The Iraq occupation often gets compared to the Vietnam War, but I recently noticed one major difference. In all that’s been written and said about the growing popular sentiment against the Iraq occupation, one never seems to hear the word “peace.” During the Vietnam War, the word “peace” was everywhere. More after the jump.
Perhaps the movement against the Vietnam War (which grew while I was in college) was trying to put a positive spin on things. Like the anti-abortion movement with its “pro-life” packaging, maybe they were trying to be pro-something.
Another factor doubtless was the legacy of the nuclear disarmament movement of the late 50s and early 60s, which called itself a peace movement and went on peace marches. (And its famous circular spoked glyph, which represented the semaphore signals for ND—nuclear disarmament—went on to be called the “peace sign.”)
For all of these reasons, one heard the word “peace” everywhere in the very late 60s and early 70s. John Lennon’s “Give Peace a Chance” summed it up, but I’m sure I could think of a dozen other songs from that era with “peace” in the title or refrain.
A digression here. I remember that in the Beatles’ annual Christmas message for 1969, John asks Yoko what she sees in store for the coming decade, and she says she foresees a time of peace. This was to be the decade that brought us the Cambodia genocide.
Is this why we aren’t hearing the word “peace” today—because the expectations of the 60s are embarrassing in retrospect? Have we lost the idealism that thought peace was obtainable? Are we now such cold realists that we accept war, so long as it’s for a palatable cause? Do we recognize that withdrawal for Iraq will not necessarily bring peace to the region, although it will stop the outrageous loss of American blood and treasure? Are we accepting the Bush propaganda that we are a country in a global war? Does “peace” sound too much like “surrender”? Are “peace, love, and understanding” funny after all?
I welcome the comments of this distinguished group.