Paul Lauter wrote: While I agree with most of the points raised by Lauter, particularly with regard to the real reasons behind the country's swing to the right in the post-Vietnam years, there are two that I do have problems with. The 1968 protest in Chicago was primarily a protest against the war in Vietnam. Not only do I have my memories of that week but also photographs to prove it. I don't recall a single poster or placard that didn't have some connection to the war. Secondly, I see no analogy between this election and that of 1968. Outside of his support of the war, Humphrey's domestic policies were far to the left of Gore, from labor to welfare. The one-party two head system has moved so far to the right that by 1968 standards, Gore, not the Nader-threatened stump speaker, but the career politician, would have been a Republican. The Clinton-Gore Administration, with Prince Albert playing a key role, has effectively implemented much of the Republican agenda in terms of welfare reform, has left our health care system a wreck, has done more to erode our civil liberties than any previous administration, and, in the words of David Brower, done more harm to the environment than the Reagan, Bush administrations combined. It has also, with Gore and Lieberman playing key roles, been responsible for maintaining the sanctions against Iraq which have prevented the importation of needed medicines and life-saving equipment which are directly responsible for the deaths of more than a million and a half Iraqis. most of them One thing that the movement in 1968 recognized and acted upon was that fundamentally there is no difference between the two political parties and they acted upon it. If there was a gap in 68, there is even less so today. Now we are back to the lesser evil which got me out on the streets in 64 working for LBJ because Goldwater frightened me. We see where that got us. The political movement today, as I see it, is divided between those who have essentially given up and continue to buy into the lesser evil concept and those, who are supporting Nader and the Greens, who say the time to start the change is now. There was no such alternative in 1968, with all due respect to Clean Gene. While it might have been overly optimistic, I like the statement of Poet and Spoken Word performer Michael Franti who said, "If we started building a third party in 1980, we would be contending for power today." Jeff Blankfort SNIP > Finally, I think it's misleading to characterize the actions at the > 1968 Demo convention as those, simply, of the anti-war movement. It's like > saying Seattle was an expression of the Greens. 1968 was a kind of > coalition of folks coming from a variety of situations--after all, the > student movement was not coextensive with the anti-war movement, or vice > versa. I don't mean this to be nit-picking but rather to emphasize the > importance of precision in understanding the dynamics of the movement > then--or now. > > BTW, I wonder if there's an analogy in this election to 1968. Does > anyone now want to argue that Nixon's ascension over Humphrey had no effect > on progressive causes? Most movement folks blew off that argument in 1968. > To be sure, Bore isn't even the creep Humphrey was, but then again, Gush is > probably even more malign than Nixon. Paul > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:39:30 EDT > From: Sorrento95@AOL.COM > Subject: Re: [sixties-l] Critique of Bruce Franklin > > In a message dated 10/25/00 4:34:57 PM Central Daylight Time, > wmmmandel@earthlink.net writes: > > << On Michael Wright's closing point regarding the relative policies of > other former slave states regarding discriminatory executions of > Blacks and discriminatory disposition of bodies for dissection or the > families, my caveat was solely for the sake of careful scholarship. I > have no reason whatever to believe that the other states were better > than Virginia. > I have to say that Wright's position represents a particularly > short-sighted and old-fashioned form of white chauvinism. >> > > And Mandel's statement about me, while contributing nothing to > "careful scholarship," represents a "particularly short-sighted and > old-fashioned" form of name-calling. > > While denouncing my "position," he continues to evade dealing > with it. My position is that in this country's history, white radicals > who seriously and openly oppose the ruling elites have enjoyed > no special exemption from the axe of political repression because > of our skin color. While continuing to talk about what was done to > Blacks in the old South, he has yielded no data whatsoever to > contradict my statement. > > >Post-slavery law in the South. . .was specifically crafted and even > >more specifically enforced as a means of political terrorism against > >African-Americans. > > I don't doubt it for a minute. But before denouncing my "white > chauvinist" position, Mandel ought to examing the campaign > of violence and repression -- spanning for decades -- against labor > organizers and activists. They were mostly white folks, and > their white skins didn't protect them. For details I recommend > Robert Goldstein's book Political Repression in Modern America. > > Further, white Americans who visibly aligned themselves with > the black struggle in the old South also enjoyed no privilege. > Just ask the relatives of Viola Liuzzo and other whites who were > murdered (for example, of the Cheney, Schwerner, and Goodman > trio, two members were white). > > The left suffers from its own peculiar form of reverse racism, > which sees black suffering as sacred and repression against > white activists as insignificant. > > Serious scholars not contaminated with this form of PCism have > begun to recognize that working class whites in this country have > become the new scapegoats. For a series of informative commentaries > on this, go here: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA97/price/open.htm > > ~ Michael Wright > Norman, Oklahoma > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:11:04 +0000 > From: Bill Mandel <wmmmandel@earthlink.net> > Subject: Re: [sixties-l] Critique of Bruce Franklin > > Wright's penultimate paragraph is simply silly. I personally faced the > McCarran Committee (Senate) in 1952 for the crime of writing a book; > Joe McCarthy in 1953 for the same book and for an article in the > American Sociological Review; HUAC in 1960 for anti-Cold-War > broadcasts on Pacifica and also the San Francisco public TV station. I > was expelled from college permanently before my sixteenth birthday; > was blacklisted from academe for 22 years, 1947-69 (having been > invited to teach at Syracuse and to a post-doc at Stanford based on my > books despite like of formal education), from publishing for 18 > (1946-1964) after have had four publishing contracts, with advances > big enough to support my family on, in four years; from salaried print > journalism permanently at the end of World War II, after having > entered it at the top, with my own national byline; from professional > lecturing permanently as well, after having been under the management > of the same outfit that handled Eleanor Roosevelt. > So I know something about repression. But I have, obviously, not > been executed or lynched; never served more than one-day jail > sentences; never beaten by a cop although a participant in hundreds of > demonstrations, strike picket-lines, and you name it. > Friends of mine -- people I can say with confidence who respect > me as I respected them (see correspondence in my SAYING NO TO POWER) > - -- have served repeated substantial jail terms, have survived the war > in Spain, have been sunk on ships carrying Lend-Lease to Murmansk; > have been staked out to dry in the sun by the OSS at the end of their > usefulness to it behind the Italian lines in World War II; have been > beaten badly by the cops. I walked the Rosenberg children around Shea > Stadium one day when their parents were awaiting execution. > I repeat: I know what repression is. I am white. The people I > have spoken of in the paragraph above were (some still are; most > aren't any more) white and Black and Japanese-American. That whites > suffered political repression, up to and including execution, is fact. > It is also fact that the police and prosecutorial and judicial > psychology (fundamentally race prejudice) that results in the wry > expression, "driving while Black," extends into every manifestation of > repression, so that the longer sentences, more brutal treatment, > refusal of medical care in jail, being put in the hole, etc., etc., > etc., manifest themselves in directly political repression as they do > in the indirect repression that has made it possible to extract > super-profits from the lower wages paid to Blacks. > William Mandel > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:29:36 -0700 > From: Jerry West <record@island.net> > Subject: Re: [sixties-l] RE: Vietnam retrospective > > Lauter, Paul wrote: (RE Bruce Franklin piece) > > I suspect he's also closer to the truth regarding how widespread GI > opposition to the war became. > > JW reply: > > I can speak from personal experience in this area having been involved > in the GI anti-war movement in Japan in 1970. > > Although we had help from US, Canadian and Japanese civilians, > particularly in the churches, the movement at Iwakuni was spearheaded by > GIs with an active core group and a large number of sympathizers among > the ranks and even a number among the officers. > > The underground newspaper that we published frequently was circulated > widely and drew national attention in Japan. The movement also received > coverage in the national Japanese media, both newspapers and magazines. > > Stars and Stripes even had to run at least one rebuttal argument that I > know of. > > Common activities among the troops was to carry out mock sabatoge of > aircraft which caused delays in flight schedules. Stories came in from > RVN about troops avoiding combat and otherwise not cooperating. There > is no doubt in my mind that the war finally came to a halt when it was > apparent to Washington that the troops were unreliable on top of all of > the other problems that the administration was facing. > > Where I was stationed there was not significant participation by blacks > in the anti-war movement per se, as they were more concerned with the > racial issues of the time. However, there was communication between the > two groups and the anti-war movement gave full support to the blacks. > > There was a huge riot at the Brig at MCAS Iwakuni on July 4, 1970 which > involved both blacks and whites against the brass. This can not be > attributed to anyone cause, however, as there were a variety of > undercurrents at play. > > - -- > Jerry West > Editor/publisher/janitor > - ---------------------------------------------------- > THE RECORD > On line news from Nootka Sound & Canada's West Coast > An independent, progressive regional publication > http://www.island.net/~record/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:58:13 -0500 > From: Carrol Cox <cbcox@ilstu.edu> > Subject: Re: [sixties-l] RE: Vietnam retrospective > > "Lauter, Paul" wrote: > > > Third, I don't buy the theory that anti-Left activity derived mainly > > from a reaction to movement excesses in and after 1968. Yes, that was an > > element. > > There is a fundamental weakness to all arguments that ascribe left weakness to > left excesses. There will *always* be excesses (both "sincere" and created by > police provocateurs) -- so a left that can't flourish despite any and all > excesses is a left that isn't going anyplace. Complaining about left excesses is > like complaining about the weather. Excesses of all kinds are just part of > capitalist weather. There's a nice passage in the Anti-Duhring where Engels > lists all the hangers-on in any workers' movement. > > Carrol Cox > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 27 Oc 2000 09:56:03 -0400 > From: Ted Morgan <epm2@LEHIGH.EDU> > Subject: [sixties-l] Re. Movement "excesses" > > What Carrol argues may be true --about inevitable 'excesses' in Left organizing. > The point, though, is clearly to minimize them (at least unless they are seen as > tactically advantageous by movement organizers) so that (a) the content of the > movement's message has a chance to reach larger audiences, and (b) the movement that > these audiences "see" is appealing to them, draws them in, seems to be growing, > etc. A lesson can be learned, I think, from the disciplined organization of the > civil rights movement, though I am aware of (a) the sharp tensions within, and (b) > the fact that it didn't explicitly pose a radical critique of the system --much more > difficult to get through the media in any form! > > Ted Morgan > > Carrol Cox wrote: > > > "Lauter, Paul" wrote: > > > > > Third, I don't buy the theory that anti-Left activity derived mainly > > > from a reaction to movement excesses in and after 1968. Yes, that was an > > > element. > > > > There is a fundamental weakness to all arguments that ascribe left weakness to > > left excesses. There will *always* be excesses (both "sincere" and created by > > police provocateurs) -- so a left that can't flourish despite any and all > > excesses is a left that isn't going anyplace. Complaining about left excesses is > > like complaining about the weather. Excesses of all kinds are just part of > > capitalist weather. There's a nice passage in the Anti-Duhring where Engels > > lists all the hangers-on in any workers' movement. > > > > Carrol Cox > > ------------------------------ > > End of sixties-l-digest V1 #368 > ******************************* t
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/28/00 EDT