Speaker 1: Happy Saturday. I don't think we've done an installment of
Speaker 1: six impossible episodes as a Saturday Classic before. Maybe we have,
Speaker 1: but I think today is a first. This classic is
Speaker 1: inspired by a lawsuit that has been filed by seventeen
Speaker 1: states regarding section five oh four of the Rehabilitation Act
Speaker 1: of nineteen seventy three. This filing is initially focused on
Speaker 1: the Biden administration's inclusion of gender dysphoria as a protected
Speaker 1: disability under this Act, but the lawsuit also argues that
Speaker 1: section five oh four itself is unconstitutional, so with today's language,
Speaker 1: Section five oh four begins quote, no otherwise qualified individual
Speaker 1: with a disability in the United States shall, solely by
Speaker 1: reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the
Speaker 1: participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected
Speaker 1: to discrimination, under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance,
Speaker 1: or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive
Speaker 1: agency or by the United States Postal Service.
Speaker 2: We have talked about Section five oh four and how
Speaker 2: disabled people, supported by a broad coalition of allies, successfully
Speaker 2: demonstrated for the US government to actually write the regulations
Speaker 2: needed to implement and enforce this law four years after
Speaker 2: it had been passed. That was in our episode Six
Speaker 2: Impossible Episodes Other INDs. As a note, Judy Human, who
Speaker 2: we talked about in this episode, died on March fourth,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three. This episode originally came out February fifth,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty so enjoy Welcome to Stuff You Missed in
Speaker 2: History Class, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Tracy V.
Speaker 2: Wilson and I'm Holly Frye.
Speaker 1: I started talking immediately as I could see that Holly
Speaker 1: was taking a.
Speaker 2: Drink of water.
Speaker 1: So not long ago on the podcast, we talked about
Speaker 1: the sit in movement in the United States of the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties, and today we're kind of coming back to
Speaker 1: that theme with an addition of six Impossible Episodes. For
Speaker 1: listeners who are new to our show, this is when
Speaker 1: we take a shorter look at six topics that, for
Speaker 1: one reason or another, we can't quite tackle as a
Speaker 1: standalone episode. That can be for all kinds of reasons,
Speaker 1: including how much information is available and how broad the
Speaker 1: topic itself is. This time we are looking at what
Speaker 1: I'm just calling other ins, so other direct action demonstrations
Speaker 1: and similar protests that have some similarities to that sit
Speaker 1: in movement that we talked about earlier. A couple of
Speaker 1: today's topics might have worked as whole episodes, but I
Speaker 1: really like having them as part of this collection because
Speaker 1: together they illustrate a wide variety of ways that these
Speaker 1: kinds of demonstrations have worked in the United States. They
Speaker 1: point out some similarities and differences in these movements, so
Speaker 1: we're keeping them all together today.
Speaker 2: And our first event took place in Alexandria, Virginia. A
Speaker 2: lot of articles about it today call it the Alexandria
Speaker 2: Library sit in, but accounts and newspaper reports from the
Speaker 2: time described it as a sit down strike. On August
Speaker 2: twenty first, nineteen thirty nine, a group of young black
Speaker 2: men tried to get library cards at the whites only
Speaker 2: library on Queen Street in Alexandria, Virginia, which is the
Speaker 2: Kate Waller Barrett Branch Library today. Their names were William Evans,
Speaker 2: Otto L. Tucker, Edward Gattis, Morris Murray, and Clarence Strange,
Speaker 2: and they were all between the ages of nineteen and
Speaker 2: twenty two. So they each came into the library one
Speaker 2: at a time and asked Alice Green, who was the
Speaker 2: assistant librarian on duty, if they could register for a
Speaker 2: library card. She told each of them know that the
Speaker 2: library was for whites only, and then from there each
Speaker 2: of them would pick a book from the stacks and
Speaker 2: then sit down at a table to read it, or
Speaker 2: at least to try to read. Later on, some of
Speaker 2: them gave interviews where they talked about being way too
Speaker 2: nervous to actually concentrate on what was on the page,
Speaker 2: so once one person had gotten a book and sat down,
Speaker 2: the next person would come in and do the same thing.
Speaker 2: With five black men sitting at five different tables in
Speaker 2: the library and refusing to leave, Green wasn't sure what
Speaker 2: to do. She sent the library's page, William Adam, to
Speaker 2: the home of the head librarian, Catherine Scoggin to tell
Speaker 2: her what was going on. Skagin went to city hall
Speaker 2: to discuss what was happening with the city planner and
Speaker 2: the chief of police.
Speaker 1: Soon police were on the scene of the library, and
Speaker 1: a sixth participant in this, who was fourteen year old
Speaker 1: Bobby Strange, had been tasked with keeping watch over the
Speaker 1: library and then going to get Attorney Samuel Wilbert Tucker,
Speaker 1: known as sw four his law office, which was nearby
Speaker 1: when the police got there. S W.
Speaker 2: Tucker had graduated from Howard University in nineteen thirty three,
Speaker 2: studied law on his own, and passed the Virginia Bar
Speaker 2: exam at the age of only twenty, a year too
Speaker 2: young to actually be sworn in. He had arranged the
Speaker 2: sit downstrike at the library, and his brother Otto, was
Speaker 2: one of the people sitting in. Back in nineteen twenty seven,
Speaker 2: sw and Otto had been arrested after refusing to give
Speaker 2: up their seat on a trolley to a white passenger,
Speaker 2: so they already had some experience in civil disobedience. Sw
Speaker 2: and a friend had also been denied library cards shortly
Speaker 2: after the library opened. He was hoping to use that
Speaker 2: as part of a court case to force the library
Speaker 2: to integrate. The sit in was part of that plan
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 1: SW Tucker had also gotten a photographer to document the scene,
Speaker 1: and that photographer captured a picture of the demonstrators being
Speaker 1: escorted out of the building by police. What you won't
Speaker 1: see if you look at this photo online is that
Speaker 1: by the time that happened, a crowd of about three
Speaker 1: hundred angry spectators, along with some other reporters had also
Speaker 1: gathered around the building. The demonstrators were charged with disorderly conduct,
Speaker 1: and Tucker arranged for their release from jail. In terms
Speaker 1: of Tucker's legal action, the library was taxpayer funded and
Speaker 1: black residents paid taxes but weren't allowed to use it,
Speaker 1: so his hope was that the courts would force the
Speaker 1: library to allow equal access to black residents. But rather
Speaker 1: than integrate the library, the city of Alexandria rushed through
Speaker 1: approvals for a new library for black patrons, the Robert H.
Speaker 1: Robinson Library, which opened on February fourteenth, nineteen forty. When SW.
Speaker 1: Tucker got a letter inviting him to register for a
Speaker 1: library card at that branch, he answered with a refusal,
Speaker 1: insisting that he reissued the card he had already applied
Speaker 1: for at the library that had already existed. He went
Speaker 1: on to write, quote, continued delay beyond the close of
Speaker 1: this month in issuing me a card for use the
Speaker 1: library on Queen Street will be taken as refusal to
Speaker 1: do so, whereupon I feel justified in seeking aid of
Speaker 1: court to enforce my right.
Speaker 2: Tucker went on to become the lead lawyer for the
Speaker 2: NAACP in Virginia, During his legal career, he argued before
Speaker 2: the US Supreme Court several times, including in the attempts
Speaker 2: to overturn public school segregation in Virginia. Today, an elementary
Speaker 2: school in Alexandria is named in his honor, and the
Speaker 2: former Robinson Library is the Alexandria Black History Museum. In
Speaker 2: October twenty nineteen, a judge dismissed the disorderly conduct charges
Speaker 2: against the young men who sat in, which had never
Speaker 2: come to trial.
Speaker 1: So one of the really interesting things about this sit
Speaker 1: in is that it used the same strategy that the
Speaker 1: NAACP and other civil rights organizations were using really extensively
Speaker 1: later on. It's not like nobody had ever thought to
Speaker 1: do this, but he was sort of doing something that
Speaker 1: would become a really huge part of the movement later,
Speaker 1: and that was pairing d wrecked action with legal action.
Speaker 1: The Alexandria sit in predated the parts that we really
Speaker 1: think of as the most active parts of the civil
Speaker 1: rights movement, but this strategy was really similar to a
Speaker 1: lot of what was going on later on.
Speaker 2: Next up, we have a relatively early moment in the
Speaker 2: movement for LGBTQ rights in the US, back when it
Speaker 2: was more commonly known as the homophile movement. The Mattachine
Speaker 2: Society was one of the earliest gay rights organizations in
Speaker 2: the United States. One documented as being older is Chicago
Speaker 2: Society for Human Rights, which was founded in nineteen twenty four.
Speaker 2: We covered that on the Show in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 1: The Mattachine Society was first founded in Los Angeles in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty one, and then other chapters formed in other
Speaker 1: cities around the US after that. And in nineteen sixty six,
Speaker 1: members of New York City's Matachine Society challenged regulations that
Speaker 1: prohibited gay men from being served alcohol in New York's bars.
Speaker 2: Those regulations came from the New York State Liquor Authority
Speaker 2: in the form of an acquirement that bar patrons had
Speaker 2: to display quote orderly conduct. In the liquor authorities view,
Speaker 2: homosexuality was inherently disorderly, although the policy didn't specifically mention
Speaker 2: sexual orientation. Police frequently rated bars that were believed to
Speaker 2: have a gay clientele, and bars posted signs saying that
Speaker 2: men had to be facing the bar while drinking. This
Speaker 2: was part of an overall climate of homophobia, stigmatization, and harassment,
Speaker 2: and it was not unique to New York. Other states
Speaker 2: had similar policies, some of which specifically referenced homosexuality.
Speaker 1: On April twenty first, nineteen sixty six, three Matachine Society
Speaker 1: members went to bars in New York City with the
Speaker 1: hope of being denied service so that then they could
Speaker 1: file suit and try to get that policy overturned. They
Speaker 1: included Dick Leisch, who was the head of the New
Speaker 1: York chapter of the Matachine Society, as well as Craig
Speaker 1: Rodwell and John Timmins. A fourth man, Randy Wicker, also
Speaker 1: joined them. As they went on, they had informed reporters
Speaker 1: of what they were doing ahead time, and they called
Speaker 1: it a sip in.
Speaker 2: This turned out to be a little easier said than done, though.
Speaker 2: The men's first choice had been a bar that had
Speaker 2: a sign posted in the window that said if you're gay,
Speaker 2: go away, But as soon as the staff there realized
Speaker 2: that there were reporters on the premises, they closed down
Speaker 2: for the day. At their next stop, the men told
Speaker 2: the bartender that they were homosexual, but that they would
Speaker 2: not be disorderly, and they asked to be served, and
Speaker 2: in that case, the bartender served them, which is what happened.
Speaker 2: At their next stop, as well.
Speaker 1: There are interviews I think it was with Dick Leish
Speaker 1: where he was talking about at this point, they were like,
Speaker 1: we've we've got to get turned down at the next bar,
Speaker 1: or we're going to have to table this for later
Speaker 1: because we're going to be like too inebriated to make
Speaker 1: the argument that were not disorderly. So they finally wound
Speaker 1: up at a bar called Julius's in Greenwich Village, which
Speaker 1: they thought would be hyper sensitive to their presence there
Speaker 1: because it had recently been raided by police the same
Speaker 1: as before. They sat down at the bar, they told
Speaker 1: the bartender that they were gay, but they were going
Speaker 1: to remain orderly, and they said that they wanted to
Speaker 1: be served.
Speaker 2: The bartender had already put glasses in front of them
Speaker 2: and covered them with his hands, saying I can't serve you.
Speaker 2: Then this led to a dramatic photo captured by Fred
Speaker 2: macdera of the Village Voice, with a three man in
Speaker 2: coats and ties facing the bartender and the bartender covering
Speaker 2: their glasses.
Speaker 1: With the help of the ACLU, the men filed legal
Speaker 1: action against the State Liquor Board and the bar. New
Speaker 1: York City's Commission on Human Rights got involved with it
Speaker 1: as well, so under the threat of a lawsuit, the
Speaker 1: liquor Board changed the policy. Then in nineteen sixty seven,
Speaker 1: which was just a few years later, a New York
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals issued a ruling in the case Kerma
Speaker 1: Restaurant Corporation versus State Liquor Authority, and that court ruling
Speaker 1: specifically said that homosexuality was not inherently disorderly. That ruling
Speaker 1: did not end discrimination at New York's bars, though the
Speaker 1: Stonewall riots started after a police raid on June twenty eighth,
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty nine, that was another two more years after
Speaker 1: that Appeal's go or ruling had happened. We are going
Speaker 1: to take a quick sponsor break before we go on
Speaker 1: to some more actions. The Matachine Society sipin we talked
Speaker 1: about a moment ago was inspired by the nineteen sixties
Speaker 1: civil rights sit ins that we just covered on a podcast,
Speaker 1: and that was also true of our next active protest,
Speaker 1: which is the fish ins that took place in the
Speaker 1: Pacific Northwest in the nineteen fifties and sixties and beyond.
Speaker 1: But the context for that protest stretches all the way
Speaker 1: back to the nineteenth century.
Speaker 2: Isaac Ingele Stevens became governor of what was then Washington
Speaker 2: Territory in eighteen fifty three. One of his objectives as
Speaker 2: governor was to secure as much land as possible from
Speaker 2: the indigenous tribes and nations who were living in the
Speaker 2: Pacific Northwest. As we discussed in our recent two parter
Speaker 2: on the occupation of Alcatraz. He did this through treaties,
Speaker 2: and these treaties detailed the terms under which Native nations
Speaker 2: ceded land to the United States. These treaties ultimately assigned
Speaker 2: more than ninety percent of the total land to the
Speaker 2: United States, with the rest being established as reservation land.
Speaker 1: At least thirteen tribes and nations were signatories to these treaties,
Speaker 1: including then a Squally, the Pewallup, and the Muckleshoot, although
Speaker 1: the exact number is a little complicated because Stevens treated
Speaker 1: individual villages as separate tribes when he was negotiating these treaties,
Speaker 1: under the idea that a smaller group would have less
Speaker 1: negotiating power.
Speaker 2: These treaties covered a lot of points in the relationship
Speaker 2: between the Indigenous nations and the United States, but one
Speaker 2: important point was fishing rights. While there were multiple treaties
Speaker 2: at work. They all had similar language. Here the quote
Speaker 2: right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed grounds
Speaker 2: and stations is further secured to said Indians in common
Speaker 2: with all citizens.
Speaker 1: Of the territory, So the Native nations, I mean, this
Speaker 1: has been the case with all all of the Native
Speaker 1: American history that we've talked about on the showy. A
Speaker 1: lot of these treaties were heavily skewed in favor of
Speaker 1: the United States versus the indigenous tribe or nation. In
Speaker 1: this case, though, all of the nations involved refused to
Speaker 1: sign the treaties without that point about fishing rights, because
Speaker 1: not only was fishing a major source of food, but
Speaker 1: the fish and the act of fishing also held religious
Speaker 1: and spiritual significance. And from Stevens point of view, he
Speaker 1: was totally willing to make that concession for very pragmatic reasons,
Speaker 1: because if the indigenous people did not retain their fishing rights,
Speaker 1: then the government was going to be obligated to provide
Speaker 1: them with some other kind of food source. At first,
Speaker 1: the indigenous nations were able to exercise their rights to
Speaker 1: fish in the waterways around the Pacific Northwest using their
Speaker 1: traditional methods which included using gillnets, which are like underwater
Speaker 1: walls made of netting. There just weren't that many non
Speaker 1: Indigenous people in the Pacific Northwest yet, and at first
Speaker 1: those who were there were more interested in other industries.
Speaker 1: But as the non indigenous population started to grow, Indigenous
Speaker 1: people started having more trouble exercising those rights. And that
Speaker 1: also was true as federal policy toward Indigenous people went
Speaker 1: through all of those shifts that we talked about in
Speaker 1: the Occupation of Alcatraz episodes. The state of Washington started
Speaker 1: to interpret that treaty language as meaning that the Indigenous
Speaker 1: people had fishing rights only on their reservations, and that
Speaker 1: was in defiance of some federal court rulings, which weren't
Speaker 1: always totally clear and decisive, but they generally upheld the
Speaker 1: Native people's rights to fish in other waterways as well.
Speaker 2: These restrictions made it increasingly difficult for Indigenous people in
Speaker 2: the Pacific Northwest to fish. The best runs for salmon
Speaker 2: and steelhead trout were outside of the reservation's boundaries. On
Speaker 2: top of that, during the period of allotment, the reservations
Speaker 2: themselves got smaller. Then, when the federal government implemented its
Speaker 2: termination policies, which were posted to get rid of the
Speaker 2: reservations and make Native people quote subject to the same
Speaker 2: laws and entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities as
Speaker 2: are applicable to other citizens of the United States. The
Speaker 2: state of Washington and to a lesser extent, Oregon became
Speaker 2: increasingly focused on enforcing fishing and conservation laws, specifically when
Speaker 2: violated by Native people, even though those treaties were still
Speaker 2: in place.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like the state laws were contrary to the
Speaker 1: treaty language, but the treaties had not been abolished in
Speaker 1: any way. They were still in effect. Running alongside all
Speaker 1: of this was a perception among predominantly white sport fishers
Speaker 1: that the indigenous people were what was to blame for
Speaker 1: declining populations of salmon and steelhead trout, and this was
Speaker 1: in defiance of actual data. Between nineteen fifty eight and
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty seven, Indigenous people caught six and a half
Speaker 1: percent of the catch in the Pacific Northwest, White sport
Speaker 1: fishers caught twelve point two percent, and then commercial fishing
Speaker 1: operations took all the rest. More than eighty percent of
Speaker 1: the catch was through commercial fishing operations, not through indigenous
Speaker 1: people or sport fishers doing their own thing. I can
Speaker 1: tell you firsthand that that belief persisted into the seventies
Speaker 1: when I lived there as a kid. That does not
Speaker 1: surprise me at all.
Speaker 2: I remember hearing neighbors, adult neighbors discuss how they wanted
Speaker 2: to go fishing, but then said very disparaging things about
Speaker 2: the native population and how they had ruined it for everyone. Yeah,
Speaker 2: we talked in our behind the scenes after the Greensboro
Speaker 2: Lunch Counter sit Ins episode about how like we'll be
Speaker 2: doing research on something and the whole topic is angering,
Speaker 2: but then there will be one element that just is
Speaker 2: particularly viscerally angering, and the things that were said about
Speaker 2: like the indigenous people are trying to get something for nothing,
Speaker 2: Like I got so angry over and over in this
Speaker 2: part of it. And eventually the only safe place for
Speaker 2: an Indigenous person to fish in the Pacific Northwest was
Speaker 2: on a reservation. Outside a reservation, Indigenous fishers were being harassed, arrested,
Speaker 2: and jailed and having their equipment confiscated by police, including
Speaker 2: their boats. Plus outside of the reservations, nets and traps,
Speaker 2: which were part of traditional indigenous fishing practices were outlawed.
Speaker 1: So this was still a few years away from the
Speaker 1: occupation of Alcatraz and the rise of an intertribal movement
Speaker 1: for Indigenous rights that we just discussed back in November.
Speaker 1: In the Pacific Northwest and the nineteen fifties and early sixties,
Speaker 1: most tribal leaders were taking a more conciliatory approach to things.
Speaker 1: The National Congress of American Indians was explicitly not in
Speaker 1: favor of the direct action methods that the civil rights
Speaker 1: movement was using, finding them really to be too aggressive
Speaker 1: and contradictory to Indigenous culture. So like there was a
Speaker 1: banner hanging from their headquarters at one point that said
Speaker 1: something along the lines of like, Indigenous people don't demonstrate, like.
Speaker 1: They were not in favor of sit ins or marches
Speaker 1: or earth or any of those kinds of things at
Speaker 1: this point as a trend among leadership.
Speaker 2: But not everyone agreed, and in nineteen sixty four, the
Speaker 2: Survival of the American Indian Association SAIA was established, with
Speaker 2: a focus on direct action and civil disobedience. One of
Speaker 2: the organization's demonstrations was a series of fish ins around
Speaker 2: the Pacific Northwest. They were not the first people to
Speaker 2: do this. For example, Robert Satayakum was arrested while fishing
Speaker 2: in nineteen fifty four, and he hoped that his arrest
Speaker 2: would lead to a court ruling that would clarify the
Speaker 2: Indigenous Nations treaty rights. Unfortunately, his criminal record went well
Speaker 2: beyond this act of civil disobedience. That whole story is
Speaker 2: outside the scope of this episode.
Speaker 1: So these fishians arranged by the SAIA started on February
Speaker 1: twenty seventh of nineteen sixty four, and they continued well
Speaker 1: into the nineteen seventies, sometimes as individual fishing events and
Speaker 1: sometimes as prolonged demonstrations that established encampments with fishing going
Speaker 1: on throughout that whole time. The demonstrators had legal and
Speaker 1: strategic advice from Jack Tanner, who was the director of
Speaker 1: the Tacoma, Washington chapter of the NAACP. They also had
Speaker 1: the attention of celebrity supporters, including Marlon Brando, who was
Speaker 1: arrested at a fish in on March second of nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty four, but wasn't ultimately charged with a crime.
Speaker 2: These fish ins attracted a lot of criticism, at least
Speaker 2: at first. Many indigenous leaders disagreed with the strategy entirely
Speaker 2: preferring to focus on compromise. Jack Tanner's colleagues in the
Speaker 2: civil rights movement criticized his involvement, saying it was taking
Speaker 2: his focus away from Black Americans. The Washington State Sportsman's Club,
Speaker 2: which was a lobbying organization that had a lot of
Speaker 2: influence over the state Game Department, described Native people as
Speaker 2: trying to flaunt the rules and get special privileges. On
Speaker 2: December sixth, nineteen sixty four, they issued a statement encouraging
Speaker 2: the state to get rid of all fishing regulations quote
Speaker 2: to allow such waters to become barren until such time
Speaker 2: as the Congress of the United States or the courts
Speaker 2: of our Land sets up enforceable regulations that will allow
Speaker 2: the state to carry on a reasonable fisheries management program.
Speaker 2: This was kind of a burn it all down mentality. Overall,
Speaker 2: the white media portrayed the Indigenous protesters as backward and lawless.
Speaker 1: So nonviolence was a core part of the strategy for
Speaker 1: the civil rights movement in the United States for a
Speaker 1: lot of the time, but that wasn't really entirely the
Speaker 1: case in the fish in movement. The demonstrators were repeatedly
Speaker 1: targeted by Game wardens and by police, including being beaten
Speaker 1: with clubs and sprayed with tear gas. On December seventh,
Speaker 1: police making an arrest rammed demonstrators canoe with their boat,
Speaker 1: which jumped to the demonstrators into the water. It is
Speaker 1: not entirely clear whether that was an accident or intentional.
Speaker 1: At some encampments, native people carried firearms to defend themselves,
Speaker 1: and at others they fought back with things like stones
Speaker 1: and paddles. After a brawl on October thirteenth of nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty four, the ACLU agreed to defend some of the demonstrators.
Speaker 1: At first, the ACLU really focused on people who had
Speaker 1: been charged with interfering with police, and then they later
Speaker 1: expanded it to include defending people who were arrested for fishing.
Speaker 2: As was the case with the occupation of Alcatraz. This
Speaker 2: turned into an inter tribal movement, with supporters from other
Speaker 2: Native nations traveling to the Pacific Northwest from other parts
Speaker 2: of North America to support the demonstrators. The movement also
Speaker 2: gradually gained more support among non indigenous people, including members
Speaker 2: of the American Friends Services Committee and the Black Panther Party.
Speaker 2: In September of nineteen sixty eight, a massive protest was
Speaker 2: planned that pulled together all these populations. It was supposed
Speaker 2: to involve five days of fishing, but it went on
Speaker 2: for more than forty.
Speaker 1: This movement continued into the nineteen seventies. On June seventeenth
Speaker 1: of nineteen seventy, the Washington State Sportsmen's Club, which was
Speaker 1: still insisting that Indigenous people were trying to get undeserved
Speaker 1: special privle that the expensive white sport fishers, filed a lawsuit,
Speaker 1: but the judge did not find in their favor. The
Speaker 1: judge found in favor of the Indigenous Nations, granting a
Speaker 1: fifteen day window in which net fishing would be allowed
Speaker 1: in the Pwallup River. By that point, more tribal leadership
Speaker 1: had started to support these protests.
Speaker 2: On February twenty eighth, nineteen seventy one, the SAIA asked
Speaker 2: the US Attorney General to file suit against the State
Speaker 2: of Washington for violating the treaties that the Native nations
Speaker 2: had signed all the way back in the nineteenth century.
Speaker 2: Judge George Bolt issued his decision on February twelfth, nineteen
Speaker 2: seventy four. This came to be known as the Bolt Decision.
Speaker 2: And it was one of a series of court cases
Speaker 2: that were all part of this. It ruled that the
Speaker 2: native tribes that were party to those treaties were entitled
Speaker 2: to fifty percent of the available catch, including fishing outside
Speaker 2: their reservations. That was way better than the six and
Speaker 2: a half percent that they'd actually and fishing according to
Speaker 2: that earlier data. This was regarded as a huge wind
Speaker 2: for the indigenous people, but of course it did not
Speaker 2: fix everything. Non Indigenous fishers were outraged and tried to
Speaker 2: stage their own fish ins as like a counter demonstration.
Speaker 2: The ruling also didn't apply to landless indigenous nations or
Speaker 2: ones that had not been partied to those earlier treaties,
Speaker 2: and that included the Duwamish, Chinook, and Snowhomish peoples. Native
Speaker 2: nations in the Pacific Northwest are also still reliant on
Speaker 2: fishing for food, and the populations of those fish has
Speaker 2: continued to decline through the effects of commercial fishing, habitat loss,
Speaker 2: increasing ocean temperatures, all kinds of other factors. Back in
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen, we did an episode on Ed Roberts and
Speaker 2: the independent living movement which evolved in Berkeley, California In
Speaker 2: the nineteen sixties and seventies. Before this point, a lot
Speaker 2: of disability advocacy had really been focused on parents and
Speaker 2: caregivers of disabled people rather than onn disabled people's own
Speaker 2: self advocacy. The independent living movement really shifted that focus
Speaker 2: more towards self determination and self advocacy. So this kind
Speaker 2: of language about independence has been evolving in more recent
Speaker 2: years to include the idea of interdependence, because really all
Speaker 2: of us depend on other people in some ways, and
Speaker 2: when it comes to disability, a lot of times that
Speaker 2: interdependence is really stigmatized. Obviously, that's a brief sum up,
Speaker 2: not the entirety of the philosophy at this point, but
Speaker 2: in terms of the nineteen sixties and seventies, this move
Speaker 2: toward independence and away from pity and paternalism was just huge.
Speaker 2: One of the moments that came up in that episode
Speaker 2: is the passage of section five oh four of the
Speaker 2: Rehabilitation Act in nineteen seventy three and the sit in
Speaker 2: that followed it, But we didn't really spend much time
Speaker 2: on that at all. So Section five oh four was
Speaker 2: the first federal law regarding civil rights for people with disabilities.
Speaker 2: It read quote no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the
Speaker 2: United States shall, solely on the basis of his handicap,
Speaker 2: be excluded from the participation, be denied the benefits of,
Speaker 2: or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
Speaker 2: receiving federal financial assistance.
Speaker 1: So that sounds pretty great, But this law was just
Speaker 1: the starting point, like, how do you define, to use
Speaker 1: the language of the law, what handicapped means, what did
Speaker 1: or didn't classify as discrimination. Federal agencies needed to create
Speaker 1: their own regulations regarding how Section five h four would
Speaker 1: actually be implemented and enforced. And this applied to every
Speaker 1: federal agency but the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Speaker 1: or HW. I don't know if maybe people say that
Speaker 1: HUGH that was selected as the lead agency. They were
Speaker 1: to set their regulations first and then the other agencies
Speaker 1: would follow.
Speaker 2: But between nineteen seventy three and nineteen seventy seven nothing happened.
Speaker 2: Attorneys from the Office for Civil Rights drafted regulations and
Speaker 2: sent them to HW but rather than publishing them for
Speaker 2: public comment, the Department sent them to Congress, and then
Speaker 2: Congress sent them back. It went on for so long
Speaker 2: that in the meantime President Richard Nixon, who had signed
Speaker 2: it into law, was impeached, and then his successor, Gerald Ford,
Speaker 2: had been replaced by Jimmy Carter.
Speaker 1: By that point, disability rights activists were demanding for the
Speaker 1: regulations that the Office for Civil Rights had be put
Speaker 1: into place. Instead, the Carter administration set up a task
Speaker 1: force to study and revise them, and that task force
Speaker 1: did not include any disabled members.
Speaker 2: It became clear that this study and revision process was
Speaker 2: going to weaken the proposed regulations that the Office for
Speaker 2: Civil Rights had recommended back in nineteen seventy three, so
Speaker 2: the American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities decided to take action.
Speaker 2: They gave the HW an ultimatum either HW Secretary Joseph
Speaker 2: Klifano would sign the regulations as written by April fourth,
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy seven, or activists would start sitting in at
Speaker 2: HW offices on April fifth.
Speaker 1: April fourth came and went, and on April fifth, demonstrators
Speaker 1: took over the federal buildings that housed eight different regional offices.
Speaker 1: Most of these sit ins lasted for a day or two,
Speaker 1: but in San Francisco, more than one hundred people sat
Speaker 1: in for twenty six days.
Speaker 2: Unlike some of the other sit ins that we've talked about,
Speaker 2: they didn't show up during business hours and leave when
Speaker 2: HW closed for the day. Activists took over the building
Speaker 2: and stayed, which was really possible thanks to the involvement
Speaker 2: of lots of other organizations, including civil rights and gay
Speaker 2: rights groups, church organizations, and politicians who were on the
Speaker 2: demonstrator's side. In San Francisco, Glide Memorial Church and the
Speaker 2: Black Panther Party provided meals.
Speaker 1: Over the course of the sit in in San Francisco,
Speaker 1: conditions in the building became increasingly difficult. Supporters had donated
Speaker 1: things like mattress and a shower attachment that could be
Speaker 1: used with a sink faucet, but people had to sleep
Speaker 1: in shifts because there were not enough sleeping spaces. The
Speaker 1: building's restrooms overall were not accessible. Nobody had any privacy,
Speaker 1: and in some cases it wasn't just uncomfortable, it was
Speaker 1: potentially life threatening. For example, people who used catheters or
Speaker 1: ventilators didn't necessarily have caregivers or other people on hand
Speaker 1: who knew how to operate and care for these devices.
Speaker 2: Eventually, a delegation from the San Francisco cit in was
Speaker 2: selected to travel to Washington, d C. To meet with legislators.
Speaker 2: People donated funds for plane tickets for people who could
Speaker 2: travel by air. The International Association of Machinists rented a
Speaker 2: moving truck with a lift and used it to transport
Speaker 2: people who used wheelchairs. Once in Washington, they met with
Speaker 2: senators to go over the original regulations point by point,
Speaker 2: answering senators' objections one by one. I cannot imagine how
Speaker 2: uncomfortable this trip was, especially for the people who were little,
Speaker 2: really in a moving van. Yeah, Like, my mom uses
Speaker 2: a wheelchair that she can't really transfer out of to
Speaker 2: get into a vehicle, So like there's a special vehicle
Speaker 2: with a ramp and it's high downs for her chair, like,
Speaker 2: and that is not a comfortable trip. A lot of
Speaker 2: the time, this was literally a moving van with no windows,
Speaker 2: driving people across the country.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Secretary Kalifano finally signed these regulations on April twenty
Speaker 1: eighth of nineteen seventy seven. They included general provisions along
Speaker 1: with regulations on employment practices, program accessibility, primary and secondary education,
Speaker 1: post secondary education, health welfare and social services, and government procedures.
Speaker 2: Overall, this was a major success for the disability rights movement,
Speaker 2: but at the same time, enforcement was a huge issue.
Speaker 2: Opponents argued that the work and expense involved made the
Speaker 2: regulations impractical or impossible to implement. The regulations also served
Speaker 2: as a template for the Americans with Disabilities Act, which
Speaker 2: became law in nineteen ninety, but actually implementing that has
Speaker 2: been a struggle as well, even now decades later.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I remember there being headlines. I feel like it
Speaker 1: was late last year about maybe we don't need to
Speaker 1: implement this because it's just too expensive, and people were like,
Speaker 1: you have had thirty years. I have feelings about this.
Speaker 1: I do too. We should also note that, as is
Speaker 1: the case with any group, disabled people are not a monolith,
Speaker 1: and accessibility looks really different for different disabilities. Different parts
Speaker 1: of the community have different perspectives depending on all kinds
Speaker 1: of issues. During the five zero four sit in, for example,
Speaker 1: some members of the deaf community felt like they were excluded,
Speaker 1: and the deaf community also thought that some of the regulations,
Speaker 1: like a requirement for educating disabled children and classrooms with
Speaker 1: their non disabled peers whenever possible, could threaten deaf culture.
Speaker 2: That said, though beyond the regulations, activists who were part
Speaker 2: of these sit ins. I've also talked about their role
Speaker 2: in shifting non disabled people's perceptions of disability. In the
Speaker 2: words of Judith Human, who is part of the sit
Speaker 2: in and is an international disability rights advocate today, quote
Speaker 2: through the sit in, we turned ourselves from being oppressed
Speaker 2: individuals into being empowered people. We demonstrated to the entire
Speaker 2: nation that disabled people could take control over our own
Speaker 2: lives and take leadership in the struggle for equality. She
Speaker 2: went on to say, quote, we overcame years of parochialism.
Speaker 1: If you're curious, there was an episode of Drunk History
Speaker 1: on this that cast disabled people in the roles of
Speaker 1: all the five or four protesters, which shouldn't sound like
Speaker 1: some kind of accomplishment, but it is. Sadly.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, there was a lot in this middle act
Speaker 2: of the show. So we're going to take a quick
Speaker 2: sponsor break to.
Speaker 1: Return to our six Impossible episodes. The idea of respectability
Speaker 1: has come up in a lot of our episodes on
Speaker 1: the civil rights movement in the United States. It came
Speaker 1: up in our recent episode on the Greensboro sit ins
Speaker 1: and the other sit ins. It's come up in today's
Speaker 1: shows so far, even when we haven't called it out specifically.
Speaker 1: A lot of these demonstrations that we have talked about
Speaker 1: have involved people who took a lot of care to
Speaker 1: always be very polite and very well dressed. And this
Speaker 1: has been a strategy and a lot of social movements,
Speaker 1: but it's definitely not the only strategy, which is really
Speaker 1: illustrated by what we're about to talk about.
Speaker 2: The first official reporting of what came to be known
Speaker 2: as acquired immune deficiency syndrome came in the Morbidity and
Speaker 2: Mortality Weekly Report, which is a publication of the US
Speaker 2: Centers for Disease Control. It described an unusual outbreak of
Speaker 2: NUMOSISDS pneumonia in five previously healthy gay men in Los Angeles,
Speaker 2: and that was on June fifth in nineteen eighty one.
Speaker 1: In years following that, more than twenty eight thousand cases
Speaker 1: of AIDS were reported in the United States and more
Speaker 1: than twenty four thousan five hundred people had died. By
Speaker 1: the end of nineteen eighty six, there was no approved
Speaker 1: treatment for HIV, which is the virus that causes AIDS
Speaker 1: in the United States. The US federal government had been
Speaker 1: incredibly slow to respond, and at that point President Ronald
Speaker 1: Reagan had not made any public statements on the crisis
Speaker 1: at all. A really lengthy drug approval process also meant
Speaker 1: that people with HIV were dying while they waited for
Speaker 1: access to drugs that were already extending people's lives in
Speaker 1: other countries.
Speaker 2: People who were affected by this, who had either contracted
Speaker 2: HIV or who knew and loved people who did, were outraged.
Speaker 2: This was particularly true among gay men, who were disproportionately affected.
Speaker 2: In response to all of this, Larry Kramer and other
Speaker 2: activists formed the Aid's Coalition to Unleash Power, or act UP,
Speaker 2: on March twelfth, nineteen eighty seven, in New York City.
Speaker 2: It's purpose was to use direct action to force the government,
Speaker 2: drug companies, public health agencies, insurance companies, everyone involved in
Speaker 2: the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of HIV and AIDS to
Speaker 2: get moving immediately.
Speaker 1: So act UP still exists today and is still directly
Speaker 1: involved in AIDS advocacy because this is not over. Throughout
Speaker 1: its existence, the organization has become known for demonstrations that
Speaker 1: are angry and aggressive and militant and just viscerally affecting.
Speaker 1: As one example, act UP has organized marches to Washington,
Speaker 1: DC in which people have scattered the ashes of loved
Speaker 1: ones who died from AIDS related diseases on the White
Speaker 1: House lawn. Some who have participated in these marches have
Speaker 1: said that if that is not enough to prompt the
Speaker 1: government to act, that they would start using bodies.
Speaker 2: One of actup's tactics has been the die in, in
Speaker 2: which demonstrators lie down unmoving, usually in a public space,
Speaker 2: sometimes in roadways, blocking traffic. This is part of actup's
Speaker 2: very first protest on March twenty fourth, nineteen eighty seven,
Speaker 2: when seventeen people lay down in the intersection of Broadway
Speaker 2: and Wall Street in New York City outside Trinity Church.
Speaker 2: At this demonstration, the protesters had a very clear set
Speaker 2: of demands that they had written up ahead of time.
Speaker 2: They wanted the FDA to immediately release potentially life saving drugs,
Speaker 2: to eliminate double blind studies in which HIV positive patients
Speaker 2: were given placebos, and to make these drugs affordable. They
Speaker 2: also demanded a massive public education campaign, protections against discrimination
Speaker 2: for people who are being treated for AIDS, and quote
Speaker 2: immediate establishment of a coordinated, comprehensive and compassionate national policy
Speaker 2: on AIDS. Okay, when it comes to those drug standards.
Speaker 2: In general, people think of controlled studies and double blind
Speaker 2: trials as helpful in making sure that the drugs that
Speaker 2: make it to market are safe and effective. We talked
Speaker 2: about some of that in our two part episode on thlidamide.
Speaker 2: But in the early nineteen eighties, the FDA approval took
Speaker 2: up to nine years. That was much longer than people
Speaker 2: lived after being diagnosed with HIV, especially before the test
Speaker 2: for the disease was approved in nineteen eighty five. Since
Speaker 2: there had been very little public education on the disease,
Speaker 2: most people were diagnosed after contracting an opportunistic infection, at
Speaker 2: which point they just did not have long to live.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Like, people couldn't wait that long. And then also
Speaker 1: the idea that somebody could be in a study, like
Speaker 1: somebody who was HIV positive could be in a study
Speaker 1: where they would be given a placebo, like, they didn't
Speaker 1: have time to wait until that study was over to
Speaker 1: find out whether they could get the actual drug or not.
Speaker 1: So on September fourteenth, nineteen eighty nine, act UP held
Speaker 1: a rally and die in outside of the New York
Speaker 1: Stock Exchange to protest pharmaceutical company Burrows Welcome, which manufactured AZT,
Speaker 1: which by that point was the only drug in the
Speaker 1: United States that was approved to treat HIV. Demonstrators had
Speaker 1: also made their way into the building and dropped a
Speaker 1: banner from a balcony that said sell welcome. So one
Speaker 1: of the things they were protesting was how expensive Burro's
Speaker 1: Welcome had made AZT, so not long after the demonstration,
Speaker 1: they lowered the price for a year of AZT treatment,
Speaker 1: which had originally been ten thousand dollars per patient per year,
Speaker 1: to six four hundred dollars. Actup's very aggressive advocacy on
Speaker 1: this has often been credited with prompting the change, although
Speaker 1: Burrow's Welcome has maintained that they had already been planning
Speaker 1: to do it.
Speaker 2: Because of their tactics and the stigma surrounding both homosexuality
Speaker 2: and AIDS, actup's actions have been inherently controversial. One particular
Speaker 2: die in was particularly divisive. In December of nineteen eighty nine,
Speaker 2: act UP and Women's Health Action Mobilization demonstrated inside Saint
Speaker 2: Patrick's Cathedral during High Mass. They were both there to
Speaker 2: protest John Cardinal O'Connor, Archbishop of New York, who was
Speaker 2: influential in city politics and who opposed things like sex education, abortion, access,
Speaker 2: AIDS education, and condom distribution.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a lot of that also applied to the Catholic
Speaker 1: Church in general. So this demonstration included a die in
Speaker 1: in the cathedral's aisles. More than forty people were arrested,
Speaker 1: with some of the demonstrators being carried out of the
Speaker 1: cathedral on stretchers. Act UP had initially intended this demonstration
Speaker 1: to be somewhat quiet, to sort of go into the
Speaker 1: church have their die in in the aisles without otherwise
Speaker 1: causing a lot of disruption. But as it developed, Michael
Speaker 1: Petrellis loudly blew a whistle and shouted, you're killing us,
Speaker 1: and that tipped the protest into something that became a
Speaker 1: lot more chaotic.
Speaker 2: People were offended not only at the disruption of the
Speaker 2: church services, but also because one of the demonstrators, Thomas Keene,
Speaker 2: threw a host wafer from the Communion service on the floor.
Speaker 2: He later said that he did not realize how offensive
Speaker 2: that would be to Catholics who believed that the communion
Speaker 2: host was the body of Christ. Even within act UP,
Speaker 2: some people began to argue that the tone of these
Speaker 2: demonstrations was turning off potential supporters. So overall, these demonstrations
Speaker 2: have been credited with like getting more effective AIDS policy
Speaker 2: happening more quickly, and as we said earlier, act UP
Speaker 2: is still using Dian's as a protest tool like today.
Speaker 2: On October fourth of twenty thirteen, there was a Dian
Speaker 2: at the New York Public Library after they put up
Speaker 2: an exhibit titled why We Fight Remembering AIDS Activism. One
Speaker 2: of Actup's slogans at that event was AIDS is not History,
Speaker 2: because this idea that we were remembering activism sort of
Speaker 2: suggests that we are done with it now and it
Speaker 2: were not. Another took place on January first of twenty fourteen,
Speaker 2: after the inauguration of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio,
Speaker 2: because at that point act UP had been trying to
Speaker 2: meet with him about his AIDS platform for months without success.
Speaker 2: Act UP repeated the AIDS is Not History theme at
Speaker 2: the Whitney Museum in twenty eighteen, after the museum arranged
Speaker 2: a retrospective of the world of David Boynovitch, who was
Speaker 2: an act UP member before his death in nineteen ninety two.
Speaker 1: Act UP again felt that the Whitney's presentation made it
Speaker 1: seem as though the AIDS epidemic was in the past
Speaker 1: rather than being a critical current issue.
Speaker 2: Okay, So the last one the teaching movement during the
Speaker 2: Vietnam War. This one is a little bit different. It
Speaker 2: wasn't exactly a direct action meant to force the US
Speaker 2: government to end its military involvement in Vietnam. Instead, it
Speaker 2: was an educational tool that inspired people to take on
Speaker 2: direct actions of their own. So for contexts, during the
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty four presidential election, part of Lyndon Bains Johnson's
Speaker 2: campaign was a peace platform, so people thought he was
Speaker 2: going to end American involvement in Vietnam. But on February
Speaker 2: thirteenth of nineteen sixty five, which was less than a
Speaker 2: month after being inaugurated, Johnson authorized a bombing campaign that
Speaker 2: was known as Operation Rolling Thunder, as well as combat
Speaker 2: troop deployments to Vietnam. There had been American personnel and
Speaker 2: Vietnam before that, but not in a combat capacity. People
Speaker 2: who had voted for him, thinking that he was going
Speaker 2: to end American involvement in the war, felt really betrayed.
Speaker 2: That spring, the Faculty Committee to Stop the War in
Speaker 2: Vietnam at the University of Michigan was discussing ways to
Speaker 2: demonstrate against the war and against what they saw as
Speaker 2: the militarization of their academic disciplines. As one example, social
Speaker 2: scientists had been recruited to work on a military funded
Speaker 2: counterinsurgency program called Project Camelot, which was meant to study
Speaker 2: cultures primarily in Latin America. And of course, people in
Speaker 2: hard science fields had seen the development of weapons like
Speaker 2: the atomic bomb. Academics had also seen their work branded
Speaker 2: as a communist threat during the Cold War, with accusations
Speaker 2: that they were indoctrinating students against the United States. There
Speaker 2: was a lot going on with the education community.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and at first these particular professors and other educators
Speaker 1: were focused on a walkout in which classes would be
Speaker 1: canceled and faculty would instead give anti war lectures somewhere
Speaker 1: off campus. But people raised some concerns about whether that
Speaker 1: was in the best interests of students and whether people
Speaker 1: would perceive it as the professors not being committed to
Speaker 1: their work. And a staff meeting on March seventeenth, after
Speaker 1: a lot of debate about this whole walkout and strike idea,
Speaker 1: anthropologist Marshall sallins said, I've got it. They say, we're
Speaker 1: neglecting our responsibilities as teachers. Let's show them how responsible
Speaker 1: we feel. Instead of teaching out, we will teach in
Speaker 1: all night.
Speaker 2: This led to the first teach in and held from
Speaker 2: eight pm on March twenty fourth, nineteen sixty five, until
Speaker 2: eight am the following morning. It was held in Angel
Speaker 2: Hall Auditorium, although the crowd was so larged that it
Speaker 2: spilled out to other parts of the campus, including the
Speaker 2: library steps. More than two thousand people attended, with about
Speaker 2: five hundred still there when the last lecture started. Women
Speaker 2: enrolled at the university had a at the time, but
Speaker 2: it was waived so that they could attend. In addition
Speaker 2: to the faculty involvement, students for a Democratic Society were
Speaker 2: also part of the event.
Speaker 1: This event included lectures and discussions that were meant to
Speaker 1: educate attendees on things like the military industrial complex and
Speaker 1: Cold War rhetoric and US foreign policy, the effects of
Speaker 1: weapons like napalm and phosphorus bombs. There were at least
Speaker 1: two different bomb threats during the event, with police clearing
Speaker 1: the building after one of them, and counter demonstrators were
Speaker 1: inside and outside the building shouting pro war slogans like
Speaker 1: better dead than Red.
Speaker 2: Two days later, another teach in was held at Columbia
Speaker 2: University in New York City. More teachins followed, and on
Speaker 2: April seventeenth, nineteen sixty five, an inter university committee for
Speaker 2: a public Hearing on Vietnam was established. Participating schools included
Speaker 2: the University of Chicago, MIT, University of Wisconsin, Wayne State University,
Speaker 2: and Washington University in Saint Louis.
Speaker 1: The committee published a pamphlet called The Meaning of the
Speaker 1: National teach In. It began quote the teach ins were
Speaker 1: born in protest against United States policy in Vietnam. However,
Speaker 1: they are vehicles for a larger purpose. They are a
Speaker 1: means of discussion and debate, without which democracy lacks significance.
Speaker 2: On May fifteenth, that National teach In was held in Washington,
Speaker 2: d C. This was an all day event that was
Speaker 2: also broadcast on more than two hundred radio stations. It
Speaker 2: included discussions about US policies and context of the war,
Speaker 2: along with debates between supporters and opponents of US policy
Speaker 2: toward Vietnam. National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy was supposed to
Speaker 2: be at the National teach In, but he canceled at
Speaker 2: the last minute for a trip to the Dominican Republic
Speaker 2: that was described as urgent.
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course, there are people who wondered if that
Speaker 1: was a convenient excuse or an actual urgency. On May
Speaker 1: twenty first and twenty second, the largest teach in in
Speaker 1: this movement was held at the University of California at Berkeley,
Speaker 1: with thirty thousand people in attendance.
Speaker 2: The committee had followed up with McGeorge Bundy repeatedly after
Speaker 2: his cancelation at the National teach In. The committee's hope
Speaker 2: was that they would schedule some kind of opportunity for
Speaker 2: the debate and discussion that he was supposed to have
Speaker 2: been a part of, and that did finally happen with
Speaker 2: a televised event in July. The teach in movement didn't
Speaker 2: really last beyond nineteen sixty five. Over time, people started
Speaker 2: to become concerned that it had shifted from being an
Speaker 2: explicitly anti war movement about educating people to one that
Speaker 2: was more focused on a debate between two sides. As
Speaker 2: the anti war movement became more radical, activists started seeing
Speaker 2: the teach ins as too conservative. At the same time,
Speaker 2: the teaching movement is marked as a critical moment in
Speaker 2: the early anti Vietnam War movement. Carl Oglesby of Students
Speaker 2: for a Democratic Society called it a stroke of genius.
Speaker 2: That quote put the debate on the map for the
Speaker 2: whole academic community. And you could not be an intellectual
Speaker 2: after those teach ins and not think a lot and
Speaker 2: express yourself and defend your ideas about Vietnam. According to
Speaker 2: Marshall Salnds, it also shifted some of the counterculture movement
Speaker 2: from one that was ideologically pacifist and pro civil rights
Speaker 2: to one that was overtly political and more likely to
Speaker 2: take direct action.
Speaker 1: I think this is I mean, there's so much discussion
Speaker 1: of the anti war movement during Vietnam, which could be
Speaker 1: really divisive, and I don't know if could be was
Speaker 1: even a strong enough word, Like it was really divisive
Speaker 1: and became really militant in a lot of places. And
Speaker 1: so this to me feels like this kind of nice
Speaker 1: precursor that was about basically educating people about all of
Speaker 1: the context, like all the context for what was happening
Speaker 1: in Vietnam, all the context for what it could mean
Speaker 1: in like the world of global history, all of that
Speaker 1: that then went on to inspire people to take direct actions.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining us on this Saturday. If
Speaker 1: you'd like to send us a note, our email addresses
Speaker 1: History Podcast at iHeartRadio dot com, and you can subscribe
Speaker 1: to the show on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
Speaker 1: wherever you listen to your favorite shows.