Bob Dylan & Joan Baez: 1963 March on Washington

Source:Reuters- Joan Baez and Bob Dylan performing at the 1963 March On Washington.

Source:The Daily Press 

"Singers Joan Baez and Bob Dylan perform together during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in this August 28, 1963 file photo shot by U.S. Information Agency photographer Rowland Scherman and provided to Reuters by the U.S. National Archives in Washington on August 21, 2013. In the coming week, Washington will play host to an array of events marking the 50th anniversary of the march and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech.

REUTERS/Rowland Scherman/U.S. Information Agency/U.S. National Archives (UNITED STATES – Tags: POLITICS ANNIVERSARY ENTERTAINMENT) ATTENTION EDITORS – THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS.THIS PICTURE IS DISTRIBUTED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BY REUTERS, AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS" 

From Reuters 

"Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, the Freedom Singers, and Len Chandler performing 'Eyes On The Prize' at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, August 28th 1963. The song is a well-known folk song largely associated with the Civil Rights Movement.

Source is straight from the archives, albeit covered with a logo and timestamps." 

Source:History in Motion- Eyes On The Prize performed by Joan Baez and Bob Dylan, and others.

From History in Motion 

Eyes On The Prize is the perfect song I believe to close out the 1963 March On Washington, because it told the American Civil Rights Movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King and his followers not to lose focus and that there's still much work to do. 

Keep in mind, this is in the late summer of 1963 in Washington, when it's still hot and humid around there and a few months before President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and just a couple months after President Kennedy publicly endorsed the civil rights legislation that was in Congress. 

The 1964 Civil Rights Law hadn't even been passed yet, that didn't happen to the summer of the 1964. Which meant African-Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities could still be denied their constitutional rights and access to American society simply because of their race or ethnicity. 

I think what the summer of 1963 is about with the March On Washington sort of being the Super Bowl of that summer (even though the Super Bowl was 4 years away) is that to paraphrase Bob Dylan: times were a changin. I believe the 1950s finally ended in the summer of 63 culturally and a lot of younger Americans recognized the new America where America would be for everyone. Not just for Anglo-Saxon males. 

The civil rights movement was part of the new America, but Hippies come into force politically and culturally in 1965 with so many Americans now feeling the freedom to be themselves and not have to live and think just like their parents and grandparents. 

CBS News: '1968, A Year That Changed America'

Source:CBS News- from a CBS News documentary about the year 1968.

Source:The Daily Press

“1968 A Year that Changed America with Harry Reasoner. A look back on the year 1968, produced by CBS News in 1978.”

From Bob Parker 

“Time Magazine January 11 1988 1968 The Year That Shaped a Generation ”

Source:TIME Magazine- cover about the year 1968.

From Amazon 

I think one thing that separates America and makes us stronger than anyone else is that we can go through a year like 1968 and get through it and survive it and still remain one country. Unlike other countries that tend to go through such division between the people and their government and overall establishment of the country in one year and you see them come apart. With the government falling and perhaps even leading to some type of civil war. Egypt comes to mind pretty fast and what is going on in Syria and Venezuela right now are other good examples.

Having said all of that, it’s hard to find anything good about 1968 other than maybe the music and the fact that we started to get along better as far as race relations. Where racism and other types of bigotry started to really go out of style. And bigots were left to hide their bigotry or pay serious prices for it. But other than that 1968 was one big disaster after another. A year full of violence with murders and assassinations, the President of the United States deciding not to even bother running for reelection because there were so many people who literally hated him in both parties.

And that is just about the domestic scene in America, but then you go to the Vietnam War itself with Americans finally figuring out that we are not just losing the war, but it is probably lost. And we started seeing all of those dead American soldiers coming home from it.

I guess one good thing about 1968 is that Americans finally woke up and figured out that their government not only doesn’t always tell the truth, but they even lie to their people. The Johnson Administration saying that they were making progress in Vietnam when they knew the opposite was true and that Communist Vietnam was getting stronger.

1968 represents the 1960s as well as it could possibly be. A year of revolution, protest, violence, people coming together from multiple races to be part of the same movement. Where millions of Americans became free to be themselves and no long feel like they had to live a certain way of life in order to fit in or even be good people.

1968 was a shakeup of the entire United States and perhaps was something that the country needed. Even with all the violence and the lost of lives in that decade so Americans would know about the problems in the country, but also what could be done about them. And what also makes us great as a country which is our freedom and diversity. 

The Film Archives: John Kerry- ‘How do You Ask The Last Man to Die For a Mistake’

Source:The Film Archives- U.S. Naval Lieutenant John F. Kerry, testifying in front of Congress in 1971, about the Vietnam War.

“John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is an American politician who is the 68th and current United States Secretary of State. More on this topic.

He served as a United States Senator from Massachusetts from 1985 to 2013, and was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry was the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2004 Presidential Election but lost to incumbent George W. Bush.

The son of an Army Air Corps veteran, Kerry was born in Aurora, Colorado. He attended boarding school in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and went on to graduate from Yale University class of 1966, where he majored in political science and became a member of the influential Skull and Bones secret society. He enlisted in the Naval Reserve in 1966, and during 1968–1969 served an abbreviated four-month tour of duty in South Vietnam as officer-in-charge (OIC) of a Swift Boat. For that service, he was awarded combat medals that include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. Securing an early return to the United States, Kerry joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in which he served as a nationally recognized spokesman and as an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War. He appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs where he deemed United States war policy in Vietnam to be the cause of “war crimes.”

From The Film Archives 

It’s been said that presidents who have military or foreign policy experience, are less likely to commit American troops to combat in foreign nations, then presidents without that previous experience, because they know exactly what they are putting those troops through and what they have to go through. And the sacrifices they and their families will make as a result and perhaps even the ultimate sacrifice they may make.

I’ll give you a perfect example of that: when Dwight Eisenhower became President in 1953, one of the first things he looked to was to get American troops out of the Korean War. Because he saw it as a civil war.

Ronald Reagan a World War II veteran, never committed American troops into combat. We never went to war in his eight years as President. Jimmy Carter, another World War II veteran, never committed American troops to combat in his four years either. President George H.W. Bush did commit troops to the Gulf War in 1991. But for a very limited mission: get Iraq out of Kuwait, not to invade and occupy Iraq. A big country of twenty-five million people, a mistake that his son wasn’t able to avoid twelve years later.

President George W. Bush, who never had combat experience, or foreign policy experience, other than signing up for the reserves to avoid Vietnam service, commits American troops to two wars within seventeen months as President: Afghanistan and Iraq. Two wars we are now trying to get out of ten years later.

We’ll never know what type of president John Kerry would’ve made on foreign policy, or anything else. And I believe that’s unfortunate, because we are talking about a Vietnam veteran from the Baby Boom Generation, who volunteered to serve his country in Vietnam, unlike George W. Bush who did everything he can to avoid service there.

But when you hear Senator Kerry talk about foreign policy as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and as a senior Senator, you know that he doesn’t take these things lightly. And committing American troops to any war is a huge deal and shouldn’t be taken lightly. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger.

C-SPAN: Q&A With Brian Lamb- Mick Caouette on Hubert Humphrey: 'The Art of The Possible'

Source:C-SPAN- Brian Lamb, interviewing Mick Caoette about his documentary about Hubert H. Humphrey.

"Film producer Mick Caouette speaks to Q&A about his documentary, "Hubert H. Humphrey: The Art of the Possible." Program from Sunday, February 6, 2011." 

From C-SPAN  

"Producer Mick Caouette talked about his documentary on former Senator and Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The film is the story of his life with emphasis on his leadership role in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The documentary also features video from his political years running for the Senate, vice-president, and president. The program featured clips from the documentary. Producer Mick Caouette started working on the documentary eleven years ago, and it was released in the fall of 2010." 

Source:C-SPAN- Mick Caouette, talking to Brian Lamb, about his documentary about Hubert H. Humphrey.

From CSPAN

"Mick Caouette is a documentary filmmaker who focuses on U.S. history and Sociology. 

"Hubert H Humphrey: The Art of the Possible" follows Senator and Vice President Hubert Humphrey through his civil rights work, the Vietnam War and his loss to Richard Nixon.  The film is available at www.shopbs.org and will premiere through APT on PBS fall 2010... 

Source:Mick Caouette- about U.S. Senator and Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey.

From Mick Caouette 

"For the last half of the 20th century, America was consumed by two struggles: the civil rights movement and the cold war. For 30 years Hubert Humphrey stood at the center of both. While he is most remembered for his loss to Richard Nixon in the 1968 presidential campaign, Humphrey left behind a legacy that few presidents can match. As a soldier of the New Deal and Great Society, he amassed one of the most prolific legislative records in senate history — from Medicare to the Peace Corps.

But Humphrey’s most significant and enduring achievements were in the area of civil and human rights. This film explores his 1948 speech at the Democratic convention and his pivotal contribution to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In November of 1977, for the first time in U.S. history, Congress held a joint special session to honor a single senator. Special feature – a 1976 Bill Moyer’s interview with Hubert Humphrey."  

Source:Amazon- about former U.S. Senator and Vice President, Hubert H. Humphrey (Democrat, Minnesota)

From South Hill Films

The Art of the Possible, which is the name of a documentary about former Senator and Vice President Hubert Humphrey, I believe is the perfect way to describe Hubert Humphrey. Because that's how Senator Humphrey saw politics and government: serving the people and trying to solve problems that they face. 

Hubert didn't see government as a debating society, where Democrats and Republicans, Liberals, Progressives, and Conservatives, bashed each over the head. With neither party having enough power to destroy the other party. But he saw government as a way to try to solve problems, analyze the issues, examine what the political situation is between both parties and try to find solutions that can pass through Congress and that the President would sign. And Hubert Humphrey had plenty experience at this. Being in Congress for twenty five years and being the Assistant Leader of the Senate from 1961-65. Leader Mike Mansfield's deputy and then Vice President from 1965-69.

Hubert Humphrey was pretty busy in that time period with the civil rights legislation. The civil rights debates actually were going on in the late 1940s. When Hubert Humphrey was elected to the Senate and he made his famous pro-civil rights speech at the 1948 DNC. 

And the 1964 Civil Rights Act where Humphrey had a big role in getting that bill passed. And ending the Senate filibuster from the Southern right-wing Democrats. And helping to bring aboard some Northern Progressive Republicans. 

And as Vice President he had a role in getting the 1965 Voting Rights Act passed as well as Medicare health insurance for senior citizens. But I believe Hubert Humphrey's legacy in Congress was the civil rights legislation. Who without him those bills never get passed.

Hubert Humphrey had the perfect approach to civil rights, because he saw it as about human and constitutional rights. Which trumps states rights, which was of course the argument that the Southern Dixiecrat Democrats were making. That the states had the right to enforce constitutional rights as they see them. Even if it violates constitutional rights of African-Americans and other racial minorities. 

The Republican Party of the 1960s even though they were the opposition party from 1961-69 and were a small minority party in both the House and Senate for the whole decade, deserve a lot of credit in Congress for those bills being passed at all.

Congressional Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, deserve a lot of credit for getting the civil rights legislation passed as well, because they don't pass in the Senate without Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who without him these bills never get passed in this era. 

Hubert Humphrey tends to get lost when we are talking about great politicians and public servants for whatever reason. But without him a lot of important legislation never gets passed. And a lot of Americans would've been denied their constitutional rights as a result, just because of their race. Which would've been a disgrace in a liberal democracy like America. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

Non-Corporate News: Dr. Martin Luther King- 'Why I Am Opposed to The War in Vietnam'

Source:Beyond Capitalism Now- Dr. Martin L. King, speaking out against the Vietnam War, in 1968.

"Speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. against the "triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism." Audio.  This speech was released by Black Forum records, a subsidiary of Motown, and went on to win a Grammy (in 1972, according to Wikipedia, in 1970, according to Grammy website) for the Best Spoken Word Recording. Excerpts of a Sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church on April 30, 1967. Text of entire speech:The King Center." 

From Non-Corporate News 

"The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war.  I’ve chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam today because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence is betrayal... 

From Beyond Capitalism Now

The speech that Dr. Martin King gave back in 1968 on the Vietnam War, could be made today by Representative Dennis Kucinich, Representative Ron Paul, or community activist Ralph Nader of the anti-war Left today. Not as effectively or be heard by by as many people, but the sentiments are very similar. 

The speech is  basically this: "Why are we spending billions of dollars in a foreign nation in an unjust war? The Vietnam War back then and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq today: why are we spending all of this money destroying and then building another country, when we could spend that money building America?" 

Representative Paul's approach to building America is much different than Representative Kucinich, or Ralph Nader. Paul would want to use the money that we are spending attacking the enemy and building up Afghanistan and Iraq and use that money to give back to the American people and pay down our debt and deficit.

While Kucinich and Nader would use that money through the Federal Government, to bring about universal government-run health care, education, transportation, etc. And other social insurance programs, but the goals and questions are the same. 

The Libertarian-Right and Socialist-Left would be making the same argument: "We have our own problems here at home, our country isn't as great as it could be and we are not as free as we should be. So why are we interfering in other countries civil wars, when we have our own problems here at home that we need to address?" 

Dr King, Representative Paul, Representative  Kucinich and Mr. Nader, have an isolationist foreign policy: "We shouldn't be messing around in other countries. Especially while we have our own problems at home. That what we need to do is keep that money at home and mind our own business. Let them solve their own civil wars and keep our money home in our own country making our country better and making our people more free to live their own lives."

One of the shames of Dr. King being assassinated at the early age of 39 back in 1968, was what we missed out as a country, had he been able to live out a full-life. And lived into his 70s or 80s, the work he put into the 1950s and 60s, would've just expanded into the 70s. And I believe would've continued his work on civil rights. 

Had Dr. King lived a normal life in years, he would've expanded his work in the areas of poverty and helping poor people move up in the world. As well as education, workers rights, foreign policy, he would've been a big pain for President Nixon in the early 70s on the Vietnam War. As well as been a pain to President Reagan in the 80s with his military buildup, but of course we'll never know. Because he was assassinated by a man in James Earl Ray who felt left out and felt he needed more attention in life. 

But Dr. King what he was saying about the Vietnam War in the late 60s, pretty much sums up the anti-war movement and what they were feeling as well. The anti-war movement was very alive in the 1960s and to a certain extent still alive today, but not as vocal. And the feelings then are the same as they are today: "Why are we spending billions of dollars in a foreign nation and involved in another civil war, when we have our own problems at home."

Bob Parker: CBS News- '1968 a Year That Changed America'

Source:Bob Parker- Dr. Martin L. King, speaking at an African-American church.

"1968 A Year that Changed America with Harry Reasoner. A look back on the year 1968, produced by CBS News in 1978." 

From Bob Parker

Even though the civil rights movement had lost its champion in 1968 in Dr. Martin Luther King, what he contributed to it was enough to keep it going. And what that movement had accomplished up to 1968, never happens at least by then without Martin King. 

The civil rights movement is exactly that: civil rights for all Americans, not just the special few. It's not about special rights for special interest groups, but equal rights for all people. Which is what America should've always been as a liberal democracy: individual liberty and equal Rights and responsibility for all, not just the special few. 

What the opposition to civil rights was pushing and had a lot of success up until the 1940s, was to push an anti-democratic agenda for anyone who wasn't Caucasian and perhaps not male as well and not Protestant. And the worst part of the argument was the hypocrisy and contradictions in their argument basing it on the U.S. Constitution and states rights, trying to use the Constitution to deny equal rights and democracy for African-Americans.

Neo-Confederates who argued that Africans were not as equal as Europeans in America, even though if anything Africans have been in America as long as Europeans. Neo-Confederates also argued that states rights, saying the power of states is more important than the constitutional rights of individuals. And that states had the constitutional right to deny the constitutional rights of African-Americans. Who under the U.S. Constitution have the same constitutional rights of all other Americans. 

This was definitely a Far-Right argument coming from Neo-Confederates (who never got over losing the American Civil War) not Conservatives. Because Conservatives actually do believe in the U.S. Constitution and for enforcing and living up to it. 

Another ironic thing about the Far-Right in America, is that even though they've used the states rights argument to deny the constitutional rights of African-Americans fifty, sixty, seventy years ago, they've moved away from the states rights argument in the last twenty years or so on issues like gay marriage and marijuana. Saying the Federal Government has the authority to regulate these issues, not just constitutional rights for all Americans. Their argument is about political convenience, not constitutional principles.

Another shame of the assassination of Martin King along with the assassination of Jack Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, was what could've been had these gentlemen lived out their lives, Jack Kennedy would be 93 going on 94 today so perhaps he would still be alive today, but that would be pretty impressive to live that long. 

Bobby Kennedy would be 85 today so there's a reasonable chance he would still be alive to today and Martin King would be 82 and chances are still living had he took care of himself. 

Longevity is not what I'm getting at and I'll focus on Dr. King even though Jack and Bobby are also heroes of mine. I believe Dr. King as we moved into the 1970s would've moved to focus on workers rights and poverty. And empowering African-Americans to have a bigger stake in life, to get a good education and become successful and self-sufficient and not dependent on public assistance. And to even own their own business's.

Minister Malcolm X had a different message when it came to Black Power, then Dr. King. His message was about empowering the less-fortunate to become self-sufficient and not just for African- Americans. If you judge people by what they accomplish in their lives and not by how long they live, then it's hard to find someone who lived a better life than Dr. Martin Luther King. 

Dr. King's message of peace and tolerance and equal rights for all and was able almost by himself to put that message on the map in America. And a lot of people of all races owe him a huge debt of gratitude for his contributions to American society. 

Dr. King was a leader for equal rights and equal justice and wanted a society where Americans and not just his children, would be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. Many ways why I'm a Liberal is because I judge people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. And believe no American should benefit or suffer, simply because of their race, color, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, or religion.