Re: "Pro-democracy" movement (fwd)
Thu, 13 Jun 1996 14:45:21 -0400

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 14:11:20 -0400
Subject: Re: "Pro-democracy" movement

This message was submitted by to list If you forward it back to the lis=
it will be distributed without the paragraphs above the dashed line. You ma=
edit the Subject: line and the text of the message before forwarding it bac=

If you edit the messages you receive into a digest, you will need to remove
these paragraphs and the dashed line before mailing the result to the list.
Finally, if you need more information from the author of this message, you
should be able to do so by simply replying to this note.

----------------------- Message requiring your approval -------------------=

Subject: Re:  "Pro-democracy" movement

This is in reply to Ted Morgan's post in which he comments that some approaches to interpreting the sixties focused "on the ways in which the system was successfully reformed and/or fought back thus putting on hold th= e evolution of phase two of our =91pro-democracy' movement."

I have several questions. First, could you please be more specific in the ways that you believe the system has been "successfully reformed and fought back?" I have admired your posts in the past and would like to reply in mo= re depth, but it would be useful to know how much we agree, or disagree, on wh= at reforms were successfully accomplished. Secondly, what do you mean by "pro-democracy" movement. It sounds like a political sound bite bereft of any substantive meaning. While I think democracy is wonderful concept, and that the sixties certainly didn't disavow it, I don't think the movement really focused on that issue. Calling the sixties a "pro democracy movemen= t" may have some political utility, but it's not particularly accurate. Finally, what do you mean by stating "putting on hold the evolution of pha= se two?" Is that a polite way of saying: "We've done our bit, it's not our problem anymore." I, for one, see no sign of "phase two," although the new "Politics of Meaning" does intrigue me.

By the by, the name is Martin, not Marty. My full name is David Martin, which I'm reluctant to use because it is very common (there used to be a fu= ll page of them in the Chicago directory) and some of them, such as the newscaster, are well known. To avoid any possibility of confusion, "Martin= " seems to be a more appropriate way of identifying myself. As for Marty, it seems like a nice enough name, but it is not mine and I believe that someon= e else is already using it. Since Martin was the only name I was known by in the first twenty two years of my life, I feel much more comfortable with it= .. Martin =20