I recently spoke to a co-worker who was a student present during the sequence of events that led to the shooting of 13 students at Kent State. He very factually described the background, chronology, and aftermath of the violence. His account described the animosity between the town and the students, the heat that day, the drunkenness and student violence, and the reaction of the townspeople, university, businesses and government. It was all very different from what is described in mass media.
I have found one or two accounts via internet that match nearly exactly with his account, and dozens that support what is normally reported in the media: murdering Guardsmen, indifferent officials, etc.
The rub, and my question: How do I bridge this unusally large gap? My buddy is as honest and level-headed I guy as I know, so I believe him. But his account is not what I’ve been told to believe. What gives?
I remember reading an excellent book by James Michener, Kent State, that tried to do exactly what you’re talking about – reconcile all of the various accounts out there. (Disclaimer: I was in high school at the time, and not reading terribly critically, so the book may not be as good as I thought it was. But it worked for me then.)
I think the important questions to think about are: How reliable is eye-witness testimony? Do the media put their own spin(s) on events? If so, how much and in what direction(s)?
To which, I would answer, not very, very much so, and every. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all the various accounts…
In the mass media? You read different mass media than I do.
The two explicit complaints against the guard were that they were not trained for crowd control and that their commander lobbied Governor Rhodes to have the Ohio Highway Patrol (that had crowd control training) removed from the campus so that his boys could have a shot (my pun).
(The third complaint is that they were carrying live ammo, but whether they should have or not has been a debated point. The lack of training and their insertion when the OHP was already available and on site are facts.)
The guardsmen were clearly on edge, dead tired (from another operation or exercise that they had completed the day they were ordered to Kent), unsympathetic to the students, and untrained.
They definitely fired when they had no business firing (they were not under attack at the time). However, only the most rabid anti-war or anti-guard commentators have ever claimed that they were murderous (meaning that they went in with the intention of killing–or even injuring–anyone).
I’d second the Michener book. Although it’s long and preachy in spots, he does a good job of pointing out the the Guard was poorly trained, only about the same age as the students and definitely on edge.
It was long ago and far away, but I mostly chalked it up to incompetence. But when the military is incompetent the people in authority cover their ass. Just like those pilots that broke the cable in Italy and killed people in the cable car.
It is impossible to truly know what is going on, even when you are there. When thousands of people are involved and they rarely admit their true motives.
Comparing books and magazines and TV you can get 3 very different pictures, if not more.