I found Marty Jezer's post re the Weatherpeople et al quite interesting.
I have at least two different kinds of problems in writing about the
sixties: the problem of writing about things I know firsthand and the
problem of writing about things I don't know firsthand. For example, I
chaired the meeting in New Haven that called for the National Student
Strike over Nixon's war in Cambodia. We were not in New Haven for that
reason but the announcement of the war coincided with the weekend in New
Haven. So I know some of what happened then and can correct certain
errors - e.g. Tom Hayden in Reunion says in an otherwise accurate
description that it was a meeting of "student leaders" that called for
the strike. I think the phrase is misleading. It was a meeting of some
people who happened to be there in New Havne for other reasons and who
saw a flyer for the meeting.
But the problem of writing about it is the problem of ego. How does my
involvement in the event color my interpretation of it?
The problem I have of writing about, say, the Weatherpeople or - perish
the mention - the Black Panthers is quite different. It is ignorance. I
know of them from afar rather than up close.
I can read Hugh Pearson's book and The Black Panthers Reconsidered and
trying to filter out the unnecessary heat find some light in the
Horowitz-others exchanges, but I still don't know the subject like I do
the way the strike got started.
Back to Marty Jerzey's post. It helps me see the Weatherpeople in a
context that has some ring of truth to it. I would like to know if
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 13 2000 - 19:03:20 CUT