[sixties-l] Fixing the Problems of Who Owns the Sixties

From: drieux (drieux@wetware.com)
Date: Tue Nov 13 2001 - 13:02:09 EST

  • Next message: sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu: "[sixties-l] High court says no to Einhorn (fwd)"

    On Sunday, November 11, 2001, at 09:06 , Marty Jezer wrote:

    > What's this, the gang of two or the gang of four has read Gitlin out of
    > the
    > movement; not that he'd care. But the movement never spoke with one
    > voice,
    > despite the efforts of those who believed it only spoke properly in
    > their
    > voice. Gitlin comes out of a similar experience as most veterans of the
    > sixties and has always, to my mind, been thoughtful even if sometimes
    > right
    > or sometimes wrong. A movement that can't take criticism, much less
    > read
    > it, is already brain dead; a cadaver rather than a movement.

    I guess this is a part of the problem I have had with the whole
    of 'the movement' since the sixties. Ok, it was starting during the
    when there was not a clearly defined canon as to who could define who was
    in and who was out of 'the movement' - and as such it was as hard on the
    left, the new left, and the right, to resolve who the BAD PEOPLE were who
    had to be opposed - and has become even sillier since, with the rise of
    the NewAndImprovedRight who still have their nagging doubts about the
    trend amongst the Old Right....

    People are still 'dealing' with the 2000 election - without wanting to
    that it boiled down to a horrendous fight by both major parties to seize
    the middle ground. What if we are still not willing to deal with the fact
    that in the main 'the sixties' really was the problem of Having a Baby
    and the convolution of market oriented economy willing to re-invent
    with what ever was the fad of the moment for the younger generation,
    and a
    younger generation that was, as they are by definition, clueless gits
    what it really takes to run a country, let alone a planet.

    We can all go back and look at the classic vintage 'Wild in the Streets'
    deride it as mere Bourgeoisie Capitalist Exploitation - or we can
    it into all sorts of esoterica understandable only by the people who have
    attended all of the correct 'in crowd' classes/seminars/WhatEver that
    how to speak this hip jive - or we can step back and wonder the simpler
    about, how prepared were we to really be 'the best and the brightest'?
    much of the catastrophe that has been the intervening years really is
    the transition from the movies lowering the vote to the 16 year olds,
    to have the ten year olds come along and wonder about 'the older
    and take off in some other direction?

    It some how came as a News Flash to the GenXer's when I dragged them off
    to the 30th Anniversary of the Summer of Love, thrown in S.F. - that
    it really is all about not only throwing a good party, but figuring out
    how to make a little something out of the deal. And as they started to
    clued into the history - the Panther Party started out buying the little
    red book in S.F. and hustling it at UC Bezerkley because those Suburban
    kids had the money to PAY the extra. That the FSM really had been as
    conservative an organization as it really was - not the sort of dope
    smoking free love wild orgy that Governor Reagon would campaign on...

    And the worst of all nightmares, that the Diggers Motto really was,

            Create the world you describe.

    nothing really all that radical - just like so many of the basic open
    source code projects - you think its worth it, give it a shot, see what
    you can do with it.

    And yeah, if the success of selling the whole Sixties Experience hadn't
    driven us to 'stadium rock' there would have been no good reason to get
    'back to our roots' with the punk music movement, that like rock itself,
    would have to go over to the U.K. and become a cool import, before it
    would be do-able here in the states, ok, maybe marketable would be the
    more accurate word....

    What if the real problem with so much of the current game of who is in
    and who is out of 'the movement' remains little more than a bad rewrite
    of John Water's Hair Spray as the "Style Council" tries to figure out
    who is really suppose to be cool and who is not?

    Maybe the scary-ist part of the process has been the combined failures
    merely of the Evil Empire of Communism, but the eternal nightmare chic of
    the American Free Market System, as powerhouse players like Enron who
    suppose to have bought their own president, wind up as buy out bait,
    because the still unresolved process of when is regulation too much
    regulation, and when is it what needs to be done.

    No one seems to have had the one singular correct answer back in the
    sixties, and
    no amount of correct deconstruction of the correct implementation of
    the correct party line has given anyone the majik wand ever since.

    Hey - why not just dance?
    Clearly we're not going to get on the Style Council....



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Nov 14 2001 - 01:25:51 EST