Re: [sixties-l] Vietnam Memorial and flags

From: monkerud (
Date: Fri Jun 23 2000 - 23:24:12 CUT

  • Next message: Joe McDonald: "Re: [sixties-l] Vietnam Memorial and flags"

    > You don't like loyalty tests, but that's exactly what you are
    >requiring of anyone who believes they are/were a radical activist or a
    >member of the Left, or whatever. The only homogeneity that existed at
    >the time was that the members were born in the same relative time
    >period(s) and that they were into rebellion (and rarely the same
    >rebellion as everyone else).

    You have a good point and I think we failed in that we didn't leave any
    form of organization behind. We split into many different groups with
    different agendas. I meant to point out what you say, "the only
    homogeneity" was that we were born at the same relative time period.

    Did I say anything about loyalty tests? I think not. Did I say antying
    about being inclusive or elitist? I think not. Actually many of the views
    here make good social democratic views, even democratic liberal views and
    that is sadly lacking from the political parties today. Our whole system
    has skewed to the right -- mostly in reaction to us I think.

    > Isn't it obvious to you from just the conversations on this list that
    >time has moved on? Most people do move on and come to different

    This leads to discussion which is what this list is all about.

    >Now you can call people stupid ("he's a musician after all") all you
    >want; that's your privelege.

    Maybe the after all was snide, my apologies. My point is that Joe cares
    more for music than politics and I can't put him down for that. I found his
    post yesterday both revealing and honest, "I hate politics. I love music."
    I'm much more concerned about the political landscape than I am about
    music. I love music too, especially meaningful music.

    > Did it ever occur to you that it isn't a question of "how little the
    >ideas that we put forth reached ordinary Americans", but rather how much
    >ordinary Americans rejected what we tried to forcefeed them. Maybe they
    >had viewpoints on these matters as equally valid as yours.

    You're full of understanding today. Good point. I never had any chance
    whatsoever to "forcefeed" anyone any ideas. But I did work for social
    change. Jesus, what was wrong with racism and imperialistic invasions of
    other countries. Those views are just as valid as mine.... This line of
    reasoning doesn't go very far does it? Our cultural changes were coopted
    and yet they make a difference in the kind of society we have today. Our
    political ideas resulted in a system that remains just as racist as always,
    a huge defense budget, the embargo with Cuba, and I can go on and on....

    And you're right again, where do we go from here?

    best, Don Monkerud
    >monkerud wrote:
    >> If Joe's views are supposed to be from the left, we're in bad shape. And
    >>yet his views reveal how little the ideas that we put forth reached
    >>ordinary Americans.
    >> We should perhaps cut the guy some slack ... he's a musician after all
    >>and apparently didn't learn much from being around the political
    >>movement. As one who defends cultural change, it's embarrassing how
    >>little political ideas seeped down to many who were supposedly in the
    >>same movement. I continue to find the same thing among some who lived at
    >>Black Bear. One woman even supports the Queen of England and the
    >>monarchy. Her son became a Gingrich follower.
    >> Americans have little background in politics and appear to make up their
    >>ideas as they go along and the flag issue is a prime example. We take our
    >>history from the movies, which invariably promote romance; boy meets girl
    >>above all else. Wrap it in the flag and it sells.
    >> While I agree that we shouldn't cannibalize the left, there are some
    >>limits. Don't we hold common positions, or are we more loose than that?
    >>I've always associated the American flag with patriots and those who
    >>believe "my country right or wrong," and that's what I hear in Joe's
    >>support of the veterans and his sacred flag.
    >> People burn flags as a protest. The right wing continues to attempt to
    >>past an amendment to the constitution to prevent flag burning, considered
    >>currently as free speech by the Supreme Court. It appears that Joe agrees
    >>with that amendment and while I agree with some of his thinking, his
    >>position surprises me as does his views of the shock troops of the
    >>empire, i.e. the soldiers.
    >> There are lots of reasons to support soldiers, i.e. they were too young
    >>to know any difference, they were brainwashed, they can come around in
    >>the future, but none of the veterans I know support them for their
    >>bravery. My veteran friends are angry, even angry with themselves for not
    >>knowing better than to go to Vietnam.
    >> As for the South Vietnamese flag, does Joe support an exile South
    >>Vietnam in San Jose? The discredited, corrupt military that was supported
    >>by the U.S. and "saved" from the communist continue to live and
    >>politicize in both San Jose and Los Angeles. They've murdered a number of
    >>journalists, they violently protest and threaten anyone in their
    >>community who attempts to reconcile with current day Vietnam ... and Joe
    >>supports them?
    >> They "lost their entire country"? Read Bright Shining Lie or other
    >>accounts to see what they lost... they were puppets for first the French
    >>and then the U.S. They milked the U.S. for personal fortunes while we
    >>sent our young boys to die for them. All to stop the tide of communist.
    >>Maybe we should insist upon flying the Czars flag too or the Boer flag?
    >>And why shouldn't Reagan "honor" the dead Nazis? They fought "bravely"
    >>and "sacrificed" themselves for their country?
    >> best, Don Monkerud

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 23:55:48 CUT