How did Reagan manage to get away with the People's Park fiasco?

[Sims2789]

Full Article

Bloody Thursday

Police push students down Telegraph Avenue, on May 15th, "Bloody Thursday", 250 Highway Patrol and Berkeley police officers invaded the park at 4:45 a.m. and cleared an 8-block area around the site. As construction of a perimeter fence began, a crowd of 6000 moved towards the park after rallying at nearby Sproul Plaza. Police fired tear gas at the approaching crowd. Protesters threw rocks and bottles. Sheriff Deputies retaliated with double-0 buckshot, blinding one man (Alan Blanshard) and killing another (James Rector).

At least 128 people were seriously injured, but no policemen were hospitalized. That evening, the current Governor, Ronald Reagan, called out the National Guard and banned public assemblies. (Some of the Guardsmen were also Cal students who got the order to report to barracks after returning from protesting). He was quoted on May 15, 1969 as saying "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with." For days, the streets of Berkeley were barricaded as National Guard helicopters sprayed tear gas on the protestors. The National Guard occupied the city for weeks afterward...

I mean, come on. The people were attacked by the police, and then Reagan sends in the California National Gaurd to back the police, bans public assemblies, then occupies Berkeley for weeks! How could he possibly get away with that? Was California really so conservative that we let him get away with what he did? The National Gaurd even used CS gas, which is outlawed by the Geneva Convention. CS gas produces affects similiar to thos of tear gas, as well as vomiting and blistering. The gas spread to some elementary and middle schools as well as to a hospital. After a few days of rioting, Reagan got enough sense to allow a group of 20,000-30,000 march, thus defusing the riot itself, but the damage to Bay Arean opinion had already been done.

Presumably before the police opened fire, as it looks too peaceful to be afterwwards

The cloud in the backround is tear gas, fired by either state helicopters or the Berkeley Police.

The protesters as a whole viewed the National Gaurd warmly, as it was composed of many who joined in order to avoid fighting in Vietnam. They hoped that the Gaurd would join them, but that didn't happen.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

"Occupied Berkeley for weeks" is a rather amusing concept.

 

[nonconformist]

Sounds like the Miner strikes back in the '80s.

 

[Bugfatty300]

How is this any worse than what other popular governors and presidents did to protestors in the 1960s?

Reagon was elected because of the conservative movement that resulted from the extreme left wing stances in 60s. That is how he got away with it.

No mystery here.

 

[h4ppy]

Sounds like something I'd have agreed with, Reagan.

 

[Rhymes]

If we made a list of all the suspicious and crappy stuff USA presidents did before or during there mandate, this story would be pretty ordinary.

 

[Plexus]

Looks like a job for NPOV on Wikipedia! *rushes to Wiki*

 

[cgannon64]

Sure, the police started the fight, but if there is a riot, you send in the National Guard, no matter who started it.

 

[Sims2789]

How is this any worse than what other popular governors and presidents did to protestors in the 1960s?

Reagon was elected because of the conservative movement that resulted from the extreme left wing stances in 60s. That is how he got away with it.

No mystery here.

Yeah. I should have reworded my question. You know this is how it happened. I mainly wish to understand the thought process behind the conservatives. After all, they wished to defend democracy from the leftists in the US of whom they tied into the Warsaw Pact "communists" (that were actually more right-wing than Reagan).

 

[Yom]

I definitely disagree with what he did, but, as Rhymes said, this is nothing compared to Iran-Contra. He's lucky North took the fall.

 

[zulu9812]

Yeah, Reagan got away with a lot of things - I mean, there was a government which actually did sponsor terrorism!

 

[Sims2789]

Sounds like something I'd have agreed with, Reagan.

He attacked protesters that were attacked by the police. He could have just done what California did in 1991 with the Rodney King riot. But he had to crush those evil hippies.

By the way I liked your old Dutch Pimp Unit avatar better than your current one.

 

[stratego]

At the time, it was the Berkeley students vs the big dogs. The President of Berkeley at time, President Clark Kerr (whom the Clark Kerr dorms were named after) was in full support of Reagan's actions. He basically covered for Reagan, saying that it was necessary.

 

[cgannon64]

He attacked protesters that were attacked by the police. He could have just done what California did in 1991 with the Rodney King riot. But he had to crush those evil hippies.

You have to take it in context of the time. The LA riots were one amazing exception to a peaceful period. A peaceful protest becoming a riot was nothing unusual in 1969.

 

[Sims2789]

You have to take it in context of the time. The LA riots were one amazing exception to a peaceful period. A peaceful protest becoming a riot was nothing unusual in 1969.

Obviously. Conservative institutions need to make concessions to liberals or else risk getting overthrown entirely. Forcefully putting down progress, even if something is ahead of its time, only results in problems down the road for the conservative institution. Had Reagan studied his history he would have learned from the mistakes of the reactionary, conservative governments of the Age of Metternich; the result being the Revolutions of 1848. He should have adapted Britian's policiy of concessions during the Age of Metternich to his time if he wished to prevent liberal progress in the long run, not on Emperor Ferdinand of Austria's, who, like Reagan, used brute force, planting the seeds of hatred in the subjects he repressed.

 

[cgannon64]

The answer isn't always to appease violent protestors. When they are right, it is, but when they are wrong, it is not.

Anyway, I don't think that by putting down the hippies, he handed them victory in the long run. The ideals of hippies died along with them. You act as if these "problems down the road" actually happened. The conservative institution won in the 1960s, and they've carried their victory to this day...

 

[GEChallenger]

That third picture is priceless.

 

[shadowdude]

The more I look back at Reagan, the more I like him! What I guy!

 

[Sims2789]

The answer isn't always to appease violent protestors. When they are right, it is, but when they are wrong, it is not.

Anyway, I don't think that by putting down the hippies, he handed them victory in the long run. The ideals of hippies died along with them. You act as if these "problems down the road" actually happened. The conservative institution won in the 1960s, and they've carried their victory to this day...

Ture, he didn't hand the hippies themselves or all of their ideals a victory in the long run. They, like the Chartists, were too radical for their time. What he did do, though, was ensure a loss for the conservative institution in the long run, but it won't be the hippies that will become the new institution.

Not all of their ideals are dead. Their basic concept of liberty against the ruling conservative institution remains alive and growing in the hearts and minds of Bay Areans. In fact, that belief reigns in pretty much all people in the United States, but they think that their government is the one fighting the conervative institution, as opposed to their government being the conservative institution.

But it is important to note that on a national scale the hippies' liberalism actually resulted in a conservative counter-reaction and thus more conservativism. However, on a local scale, the suppression of the hippies lead to more liberalism in the Bay Area, whereas had Reagan made concessions to the hippies, he would have stolen the steam from the hippie leaders' engines, much like Bismarck did to the liberals when he unified Germany under the conservative institution of the Army, and the Bay Area today would not be as liberal as it is. Of course, he was the Governer of California, not the Governer of the Bay Area, so he could suppress the hippies and gain more support from the area he was governing, so one cannot really blame him for not making concessions.

 

[newfangle]

I would do much worse to Berkley students.