Was there a diorama at the Chicago Museum of Science where children could play shooting at a Vietnamese...
up vote
69
down vote
favorite
In books and interviews, Noam Chomsky recalls that during the Vietnam War a diorama of a Vietnamese village was built at the Chicago Museum of Science where "children were supposed to come and play, and shoot at the village with the guns".
There was in item in the New York Times that described an event that
took place in Chicago. The Chicago Museum of Science, which is a very
respectable place, had put up an exhibit. The exhibit was a Vietnamese
village, sort of a diorama of a Vietnamese village, and around it
there were guns, and children were supposed to come an play, and shoot
at the village with the guns. That was the game.
Power and Terror: Conflict, Hegemony, and the Rule of Force,
by Noam Chomsky, John Junkerman, Takei Masakazu. Available on Google Books.
or see this interview with Chomsky on Youtube.
It also reports that the New York Times published an article criticising a group of mother protesting outside the museum. However, I can not find any other sources that confirms the facts.
Is Noam Chomsky's version of the events accurate?
vietnam-war
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
69
down vote
favorite
In books and interviews, Noam Chomsky recalls that during the Vietnam War a diorama of a Vietnamese village was built at the Chicago Museum of Science where "children were supposed to come and play, and shoot at the village with the guns".
There was in item in the New York Times that described an event that
took place in Chicago. The Chicago Museum of Science, which is a very
respectable place, had put up an exhibit. The exhibit was a Vietnamese
village, sort of a diorama of a Vietnamese village, and around it
there were guns, and children were supposed to come an play, and shoot
at the village with the guns. That was the game.
Power and Terror: Conflict, Hegemony, and the Rule of Force,
by Noam Chomsky, John Junkerman, Takei Masakazu. Available on Google Books.
or see this interview with Chomsky on Youtube.
It also reports that the New York Times published an article criticising a group of mother protesting outside the museum. However, I can not find any other sources that confirms the facts.
Is Noam Chomsky's version of the events accurate?
vietnam-war
New contributor
1
According to the accepted answer, it looks like it is a partial truth. The description of the diorama sounds more like an enemy military encampment than a village, and there were no models of humans in it.
– Aaron
9 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
69
down vote
favorite
up vote
69
down vote
favorite
In books and interviews, Noam Chomsky recalls that during the Vietnam War a diorama of a Vietnamese village was built at the Chicago Museum of Science where "children were supposed to come and play, and shoot at the village with the guns".
There was in item in the New York Times that described an event that
took place in Chicago. The Chicago Museum of Science, which is a very
respectable place, had put up an exhibit. The exhibit was a Vietnamese
village, sort of a diorama of a Vietnamese village, and around it
there were guns, and children were supposed to come an play, and shoot
at the village with the guns. That was the game.
Power and Terror: Conflict, Hegemony, and the Rule of Force,
by Noam Chomsky, John Junkerman, Takei Masakazu. Available on Google Books.
or see this interview with Chomsky on Youtube.
It also reports that the New York Times published an article criticising a group of mother protesting outside the museum. However, I can not find any other sources that confirms the facts.
Is Noam Chomsky's version of the events accurate?
vietnam-war
New contributor
In books and interviews, Noam Chomsky recalls that during the Vietnam War a diorama of a Vietnamese village was built at the Chicago Museum of Science where "children were supposed to come and play, and shoot at the village with the guns".
There was in item in the New York Times that described an event that
took place in Chicago. The Chicago Museum of Science, which is a very
respectable place, had put up an exhibit. The exhibit was a Vietnamese
village, sort of a diorama of a Vietnamese village, and around it
there were guns, and children were supposed to come an play, and shoot
at the village with the guns. That was the game.
Power and Terror: Conflict, Hegemony, and the Rule of Force,
by Noam Chomsky, John Junkerman, Takei Masakazu. Available on Google Books.
or see this interview with Chomsky on Youtube.
It also reports that the New York Times published an article criticising a group of mother protesting outside the museum. However, I can not find any other sources that confirms the facts.
Is Noam Chomsky's version of the events accurate?
vietnam-war
vietnam-war
New contributor
New contributor
edited 14 hours ago
Jan Doggen
3,94942541
3,94942541
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
pinpon
408127
408127
New contributor
New contributor
1
According to the accepted answer, it looks like it is a partial truth. The description of the diorama sounds more like an enemy military encampment than a village, and there were no models of humans in it.
– Aaron
9 hours ago
add a comment |
1
According to the accepted answer, it looks like it is a partial truth. The description of the diorama sounds more like an enemy military encampment than a village, and there were no models of humans in it.
– Aaron
9 hours ago
1
1
According to the accepted answer, it looks like it is a partial truth. The description of the diorama sounds more like an enemy military encampment than a village, and there were no models of humans in it.
– Aaron
9 hours ago
According to the accepted answer, it looks like it is a partial truth. The description of the diorama sounds more like an enemy military encampment than a village, and there were no models of humans in it.
– Aaron
9 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
97
down vote
accepted
The exhibit and the protesting was widely reported in newspapers at the time, including the NYT, which seems to have had at least two articles about it.
This NYT article is vague (page 19; Mar 18, 1968):
This other NYT article actually describes the exhibit somewhat positively, so it's probably the one Chomsky is referring to (page 16; Mar 19, 1968):
Pictures of the exhibit were published in the National Catholic Reporter:
Another account of the events was mentioned in The Argus, which has the same wording as the one NYT article:
Flower bedecked teen-agers chanting anti-Vietnam war slogans Sunday forced a temporary shutdown of an Army weapons exhibit at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry.
About 150 of the teen-agers swarmed around and onto an armored personnel carrier, shouting, singing and chanting, "LBJ, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?"
Police moved in and cleared the exhibit hall, warning any who tarried they would be arrested. Officers carried at least three demonstrators from the museum. Six persons were taken into custody and hauled to Central Police Headquarters, where they were being questioned.
It was not immediately determined whether the demonstration inside the hall was linked to the picketing outside the museum by an estimated 300 representatives of two I schools and two peace groups.
I also found another really good account of the event in Delaware County Daily Times:
Too Much, Too Soon
If one has to be arrested in a demonstration, we can think of few better causes than the "sit-in" at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry this week.
An Army exhibit there included a helicopter equipped for simulating firing of a machine gun at targets in a diorama of the Vietnam Central Highlands.
The targets included a hut, two bridges and an ammunition dump. A light flashed when a hit was scored.
Some youngsters apparently found it great sport. On Monday, some 150 pickets "infiltrated" the exhibit, some occupying the helicopter, others sitting on the floor to prevent people from entering the exhibit.
Outside, another 300 pickets handed out antiwar handbills and carried signs such as, "Don't teach your child to kill."
Police removed those inside the building, arresting six. But the helicopter simulated firing has been ended.
At the rate we're going, our youngsters will be firing down on Vietnamese villages from helicopters soon enough. We see no need to advance the timetable with simulated war in museums.
Another account, mostly describing a man who was protesting while carrying his child can be found in the Columbia Missourian.
15
So... definitely not a village.
– RonJohn
23 hours ago
@RonJohn If we assume the hut is a residential structure "definitely" seems to definite. A mix of civil and military installations would properly reflect the reality of many asymmetrical conflicts, with all the problems arising from it.
– Peter A. Schneider
8 hours ago
@PeterA.Schneider "If we assume the hut is a residential structure" but assuming that huts are only residential structures and only used by innocent civilians beggars the imagination.
– RonJohn
8 hours ago
1
@RonJohn Did I say "only" or did I say "mix"? You are saying "definitely" though, in bold. "Hut" without further qualification is neutral: We don't know. The articles do not call it a "shelter" or "shed" or "barrack" though. Then I wouldn't take issue.
– Peter A. Schneider
8 hours ago
2
@PeterA.Schneider the scenario: a hut with an ammo dump next to it. Do you think, "a poor innocent civilian lives there!", or do you think, "it's associated with the ammo dump"? Now, maybe the VC put the ammo dump next to the poor civilian hut like Saddam put AA guns on top of hospitals (then who's fault is it that the hut gets shot up?), but the first thought is that the hut is associated with the ammo dump.
– RonJohn
8 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
97
down vote
accepted
The exhibit and the protesting was widely reported in newspapers at the time, including the NYT, which seems to have had at least two articles about it.
This NYT article is vague (page 19; Mar 18, 1968):
This other NYT article actually describes the exhibit somewhat positively, so it's probably the one Chomsky is referring to (page 16; Mar 19, 1968):
Pictures of the exhibit were published in the National Catholic Reporter:
Another account of the events was mentioned in The Argus, which has the same wording as the one NYT article:
Flower bedecked teen-agers chanting anti-Vietnam war slogans Sunday forced a temporary shutdown of an Army weapons exhibit at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry.
About 150 of the teen-agers swarmed around and onto an armored personnel carrier, shouting, singing and chanting, "LBJ, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?"
Police moved in and cleared the exhibit hall, warning any who tarried they would be arrested. Officers carried at least three demonstrators from the museum. Six persons were taken into custody and hauled to Central Police Headquarters, where they were being questioned.
It was not immediately determined whether the demonstration inside the hall was linked to the picketing outside the museum by an estimated 300 representatives of two I schools and two peace groups.
I also found another really good account of the event in Delaware County Daily Times:
Too Much, Too Soon
If one has to be arrested in a demonstration, we can think of few better causes than the "sit-in" at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry this week.
An Army exhibit there included a helicopter equipped for simulating firing of a machine gun at targets in a diorama of the Vietnam Central Highlands.
The targets included a hut, two bridges and an ammunition dump. A light flashed when a hit was scored.
Some youngsters apparently found it great sport. On Monday, some 150 pickets "infiltrated" the exhibit, some occupying the helicopter, others sitting on the floor to prevent people from entering the exhibit.
Outside, another 300 pickets handed out antiwar handbills and carried signs such as, "Don't teach your child to kill."
Police removed those inside the building, arresting six. But the helicopter simulated firing has been ended.
At the rate we're going, our youngsters will be firing down on Vietnamese villages from helicopters soon enough. We see no need to advance the timetable with simulated war in museums.
Another account, mostly describing a man who was protesting while carrying his child can be found in the Columbia Missourian.
15
So... definitely not a village.
– RonJohn
23 hours ago
@RonJohn If we assume the hut is a residential structure "definitely" seems to definite. A mix of civil and military installations would properly reflect the reality of many asymmetrical conflicts, with all the problems arising from it.
– Peter A. Schneider
8 hours ago
@PeterA.Schneider "If we assume the hut is a residential structure" but assuming that huts are only residential structures and only used by innocent civilians beggars the imagination.
– RonJohn
8 hours ago
1
@RonJohn Did I say "only" or did I say "mix"? You are saying "definitely" though, in bold. "Hut" without further qualification is neutral: We don't know. The articles do not call it a "shelter" or "shed" or "barrack" though. Then I wouldn't take issue.
– Peter A. Schneider
8 hours ago
2
@PeterA.Schneider the scenario: a hut with an ammo dump next to it. Do you think, "a poor innocent civilian lives there!", or do you think, "it's associated with the ammo dump"? Now, maybe the VC put the ammo dump next to the poor civilian hut like Saddam put AA guns on top of hospitals (then who's fault is it that the hut gets shot up?), but the first thought is that the hut is associated with the ammo dump.
– RonJohn
8 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
97
down vote
accepted
The exhibit and the protesting was widely reported in newspapers at the time, including the NYT, which seems to have had at least two articles about it.
This NYT article is vague (page 19; Mar 18, 1968):
This other NYT article actually describes the exhibit somewhat positively, so it's probably the one Chomsky is referring to (page 16; Mar 19, 1968):
Pictures of the exhibit were published in the National Catholic Reporter:
Another account of the events was mentioned in The Argus, which has the same wording as the one NYT article:
Flower bedecked teen-agers chanting anti-Vietnam war slogans Sunday forced a temporary shutdown of an Army weapons exhibit at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry.
About 150 of the teen-agers swarmed around and onto an armored personnel carrier, shouting, singing and chanting, "LBJ, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?"
Police moved in and cleared the exhibit hall, warning any who tarried they would be arrested. Officers carried at least three demonstrators from the museum. Six persons were taken into custody and hauled to Central Police Headquarters, where they were being questioned.
It was not immediately determined whether the demonstration inside the hall was linked to the picketing outside the museum by an estimated 300 representatives of two I schools and two peace groups.
I also found another really good account of the event in Delaware County Daily Times:
Too Much, Too Soon
If one has to be arrested in a demonstration, we can think of few better causes than the "sit-in" at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry this week.
An Army exhibit there included a helicopter equipped for simulating firing of a machine gun at targets in a diorama of the Vietnam Central Highlands.
The targets included a hut, two bridges and an ammunition dump. A light flashed when a hit was scored.
Some youngsters apparently found it great sport. On Monday, some 150 pickets "infiltrated" the exhibit, some occupying the helicopter, others sitting on the floor to prevent people from entering the exhibit.
Outside, another 300 pickets handed out antiwar handbills and carried signs such as, "Don't teach your child to kill."
Police removed those inside the building, arresting six. But the helicopter simulated firing has been ended.
At the rate we're going, our youngsters will be firing down on Vietnamese villages from helicopters soon enough. We see no need to advance the timetable with simulated war in museums.
Another account, mostly describing a man who was protesting while carrying his child can be found in the Columbia Missourian.
15
So... definitely not a village.
– RonJohn
23 hours ago
@RonJohn If we assume the hut is a residential structure "definitely" seems to definite. A mix of civil and military installations would properly reflect the reality of many asymmetrical conflicts, with all the problems arising from it.
– Peter A. Schneider
8 hours ago
@PeterA.Schneider "If we assume the hut is a residential structure" but assuming that huts are only residential structures and only used by innocent civilians beggars the imagination.
– RonJohn
8 hours ago
1
@RonJohn Did I say "only" or did I say "mix"? You are saying "definitely" though, in bold. "Hut" without further qualification is neutral: We don't know. The articles do not call it a "shelter" or "shed" or "barrack" though. Then I wouldn't take issue.
– Peter A. Schneider
8 hours ago
2
@PeterA.Schneider the scenario: a hut with an ammo dump next to it. Do you think, "a poor innocent civilian lives there!", or do you think, "it's associated with the ammo dump"? Now, maybe the VC put the ammo dump next to the poor civilian hut like Saddam put AA guns on top of hospitals (then who's fault is it that the hut gets shot up?), but the first thought is that the hut is associated with the ammo dump.
– RonJohn
8 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
97
down vote
accepted
up vote
97
down vote
accepted
The exhibit and the protesting was widely reported in newspapers at the time, including the NYT, which seems to have had at least two articles about it.
This NYT article is vague (page 19; Mar 18, 1968):
This other NYT article actually describes the exhibit somewhat positively, so it's probably the one Chomsky is referring to (page 16; Mar 19, 1968):
Pictures of the exhibit were published in the National Catholic Reporter:
Another account of the events was mentioned in The Argus, which has the same wording as the one NYT article:
Flower bedecked teen-agers chanting anti-Vietnam war slogans Sunday forced a temporary shutdown of an Army weapons exhibit at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry.
About 150 of the teen-agers swarmed around and onto an armored personnel carrier, shouting, singing and chanting, "LBJ, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?"
Police moved in and cleared the exhibit hall, warning any who tarried they would be arrested. Officers carried at least three demonstrators from the museum. Six persons were taken into custody and hauled to Central Police Headquarters, where they were being questioned.
It was not immediately determined whether the demonstration inside the hall was linked to the picketing outside the museum by an estimated 300 representatives of two I schools and two peace groups.
I also found another really good account of the event in Delaware County Daily Times:
Too Much, Too Soon
If one has to be arrested in a demonstration, we can think of few better causes than the "sit-in" at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry this week.
An Army exhibit there included a helicopter equipped for simulating firing of a machine gun at targets in a diorama of the Vietnam Central Highlands.
The targets included a hut, two bridges and an ammunition dump. A light flashed when a hit was scored.
Some youngsters apparently found it great sport. On Monday, some 150 pickets "infiltrated" the exhibit, some occupying the helicopter, others sitting on the floor to prevent people from entering the exhibit.
Outside, another 300 pickets handed out antiwar handbills and carried signs such as, "Don't teach your child to kill."
Police removed those inside the building, arresting six. But the helicopter simulated firing has been ended.
At the rate we're going, our youngsters will be firing down on Vietnamese villages from helicopters soon enough. We see no need to advance the timetable with simulated war in museums.
Another account, mostly describing a man who was protesting while carrying his child can be found in the Columbia Missourian.
The exhibit and the protesting was widely reported in newspapers at the time, including the NYT, which seems to have had at least two articles about it.
This NYT article is vague (page 19; Mar 18, 1968):
This other NYT article actually describes the exhibit somewhat positively, so it's probably the one Chomsky is referring to (page 16; Mar 19, 1968):
Pictures of the exhibit were published in the National Catholic Reporter:
Another account of the events was mentioned in The Argus, which has the same wording as the one NYT article:
Flower bedecked teen-agers chanting anti-Vietnam war slogans Sunday forced a temporary shutdown of an Army weapons exhibit at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry.
About 150 of the teen-agers swarmed around and onto an armored personnel carrier, shouting, singing and chanting, "LBJ, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?"
Police moved in and cleared the exhibit hall, warning any who tarried they would be arrested. Officers carried at least three demonstrators from the museum. Six persons were taken into custody and hauled to Central Police Headquarters, where they were being questioned.
It was not immediately determined whether the demonstration inside the hall was linked to the picketing outside the museum by an estimated 300 representatives of two I schools and two peace groups.
I also found another really good account of the event in Delaware County Daily Times:
Too Much, Too Soon
If one has to be arrested in a demonstration, we can think of few better causes than the "sit-in" at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry this week.
An Army exhibit there included a helicopter equipped for simulating firing of a machine gun at targets in a diorama of the Vietnam Central Highlands.
The targets included a hut, two bridges and an ammunition dump. A light flashed when a hit was scored.
Some youngsters apparently found it great sport. On Monday, some 150 pickets "infiltrated" the exhibit, some occupying the helicopter, others sitting on the floor to prevent people from entering the exhibit.
Outside, another 300 pickets handed out antiwar handbills and carried signs such as, "Don't teach your child to kill."
Police removed those inside the building, arresting six. But the helicopter simulated firing has been ended.
At the rate we're going, our youngsters will be firing down on Vietnamese villages from helicopters soon enough. We see no need to advance the timetable with simulated war in museums.
Another account, mostly describing a man who was protesting while carrying his child can be found in the Columbia Missourian.
edited 52 mins ago
answered 2 days ago
Laurel
9,20734050
9,20734050
15
So... definitely not a village.
– RonJohn
23 hours ago
@RonJohn If we assume the hut is a residential structure "definitely" seems to definite. A mix of civil and military installations would properly reflect the reality of many asymmetrical conflicts, with all the problems arising from it.
– Peter A. Schneider
8 hours ago
@PeterA.Schneider "If we assume the hut is a residential structure" but assuming that huts are only residential structures and only used by innocent civilians beggars the imagination.
– RonJohn
8 hours ago
1
@RonJohn Did I say "only" or did I say "mix"? You are saying "definitely" though, in bold. "Hut" without further qualification is neutral: We don't know. The articles do not call it a "shelter" or "shed" or "barrack" though. Then I wouldn't take issue.
– Peter A. Schneider
8 hours ago
2
@PeterA.Schneider the scenario: a hut with an ammo dump next to it. Do you think, "a poor innocent civilian lives there!", or do you think, "it's associated with the ammo dump"? Now, maybe the VC put the ammo dump next to the poor civilian hut like Saddam put AA guns on top of hospitals (then who's fault is it that the hut gets shot up?), but the first thought is that the hut is associated with the ammo dump.
– RonJohn
8 hours ago
add a comment |
15
So... definitely not a village.
– RonJohn
23 hours ago
@RonJohn If we assume the hut is a residential structure "definitely" seems to definite. A mix of civil and military installations would properly reflect the reality of many asymmetrical conflicts, with all the problems arising from it.
– Peter A. Schneider
8 hours ago
@PeterA.Schneider "If we assume the hut is a residential structure" but assuming that huts are only residential structures and only used by innocent civilians beggars the imagination.
– RonJohn
8 hours ago
1
@RonJohn Did I say "only" or did I say "mix"? You are saying "definitely" though, in bold. "Hut" without further qualification is neutral: We don't know. The articles do not call it a "shelter" or "shed" or "barrack" though. Then I wouldn't take issue.
– Peter A. Schneider
8 hours ago
2
@PeterA.Schneider the scenario: a hut with an ammo dump next to it. Do you think, "a poor innocent civilian lives there!", or do you think, "it's associated with the ammo dump"? Now, maybe the VC put the ammo dump next to the poor civilian hut like Saddam put AA guns on top of hospitals (then who's fault is it that the hut gets shot up?), but the first thought is that the hut is associated with the ammo dump.
– RonJohn
8 hours ago
15
15
So... definitely not a village.
– RonJohn
23 hours ago
So... definitely not a village.
– RonJohn
23 hours ago
@RonJohn If we assume the hut is a residential structure "definitely" seems to definite. A mix of civil and military installations would properly reflect the reality of many asymmetrical conflicts, with all the problems arising from it.
– Peter A. Schneider
8 hours ago
@RonJohn If we assume the hut is a residential structure "definitely" seems to definite. A mix of civil and military installations would properly reflect the reality of many asymmetrical conflicts, with all the problems arising from it.
– Peter A. Schneider
8 hours ago
@PeterA.Schneider "If we assume the hut is a residential structure" but assuming that huts are only residential structures and only used by innocent civilians beggars the imagination.
– RonJohn
8 hours ago
@PeterA.Schneider "If we assume the hut is a residential structure" but assuming that huts are only residential structures and only used by innocent civilians beggars the imagination.
– RonJohn
8 hours ago
1
1
@RonJohn Did I say "only" or did I say "mix"? You are saying "definitely" though, in bold. "Hut" without further qualification is neutral: We don't know. The articles do not call it a "shelter" or "shed" or "barrack" though. Then I wouldn't take issue.
– Peter A. Schneider
8 hours ago
@RonJohn Did I say "only" or did I say "mix"? You are saying "definitely" though, in bold. "Hut" without further qualification is neutral: We don't know. The articles do not call it a "shelter" or "shed" or "barrack" though. Then I wouldn't take issue.
– Peter A. Schneider
8 hours ago
2
2
@PeterA.Schneider the scenario: a hut with an ammo dump next to it. Do you think, "a poor innocent civilian lives there!", or do you think, "it's associated with the ammo dump"? Now, maybe the VC put the ammo dump next to the poor civilian hut like Saddam put AA guns on top of hospitals (then who's fault is it that the hut gets shot up?), but the first thought is that the hut is associated with the ammo dump.
– RonJohn
8 hours ago
@PeterA.Schneider the scenario: a hut with an ammo dump next to it. Do you think, "a poor innocent civilian lives there!", or do you think, "it's associated with the ammo dump"? Now, maybe the VC put the ammo dump next to the poor civilian hut like Saddam put AA guns on top of hospitals (then who's fault is it that the hut gets shot up?), but the first thought is that the hut is associated with the ammo dump.
– RonJohn
8 hours ago
add a comment |
1
According to the accepted answer, it looks like it is a partial truth. The description of the diorama sounds more like an enemy military encampment than a village, and there were no models of humans in it.
– Aaron
9 hours ago