed. The bloc of police in the center of the square got into tight formation and lowered their plastic helmets. The police standing right in front of us, over us, straightened up, adjusted their uniforms and lowered their masks. Apparently the time had come to start arrests. The supporters who didn’t want to be arrested fell back.

But there was no arrest warning. There was a whistle, and the line of police began inching forward, black batons raised upright. They were going to walk through us or over us, push us back. The man in front of us, who had been talking to Howard about his lecture a little earlier, muttered to us under his breath, “Leave! Now! Quick, get up.” He was warning, not menacing us.

Howard and I looked at each other. We’d come expecting to get arrested. It didn’t seem right to just get up and move because someone told us to, without arresting us. We stayed where we were. No one else left either. Boots were touching our shoes. The voice over our heads whispered intensely, “Move! Please. For God’s sake, move!” Knees in uniform pressed our knees. I saw a club coming down. I put my hands over my head, fists clenched, and a four-foot baton hit my wrist, hard. Another one hit my shoulder.

I rolled over, keeping my arms over my head, got up and moved back a few yards. Howard was being hauled off by several policemen. One had Howard’s arms pinned behind him, another had jerked his head back by the hair. Someone had ripped his shirt in two, there was blood on his bare chest. A moment before he had been sitting next to me, and I waited for someone to do the same to me, but no one did. I didn’t see anyone else getting arrested. But no one was sitting anymore, the line had been broken, disintegrated. Those who had been sitting hadn’t moved very far, they were standing like me a few yards back, looking around, holding themselves where they’d been clubbed. The police had stopped moving. They stood in a line, helmets still down, slapping their batons against their hands. Their adrenaline was still up, but they were standing in place.

Blood was running down my hand, covering the back of my hand. I was wearing a heavy watch, and it had taken the force of the blow. The baton had smashed the crystal and driven pieces of glass into my wrist. Blood was dripping off my fingers. Someone gave me a handkerchief to wrap around my wrist and told me to raise my arm. The handkerchief got soaked quickly and blood was running down my arm while I looked for a first-aid station that was supposed to be at the back of the crowd, in a corner of the square. I finally found it, and someone picked the glass out of my arm and put a thick bandage around it.

I went back to the protest. My shoulder was aching. The police were standing where they had stopped, and the blockade had reformed, people were sitting 10 yards back from where they had been before. There seemed to be more people sitting, not fewer. Many of the supporters had joined in. But it was quiet. No one was speaking loudly, no laughing. People were waiting for the police to move forward again. They weren’t expecting any longer to get arrested.

Only three or four people had been picked out of the line to be arrested before. The police had made a decision (it turned out) to arrest only the “leaders,” not to give us the publicity of arrests and trials. Howard hadn’t been an organizer of this action, he was just participating like the rest of us, but from the way they treated him when they pulled him out of the line, his comments directly to the police in the rally the day before must have rubbed someone the wrong way.

I found Roz Zinn, Howard’s wife, sitting in the line on the side at right angles to where Howard and I had been before. I sat down between her and their housemate, a woman her age. They had been in support before until they had seen what happened to Howard.

Looking at the police in formation, with their uniforms and clubs, guns on their hips, I felt naked. I knew that it was an illusion in combat to think you were protected because you were carrying a weapon, but it was an illusion that worked. For the first time, I was very conscious of being unarmed. At last, in my own country, I understood what a Vietnamese villager must have felt at what the Marines called a “county fair,” when the Marines rounded up everyone they could find in a hamlet—all women, children and old people never draft- or VC-age young men—to be questioned one at a time in a tent, meanwhile passing out candy to the kids and giving vaccinations. Winning hearts and minds, trying to recruit informers. No one among the villagers knowing what the soldiers, in their combat gear, would do next, or which of them might be detained.

We sat and talked and waited for the police to come again. They lowered their helmets and formed up. The two women I was with were both older than I was. I moved my body in front of them, to take the first blows. I felt a hand on my elbow. “Excuse me, I was sitting there,” the woman who shared the Zinns’ house said to me, with a cold look. She hadn’t come there that day and sat down, she told me later, to be protected by me. I apologized and scrambled back, behind them.

No one moved. The police didn’t move, either. They stood in formation facing us, plastic masks over their faces, for quite a while. But they didn’t come forward again. They had kept open a passage in front for the employees inside to leave after 5, and eventually the police left, and we left.
* * *
There was a happier story to tell, slightly more than one month later. On Saturday night, June 12, 1971, we had a date with Howard and Roz to see “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” in Harvard Square. But that morning I learned from someone at The New York Times that—without having alerted me—The Times was about to start publishing the top secret documents I had given them that evening. That meant I might get a visit from the FBI at any moment; and for once, I had copies of the papers in my apartment, because I planned to send them to Sen. Mike Gravel for his filibuster against the draft.
From “Secrets” (p. 386):

“I had to get the documents out of our apartment. I called the Zinns, who had been planning to come by our apartment later to join us for the movie, and asked if we could come by their place in Newton [Mass.] instead. I took the papers in a box in the trunk of our car. They weren’t the ideal people to avoid attracting the attention of the FBI. Howard had been in charge of managing antiwar activist Daniel Berrigan’s movements underground while he was eluding the FBI for months (so from that practical point of view he was an ideal person to hide something from them), and it could be assumed that his phone was tapped, even if he wasn’t under regular surveillance. However, I didn’t know whom else to turn to that Saturday afternoon. Anyway, I had given Howard a large section of the study already, to read as a historian; he’d kept it in his office at Boston University. As I expected, they said yes immediately. Howard helped me bring up the box from the car.

“We drove back to Harvard Square for the movie. The Zinns had never seen ‘Butch Cassidy’ before. It held up for all of us. Afterward we bought ice-cream cones at Brigham’s and went back to our apartment. Finally Howard and Roz went home before it was time for the early edition of the Sunday New York Times to arrive at the subway kiosk below the square. Around midnight Patricia and I went over to the square and bought a couple of copies. We came up the stairs into Harvard Square reading the front page, with the three-column story about the secret archive, feeling very good.”

- Daniel Ellsberg is a lecturer, writer and activist and the former American military analyst employed by the RAND Corporation who, in 1971, released the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times.

Jul 14, 2009

Fascism as American as Apple Pie

Our Vietnam War Marine veteran friend has another typically fascinating piece out at Veterans Today, Background to Tyranny: Bush Family Terror Ties Decades-Old.

The roots of American authoritarianism are long and deep. From Gordon Duff:

Does the following sound crazy? It's not crazy. Just history that is impolitic to report.

In 1934, the Bush family helped organize a military attack on Washington in order to install a Nazi government. Sound outlandish? It is American history. It is call 'the Business Plot (BBC).'

Conservative 'think tanks' still spend millions to edit this from our history books. Sites are taken off the internet and Wikipedia is still erased, even decades later.

Would two rigged elections, a mysterious 9/11 attack, torture and totalitarian rule be surprising if Americans were allowed to know their own history?

May 20, 2009

Obama and Trust

Update: What Are We Fighting For? (Rick Reyes)

It really would not take much for President Obama to renounce and halt torture and two American wars of aggression while he's at it.

That's actually why a lot of people put him into office.

Obama is breaking a trust right now for what he stands for, for what we stand for. Will he continue?

From Noam Chomsky, Unexceptional Americans:

Occasionally the conflict between ‘what we stand for’ and ‘what we do’ has been forthrightly addressed. One distinguished scholar who undertook the task at hand was Hans Morgenthau, a founder of realist international relations theory. In a classic study published in 1964 in the glow of Camelot, Morgenthau developed the standard view that the U.S. has a ‘transcendent purpose’: establishing peace and freedom at home and indeed everywhere, since ‘the arena within which the United States must defend and promote its purpose has become world-wide.’ But as a scrupulous scholar, he also recognized that the historical record was radically inconsistent with that ‘transcendent purpose.’

We should not be misled by that discrepancy, advised Morgenthau; we should not ‘confound the abuse of reality with reality itself.’ Reality is the unachieved ‘national purpose’ revealed by ‘the evidence of history as our minds reflect it.’ What actually happened was merely the ‘abuse of reality.’

The release of the torture memos led others to recognize the problem. In the New York Times, columnist Roger Cohen reviewed a new book, The Myth of American Exceptionalism, by British journalist Geoffrey Hodgson, who concludes that the U.S. is ‘just one great, but imperfect, country among others.’ Cohen agrees that the evidence supports Hodgson's judgment, but nonetheless regards as fundamentally mistaken Hodgson's failure to understand that ‘America was born as an idea, and so it has to carry that idea forward.’ The American idea is revealed in the country's birth as a ‘city on a hill,’ an ‘inspirational notion’ that resides ‘deep in the American psyche,’ and by ‘the distinctive spirit of American individualism and enterprise’ demonstrated in the Western expansion. Hodgson's error, it seems, is that he is keeping to ‘the distortions of the American idea,’ ‘the abuse of reality.’ ...

‘Come Over and Help Us’

The inspirational phrase ‘city on a hill’ was coined by John Winthrop in 1630, borrowing from the Gospels, and outlining the glorious future of a new nation ‘ordained by God.’ One year earlier his Massachusetts Bay Colony created its
Great Seal. It depicted an Indian with a scroll coming out of his mouth. On that scroll are the words ‘Come over and help us.’ The British colonists were thus pictured as benevolent humanists, responding to the pleas of the miserable natives to be rescued from their bitter pagan fate.

The Great Seal is, in fact, a graphic representation of ‘the idea of America,’ from its birth. It should be exhumed from the depths of the psyche and displayed on the walls of every classroom. It should certainly appear in the background of all of the Kim Il-Sung-style worship of that savage murderer and torturer Ronald Reagan, who blissfully described himself as the leader of a ‘shining city on the hill,’ while orchestrating some of the more ghastly crimes of his years in office, notoriously in Central America but elsewhere as well.

The Great Seal was an early proclamation of ‘humanitarian intervention,’ to use the currently fashionable phrase. As has commonly been the case since, the ‘humanitarian intervention’ led to a catastrophe for the alleged beneficiaries. The first Secretary of War, General Henry Knox, described ‘the utter extirpation of all the Indians in most populous parts of the Union’ by means ‘more destructive to the Indian natives than the conduct of the conquerors of Mexico and Peru.’

Jul 17, 2007

Condi Rice Prattle

From Haaretz today, but you can just about pick any day when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaks on Iraq and the Middle East to hear her pseudo-intellectual posturing and sullying of the profession of history that most of the world ridicules whenever she prattles on in service to George W. Bush:

As Haaretz' Shmuel Rosner writes, quoting Rice:

"History will judge, but I know enough to know- myself as a historian - that today's headlines are rarely the same as history's judgment, and I think that's going to be the case here as well," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in an interview earlier this week.

Rice was referring to the policies of U.S. President George W. Bush, which she still believes will be seen as more successful in retrospect than they are being seen now.


In April 2006 in England, Rice offered up:

“I know we’ve made tactical errors, thousands of them, I’m sure. But when you look back in history what will be judged will be, did you make the right strategic decisions (in Iraq).”

Rice is a historian, you see, and from her towering heights can see the invasion of Iraq as an epistemological riddle that can only be solved in the long-term future, rendering mere American citizens holding the administration accountable today a short-sighted, pedestrian exercise.

Here's one from last month on the Palestinians and Bush's Herculean efforts to pursue democracy over there, "It's hard for democracy to take hold in a place in which it has not taken hold before but I am confident about the triumph of these values because I have seen it happen before. And I am exceedingly aware that it's a rare circumstance in which today's headlines are consistent with history's judgment," Rice said. (Reuters, June 25, 2007)

She's a historian, she knows and can see what we cannot, even over the many bodies piling up.

Wonder what real historians think of Rice.
###