View allAll Photos Tagged answer
from No Easy Answers fanzine, issue #1 (1980)
stillunusual.tumblr.com/post/47018000503/no-easy-answers-...
Pencil & digital work
2011/8/8
I really try very hard to answer the questions, but it's still all in a mess.
I cannot but to suppose it's due to the bad questions.
I hope that rather than good-record students, the teacher would like the one who can express free.
2011/8/8 作答
我真的很拼命的在寫答案，結果錯得亂七八糟。
我也忍不住會想是題目出得不好，但我希望比起考高分，老師更喜歡自由發揮的學生。
沒有被當的話，我願意繼續寫考卷。
Harley thinking about her answer... and if she wants to give it or not. ;-)
Cosplayers: Harley (Shayna Lauren; Wonder Woman (Life of Cosplay)
Albert Camus wrote that the only serious question is whether to kill yourself or not. Tom Robbins wrote that the only serious question is whether time has a beginning and an end. Camus clearly got up on the wrong side of the bed, and Robbins must have forgotten to set the alarm.
There is only one serious question. And that is: Who knows how to make love stay?
Answer me that and I will tell you whether or not to kill yourself. Answer me that and I will ease your mind about the beginning and end of time. Answer me that and I will reveal to you the purpose of the moon.
Excerpt from; "Still Life With Woodpecker, by Tom Robbins
(two of the impossible project black frame poor pod that I opened and sandwiched)
The Star Wars Question and Answer Book about Space. The personable droids from Star Wars answer all your questions about space: Are there Moon creatures? Can humans explore Mars? And more!
The sticker on the cover was added by a young Jedi Knight.
Random House; 1977.
The definitive answer to your Burning Questions."Why are Flamingos' knees backwards?" and, "You mind if I don't watch?"
I wish my shutter had been a little faster....but I was unprepared for this sudden action shot.
© All Rights Reserved
- This Too Shall Pass -
Impermanence (one of the essential doctrines or three marks of existence in Buddhism)
Once a king called upon all of his wise people and asked them,
"Is there a mantra or suggestion, an answer which works in every situation, in every circumstance, in every place, and in every time. Something which can help me when none of you is available to advise me. Tell me is there any such mantra?"
All the wise people were puzzled by the king's question. One answer for all questions? Something that works everywhere, in every situation? In every joy, every sorrow, every defeat and every victory? They thought and thought deeply.
After lengthy discussions, an old man suggested something which appealed to all of them. Going to the king the wise people gave him a small note written on paper. But the condition was that king was not to see it out of curiosity. They told him - "Oh wise one - only in extreme danger, when you find yourself alone and there seems to be no way to go, only then should you examine this note." The king placed the small rolled up paper in a compartment in his diamond ring.
After a brief time, their neighbors attacked the kingdom. It was a collective surprise attack of the king's powerful enemies. The king and his loyal army fought bravely but lost the battle. Then the king fled on his horse. His enemies followed him closely. His horse took him deep into the jungle.
Still he could hear many troops of horses following him and their galloping sound was coming closer and closer. Suddenly the king found himself standing at the end of the road - and that road lead no where - it was the end of the line. Underneath there was a rocky valley a thousand feet deep. If he jumped into it, he would be finished… and he could not retreat because it was a single lane. From behind him he heard the sound of his enemy's horses fast approaching. The king felt panicked and trapped. There seemed to be no way of out his present and dire situation.
Then suddenly he saw his diamond ring shining in the sun, and he remembered the message hidden in the ring. He opened the diamond and read the message. The message was very small but very great.
The message was - "This too will pass."
The king read it. And again read it.
Suddenly something struck his mind - "Yes! this too will pass. Only a few days ago, I was enjoying my kingdom. I was the mightiest of all the kings. Yet today, the kingdom and all my pleasures have gone. I am here trying to escape from enemies. Those days of luxuries have gone, this day of danger is here and it too will pass."
A calmness come to his face. He kept standing there. The place where he was standing was full of natural beauty. He had never realized that such a beautiful place was also a part of his kingdom. The revelation of the calming simple message had a great effect on him. He relaxed and forget about those following him. After a few minutes he realized that the noise of the horses and the enemy coming were receding. They had galloped onto some other part of the mountains and were not on that path.
Again time went by, and the king returned to his loyal army. The king was brave -- he reorganized his army and fought again. He defeated the enemy and regained his lost empire. When he returned to his empire after victory, he was received with much fanfare at the gates. The whole capital was rejoicing in the victory. Everyone was in a festive mood. Flowers were thrown on king's path from every house, and on every corner. People were all dancing and singing bursting with happiness.
At that moment the king said to himself, "I am one of the bravest and greatest kings. It is not easy to defeat me with my loyal army and great people." With the reception and celebrations he saw his ego begin to re-emerge.
Suddenly the diamond of his ring flashed in the sunlight and reminded him of the message. He open it and read it again: "This too will pass."
He became silent. His face went through a total change -- from the egoist he moved into an utterly humble state.
If this too is going to pass, it is not yours.
The defeat was not yours, the victory is not yours.
You are just a watcher. Everything passes by.
We are the witness of all this. We are the perceiver. Life comes and goes. Happiness comes and goes. Sorrow comes and goes.
Now as you have read this story, evaluate your own life. This too will pass. Think of the moments of joy and victory in your life. Think of the moments of sorrow and of defeat. Are they permanent? They have all come and then each pass away. Life just passes away. We can't go back, time travels only one way.
There were friends in the past. They all have gone.
There are friends today. They too will go.
There will be new friends tomorrow. They too will go.
There were enemies in the past. They have gone.
There may be an enemy in the present. They too will go.
There will be new enemies tomorrow and... they too will go.
There is nothing permanent in this world. Everything changes except the law of change. Consider this from your own perspective. You have seen all the changes. You have survived all setbacks, all defeats, and all sorrows. All have passed away. If there are problems in the present, they too will pass away. Because nothing remains forever.
Joy and sorrow are the two faces of the same coin. They both will pass away. Who are you in reality? Know your real face. Your face is not your true face. It will change with time.
However, there is something in you, which will not change. It will remain unchanged. What is that unchangeable? It is nothing but your true self.
You are just a witness of change. Experience it, understand it.
This Too Shall Pass - from a note given to me by a friend.
Statue of a Victorious Youth, 300-100 B.C.E, Getty Villa. This statue made of bronze inlaid with copper, depicting an Olympic winner wearing an Olive wreath was found submerged in international waters off the Adriatic coast.
Created for MMM Challenge 171 - Coffee.
Coffee image, from Pexels.
Cup with pop-art, from Pixabay.
There's NO AI in this image!
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
© All rights reserved. This image may not be copied, reproduced, distributed, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying & recording without my written permission. Thanks.
~ Thank you for visiting my photostream, for the invites, faves, awards and kind words. It's all much appreciated. ~
This is what I used as my prop for yesterday's mystery photo. Although I took this photo from much higher than I did for the original.
The mystery
www.flickr.com/photos/44506883@N04/33665879548/in/datepos...
Better viewed large and thank you for your favourites. :O)
I know I'm not alone on this... i worry if I'm making the right decision, or I'm frustrated with where my life isn't... and I can't seen to get any clear cut answers from my family or friends as to which direction to take.
And then I take the time to read it again... just like I have before, except this time the words just jump off the page and nail me straight in the heart... He knew all along that I would be right here, at this very moment in my life, and he had these words written over 2,000 years ago just for me... so I could see clearly the path that lies before me...
Thanks for not giving up on me...
On a less personal note... this young man is modeling for a friend of mine who runs an outreach program for incarcerated youth in the local jails. I was asked to help with some pics for their new brochure. I have this one and a couple more that I would love your critique on... thanks :)
This is my answer for the challenge in Get Pushed Round 15 that I got from Skippys1229
Chris has a photostream with fantastic macro shots and beautiful nature shots and lots more. Go check it out.
Here is what he wrote to me : " The month of December seems to bring two types of themes to mind. The first is "celebration" with all the holiday festivities leading up to Christmas and New Year's. The second is "reflection" as there are many year-in-review lists that go over certain important events that happened during the year. I would like to see something that expresses these two themes. The subject can be whatever you choose. Also, you can either have them expressed in the same shot, or you can frame it as a diptych."
This one got me thinking a lot! And that's good of course :)
I've been trying out the diptyching since this push was sent my way a lot with a tool I mostly operate from my Ipad. The app is called Diptic. It works very well I think. I can take my Nikon shots into the photostream and so forth. These photos I've also done a bit of processing on in Picnik.
Now for the presentation that I have chosen. The photo to the left is a snow flake ornament in my parents' Christmas tree (Celebration) and the shot to the right is from the sea close to my parents house (Reflection). Since when I look back on 2011 what comes to my mind the most are all the threats to nature and the meeting that took place in Durban, South Africa - unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245.php this november/december. Unfortunately it seems hard for the world to come to good solutions.
The climate changes are very present! This summer has been the rainiest and 'coldest' I can remember and this winter so far the 'warmest'. No snow here yet! Last year we had snow for almost 6 months!
The sea in the picture, I read yesterday, is short on oxygen! Which means that 'things' that live there cannot survive... I can only hope and try to do some of my share to save the Earth we've been given.
Happy New Year everyone!
Get Pushed group admins and all other members I'm thankful to you. This group is lots of fun :)
"Arise, arise, Riders of Théoden! Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter! Spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered, a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises! Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!"
A 12x12 vignette showcasing the courage and care for one another shown by the race of men in Middle-Earth. Built for MELO 2025 with the theme "free peoples vignettes" and the subtheme "men" as well as for the 12x12 vignette category of Summer Joust 2025.
Thanks for checking it out,
Math Wizard
Entry for the great MOCathalon!
Category 15: Brick Noir:
Foggy streets and mysterious figures, trench coats and fedoras, and cigarette smoke that seems to have a life of its own. Build a scene based on the dark crime films from the 1940's.
This family headstone in Earlham Cemetery, Norwich, reads –
In
Affectionate Remembrance
of
ELEANOR.
The Dearly beloved wife of
WILLIAM SHORTEN,
who fell asleep 19th March 1916,
aged 70 years.
Her end was peace.
Also of
WILLIAM,
died 31st Decr. 1929.
Aged 86 years.
Also of
GEORGE HENRY,
Dearly beloved son of the above
who died of wounds received in action in France
18th November 1916
Aged 36 years.
He answered his countrys call.
That soldier on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission website is:-
Private SHORTEN, GEORGE HENRY
Service Number:……………. 6147
Died:…………………………18/11/1916
Aged:……………………….. 36
Unit:………………………….1st Bn.
……………………………….Middlesex Regiment
Son of William and Eleanor Shorten, of 163, Oak St., St. Martin'S, Norwich. Native of Norwich.
Buried at ETAPLES MILITARY CEMETERY
Location: Pas de Calais, France
Cemetery/memorial reference: XII. E. 6A.
Source: www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/505794/shorten,-georg...
Soldiers Died in the Great War, an HMSO publication from the 1920’s, records that Private PW.6147 George Henry Shorten Died of Wounds on the 18th November 1916 while serving in France & Flanders with the 1st Battalion, Duke of Cambridge’s Own (Middlesex Regiment). He was formerly 9152, Royal West Surrey Regiment.
He was born St. Martin’s, Norwich and resident and enlisted Norwich
The Medal Index Card for Private PW/6147 George H. Shorten, Middlesex Regiment, is held at the National Archive under reference WO 372/18/55026
Beyond admin references, there is no additional information on the card.
Source: discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D5146868
He qualified for the British War Medal and the Victory Medal. This combination of medals would indicate he did not serve in a Theatre of War until on or after the 1st January 1916.
The associated Service Medal Roll shows that he only served overseas with the 1st Battalion, Middlesex Regiment.
His Service Records do not appear to have survived the incendiary attack during the Blitz on the London Warehouse where all the Other Ranks Army Service Records were stored.
The Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment Rough Register Of Recruits 1914-1917 shows him to have attested with that Regiment on the 27th March 1916.
No match on Picture Norfolk, the County Image Archive.
No obvious Soldiers Will or Civil Probate for this man.
The Army Register of Soldiers Effects, a financial ledger rather than an inventory of belongings, shows that Private PW6147 George Henry Shorten, 1st Battalion Middlesex Regiment died in France on the 18th November 1916. The balance of his pay would go to his father William in May 1917 – there was an initially a hold because there was believed to be a will, but this turned out not to be the case. Father William would also receive his sons’ War Gratuity when this was paid out in November 1919.
____________
The birth of a George Henry Shorten, mothers’ maiden name Porter, was registered with the Civil Authorities in the Norwich District of Norfolk in the April to June quarter, (Q2), of 1880.
The most likely marriage of his parents was that of a William Shorten to a “Helen” Porter recorded in the St. Faiths District of Norfolk in the July to September quarter, (Q3), of 1867.
1881 Census of England and Wales
The 11 months George H. Shorten, born St Martins, Norwich, was recorded living at Oak Street, Norwich. This was the household of his parents, William, (34, a Maltsters foreman, born Sprowston, Norfolk), and “Ellen”, (aged 33, born Blofield, Norfolk). As well as George their other children living with them are:-
Charlotte……aged 13……born Sprowston
William……..aged 10…….born Sprowston
Daniel……….aged 8……..born Sprowston
Arthur……….aged 6……..born Sprowston
Ernest……….aged 2……..born St Pauls, Norwich.
1891 Census of England and Wales
The Shorten family were recorded at 163 Oak Street, Norwich. Living with parents William, (45, Maltster) and Ellen, (46) were children Charlotte, (23, Tailoress), William, (21, Maltster), Daniel, (19, Railway Porter), Arthur, (17, Maltster), Ernest, (12), George H., (11) and new additions Ellen E., (9), Leonard W., (5) and Beatrice M., (10 months) – all born Norwich.
1901 Census of England and Wales
The Shorten family were still living at 163 Oak Street, and on this census schedule they are shown as living next door to a Maltings.As well as parents William, (54, Maltster) and Ellen, 56), children still single and living with them are Daniel, (28, Railway Porter), Arthur, (26. Maltster), Ernest, (22, Brewers Cooker), George, (20, Brewers Tun Room Labourer), Nellie, (18, Shirtmaker(?), working from home), Walter, (15, Maltster) and Beatrice, (10).
1911 Census of England and Wales
The Shorten family were still in residence at 163 Oak Street. Parents William, (64) and Eleanor, (66) state they have been married 43 years and have had 10 children, of which 7 were then still alive. Still single and living with them are George Henry, (31, Brewers Labourer), Ellen Elizabeth, (29), Walter Leonard, (25, Maltsters Labourer) and Beatrice Maud, (21, Tailoress, working from home).
Army Career…………………………………..
The Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment Rough Register Of Recruits 1914-1917 shows him to have attested with that Regiment on the 27th March 1916.
In a last ditch attempt to avoid the need the need for conscription, in the last six weeks of 1915 the Government tried the Group System, more commonly known as the Derby Scheme. Men could enlist in a unit of there choice but would then be sent home and placed in the Army reserve to await call-up. A single man like George Henry Shorten, born in 1880, would have been in Group 18. A national proclamation went out on the 16th February 1916 giving a months notice that Group 18 men would be required to report to their units from the 18th March 1916. I can only surmise that George was a Derby Scheme man, but it does seem likely. www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/a-soldiers-life-1914-191...
Struggled to find anyone with a near service number for his Middlesex Regiment to work when and what circumstances he changed unit. Most sources don’t include the prefixes in the indexing, and as soldiers of this period didn’t have a unique number, a service number like 6147 serving with the Middlesex Regiment can produce 6 or 7 matches.
PW/6137 Ernest William Watts doesn’t have any surviving service records, but he was killed in action on the 2nd November 1916 serving with the 1st Battalion. His entry in Soldiers Died in the Great War shows he was formerly 9155 Royal West Surrey Regiment. It also shows he was born and resident North Walsham, enlisted Norwich.
There is a Medical Admissons Register entry for a PW/6162 William Goodhew which shows him at the 28th General Hospital on the 30th August 1916, and was then serving with C Company, 26th Battalion. He had been in the Army 7 months and was aged 33.
PW/6166 David Hutchinson doesn’t have any surviving service records, but he was killed in action on the 23rd April 1917 serving with the 1st Battalion. His entry in Soldiers Died in the Great War shows he was formerly G/12350 Queen’s Westminsters.
So speculation but I suspect George may have reported to the Depot at Norwich at the end of March expecting to serve with the Norfolk Regiment. Instead he was posted to a training battalion of the Royal West Surrey Regiment. Subsequently in the late summer of 1916 he may well have beent sent as part of either a general draft or a draft intended for one of the fighting Royal West Surrey battalions in France. But on arrival in France he would have gone first to an Infantry Base Depot. While there he could well have been posted to the 1st Battalion of the Middlesex Regiment.
On the day…………………………………
George appears to have been medically evacuated back to the British Army area near Etaples and Rouen. He probably died in one of the many hospitals there. This makes it difficult to know when he might have incurred his fatal wounds.
An extract from the official Regimental War History, “The Die-Hards in the Great War” Volume 2 by Everard Wyrall, gives some idea of the likely actions in which George may have been wounded.
The enemy was attacked on 28th October, the objective of the Brigade being the German positions in front of Le Transloy, known as Rainy Trench and Dewdrop Trench, and the dug-outs and points north-east of the latter. Zero hour was 5.30 a.m.
"A" and "C" Companies led the attack of the 1st Middlesex, an attack splendidly successful, for by 9.30 a.m. the whole objective was in their hands and handed over to a relieving battalion (4th Suffolk Regt.) that night. That success was dearly bought, for one officer (2/Lieut. C.A.T. Benson) was killed and seven officers (Capt. E.W. Shaw, Lieuts. C.R. Smith and H.C.O. Buchanan, and 2/Lieuts. R.B. Holman, E. Auckland, R.A. Buckingham, and A.W.C. Hodges) were wounded; 35 other ranks were killed, 136 wounded, and 29 were missing-total all ranks, 208.
On relief the Battalion moved back to the Flers line. Back again into the line at Les Boeufs on 1st November until 3rd (2/Lieut. Billman was wounded on 2nd), thence to Carnoy and Meaulte (where they were told they were going "right back for a long rest"), followed by a move to Huppy, where they stayed until the morning of 5th December,.
Postscript………………………
His father, William, would subsequently claim a Dependants pension as a result of the loss of his son – (this relates to financial dependency so almost certainly George was having some of his pay sent to his father). A pension of 4 shillings a week was awarded from the 6th November 1917. As the pension was initially means-tested, William may not have originally qualified. His son is shown as Died of Wounds on the 18th November 1916 while serving as Private 6147 with the 1st Middlesex. The address for the claim is shown as 163 Oak Street, Norwich.
We had to say fair-well to our our old (C&W) answer phone; it was slowly becoming more doddery, confusing callers by mumbling inanely about something to do with messages.
Our new BT answer phone can send and receive text messages too!
One eye sees, the other feels.
Words by Paul Klee
A series I have been working on intermittently. No. 5/12
for Flickriver - Sophie Shapiro
Kent State May 4 Shooting Site, Kent State University, Kent, Portage County, Ohio
THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: THE SEARCH FOR HISTORICAL ACCURACY
BY JERRY M. LEWIS and THOMAS R. HENSLEY
On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H. R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct impact on national politics. In The Ends of Power, Haldeman (1978) states that the shootings at Kent State began the slide into Watergate, eventually destroying the Nixon administration. Beyond the direct effects of the May 4, the shootings have certainly come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that so sharply divided the country during the Vietnam War era.
In the nearly three decades since May 4, l970, a voluminous literature has developed analyzing the events of May 4 and their aftermath. Some books were published quickly, providing a fresh but frequently superficial or inaccurate analysis of the shootings (e.g., Eszterhas and Roberts, 1970; Warren, 1970; Casale and Paskoff, 1971; Michener, 1971; Stone, 1971; Taylor et al., 1971; and Tompkins and Anderson, 1971). Numerous additional books have been published in subsequent years (e.g., Davies, 1973; Hare, 1973; Hensley and Lewis, 1978; Kelner and Munves, 1980; Hensley, 1981; Payne, 1981; Bills, 1988; and Gordon, 1997). These books have the advantage of a broader historical perspective than the earlier books, but no single book can be considered the definitive account of the events and aftermath of May 4, l970, at Kent State University.(1)
Despite the substantial literature which exists on the Kent State shootings, misinformation and misunderstanding continue to surround the events of May 4. For example, a prominent college-level United States history book by Mary Beth Norton et al. (1994), which is also used in high school advanced placement courses.(2) contains a picture of the shootings of May 4 accompanied by the following summary of events: "In May 1970, at Kent State University in Ohio, National Guardsmen confronted student antiwar protestors with a tear gas barrage. Soon afterward, with no provocation, soldiers opened fire into a group of fleeing students. Four young people were killed, shot in the back, including two women who had been walking to class." (Norton et al., 1994, p. 732) Unfortunately, this short description contains four factual errors: (1) some degree of provocation did exist; (2) the students were not fleeing when the Guard initially opened fire; (3) only one of the four students who died, William Schroeder, was shot in the back; and (4) one female student, Sandy Schreuer, had been walking to class, but the other female, Allison Krause, had been part of the demonstration.
This article is an attempt to deal with the historical inaccuracies that surround the May 4 shootings at Kent State University by providing high school social studies teachers with a resource to which they can turn if they wish to teach about the subject or to involve students in research on the issue. Our approach is to raise and provide answers to twelve of the most frequently asked questions about May 4 at Kent State. We will also offer a list of the most important questions involving the shootings which have not yet been answered satisfactorily. Finally, we will conclude with a brief annotated bibliography for those wishing to explore the subject further.
WHY WAS THE OHIO NATIONAL GUARD CALLED TO KENT?
The decision to bring the Ohio National Guard onto the Kent State University campus was directly related to decisions regarding American involvement in the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States in 1968 based in part on his promise to bring an end to the war in Vietnam. During the first year of Nixon's presidency, America's involvement in the war appeared to be winding down. In late April of 1970, however, the United States invaded Cambodia and widened the Vietnam War. This decision was announced on national television and radio on April 30, l970, by President Nixon, who stated that the invasion of Cambodia was designed to attack the headquarters of the Viet Cong, which had been using Cambodian territory as a sanctuary.
Protests occurred the next day, Friday, May 1, across United States college campuses where anti-war sentiment ran high. At Kent State University, an anti-war rally was held at noon on the Commons, a large, grassy area in the middle of campus which had traditionally been the site for various types of rallies and demonstrations. Fiery speeches against the war and the Nixon administration were given, a copy of the Constitution was buried to symbolize the murder of the Constitution because Congress had never declared war, and another rally was called for noon on Monday, May 4.
Friday evening in downtown Kent began peacefully with the usual socializing in the bars, but events quickly escalated into a violent confrontation between protestors and local police. The exact causes of the disturbance are still the subject of debate, but bonfires were built in the streets of downtown Kent, cars were stopped, police cars were hit with bottles, and some store windows were broken. The entire Kent police force was called to duty as well as officers from the county and surrounding communities. Kent Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency, called Governor James Rhodes' office to seek assistance, and ordered all of the bars closed. The decision to close the bars early increased the size of the angry crowd. Police eventually succeeded in using tear gas to disperse the crowd from downtown, forcing them to move several blocks back to the campus.
The next day, Saturday, May 2, Mayor Satrom met with other city officials and a representative of the Ohio National Guard who had been dispatched to Kent. Mayor Satrom then made the decision to ask Governor Rhodes to send the Ohio National Guard to Kent. The mayor feared further disturbances in Kent based upon the events of the previous evening, but more disturbing to the mayor were threats that had been made to downtown businesses and city officials as well as rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and the university. Satrom was fearful that local forces would be inadequate to meet the potential disturbances, and thus about 5 p.m. he called the Governor's office to make an official request for assistance from the Ohio National Guard.
WHAT HAPPENED ON THE KENT STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS ON SATURDAY MAY 2 AND SUNDAY MAY 3 AFTER THE GUARDS ARRIVED ON CAMPUS?
Members of the Ohio National Guard were already on duty in Northeast Ohio, and thus they were able to be mobilized quickly to move to Kent. As the Guard arrived in Kent at about 10 p.m., they encountered a tumultuous scene. The wooden ROTC building adjacent to the Commons was ablaze and would eventually burn to the ground that evening, with well over 1,000 demonstrators surrounding the building. Controversy continues to exist regarding who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building, but radical protestors were assumed to be responsible because of their actions in interfering with the efforts of firemen to extinguish the fire as well as cheering the burning of the building. Confrontations between Guardsmen and demonstrators continued into the night, with tear gas filling the campus and numerous arrests being made.
Sunday, May 3 was a day filled with contrasts. Nearly 1,000 Ohio National Guardsmen occupied the campus, making it appear like a military war zone. The day was warm and sunny, however, and students frequently talked amicably with Guardsmen. Ohio Governor James Rhodes flew to Kent on Sunday morning, and his mood was anything but calm. At a press conference, he issued a provocative statement calling campus protestors the worst type of people in America and stating that every force of law would be used to deal with them. Rhodes also indicated that he would seek a court order declaring a state of emergency. This was never done, but the widespread assumption among both Guard and University officials was that a state of martial law was being declared in which control of the campus resided with the Guard rather than University leaders and all rallies were banned. Further confrontations between protesters and guardsmen occurred Sunday evening, and once again rocks, tear gas, and arrests characterized a tense campus.
WHAT TYPE OF RALLY WAS HELD AT NOON ON MAY 4?
At the conclusion of the anti-war rally on Friday, May 1, student protest leaders had called for another rally to be held on the Commons at noon on Monday, May 4. Although University officials had attempted on the morning of May 4 to inform the campus that the rally was prohibited, a crowd began to gather beginning as early as 11 a.m. By noon, the entire Commons area contained approximately 3,000 people. Although estimates are inexact, probably about 500 core demonstrators were gathered around the Victory Bell at one end of the Commons, another 1,000 people were "cheerleaders" supporting the active demonstrators, and an additional 1,500 people were spectators standing around the perimeter of the Commons. Across the Commons at the burned-out ROTC building stood about 100 Ohio National Guardsmen carrying lethal M-1 military rifles.
Substantial consensus exists that the active participants in the rally were primarily protesting the presence of the Guard on campus, although a strong anti-war sentiment was also present. Little evidence exists as to who were the leaders of the rally and what activities were planned, but initially the rally was peaceful.
WHO MADE THE DECISION TO BAN THE RALLY OF MAY 4?
Conflicting evidence exists regarding who was responsible for the decision to ban the noon rally of May 4. At the 1975 federal civil trial, General Robert Canterbury, the highest official of the Guard, testified that widespread consensus existed that the rally should be prohibited because of the tensions that existed and the possibility that violence would again occur. Canterbury further testified that Kent State President Robert White had explicitly told Canterbury that any demonstration would be highly dangerous. In contrast, White testified that he could recall no conversation with Canterbury regarding banning the rally.
The decision to ban the rally can most accurately be traced to Governor Rhodes' statements on Sunday, May 3 when he stated that he would be seeking a state of emergency declaration from the courts. Although he never did this, all officials -- Guard, University, Kent -- assumed that the Guard was now in charge of the campus and that all rallies were illegal. Thus, University leaders printed and distributed on Monday morning 12,000 leaflets indicating that all rallies, including the May 4 rally scheduled for noon, were prohibited as long as the Guard was in control of the campus.
WHAT EVENTS LED DIRECTLY TO THE SHOOTINGS?
Shortly before noon, General Canterbury made the decision to order the demonstrators to disperse. A Kent State police officer standing by the Guard made an announcement using a bullhorn. When this had no effect, the officer was placed in a jeep along with several Guardsmen and driven across the Commons to tell the protestors that the rally was banned and that they must disperse. This was met with angry shouting and rocks, and the jeep retreated. Canterbury then ordered his men to load and lock their weapons, tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd around the Victory Bell, and the Guard began to march across the Commons to disperse the rally. The protestors moved up a steep hill, known as Blanket Hill, and then down the other side of the hill onto the Prentice Hall parking lot as well as an adjoining practice football field. Most of the Guardsmen followed the students directly and soon found themselves somewhat trapped on the practice football field because it was surrounded by a fence. Yelling and rock throwing reached a peak as the Guard remained on the field for about 10 minutes. Several Guardsmen could be seen huddling together, and some Guardsmen knelt and pointed their guns, but no weapons were shot at this time. The Guard then began retracing their steps from the practice football field back up Blanket Hill. As they arrived at the top of the hill, 28 of the more than 70 Guardsmen turned suddenly and fired their rifles and pistols. Many guardsmen fired into the air or the ground. However, a small portion fired directly into the crowd. Altogether between 61 and 67 shots were fired in a 13-second period.
HOW MANY DEATHS AND INJURIES OCCURRED?
Four Kent State students died as a result of the firing by the Guard. The closest student was Jeffrey Miller, who was shot in the mouth while standing in an access road leading into the Prentice Hall parking lot, a distance of approximately 270 feet from the Guard. Allison Krause was in the Prentice Hall parking lot; she was 330 feet from the Guardsmen and was shot in the left side of her body. William Schroeder was 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when he was shot in the left side of his back. Sandra Scheuer was also about 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when a bullet pierced the left front side of her neck.
Nine Kent State students were wounded in the 13-second fusillade. Most of the students were in the Prentice Hall parking lot, but a few were on the Blanket Hill area. Joseph Lewis was the student closest to the Guard at a distance of about 60 feet; he was standing still with Four men sit staring at a candle-lit stage, on which there are portraits of the four Kent State students who died as a result of the firing by the Guard.his middle finger extended when bullets struck him in the right abdomen and left lower leg. Thomas Grace was also approximately 60 feet from the Guardsmen and was wounded in the left ankle. John Cleary was over 100 feet from the Guardsmen when he was hit in the upper left chest. Alan Canfora was 225 feet from the Guard and was struck in the right wrist. Dean Kahler was the most seriously wounded of the nine students. He was struck in the small of his back from approximately 300 feet and was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Douglas Wrentmore was wounded in the right knee from a distance of 330 feet. James Russell was struck in the right thigh and right forehead at a distance of 375 feet. Robert Stamps was almost 500 feet from the line of fire when he was wounded in the right buttock. Donald Mackenzie was the student the farthest from the Guardsmen at a distance of almost 750 feet when he was hit in the neck.
WHY DID THE GUARDSMEN FIRE?
The most important question associated with the events of May 4 is why did members of the Guard fire into a crowd of unarmed students? Two quite different answers have been advanced to this question: (1) the Guardsmen fired in self-defense, and the shootings were therefore justified and (2) the Guardsmen were not in immediate danger, and therefore the shootings were unjustified.
The answer offered by the Guardsmen is that they fired because they were in fear of their lives. Guardsmen testified before numerous investigating commissions as well as in federal court that they felt the demonstrators were advancing on them in such a way as to pose a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the Guardsmen, and they therefore had to fire in self-defense. Some authors (e.g., Michener, 1971 and Grant and Hill, 1974) agree with this assessment. Much more importantly, federal criminal and civil trials have accepted the position of the Guardsmen. In a 1974 federal criminal trial, District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed the case against eight Guardsmen indicted by a federal grand jury, ruling at mid-trial that the government's case against the Guardsmen was so weak that the defense did not have to present its case. In the much longer and more complex federal civil trial of 1975, a jury voted 9-3 that none of the Guardsmen were legally responsible for the shootings. This decision was appealed, however, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a new trial had to be held because of the improper handling of a threat to a jury member.
The legal aftermath of the May 4 shootings ended in January of 1979 with an out-of-court settlement involving a statement signed by 28 defendants(3) as well as a monetary settlement, and the Guardsmen and their supporters view this as a final vindication of their position. The financial settlement provided $675,000 to the wounded students and the parents of the students who had been killed. This money was paid by the State of Ohio rather than by any Guardsmen, and the amount equaled what the State estimated it would cost to go to trial again. Perhaps most importantly, the statement signed by members of the Ohio National Guard was viewed by them to be a declaration of regret, not an apology or an admission of wrongdoing:
In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, 1970 should not have occurred. The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the posting and reading by the university of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse. These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to have been lawful.
Some of the Guardsmen on Blanket Hill, fearful and anxious from prior events, may have believed in their own minds that their lives were in danger. Hindsight suggests that another method would have resolved the confrontation. Better ways must be found to deal with such a confrontation.
We devoutly wish that a means had been found to avoid the May 4th events culminating in the Guard shootings and the irreversible deaths and injuries. We deeply regret those events and are profoundly saddened by the deaths of four students and the wounding of nine others which resulted. We hope that the agreement to end the litigation will help to assuage the tragic memories regarding that sad day.
A starkly different interpretation to that of the Guards' has been offered in numerous other studies of the shootings, with all of these analyses sharing the common viewpoint that primary responsibility for the shootings lies with the Guardsmen. Some authors (e.g., Stone, 1971; Davies, 1973; and Kelner and Munves, 1980) argue that the Guardsmen's lives were not in danger. Instead, these authors argue that the evidence shows that certain members of the Guard conspired on the practice football field to fire when they reached the top of Blanket Hill. Other authors (e.g., Best, 1981 and Payne, 1981) do not find sufficient evidence to accept the conspiracy theory, but they also do not find the Guard self-defense theory to be plausible. Experts who find the Guard primarily responsible find themselves in agreement with the conclusion of the Scranton Commission (Report , 1970, p. 87): "The indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."
WHAT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTINGS?
While debate still remains about the extent to which the Guardsmen's lives were in danger at the moment they opened fire, little doubt can exist that their lives were indeed at stake in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. The 13-second shooting that resulted in four deaths and nine wounded could have been followed by an even more tragic and bloody confrontation. The nervous and fearful Guardsmen retreated back to the Commons, facing a large and hostile crowd which realized that the Guard had live ammunition and had used it to kill and wound a large number of people. In their intense anger, many demonstrators were willing to risk their own lives to attack the Guardsmen, and there can be little doubt that the Guard would have opened fire again, this time killing a much larger number of students.
A man and young boy stare up at a May 4th Memorial.Further tragedy was prevented by the actions of a number of Kent State University faculty marshals, who had organized hastily when trouble began several days earlier. Led by Professor Glenn Frank, the faculty members pleaded with National Guard leaders to allow them to talk with the demonstrators, and then they begged the students not to risk their lives by confronting the Guardsmen. After about 20 minutes of emotional pleading, the marshals convinced the students to leave the Commons.
Back at the site of the shootings, ambulances had arrived and emergency medical attention had been given to the students who had not died immediately. The ambulances formed a screaming procession as they rushed the victims of the shootings to the local hospital.
The University was ordered closed immediately, first by President Robert White and then indefinitely by Portage County Prosecutor Ronald Kane under an injunction from Common Pleas Judge Albert Caris. Classes did not resume until the Summer of 1970, and faculty members engaged in a wide variety of activities through the mail and off-campus meetings that enabled Kent State students to finish the semester.
WHAT IS THE STORY BEHIND THE PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING PHOTO OF THE YOUNG WOMAN CRYING OUT IN HORROR OVER THE DYING BODY OF ONE OF THE STUDENTS?
A photograph of Mary Vecchio, a 14-year-old runaway, screaming over the body of Jeffery Miller appeared on the front pages of newspapers and magazines throughout the country, and the photographer, John Filo, was to win a Pulitzer Prize for the picture. The photo has taken on a life and importance of its own. This analysis looks at the photo, the photographer, and the impact of the photo.
The Mary Vecchio picture shows her on one knee screaming over Jeffrey Miller's body. Mary told one of us that she was calling for help because she felt she could do nothing (Personal Interview, 4/4/94). Miller is lying on the tarmac of the Prentice Hall parking lot. One student is standing near the Miller body closer than Vecchio. Four students are seen in the immediate background.
John Filo, a Kent State photography major in 1970, continues to works as a professional newspaper photographer and editor. He was near the Prentice Hall parking lot when the Guard fired. He saw bullets hitting the ground, but he did not take cover because he thought the bullets were blanks. Of course, blanks cannot hit the ground.
WHAT WAS THE LONG-TERM FACULTY RESPONSE TO THE SHOOTINGS?
Three hours after the shootings Kent State closed and was not to open for six weeks as a viable university. When it resumed classes in the Summer of 1970, its faculty was charged with three new responsibilities, their residues remaining today.
A student holds a candle at night to remember the victims of the May 4th shootings.First, we as a University faculty had to bring aid and comfort to our own. This began earlier on with faculty trying to finish the academic quarter with a reasonable amount of academic integrity. It had ended about at mid-term examinations. However, the faculty voted before the week was out to help students complete the quarter in any way possible. Students were advised to study independently until they were contacted by individual professors. Most of the professors organized their completion of courses around papers, but many gave lectures in churches and in homes in the community of Kent and surrounding communities. For example, Norman Duffy, an award-winning teacher, gave off-campus chemistry lectures and tutorial sessions in Kent and Cleveland. His graduate students made films of laboratory sessions and mailed them to students.
Beyond helping thousands of students finish their courses, there were 1,900 students as well who needed help with gradation. Talking to students about courses allowed the faculty to do some counseling about the shootings, which helped the faculty as much in healing as it did students.
Second, the University faculty was called upon to conduct research about May 4 communicating the results of this research through teaching and traditional writing about the tragedy. Many responded and created a solid body of scholarship as well as an extremely useful archive contributing to a wide range of activities in Summer of 1970 including press interviews and the Scranton Commission.
Third, many saw as one of the faculty's challenges to develop alternative forms of protest and conflict resolution to help prevent tragedies such as the May 4 shootings and the killings at Jackson State 10 days after Kent State.
WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?
Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4 shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4 events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.
(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?
(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?
(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?
(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?
(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?
(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?
WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?
In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."
The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever Students gather in a circle, holding hands around a May 4th memorial to remember the victims of the Guard shootings.as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4 at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May 4 at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain.
RD17293. Question: When is an Avonside not an Avonside?
Answer: When it's a Hunslet like CHAKA'S KRAAL No.6!
This attractive looking 2ft gauge 0-4-2T was built by Hunslets in 1940, but to a design of the Avonside Engine Company of Bristol which the Hunslet Engine Company in Leeds had taken over in 1934. It spent its working life on a Sugar estate in Natal, South Africa, but now lives in retirement on the Toddington Narrow Gauge Railway in Gloucestershire.
Over the weekend 22nd - 24th June, 2018 however, CHAKA'S KRAAL No. 6 had a trip to the 2ft gauge Ffestiniog Railway in North Wales which held a gala to celebrate the 125th birthday of the 1893 built 2-4-0 ST/T Hunslets LINDA and BLANCHE.
Lots of other 2ft gauge engines built by the Hunslet Engine Company in Leeds also came to the party, so 'CHAKA' was in good company. In this shot it has just arriving back at Porthmadog harbour Station following a trip up the Welsh Highland Railway.
Sunday, 24th June, 2018. Copyright © 2018 Ron Fisher.