Some interspersed comments from a friend about the review.
> > > addressed. Of the 28 interviewees, two are African American and one
> > > Latino; this accurately reflects SDS's composition so it was a
> reasonable
> > > selection. However, the larger movement of the 1960s was not just more
> > > multiracial; in many cases it was led by people of color. This point is
> > > never adequately explored.
>
>In fairness, the film is conceived as a history of SDS, not as an overall
>analysis of the 60s.
>
> > >
> > > In general, the film's structure of going back and forth between SDS
> > > specifics and the broader contours of 1960's movements leaves a
> > > certain unclarity. While acknowledging the foundation stone of the
> > > Civil Rights movement, the film sometimes gives SDS too much
> > > credit for actions that had various sponsors. Even within the strictly
> > > SDS framework, the film gives superficial attention to the effects of
> > > the women's liberation movement on SDS.
>
>There they go. You can see the dogmatic weaknessess right there:
>white-male dominated SDS could not possibly be the guiding light of a
>radical-oriented movement. That role is the (almost metaphysical)
>appurtenance of the oppressed minorities, including of course women, two
>of whom co-authored the article and one of whom has her fat ass ensconced
>in a Women's Studies Department.
>
>
> > > the working class in social change, the links between racism and
> > > capitalism/imperialism, and the relationship of male supremacy and
> > > (in 1969) homophobia to capitalism, imperialism, and militarism. That
> > > was also the period when discussion increased about the repression of
> > > women and gays within radical movements.
>
>I was not here in 68 and 69, and while I'm aware that women's issue were
>being discussed and written about in 1969 (in a radical perspective), I
>don't remember the homophobia thing. Anyway, those did not constitute an
>evolution, but rather an involution and the beginning of fragmentation of
>the movement and its degeneration into identity politics. But the authors
>of this review emphasize those developments and recite the mantra of the
>last twenty years: the problem is patriarchal, eurocentric capitalism; the
>solution is feminism, gay liberation and multiculturalism or "diversity,"
>practically meaningless notions.
>
> > >
> > > In 1968 and 1969, still more North American self-determination
> > > movements exploded^Chicano, Puerto Rican, Native American, Asian
> > > American. Radical projects, such as the Venceremos Brigade and the
> > > National Congress on Latin America (NACLA) were established by SDS
> > > activists and survive to the present (unlike SDS as an organization).
> > > Marxist
> > > parties or groups and new magazines like Radical America were initiated,
> > > largely by former SDS members.
>
>Sure, and look how much more they have accomplished compared to SDS. And
>how relevant they are today.
>
> > >
> > > Nineteen sixty-eight was the key time for the film to broaden its brush
> > > and capture the period in all its complexity, explaining what
> happened to
> > > SDS in that context. But exactly at that point the film narrows to the
Snip.
>Yakkity-yak. Stale, boring self-serving rhetoric/
>These folks are mostlu propagandizing and trying to hang on to their own
>little niche of the "Left" market.
>
>FC
>italtran@pacbell.net
John Johnson
Change-Links Progressive Newspaper
change@pacbell.net or change-links@change-links.org
http://www.change-links.org
Subscribe to our list server. Email change-links-subscribe@egroups.com
(818) 982-1412
Cell (818) 681-7448.
===
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Mar 06 2001 - 20:48:26 EST