Archive for October, 2014


The Moon Landing

The First-Ever Moon Landing

By: Adam Schuster
• Sources: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkjointsessionurgentnationalneeds.htm
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/neil-armstrong-dead-media-moon-landing_n_1830620.html
• http://www.Newsuem.org
• http://www.history.com/topics/space-race
• http://www.NYtimes.com
• Texas State University Archives

Introduction:
The United States of America was built on many different people’s discoveries, adventures, courage and knowledge. One of the most courageous acts of all-time took place on July 16 1969, when the United States’ Apollo 11 spaceflight took off from NASA’s biggest launch facility on Merritt Island, Florida, as it attempted to become first manned mission to land on the moon.

The Astronauts and Their Rolls: Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the two appointed astronauts to lead this historic mission. Armstrong became the first man to step onto the lunar surface on July 20, 1969, and he spent about two and a half hours outside the spacecraft. Aldrin was the second person to step onto the moon and together, he and Armstrong collected 47.5 pounds of lunar material to take back to Earth. The third member of the mission, Michael Collins, piloted the command spacecraft alone in lunar orbit until Armstrong and Aldrin returned to it just under a day later for the trip back to Earth.

astronats

Left to Right: Armstrong, Collins, Aldrin. Photo Courtesy of: NASA.com

U.S. vs The Soviet Union in the “Space Race.”
After World War II drew to a close in the mid-20th century, a new conflict began. Known as the Cold War, this battle pitted the world’s two greatest powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, against each other. Beginning in the late 1950s, space would become one of the most dramatic issue for this competition, as each side sought to prove the superiority of its technology, its military firepower and its political-economic system.

On Oct. 4, 1957, the Soviets launched “Sputnik,” which was the world’s first artificial satellite and the first man-made object to be placed into the Earth’s orbit. Sputnik’s launch came as a surprise, and not a pleasant one, to most Americans. In the United States, space was seen as the next frontier, a logical extension of the grand American tradition of exploration, and it was crucial not to lose too much ground to the Soviets.

JFK’s Moon Speech to Congress:
Broadcast on live TV and radio to a world-wide audience in the summer of ‘69, Armstrong stepped onto the lunar surface and famously described the event as “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” Apollo 11 effectively ended the global space race and fulfilled a national goal that was proposed in 1961 by then-U.S. President John F. Kennedy in a speech given before the U.S. Congress. In that speech he said, “Before this decade is out, we must land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth.”

Kennedy thought that being the first country to successfully land a man on the moon was extremely important because he knew that the Soviet Union was secretly attempting to compete with the U.S. in landing a man on the moon, but had been hampered by repeated failures in their development of a rocket that was comparable to Apollo 11. Meanwhile, the Soviets tried to beat the United States in the race to return lunar material to the Earth by means of unmanned probes. On July 13, 1969, three days before Apollo 11’s launch, the Soviets launched Luna 15, which reached lunar orbit before Apollo 11. During its decent, a malfunction caused Luna 15 to crash back down to Earth about two hours before Armstrong and Aldrin took off from Earth’s surface.

Apollo 11’s 3 Modules:
The Apollo 11 spacecraft was equipped with 3 modules; a Command Module with a cabin for the three astronauts-(which was the only module that landed back on Earth-): a Service Module; which supported the Command Module with propulsion, electrical power, and water; and a Lunar Module for landing on the moon.

Departing from the Moon:
Shortly after the astronauts stepped onto the moon, they separated from the spacecraft and traveled for three days until they entered lunar orbit. Armstrong and Aldrin then moved into the Lunar Module and landed into the Sea of Tranquility on the moon. They stayed for about 21.5 hours on the lunar surface. After lifting off in the upper part of the Lunar Module and rejoining Collins in the Command Module, they returned to Earth and landed safely in the Pacific Ocean on July 24, 1969.

Media Coverage:
The Moon Landing of 1969 was a moment in American history that will never be forgotten thanks in part to the highly advanced media coverage that was used to broadcast this historic event. The coverage of the event provided an outlet for Americans during a time of devastation in Vietnam and it excited the citizens of the United States to be able to watch or listen to the Moon Landing as it was happening.

Arbitron ratings show that 45 percent of the national audience watched the CBS coverage, while 34 percent tuned into NBC and 16 percent to ABC. But all three networks worked together in order to share the financial burdens that came with having live coverage as each station invested over $1.5 million to broadcast the mission. Besides the expenses of the technology, the stations had to hire experts on the subject to explain to the public what their news anchors could not.

The Newspapers that were published for the day after the moon landing were all extended with specialized headlines, exclusive interviews with people who were involved with the mission and exclusive pictures. The New York Times, for example, has only used 96-point type on four different occasions in its history: the resignation of President Nixon, the 9/11 attacks, the election of President Obama, and the moon landing.

front page

Photo Courtesy of: Newsuem.org

Interview:
My father, Mark Schuster, who was 12 years old at the time of the landing, told me about his memory of watching Neil Armstrong stepping onto the moon form his TV. “I’ll never forget watching Neil Armstrong as he stepped out of that spaceship and said, “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” Schuster said. “Hearing him say that over our speakers of our black and white TV literally gave me Goosebumps.”

Conclusion:
The Moon Landing of 1969 is one of the most common historic events that children learn about at our nation’s schools. This event was a great accomplishment not only for America, but for mankind as a whole.
All possibilities went through the roof after Armstrong first stepped foot out of Apollo 11 after landing on the moon. People know had thoughts such as, “If they can go to the moon, then we can cure cancer, or invent flying cars.” It was an important point in U.S. history. The first-ever manned mission to the moon is something that will forever be discussed among humans because of how much it truly shaped America’s culture into what it is today.

neilPhoto Courtesy of: Historyrundown.com Above: Neil Armstrong

 

President assassinated while in car in Dallas

By Taylor Tompkins

New York Times, page one, November 23, 1963

Boston Globe, page one, November 23, 1963

Denver Post, page one, November 23, 1963

 

Assassination causes confusion, sadness across the nation

JFK

photo courtesy of the Library of Congress

 

 

Because of the chaos that ensued, there were many conflicting reports of what had happened when JFK was murdered. There are rumors that Lee Harvey Oswald ran past a pack of reporters while fleeing the scene. The details reported were similar but the confusion ensued and persist through conspiracy theories to this day.

Confusion also persisted throughout the country. Pam Anderson, who was fourteen in the 9th grade at Malakoff High School about 50 miles from the incident, remembers the day as one of “gloom.”

Anderson said she was in class when someone came over the intercom and announced that the president had been killed. Some of her classmates broke into hysteria but everyone was “wiping away tears.”

Her sister, Debra Wafford, was five years younger. Wafford said a teacher from another room wheeled in a black and white TV in so they could watch the updates and clarifications rolled in.

As seen here (http://www.boston.com/news/specials/kennedy/day2_jfk_assassinated/) the nation grappled with with a wide range of emotions and all were captured by newspapers and television reports.

 

Vice President sworn in

Texas State alumnus Lyndon Johnson was also a feature of every front page that was studied. LBJ was sworn in on an airplane. Many front pages prominently featured LBJ’s whereabouts in the hours following JFK’s assassination. Many White House reporters found Johnson working in his Vice Presidential office even after being sworn in. All eyes were looking at the new president who had been thrust into his new role.

LBJ

photo courtesy of the Library of Congress

 

Jackie Kennedy’s reaction

Jackie Kennedy’s reaction to her husband’s death were highly documented by the media. Video and photos of Jackie Kennedy cradling her husband’s head and covered In blood were taken. Due to their graphic nature, many outlets used their discretion when showing the images.

Headlines such as the Boston Globe’s “A Wife’s Anguish” were seen on front pages across the nation.

 

To cover this event today, I would talk to people who lived through the event to recall where they were and what happened when they saw or found out. When viewing the reports and speaking to those that were there, parallels between most recent major national tragedy were seen in citizen’s reactions. To see how the assignation changed the course of history through coverage from that day can be seen in broadcast from the day.

 

 

 

University media coverage of draft shows bias, growth

By: Carlie Porterfield

 

SDS Members Stage Protests, late summer of 1967, The College Star

It Is Our War!, late summer of 1967, The College Star, pg. 2

Anti-war leaflets stir emotions, Jan Albricht, October 20, 1967, The College Star, pg. 1

Writers protest, defend protesters, October 17, 1967, The College Star, pg. 3

 

Too young to die

In the late 1960s, the United States began drafting young men to fight in the Vietnam War, a conflict that intended to rid Vietnam of communist rule. For Mary Bradley, who attended Southwest Texas State University from 1966 to 1970, the issue of the draft was a personal one.

Men ages 20 to 26 were the most likely targets during the Vietnam War draft. For this reason, university campuses were heavily affected. Bradley had many friends and classmates who were drafted, she said.

“I was dating a young man and he was drafted and he left. I never heard from him again,” Bradley said. “I’ve often wondered if he ever returned from war.”

Anti-war and anti-draft demonstrations were being held on college campuses all over the nation. Students felt that the proxy war against the Viet Cong was being fought in vain, and against the best interest of America and it’s citizens.

“You had a group of kids who felt they were too young to die, and didn’t see how what was happening in Vietnam affects the security of our country,” Bradley said.

 

pic1

SDS Members Stage Protests, late summer of 1967, The College Star

 

 

Protests reach San Marcos

The first student protest on the Southwest Texas State University campus covered by The College Star, the on-campus newspaper, came late in the summer of. On a Tuesday morning, 7 University of Texas students came to San Marcos to distribute anti-war handouts. According to the article, the students were members of the UT chapter of Students for a Democratic society. One of the members, George Smith, was quoted as saying he hoped to bring a chapter to SWT in the future. After only 20 minutes of distributing handouts, the group was asked to leave by the dean of students. They obeyed.

Though peaceful, the first protest shook the foundations of the school’s belief system.

“Texas State, at that time, was a very conservative college,” said Bradley. “Most of the students supported the war, not so much the war itself, but supported the government, thinking they wouldn’t lie to us.”

 

 

 

IMG_0200

It Is Our War!, late summer of 1967, The College Star, pg. 2

 


The Star’s Initial Response

Several days after the protests, the editorial board of The College Star published a scathing response to the demonstration, titled ‘It Is Our War!’ It portrayed the UT students as unpatriotic and ungrateful.

 

The editorial also name dropped President Lyndon Baines Johnson, SWT’s most famous alumnus, who had been editor of The College Star in his day. Johnson had recently visited campus recently and was reportedly pleased with the lack of Vietnam War protests at his alma mater. It was he, after all, who had pushed for the escalation of America’s involvement in the conflict.

 

 

 

Tension escalates

However, that was not to be the last protest on campus. In October of 1967, Bradley witnessed a less peaceful demonstration outside of the student center.

“I came up to the student union and there were protesters in front of the union protesting the war. They had a table and they were passing out leaflets,” Bradley said.

A young man walked up and asked to take some of the pamphlets with him, Bradley said, and the protestors said he could take as many as he would like.

“He gathered up all of the pamphlets, walked down the steps to the leveled pavement, and set them on fire,” Bradley said.

As it turned out, the young man, named Cliff Berkman,was a returning veteran and had been in the Vietnam service, Bradley said.

pic2

Anti-war leaflets stir emotions, Jan Albricht, October 20, 1967, The College Star, pg. 1

The incident was covered by Star editor Jan Albricht in the October 20, 1967 issue of The College Star. According to her article, at one point, “a short scuffle occurred.” The anti-war protesters were greatly outnumbered.

IMG_0195

Writers protest, defend protesters, October 17, 1967, The College Star, pg. 3

The backlash
One week later, The College Star published 10 letters to the editor, taking up a full page of the broadsheet. The letters illustrated what Bradley said was so terrible about that time.

“Every side had such passion for what they believed,” Bradley said. “There seemed to be so little middle ground.”

The opinions expressed ranged from calling the anti-war protesters “commendable” to “cowardly.” The majority of students seemed to disagree with their anti-government views. However, generally speaking, most agreed it was their First Amendment right to protest. Some people who even disagreed with the protester’s opinions still praised their willingness to speak up.

“IT FINALLY HAPPENED!” wrote one such person, who withheld their name. “SOMEONE AT SOUTHWEST TEXAS SCHOOL OF MEDIOCRITY AND APATHY FINALLY EXPRESSED AN OPINION ON A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE!”

 

Lessons learned

Bearing witness to the freedom of expression despite conflict helped Bradley find her place in the changing political atmosphere that would come as a result of the Vietnam War.

“I think because of what I experienced at that time in school, I have become a better American,” Bradley said. “I think democracy depends on questioning your government and holding them accountable. That’s what I learned from all of the turmoil of the sixties.”

 

Carlie Porterfield is journalism junior at Texas State University, and the Senior News Reporter at The University Star.

GENDER AND MEDIA in the 1960s

OPENING THE DOOR

A woman stands eagerly, her arms stretched out as she hands a top hat to her husband. She steps outside, picks up the front door mat, turns it so that it reads WELCOME beneath her husband’s feet as he leaves for work. Then she turns the mat around to its natural position of invitation and goes back inside.

 

Upon researching the media of the 1960s, before the days when Barbara Walters was a co-anchor on ABC Evening News, one would discover that, though the female figure was everywhere in the media, the role of women in the communications field was extremely limited. Bobbed hair, cute noses, long legs and soft lips were plastered on every advertisement for products as varied as cars and alcohol to cigarettes and hair grease. Dames’ bodies facilitated the sex appeal these ads aimed to achieve. She was everywhere, but her words were scarce, still searching for a voice.

 

Entitled the “SEND-OFF,” a LOOK magazine cartoon illustrates how in 1964, the woman’s role was still confined within the home. Her duty? To send her husband away to work after waiting on him visually, figuratively, LITERALLY hand and foot. She remains inside while he is “welcomed” by the world.

img1

Illustration Credit: Gardner Rea, LOOK Magazine 8-25-64, pg M1

img2

Photograph of LOOK Magazine, Non-Commercial Use – Shelly Smith 10-2-2014

 

 

STEPPING OUTSIDE

 

To say that all publications were devoid of female writing during the 1960s would be false. For instance, a May 1967 publication of LIFE reserved a whopping one and a half-pages of the 108-page magazine for two stories written by women. Shana Alexander reported what, from a glance, appeared to be an introspective take on Inuit culture for the segment, “The Feminine Eye.” She discusses Eskimo culture poetically, but slightly demeans the story by mentioning the unflattering pants she had to wear and how she was “fully miserable.” Eleanor Graves delivered a rather bleak review about a Spanish restaurant and it’s specialty, paella. Graves took gals back to the kitchen while Alexander just garbled about the garb.

So these women were still a ways off from conveying newsworthy events. But considering the era’s entire workforce and its predominately male demographic, it is a surprise that these women were working in journalism at all.

 

                        “I had a dream of doing architecture,” said 83 year-old Shirley Smith from Abilene Texas.

“But I got a teacher’s certificate.”

 

 

In the United States, a college degree has always been considered a tool for liberation. The levels of regard for higher education have varied from one U.S. economy to the next but typically, college-aged youth have been prone to revolting against current issues in order to promote and achieve social change. But when examining Texas State University’s The College Star’s 1960s archives, one would only find recurring notions of men and women as “separate spheres” with little to no evidence of opposition to this conformity anywhere within its pages.

 

Top left, Maribeth Massie, December’s Calendar Girl poses. She is all legs. A page one editorial proudly reveals “6 Ways to Hpynotize Men.” Sexy advertisements are found throughout. A woman measures the length of a phallic cigarette – Winston. Another overenthusiastically rubs Vaseline in a gentleman’s hair – gross. Then, most importantly, there is the bottom right corner advertisement: “KEEPSAKE© The Engagement Ring with the Perfect Center Diamond.”

 

 

“I was not afraid of being the only woman, it’s just

no one encouraged me

to do that

so I got married and I knew

I could drop everything by the wayside if I had to,” continued Smith.

 

 

One could easily blame the men of the 1960s for reaffirming traditional roles of women as homemakers, not only because they excluding opportunities for women in the world of journalism, but also through male gatekeepers’ choices to create and print manipulative images of women that paired consumerism with marriage and sex.

But wait. What about how men were portrayed in 1960s media?

 

In the very same 1967 edition of LIFE magazine that allotted less than two-pages for female reporting, a 12-page spread entitled “The Frustrating Warfare of Business” compares the modern-day businessman to soldiers on the frontline. If the racy advertisements and condescending illustrations of women in the 1960s are not offensive enough, alluding IBM employees to soldiers at a time when America is knowingly preparing to go to war with Vietnam, is downright ludicrous.

Throughout the spread, photographs of stern-looking men and their machines are pitted against subtitles that compare a man’s work ethic with his decency. Perhaps gender stereotypes did not limit as much opportunity for men as they did women in the ‘60s, but male-stereotypes did exist and did cause men to conform to traditional roles much like they did to women.

 

 

Media culture in the 1960s exemplifies the timeless theme that social change is slow to come. Perhaps, the “Feminine Eye,” was blind to gender inequality but Alexander’s presence on the page was a subtle advancement for women in the world of journalism and women and men alike in the search for equality in the media and the workplace.

img3

Gene Shalit, Barbara Walters, Frank McGee; Today Show January 1973. This photo is part of the Public Domain

 

 

 

SOURCES:

 

  • Rea, G. (1964, August 25). Illustration: SEND OFF. LOOK, M-1.
  • Alexander, S. (1967, May 5). The Feminine Eye: Homogenizing the Eskimo. LIFE, 24A-24A
  • Graves, E. (1967, May 5). Paella in a Priceless Setting. LIFE, 14-14.
  • December Calendar Girl. (1960, December 9). Southwest Texas State College: The College Star.
  • Armke, K. (1960, December 2). 6 Ways to Hypnotize Men. Southwest Texas State College: The College Star, p. 2.
  • Argyris, C. (1967, May 5). Frustrating Warfare of Business. LIFE, 40-53.

The Watts Riots of 1965

Triumph or Tragedy: Watts Riots of 1965

By Breona Blakemore

image-1

Source: http://www.detroits-great-rebellion.com/Watts_riot_fire.jpg Fire occurring during the Watts riots of 1965.

 

image-3

Source: https://libcom.org/files/images/watts4%20(1)_0.jpg Los Angeles Watts riots of 1965.

http://life.time.com/history/watts-1966-photos-from-the-streets-a-year-after-the-1965-riots/#1

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/aug-11-1965-riots-in-the-watts-section-of-los-angeles/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

 

When researching and processing the events of the Los Angeles Watts riots of the 1960s, I was intrigued as well as shocked at how the events were covered by news sources. My initial source was of course the coverage of the riots from none other than Time Magazine. Time magazine is credible for being one of the most credible and reliable magazine because it has been around for quite some time. Most of it’s readers have been committed to reading the magazine for years at a time because they trust the source. Most Americans view Time magazine as a voice of the people sometimes.

The Los Angeles riots of 1965 were described as the riots stemmed from the racial tensions that inevitably reached a breaking point. The riots began on August 11, 1965 after two white police officers stopped a black motorist they suspected to be a drunk driver. The police began to get physical with the driver, where a crowd of spectators formed to watch the arrest, which became a racially motivated abuse by the officers. From this incident on, the riot would soon begin. In just six days of the riot, there were 34 deaths, more than 3,400 arrests and tens of millions of dollars in property damage. Many people were arrested and taken into custody by interacting in the riots or just being present.

One of the few articles I discovered that was entitled “THE FIRE LAST TIME: LIFE IN WATTS, 1966.” Even the most simplified aspects of the newspapers themselves differentiated. The headlines were significantly longer than usual, and the stories seemed more focused on what the public needed to know versus now, more censorship.

I also had the chance to read the article published by The New York Times describing the Watts riots of 1965. In the article unlike others, it describes the incident of the driver being beaten as “false rumors.” When reading Time magazine and other news sources, the incident was not described directly as false. I found it very interesting that such a well-known newspaper would share some sort of bias to the incident without direct sources to prove such. However, it is very breathtaking to witness how the articles and events as crucial as the riots were publicized.

The Watts riots were labeled as one of the largest urban race riots of the 1960s, and marked a shift from the nonviolence of the civil rights movement. Depending on your upbringing, race, and political view, the riots can be viewed as a positive development or a violent tragedy. Some believed the riots may have actually been a setback for black America. For African-Americans during this time period, the riots represented “. . . an uprising leap into a future of black self-empowerment,” according to Valerie Reitman and Mitchell Landsberg of The Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Watts riots of 1965 opened up a door for blacks in America to have a voice during a time where they were invisible, and that same voice went unheard. Although it took acts of violence, many eyes were opened, and more ears were clear. Take a look at our society now, it is almost as if that same voice has faded into the background, and it has gone unheard once again. With no one to speak up for a society of their own, blacks in America have chosen to make their presence not go ignored anymore. Almost 50 years later, hello America.Live Footage of the Los Angeles Watts Riots

 

image

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Wattsriots-policearrest-loc.jpg Aggressive police arrest during the Watts riots of 1965.

 

Source:  http://comeandtakeitamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/33_HarryBenson_GodisLove-Wattsreplacement-scan.jpg Police carrying major firearms while placing someone under arrest during the Watts riots of 1965.

Source:
http://comeandtakeitamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/33_HarryBenson_GodisLove-Wattsreplacement-scan.jpg
Police carrying major firearms while placing someone under arrest during the Watts riots of 1965.

 

 

The UT Tower Shooting

Portrait of a Mass Murderer

By: Thomas Hobbs     

 

Sources:

Reproductions from the Austin History Museum:

Whitman’s last letter.

Autopsy Notes.

State Investigation.

Time Magazine: The Madman in the Tower, Aug. 12, 1966

The New York Times: FATHER SHOCKED BY SON’S CHARGE, Aug. 3, 1966

 

The UT Tower Shooting

Aug. 1, 1966 is a day that many will never forget. It’s the day Charles Whitman, after killing his mother and wife, took to The University of Texas Tower and gunned down 14 people. This event was the most violent university shooting until the Virginia Tech Massacre in 2007. The ’60s were known as a time of change and revolution, mostly for the better, in many people’s opinions. However, the events that took place that day on the UT campus marked a shift toward something darker, something sinister.

What led to this tragedy? What would compel a man with so much potential to commit such an atrocity?

 

CW

AP Images/Charles Whitman 1966

Whitman’s early ife

 Charles Whitman was born June 24, 1941 in Lake Worth, Florida to Margaret E. and Charles A. Whitman Jr. Charles had by all accounts a fairly normal childhood. He received national attention at the age of 12 being the youngest Scout to achieve the title of Eagle Scout. Whitman was also a fairly decent pianist according to the state investigation. An IQ test taken by a six-year-old Whitman revealed him to have an above-average intelligence, scoring a 139. Whitman wanted for very little. His father provided much for him. However, there were some dangerous currents flowing underneath the tranquil surface of his home life. His father, Charles A. Whitman Jr., reportedly used physical force frequently against his wife and children according to The New York Times article “FATHER SHOCKED BY SONS CHARGE,” Aug. 3, 1966.

tower

AP Images/Flag flies at half-staff Aug. 2, 1966

 Military career and college frustrations

Whitman began his military career joining the Marines 1959. Whitman made an exceptional marine; by 1960 he was awarded a Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal. Whitman then applied to a military scholarship program that eventually brought him to the University of Texas. Whitman began his college career an unremarkable student. His grades weren’t outstanding and he was known as a bit of a joker according to the state investigation. Whitman met his wife Kathleen Leissner in February of 1962. Five months later they were engaged. They married on August 17, 1962 in the company of their families. Whitman’s scholarship was revoked and he was returned to active duty. At that point, Whitman was no longer the model marine he once was. With a penchant for gambling and making small usury loans, Whitman was court-martialed. In 1964 he was honorably discharged from the U.S. Marines and returned to The University of Texas to continue his studies.

dinner

AP Images/Whitman, right, sitting with wife Kathleen, and friend Lawrence Fuess. Image was taken a few months before the shootings.

A troubled Mind

“I don’t quite understand what it is that compels me to type this letter. Perhaps it is to leave some vague reason for the actions I have recently performed,” Whitman typed on July 31, 1966, just prior to the killings in his last letter. “I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I can’t recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts.” Whitman’s mental health began to deteriorate in 1966. He had been battling intrusive thoughts and painful headaches several weeks prior to the incident. One possible explanation for these symptoms could be the large amount of prescription drugs Whitman was taking. To keep up with the rigor of school and the difficulty of supporting his wife, Kathleen Whitman, he had been taking large quantities of stimulants according to the state investigation. When abused Stimulants can cause headaches, anxiety, aggression, and psychosis. It was also around this time that his parents had divorced which can be emotionally difficult. Whitman’s mother moved to Austin, to be closer to Whitman, her eldest son.

Whitman met with a University of Texas Psychiatrist on March 29, 1966. The session only lasted for approximately an hour. The psychiatrist instructed Whitman to return next week and gave him a number to call if he needed help in the meantime. Whitman did not return. When an autopsy was conducted on Whitman’s body they found a glioblastoma tumor pressing against his brain according to the Cook Funeral Home Autopsy notes. The tumor was the size of an acorn. Neurologists are unsure if the tumor was affecting his mental state, or if so to what extent.

guns

AP Images/Weapons used in the shooting.

 The killings

Whitman’s mother was the first victim. Margaret Whitman, 43, was killed Aug. 31, 1966, the night prior to the tower shootings. She was found with a stab wound to the chest. Whitman then went home and killed his wife Kathleen Whitman, 23, as she slept. She was found with five stab wounds. The next day Whitman purchased supplies and ammunition, made his way to the observation deck of the UT Tower and opened fired on the people below. He was finally taken down by officers Ramiro Martinez and Houston McCoy who both fired on Whitman as the made their way to the observation deck, according to the Time Magazine article “The Madman in the Tower.”

police

AP Images/1966 file head shots of Ramiro Martinez, left, and Houston McCoy.

The firing stopped, Whitman had killed 16 people and wounded 32, some permanently impaired. Whitman’s and his mother’s bodies were taken to Lake Worth, Florida, where they shared a funeral. In proper Marine fashion, Whitman’s coffin was covered with an American flag.

funeral

AP Images/A flag drapes Charles Whitman’s coffin. Margaret Whitman’s coffin lays beside.

Impact

The University of Texas massacre was global news. It’s not often so many people are killed and maimed so indiscriminately within a peaceful city. The emerging ideas of the time — peace, love and freedom — were rocked at their foundation by such a wanton tragedy. Was there some single cause; a single impetus, or was Whitman’s rampage this simply an aggregate of complex problems occurring in an increasingly complex time?

Failing mental health is now much better understood and is treated with much more importance, yet these kinds of tragedies occur with alarming frequency. What can we learn from these mass shootings? Did Whitman fail society or did we fail him? One thing is certain; this tragedy won’t soon be forgotten.

 

Thomas Hobbs was born and raised in Austin, TX and is a journalism minor. He can be contacted at tdh69@txstate.edu

50 Years of Beatlemania

By Daniel Fickman

Sources

Mulchrone, Vincent. “This Beatlemania.” The Daily Mail 21 Oct. 1963

Spitz, Bob. “Chapter 23/ So This Is Beatlemania.” The Beatles: The Biography. New York City: Little, Brown, 2005

Beatles Invade America. Perf. The Beatles. Universal, 1964. Newsreel

Strongin, Theodore. “The Beatles, “Musicologically”” The New York Times 10 Feb. 1964

Schneider, Cary. “What the Critics Wrote about the Beatles in 1964.” www.latimes.com. N.p., 9 Feb. 2014. Web.

Kaplan, Fred. “Teen Spirit: What Was so Important about the Beatles’ Appearances on The Ed Sullivan Show?” www.slate.com. N.p., 10 Feb. 2014. Web.

 

The Birth of Beatlemania

Many music fans, journalists, and reporters debate who coined the term, “Beatlemania.” The first printed use of the term seems to have appeared in The Daily Mail, a British middle-market tabloid newspaper, on Oct. 21, 1963. The headline, “This Beatlemania” ran above a feature article written by Vincent Mulchrone. Underneath the headline Mulchrone asked, “Would you let your daughter marry a Beatle?”

About a week before this article appeared, Beatlemania really began to spread throughout the UK. The Beatles’ Oct. 13, 1963, performance on “Val Parnell’s Sunday Night at the London Palladium” made them a fixture on the nation’s front pages. And although they busted out No.1 hits including “From Me To You,” and “Twist and Shout,” it wasn’t the music that caught everyone’s attention. It was the extreme fandom surrounding them. If you watch the original recording you’ll notice that The Beatles could barely hear themselves playing.

No one had ever seen anything like this. Eyewitnesses spoke to The Daily Herald in London remarking that they saw screaming girls launching themselves at police, “sending helmets flying and constables reeling.” In a matter of months, Beatlemania was set to reach a fever pitch when The Beatles made their way over to America, kicking off the British invasion.

 

 

It was 50 years ago today…

In January 1964 “I Want to Hold Your Hand” became the band’s first No.1 hit in the U.S. Also in January TV talk show host Jack Paar gave Americans their first prime-time glimpse of Beatlemania in the UK by showing clips of their concerts and crazed fans. Excitement and anticipation was through the roof.

The British invasion truly began on Feb. 7, 1964. The Beatles arrived at JFK airport in New York City to kick off their United States tour, and they were greeted by thousands of screaming fans. Two days later one of the most important moments in rock n’ roll history occurred on “The Ed Sullivan Show.

On February 9, 1964 The Beatles made their U.S. television debut. A record-breaking 70 million viewers tuned into “The Ed Sullivan Show” to watch the fab four from Liverpool change the face of popular music in the United States. Interestingly enough, however, critical reaction to this legendary performance was mixed at the time.

On Feb. 11, 1964, one Los Angeles Times critic wrote that they were a “press agent’s dream combo.” The critic then doubled up on that insult by stating, “Not even their mothers would claim that they sing well.” On Feb. 10, Theodore Strongin who wrote for The New York Times claimed that, “The Beatles’ vocal quality can be described as hoarsely incoherent, with the minimal enunciation necessary to communicate the schematic texts.”

Ringo Starr, George Harrison, Ed Sullivan John Lennon, Paul McCartney

The Beatles performing on “The Ed Sullivan Show.” “For Educational use only.”

 

Roll Over Beethoven

In 2004, the 40th anniversary of “The Ed Sullivan Show” appearance, Fred Kaplan, a writer for Slate, reflected on why that specific television performance was so important in terms of U.S. pop culture.

“The Beatles took hold of our country and shook it to a different place because they were young, because their music had a young, fresh feel, and because—this is the crucial thing—our parents didn’t get it,” Kaplan stated. “The day after that Sullivan show, every boy came to school with his hair combed down as far as he could manage (which, in most cases, wasn’t very far). Some went out and bought Beatle wigs. Or saved up to buy a guitar and then got together with friends to form a band.” Kaplan also made the interesting point that most popular music before 1964 sounds ancient, while most popular music that came after that point still sounds modern today.

Regardless of what the critics said at the time, one thing is for sure: The Beatles elevated popular music in a way that had never been done before.

 

Daniel Fickman is a journalism senior. He can be reached at dbf18@txstate.edu

The Wilderness Protection Act of 1964

It’s never been disputed that the 1960s was a time of change. Amidst a rapidly changing political landscape, the actual landscape of the nation was experiencing transformation as well—a devastating one. Urbanization and the development of highway systems spelled out deforestation for much of the United State’s remaining wilderness. After some urging by congress, U.S. President and Texas State alumnus Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Wilderness Act of 1964, protecting millions of acres of wild lands from the reaching arm of urbanization. In this outline for my news editor, I explain how I would cover an anniversary piece on the Act, utilizing first-person sources, photos and articles.

 

Why the Act Was Called For

For the introductory graf, I would advise my editor to include the events that led to the Wilderness Act’s proposal. Through my research based primarily on congressional transcripts and original articles from the late 1950s, I discovered that the act was first proposed as a response to the ever-growing concern of deforestation due to the rapidly developing interstate transportation system. Extensive railway systems and highways were threatening to destroy much of what was already considered to be a deteriorating environment. My grandfather, Dallas Moore, a rancher in the El Paso area beginning in the late 50s, said he himself witnessed the landscape changing with each passing year to make room for easier freight shipments to and from Mexico.

 

What the Act Entailed

Next, I would describe in detail exactly what the Wilderness Act did for the nation. According to a New York Times editorial piece in September 2014, the Act was designed to “preserve the remaining wild places from any form of development, providing the highest level of protection accorded any federal lands.” The article said when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the act in 1964, it initially protected 9 million acres. Since then, it has been amended to protect about 100 million more, many of which were turned into recreational areas by individual states.

 

What It Means for Today

Finally, I plan to draw parallels to modern-day environmental concerns and — perhaps more importantly — congressional bipartisanship like that shown in 1964. According to transcripts from 2011 executive orders, President Obama is making strides toward dedicating new monuments and parcels of land to states for recreational use and protection. Additionally, Congress is stalling about the fate of several environmentally important acts, including allocation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The New York Times estimates that the United States is losing about 6,000 acres of land per day while Congress delays action.

36th President Johnson signed the Wilderness Act just a year into his presidency in 1964 | Photo courtesy of the White House commons, photographer unknown.

36th President Johnson signed the Wilderness Act just a year into his presidency in 1964 | Photo courtesy of the White House commons, photographer unknown.

 

Media reaction to the Kent State shootings

AP Images/Douglas Moore for educational use only. A group gathers around an injured person after the Ohio National Guard opened fire on demonstrators at Kent State University.

AP Images/Douglas Moore for educational use only. A group gathers around an injured person after the Ohio National Guard opened fire on demonstrators at Kent State University.

 

By Adrian Hernandez

Akron Beacon Journal, May 4, 1970
The New York Times, May 4, 1970, Page 1
www.kentstate1970.org

On May 4, 1970, four students at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio were shot and killed by National Guard troops. The incident occurred after three days of student protests against the Vietnam War.

Late Friday, May 1, a group of people broke windows and vandalized storefronts in town. The protest group was large enough that the local police needed assistance, and on May 2, the National Guard was called in. The situation continued to escalate, and the campus ROTC building was burned. Law enforcement used tear gas to disperse the crowd, which had grown even larger than the night before. A curfew was enacted on May 3, but some defiant protestors were tear gassed again. On May 4, the students held a large protest at noon, where the shootings occurred.

Local media coverage

Both local and national media were already covering the student protests, and they covered the Kent State shootings. It was a big story because of the nature of the demonstrations, and the end result. On May 4, The Akron Beacon Journal lead read: “Four persons were killed and at least 11 others shot as National Guardsmen fired into a group of rock throwing protestors at Kent State University today.”

The shooting reportedly occurred after the Guard attempted to disperse a crowd of about 500 gathered on the campus commons. Protestors refused to disperse, and the troops, “wearing gas masks, began to launch tear gas.” The Journal report said that protestors threw objects at officers and that “obscenities filled the air.” The report briefly mentions the Highway Patrol looking for a sniper atop a building near the commons. According to the Journal article, a witness said the shots rang out after a student hurled a rock at the National Guard troops attempting to clear the commons. “According to the witness, some of the Guardsmen were firing in the air while others fired straight ahead.” The wounded – at least one shot in the leg, and two shot in the abdomen – were taken to Robinson Memorial Hospital.

AP Images/Uncredited for educational use only. Ohio National Guard armed with tear gas and rifles move in on students at Kent State University, May 4, 1970.

AP Images/Uncredited for educational use only. Ohio National Guard armed with tear gas and rifles move in on students at Kent State University, May 4, 1970.

National coverage

The New York Times coverage of the shooting is similar to the Akron coverage, but some details differ. The Times reports the crowd gathered on the commons as being “about 1,000 people.” Frederick P. Wenger, of the Ohio National Guard, said the troops opened fire after they were fired upon by a sniper. Interestingly, the Times journalist, John Kifner, put himself in the story in regard to this assertion: “This reporter, who was with the group of students, did not see any indication of sniper fire, nor was the sound of any gunfire audible before the Guard volley.” Students did admit that rocks were thrown, but those interviewed denied there was a sniper.

The Times report also included names of the deceased, and other details not included in the Akron Beacon Journal. Kifner’s account of the shooting includes these paragraphs:

“The crackle of the rifle volley cut the suddenly still air. It appeared to go on, as a solid volley, for perhaps a full minute or a little longer.

Some of the students dived to the ground, crawling on the grass in terror. Others stood shocked or half crouched, apparently believing the troops were firing into the air. Some of the rifle barrels were pointed upward.”

Additional media

In researching this topic I also found interesting audio of a press conference by then-governor James Rhodes [Ohio] on May 3, one day before the shootings. He calls the situation “the most vicious form of campus-oriented violence perpetrated by dissident groups.” He goes on to describe the Kent State protesters as “the worst type of people… in America” and “we are going to eradicate the problem.”

 

Adrian Hernandez is a senior at Texas State University. He was interested in the Kent State shootings after seeing comparisons of police response to protest in Ferguson, Missouri following the shooting death of Michael Brown. He can be contacted at adrian.hernandez1@gmail.com.

’60s Fashion: From head to toe

Shelby Stamper

Oct. 7, 2014

 

Seventeen, Feb. 1966, Page 41

Seventeen, Feb. 1966, Page 85

Seventeen, Feb. 1966, Page 112-113

Seventeen, Feb. 1966, Page 150-151

Seventeen, Feb. 1966, Page 198

Seventeen, May 1966, Page 175

Seventeen, May 1966, Page 134

The ‘60s were undoubtedly a time of change for the U.S. The fashion industry was being revolutionized by teens. Women began dressing in an exceptionally daring manner, and many were rebelling against a conservative society. A variety of styles co-existed in the ‘60s, but the majority of them fall under three categories: Mod, Classic/Feminine, and Hippie.

 

Mod

A revolt against tradition in the UK sparked this style. It began in London, and by 1965 it had spread like wildfire into the closets of American teens. The Mods— short for Modernists—were a trend setting group of intrepid teens. Their inspiration was drawn from high fashion icons including British models Twiggy and Jean Shrimpton.

 

Elements of Mod style

  • Revealing mini skirts
  • Bold, geometric prints
  • Vidal Sassoon’s short, angular five-point hair style
  • Heavy eyeliner and false lashes
  • Androgynous look
  • Dyed faux fur
  • Fishnet and colored tights
  • An excerpt from an advertisement in Seventeen magazine for Lady B.V.D.’s new colored tights said, “Stretch Casuals in colors to rival spring’s own… pink, blue, red, white, yellow and shades in between.”

mod

High fashion model Peggy Moffitt

NSCO LLC, for noncommercial use only

 

 

Classic and Feminine

Think in regards of first lady Jackie Kennedy. Women who desired to appear elegant, classy and sophisticated donned this look. Many of the designs Jackie Kennedy wore decades ago have yet to lose popularity and are still in good taste today. This particular style is unique because it is one of the few trends of the ‘60s that was not inspired by rebellion or teenagers.

 

Elements of Classic/Feminine style

  • Simple designs and solid colors
  • Low heels
  • A-line dresses and skirts
  • Pillbox hat, which Jackie Kennedy was known for wearing
  • Shift dress—a western pattern became popular in ’66
  • “Flipped” hair that curled upward at the ears or shoulders
  • Poor-boy sweaters
  • Suit for women

jackiekennedy

Pink Chanel suit of Jackie Kennedy, 1961

NARA for reuse, photo taken by Cecil W. Stoughton

 

Hippie

Toward the end of the ‘60s, the hippie trend had become very popular. The clothing reflected the essence of Woodstock through its psychedelic patterns and colors. This look, along with the Mod look, was relatively androgynous. The key aspect of hippie style was being natural. Being a hippie was certainly not concentrated on fashion alone; it was a subculture. This group was rebelling against a repressive society by showing that they would not conform.

 

Elements of Hippie style

  • Long hair on men and women
  • Little, if any, makeup on women
  • Natural materials including hemp
  • Frayed or embroidered bell-bottom jeans
  • Paisley print
  • Sandals for men and women
  • Peasant tunic

 

 

Beauty Tips/ Makeup

Beauty was influenced in the 1960’s by movie stars, music, popular brands and geometric patterns. The fashion groups subcultures, such as Mod and Hippie, also had an influence on accessories and makeup worn.

 

Elements of Beauty Tips/ Makeup

  • False eyelashes, heavy eyeliner
  • White eye shadow and black crease (look worn by Twiggy)
  • Face and body painting
  • Natural products
  • Cleopatra (movie) eyeliner look
  • Covergirl, Maybelline, and Max Factor (makeup brands)
  • Pastel colors

makeup

Selection of false lashes for ‘60s woman (1969 advert, for reuse)

 

 

Fashion is constantly evolving based on older designs. Some of the styles of the ‘60s such as peasant tunics and paisley print are currently popular. Melanie McMaster, who was a teenager during the ‘60s, said, “What I love living through the ‘60s to now is seeing how fashion is a cycle. I bought a shift dress yesterday from the ‘new arrivals’ section at Nordstrom, I thought it was hilarious!”

 

Shelby Stamper is a Journalism junior. She can be reached at scs117@txstate.edu

Official Texas State University Disclaimer
Comments on the contents of this site should be directed to Elizabeth J (Be Clark.