I don't think the young rebels of today even know what the organizing styles of the 60s were. They are simply doing what makes sense to them at this point. I don't have any reason to believe they'll be inferior to the kids of the 60s in developing their own new styles as the need arises. Bill Mandel robert wrote: > At 11:22 AM 10/6/00 -0700, you wrote: > >Although I see Marty's point, and held a youthful contempt for those whom I > >considered conformist, I think Marty sees things too narrowly from his > >experience. People were attracted by what we were doing and joined us, we > >made allies in many places. We cannot be blamed for alienating those who > >disagreed with us; they were bound to hate us for what we represented > >anyway. > > > My "narrow" view of community organizing efforts of the late 60s > corroborates Marty's in the main. We didn't go out of our way to antagonize > the "straights" -- what happened in brief was that we grew increasingly out > of touch with reality, particularily intractable political power realities > -- especially in the center cities, and offended some the people we should > have trusted or at least tolerated. As our organizing strategies failed > (in terms of our own expectations), we evolved more ideological ones along > with defensive attitudes which inadvertently rubbed a lot of people the > wrong way -- unnecessarily leading to the realization of the greater rather > than to the lesser of the "evils" options available. > > The "Right" (whatever that means) had a life of its own, as others have > pointed out. But there was a reciprocity and a tit for tat going on as well > - which explains the quickening pace of polaraization towards the end of > the 60s. Sorry to be so abstract. True, as Bill has pointed out with the > HUAC hearings, there was a reaction to the underlying conservatism of the > 50s; and at the same time, there was a backlash to the faster, sexier and > larger movement of the radical movement on campuses. Some of the frat and > club guys who were in the minority on campus during the late 50s and early > 60s took their revenge typically as federal prosecutors of hippie drug > dealers in the 80s. (not only by revamping the Republican party). > > In any case, it's important for us as the vets to evaluate those aspects > of our work that did lead to polarization and those that didn't. The > discrimination of responsibility might be useful to the kids who seem to me > to be making too uncritical an application of 60s organizing styles to a > much different power structure and media context. (e.g. "How many kids did > the World Bank kill today?"). > > robert houriet > > >One strong point would be to examine the GI movement. At first we degrade > >the GIs but that quickly changed as we turned to supporting them with a > >Bring the Troops Home focus. I recall talking to many GIs at Fort Hood > >Texas back then and feeling that we had much in common, and they displayed > >no hostility to us and what we were about. We were all in the same boat. > > > >best, Don > > > > > >At 10:04 AM -0700 10/6/00, William M Mandel wrote: > >> Marty: > >>Your initial post did not leave the impression that our net impact was > >>positive. That's why I responded as I did. I'm not even sure that your > >>examples of negative activities would stand up to careful examination. > >>Males doing physical labor today often wear beards. They most definitely > >>did not before the Sixties. They smoke pot, which they did not previously. > >>They largely turned to the music which the activists liked. They sure as > >>hell ate up Country Joe's, "Gimme an F--". > >> Bill Mandel > >> > >>Marty Jezer wrote: > >> > >> I don't quite understand the arugment here, Bill. I agree with you that > >>things are better today, at least in this country, in the areas of civil > >>rights, human rights, and issues of personal freedom (which is not to say > >>that they're great). But we, in the sixties, did do stuff that fueled the > >>backlash and, IMHO, made it a lot more severe than it needed to be. > >> > >>Marty Jezer > >> > >> > >>At 07:30 PM 10/4/2000 -0700, you wrote: > >> > >>The fact remains that nothing won in the field of civil rights has been > >>lost, that gay rights are at this moment in better shape than ever before, > >>and that, considering all the multifarious criteria for measuring the > >>status of women, the same probably obtains there as well. Consider the > >>latest: the legalization of the at-home abortion pill. > >> This does not mean that cops don't engage in racial profiling. T > >> > >> Marty Jezer * 22 Prospect Street * Brattleboro, Vermont 05301Check out > >>my web page: <http://www.sover.net/~mjez>http://www.sover.net/~mjezTo > >>subscribe to my Friday commentary, simply request to be put on my mailing > >>list. It's free! > >> > >> Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; > >> name="wmmmandel.vcf" > >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >>Content-Description: Card for William M Mandel > >>Content-Disposition: attachment; > >> filename="wmmmandel.vcf" > >> > >>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:wmmmandel.vcf 3 (TEXT/ttxt) (0002BA83) > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/11/00 EDT