Re: Scope of subjects for KOREAN-WAR-L

[Janet Valentine <valent03@bellsouth.net>]

I don't want Ms. Gramling to take the heat for my musings.  That's my
posting you're responding to, Tommy.  As the son of a college prof your
experience wouldn't have been entirely typical.  That group is
noticeably better educated and generally better informed about current
events.  I can't say I'm surprised that ROTC enrollment increased on
college campuses - serving as an officer was surely preferred by
educated males over serving as a ranker.  And, although you may have
learned about the war from your grade school teacher adults didn't have
an authority figure telling them they had to pay attention to what was
happening in Korea, nor did they have anyone making sure the information
was where they couldn't ignore it.  If you're interested you might want
to take a look at George Q. Flynn, " The Draft and College Deferments
During the Korean War," _The Historian_ 50 (1988): 369-385 and Edward A.
Suchman et. al. , "Attitudes Toward the Korean War," _Public Opinion
Quarterly_, V.17, Issue 2 (Summer, 1953): 171-184.  A guy named Kerrin
also wrote a pretty good dissertation on the Korean War in American
memory.

Cheers,
Janet Valentine

Tom Hickcox wrote:
> 
> At 10:09 4/30/01, Gernilee Carter Gramling wrote:
> 
> >One has to question Safire's assertion that Americans were united during
> >the Korean War.  Research indicates that although there was virtually no
> >overt protest of the war, popular support for the war was at least as
> >low as it was during Vietnam.  In addition, it is my understanding that
> >in the beginning there was no intention of making Korea a limited war.
> >That came rather more from necessity.
> 
> I was a lad of 10 when it broke out, the child of a college prof.
> 
> I can say it appeared to increase the popularity of ROTC many fold.
> 
> Tommy

-- 
"Well behaved women rarely make history."
                               Laurel Thatcher Ulrich