The communistic view of Mr. Pardun resulted in a broken finger, this did not seem to change his view or make him a communist, but by the varied definition or lack there of at the time lead one person to deem him as such. The term communist in the article came to have a very different meaning to very different people. The basic concept that if you were not for the ways of the current government then you were against it and thereby a communist, or in terms of your beliefs in the Vietnam War, if you were not for the war then you were deemed to be against it and termed a communist. With the vast differences in cultures, made the Universities ideal breading grounds for communists, and people that wanted to bring about a new understanding of the world and open up to a new understanding were quick to be deemed communists. The only consistent in the communist label is that there was no consistency. To be a communist was only a label that one threw out if they were not able to find anything else to label you. With the civil rights movement, people were easily labeled by the color of their skin or with the group to which you associated, but with a group that was made up of people that were trying to figure out there place in a society that was still trying to figure out its place

Pardun describes the word communist at the beginning of his article as being someone who wants to take over America and had "no respect for human life." He soon changes his mind throughout the article due to his experiences in Texas. In Texas, being a communist was anyone who "took a stand on racism or on the Vietnam War." Basically a communist in Texas at that time was anyone who challenged the Conservative's viewpoints and actions and pushed for social change. This doesn't seem fair to label these people as communists, when there were still black people being beaten and killed in the streets and nothing is being done about it. I don't understand how people who look to bring about social reform and make America a more tolerant and more equal nation can be labeled communists, while the group who is labeling them communists are watching blacks being denied service and the right to vote in a "free" America. I believe that the Conservatives and people who were quick to label others as communist, were the ones practicing social injustice. These people were uneducated about what a communist really was and didn't realize that all these social reformers were trying to do was make a change in America so the "free" nation could actually be a true example for other communist nations.

In this article, Pardun explains that being a communist in Texas (or in the United States in general) during the 1960's meant nothing more than being a supporter of change. Two high-profile and extremely controversial issues were on the front burner during this period, and those who did not take the same stance as the American government were over-simplified and labelled as "communists" - a term that struck fear into the hearts of all those who loved their country and what it stood for but were not completely informed on the situation or its causes. As time passed, Pardun's view of what a communist was changed, much like it has for many Americans. He grew up believing that communism was evil, a threat to freedom, equality, and all that our country stands for. As time passed, he began to see the contradiction-- he realized that many communists were nothing more than Americans seeking a true interpretation of the American way. In fact, he realized that in being a supporter of civil rights and the anti-war campaigns, he too had become a communist -- a term thats definition was far different than its connotation. I agree with and understand what Pardun is talking about in this piece. I think that it is much more widely accepted and known amongst the people of today that communism was a blanket term used by the government, etc. to scare people away from their freedom of speech and expression. On the other hand, I always thought that it was sort of a thing of the past, and it really surprised me when he brought it up again in the context of terrorism. It's shocking and really scary that all of this could happen (and may already be happening) again, and like in the past, be slipping right past the people of America without much attention to its illogicalness.

In the beginning of the excerpt, Pardun describes communism as and “evil incarnate” that was foreign. According to him, communists did not care about human life so the US had to threaten them with nuclear weapons to keep them in check. However, this definition changes over the course of the excerpt. When Pardun’s SDS group picketed a restaurant in Austin they were met with yells of people calling them “nigger lovers” and “communist.” By this new definition one did not have to be foreign or in a position of power in order to be communist. Regular everyday people could be communist. Pardun says that “all you had to do was take a controversial stand on racism or the Vietnam War.” Personally, I think these definitions of communism are due to the fear of the American Public. Americans had fears of things that they saw as threatening. They saw communism as being threatening. During the civil rights era, many saw integration as threatening to their way of life so people who were fighting for integration were unfairly labeled as being communists.

At the beginning of his account of SDS involvement in 1960’s Texas, Robert Pardun described his “deep, abiding fear of communism” as a child, fearing that “the world could end at any time”, though he and his generation had no “real idea what [communism] was” (50). This detail confirmed my understanding of American’s deep-rooted and intense fear of communism during this time, though they didn’t even really understand what it was or what it meant. It was particularly striking to me when Pardun comments, after arriving at the University of Texas at Austin and becoming involved in understanding political thoughts through historical context, that “it never occurred to [him] that [those teaching] might be some of the dreaded communists” (51). People, Pardun learned, used the label ‘communist’ for anyone that would “take a stand on racism or the Vietnam War” (53). This definition is intentionally vague and general because Pardun is trying to express the fact that people feared anyone willing to question the government’s actions or to seek change. The government and other authorities could easily strike a chord of fear within the heart of mild American society by labeling acts of protest or interrogation as “communist” because of America’s blinding and obsessive fear of this masked communism.

Upon reading this article, I was amazed by the over-usage of the term “communist”, and with a meaning that does not coincide with my previous understanding. I understood the term “communist” in regards to a social and economical theory of equalism, but Pardun accounts that, during the 1960’s, it was simply a term the fearful used to label those social ‘radicals’ advocating change. I do not, however, have the social reference or innate fear of communism as that of a 1960’s parent who put 100% faith in the government.

People fear change, and as a result, fear those who advocate change. It was certainly not hard to be a communist in 1960’s Texas, as all one had to do was ask the government “WHY?”

Communism, as defined in a simple dictionary, is a system of government that makes progress toward a higher social order. But in "It Isn't Hard to be a Communist," Pardun finds that the definition those are using in the 1960s and the society he is in is much farther from what Americans would consider Communism today. Pardun begins to define communism as a definition we are used to hearing today but as he continues to live in Austin he finds that communism is no more than a label. He becomes a simple term to anyone who is seeking change in America. If you had "radical views" according to the US, automatically, without question, you were labeled right then and there.
The fact that if I were to disagree with any area of civil rights or the Vietnam War then I could automatically be labeled as a communist astonished me. Just because I may not agree with one aspect of the Vietnam War didn't mean that I was against the world and trying to change the way things were run. Communism was labeled to those who were ready to change ideas in society, yet the US couldn't handle the fact that change may actually be a good thing and in that took their fears out against those who had views on their society and attacked them.
If I were to hear the word communist today I would not have a good opinion of that person because there is a valid definition of today's label of a communist. But had I heard someone labeled as a communist in the 1960s I might have thought different.

It wadn't hard to be no commie in Tejas, Question One.

By "Communist," Pardun means anyone on the left, in that anyone who was pro war and anti desegragation was "right" (in the terms of right and wrong), and that anyone who disagreed was a traitor commie socialist. Simply, anyone with a dissenting view on the government or their actions was labeled as a communist, despite the fact that these Americans were the most patriotic: they wanted changes that they felt would better the nation. They wanted desegregation, they wanted peace.

It is only reasonable to expect, therefore, that these reasonable people, when faced with unreason, kept going further and further away from the "mainstream" in a vain attempt to right what they felt were wrongs. Towards the end of the article, Pardun had become a true communist simply by reaction; he had been turned into one by the ignorance/stupidity of those around him.

Pardun in "It Wasn't Hard to be a Communist in Texas" explains that the word communist is simply attached to anyone who takes a "controversial stand on racism or the Vietnam War." Basically Pardun means that all people who are advocates of change or don't conform to the conservative ways of society and government are considered communists. The loose use of this word gave the government an easy justification to threaten those they deemed "radicals." The term communist at first went from someone who wanted to end the world to someone who protested for social change. Both of these beliefs had nothing to do with the literal definition of a communist: a person whose an advocate for a classless society. This just shows how people will go to any length to prevent change. During that era everyone who wasn't considered a communist was afraid to break away from the conservative societal beliefs because it was the un-American thing to do, and labeling anyone who did was a way of justifying their false beliefs.

The author of the Port Huron Statement states that “apathy [was one of the] defining characteristics of American college life”. He argues that students even had “apathy toward apathy”. This apathy was caused largely by the administration of the universities, who served as the “moral guardian of the young”. By being in charge of extracurricular activities like student government, the administration was able to inflict their values on the students at the expense of the free thoughts and activities of these students. The problem, however, was that many students accepted this “parent-child” relationship.

Many reasons are listed in the Port Huron Statement as to why the universities are the optimal location for social change. The author states that “the university is located in a permanent position of social influence” and is the “central institution for organizing, evaluating, and transmitting knowledge”. Thus, “the university is a community of controversy, within itself and in its effects on communities beyond”. I think using universities as a starting point for a social movement such as this is a practical idea because universities are forums for free speech and thought. It would allow students to move their focus from their academic or social statuses and instead concentrate on their “real intellectual status”. An attempt to rally young, optimistic students for a cause such as this is both realistic and desirable.

In this excerpt, Pardun describes a communist as a person seeking change. He talks about people in the South getting beat up and called communists just because they were protesting for civil rights, or because they were protesting the Vietnam war. Communism was feared by many people, especially the people of the 1960's. The USA was dubed the greatest nation because of the democracy and the freedom here. But the USA is also anti communist. The government would just sit back and watch as people in our own country were beaten and killed over fighting for the Civil Rights Movement, but they would in turn actively try to help in the war going on in Vietnam. This made many people upset, as it should have, because the government was basically saying that the war in Vietnam was more important than the ongoing war of racism was in the USA. So by Pardin describing communist as a person seeking change, a person fighting for civil rights, and a person who was against the Vietnam War, I understand so much more about how our government acted towards change and how they were quick to call someone who was for civil rights and against the Vietnam War a communist, even if they had no real proof that they were in fact a communist.

Pardun means that it was not hard to be labeled as a Communist in Texas. The term was used to encompass anyone that was not in the majority, or did not like the status quo. Pardun starts off using the term, “communism”, in the way we are used to hearing it defined, as “evil incarnate”. As he goes through his self- discovery, he realizes that communism is just a term used to label and scare people.
This article, and the emphasis he puts on knowing the history, and context of political situations, reminds me of what is going on in the world today. Most people do not know the history of the Middle East, (how it was colonialized by Europeans, and the arbitrary divisions of people and the setting up of puppet governments) the people who do know the context of the situation, are labeled as anti-American. I feel like this article not only describes what Pardun went through, but that he uses this to tell his audience to not be scared of the government, to do what is right. I like how he challenges the status quo at the end, by wondering what they will call him next.

In 1962, the publication of "The Port Huron Statement" by the Students for a Democaratic Society (SDS) described the values they held that are vastly different from the values we have today. Today values are based on certain rights. We have the rights to live and pursue happiness, and equality. Therefore we value equality, and fullness of life, and freedom. SDS began asking questions like "What is really important? if we wanted to change a society how would we do it?" to find out what they really value. Their own social values dealt with "conceptions of human beings, human relationships, and social systems. They saw value in human life, and saw it as being precious, having great capacity to "reason, freedom, and love." They critiqued the society of the day because the society saw potential for violence in every human, when the SDS saw potential for "self-cultivation, self-direction, self-understanding, and creativity." The society of the day was also concerned more about the image of popularity when SDS saw the meaning of life to be much richer and full of potential in many areas. I think this argument can hold today. Today the media shows what we as a culture value, namely fame, popularity, sex, money, and power. We don't value the potential of humans, the potential to love, be creative, to reason. The SDS wanted a society to be full of these values, which are not evident in our society today. I think their argument is effective. They point out the society of the day, and specifically what they value. Then they describe the values of their "perfect society." However, they do not back it up with enought reasons, in my opinion, why they should choose the SDS's values over the current society's values.

The rapid spread of the read scare brought change thoughout the nation. The typical communist was no longer the Russian people who advocated a political system of equal economics for everybody. The word became a label for anybody who wanted change, and the government used this as a way to try to be-rid the want everybody had for change. People strongly felt that American troops should not be in Veitnam, and the government was constantly trying to cover this. They did this by trying to make people think that the radicals were "communists" so as to make people shun the idea that government was making a mistake. I think the whole communist scare showed a huge weak spot in our country, and people were just pointing fingers to try to cover this week spot. I hope that we can look back on this now and keep control under our current situation with the fear of terrorists. Profiling in itself is an act of discrimination, and while it can never become extinct, we should try our best to keep it at a minimum.
David Weibel

As Pardun begins to investigate the true goings-on of the Vietnam War, he realized that people were scared to face the facts. As with the civil rights movement, Americans were not prepared for change. He did not support communist activities; he simply wanted to understand the facts. The more he delved into the details of the matter, the more he realized that he had been misinformed. He came to understand the word “communist” as being associated with people who were ready to change the corrupt ideals of American society. They were met with opposition at first, but later they were accepted as more and more people began to realize what was happening. Communism was a changing term that needed to be explained in order to be understood. By teaching people, the SDS brought more people to the “communist” side of matters. Without the hostile viewpoints, there would have been no need for change. But because the need for change arose, I think it was appropriate for Pardun and others to take action to ensure that American democracy prevailed over ignorance.

In “It Wasn’t Hard to be a Communist in Texas”, Pardun uses the word Communism in a completely different meaning than what we today would consider Communism. The political theory holds that everyone in a society would be equal after the proletariat rises up against the upper class; there will be a classless society. American democracy greatly feared the spread of this movement and thus put a communist label on all things that proved capable of causing changes. In this article, Communism is simply having radical views about heated issues in America and this time period. Whether they were for civil rights or against the Vietnam War, they were still Communist, even though it had nothing to do with the literal communist theory. During this time period, the meaning was constantly evolving from its original political meaning. It became little more than a label thrown at somebody who was considered un-American or wanting of radical changes. As new controversial issues emerged, there were more ways for which people could be labeled communists. It was simply an excuse to fight against these reformers.
This shows just how vulnerable and afraid our country really was at this time. Rather than risk the chance of witnessing change and reform, they attacked and framed many of their own people. It became a witch-hunt that was used to stall many radical changes. The whole controversy showed me that the issue in American society itself was no so much the spread of “Communism” but more the spread of change. They used the fear of Communism to their advantage to force correlations between reform and Communism when in reality they were very far apart.

The term communist according to Pardun is basically anyone who is taking a stand for civil rights. Well, it's not his definition, but he grew to find out that if your labled as some type of radical or you go against the norms of American Democracy as this point in time you were considered a communist. Pardun describes several times throughout the story how easy it is to be a communist, because just about anything that you do that represents change qualifies you to fit in this category. However, I was under the impression that being a communist meant that there was no social class definiton and that everyone was on equal ground in every aspect. But this is not what i believe to be true. There is a grave difference between someone who wants everyone to be equal in economics, and social standing and someone who wants everyone to have a fair chance at earning their economic status and social standing. These are two entirely different beleifs and it is those who are ignorant that dont see it that way. These students are handeling their beliefs in an organized and rational way and they are a symbol that America need's to change and start standing for what they say they stand for.

Communism is technically defined as a form of government where there is no class distinction, but everything is equally shared. However, in "It Wasn't Hard to be a Communist in Texas", a communist, opposed to the dictionary term, was someone who both supported the civil rights and ending the Vietnam War. At first, a communist was a feared person who could destroy the world, but progressed to be someone who merely wanted social change. In Texas, anyone could be a communist- for example, an "anticommunist" was considered a form of a communist! I think that the term "communist" was thrown around way too easily because of absurd fears ignited by both ignorance and the government.
Culture molded Americans to relate communists with world-destructing powers; for example, with all of the nuclear attack alarms, of course everyone would fear anything associated with communism. This fear came from exaggeration of the communists’ powers and lack of historical knowledge. It makes me angry that uninformed people were so quick to label others as communists, just because these so- called communists held controversial, yet harmless, opinions. The government, instead of provoking these social injustices, should have guaranteed the rights of the first amendment to everyone, no matter what their opinions were.