Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:23:30 -0800 (PST) From: jim Dingeman <jimdingeman@yahoo.com> Subject: The Sixties discussion at Barnard last night I want to thank the organizers of the event at Barnard last night for fusing together ruminations of differences and similarities between the sixties and present activism. It was thoughtful and provocative. I personally think these type of discussions should go on a regular basis with differing perspectives of then and now explored. A comment written in the early seventies came to mind after I left the forum and that is that during the sixties,especially the late sixties, every year became a new generation. People who became radicalized in 64' were different to some extent than people who became radicalized in 67',68',69' and afterwards. Another question to be explored would be the entire gamut of the counter-culture and how that interacted in depth with what was happening then and what functions this way now in contrast-i.e,hip-hop,rap,etc. The relationship of artistic expression and its relationship to political activism in all its forms is another intriguing issue to think about and talk about. The rise of avant guard performance art/theater thrust itself immediately into the political/cultural milieu of the day. The issue of the utility or lack thereof of involving oneself in the electoral process is another issue that resounds today. I am sure many people involved in the Nader Campaign might have been involved in the Robert Kennedy/McCarthy/McGovern efforts of that era. Some of the very same issues arise today and a thoughtful back and forth on them is important. The Gay movement and the Woman's Movement is another aspect of what happened that most certainly re-emerged and took shape in many forms that remain with us today. Obviously, the complex issue of the Civil Rights Movement, the rise of the Black Power Movement and the phenomena of groups like the BPP need to be thoughtfully examined with a lively interchange between activists of fortyish and fityish ilk and younger folks. The thorny issue of the question of armed struggle (always a tough topic to discuss) was raised by several speakers and is deserving of more thoughtful, probing and non-hagiographic examination. Some of us back then had serious difference and problems with the plunge of some into the Weather Underground and other manifestations of revolutionary discontent and expression. King Downing raised the issue of COINTELPRO and the uncanny drudging up of similar tactics in the Puppet Raid in Philly. These issues deserve serious and CRITICAL attention. At the same time, the left sometimes because of the REALITY of government repression has been unwilling to place its own practices in front of a self-critical mirror. I have seen time and time again any dissidence with a DOMINANT LINE dismissed as the perspective of agents provocateurs/COINTELPRO. This summary attitude to dissonant views is a aspect of movement culture that has lingered to this day and must be thoughtfully pondered with the legitimate fears and REALITIES of government repression, again a topic for a night in and of itself. My problem in the sixties with the SMASH THE STATE rhetoric was that all successful revolutions (FRENCH,BOLSHEVIK,CHINESE,CUBAN,etc.) had depended on the winning over of the armed apparatus of the state or at least its neutralization . The French Army of Louis XVI DID NOT intervene in 1789 to smash the summer revolts in Paris. The Russian Army of 1917 led the February revolt in 1917 that toppled the Tsar and set up Revolutionary Committees throughout the entire military. One MAJOR problem of the anti-war movement in the early years was its stance and relationship to the mass of G.I's being conscripted or volunteered to fight in the Vietnam War. The issue of the GI Movement and the subsequent Vietnam Veterans against the War (not just VVAW but a wider manifestation) needs to be explored and probed with a then and now perspective. Defense Policy issues would linger in whatever new society is created and this needed to be grappled with. Finally, the thorny issue of class itself is a problem that always remains. The fact that George Wallace had a large support base from white working class and lower middle class Americans in the sixties has shaped American political discourse ever since. The famous Southern Strategy of the Republican Part was shaped with this in mind. Many movement people worked in the South and elsewhere and I think a serious look at issues like this, with a then and now interchange could be the basis of several forum/discussions/reflections/what is to be done type events. Thanks again for organizing a event long overdue and that will hopefully spark further contemplation and action Jim Dingeman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/16/00 EST