the 60s - how did people do what they did? what worked, what
didn't
posted to the Radical History listserve, H-Net Discussion List on
Radical Approaches to History<H-RADHIST@H-NET.MSU.EDU>
From: "Hogan, Wesley C." <hoganw@countryday.net>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 14:40:26 -0400
Not much has been written on the central question of "how did
people do what they did" during the movements of the 60s - what
worked, what didn't and why - so I hesitate to take issue with what
has been written. As one of the "young historians" of these freedom
movements, however, I struggled with Jesse Lemisch's letter to the
editor (The Nation, May 7, 2001) about Helen Garvy's film on SDS,
Rebels With a Cause.
I wholly applaud Lemisch's call for an honest inventory of the
mistakes, disagreements, and wrong turns of the New Left: how else
can we know "what to do" from this point forward? I agree with his
warning of the dangers of a celebratory history. Yet Garvy's
intent was clear from the beginning: she was not going to tell
"the" truth, but her truth.
It has not been my experience that younger generations won't find
the movie useful. When I showed it in my high school class, the
students were pushed into confronting their own inactivity, their
own potential to impact their world, and finally, pushed into
debating the eternal question of the Left: "how to" change
something. Each generation has to solve these issues of tactics and
mechanisms for internal accountability on their own, given that
they do not share the same political context as previous
generations, so for my purposes, the movie absolutely did move this
class to do this themselves. Thus, it was more "useful" than
anything else we did in class with the exception of their own
experiences trying to change something in their own community.
It is clear that Lemisch doesn't agree with Garvy's "truth." But
it is particularly upsetting that as an activist and an academic he
does not talk about the importance of seeing media projects (book,
film, etc.) from activists themselves. I am overwhelmed with how
many academics are writing about, filming, etc. social change
without talking with activists, nor, with a few exceptions, are
they concerned with helping activists get the money from
foundations, universities, etc. to be able to produce these
projects themselves.
Finally, and most important, it is hard to examining the 60s
movements in a way that will give clarity to their failures and
successes rather than undermine morale or present-day efforts. It
is inherently difficult to critique these groups (SDS, SNCC, etc.)
in a way that re-affirms the impulse to a more democratic society
rather than reinforcing the dominant culture's disdain for the
"unrealistic." So it was depressing to see Lemisch do it in a
spirit that undermined constructive dialogue by using words like
"triumphalist" and "stunningly uncritical." It is my
understanding that one of the major dynamics impeding the
development of internal democracy in these movements-- then and
now-- is the lack of mutual respect and basic kindness that makes
life in a movement more bearable than life outside it, thus giving
hope for a "new society."
Kind regards,
Wesley Hogan
Cincinnati, OH
hoganw@countryday.net
**H-RADHIST is sponsored by the RADICAL HISTORY REVIEW** visit our
Web site at http://chnm.gmu.edu/rhr
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 10 2001 - 01:07:13 EDT