60's Counterculture: Through a Bong, Darkly

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby compared2what? » Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:52 pm

IanEye wrote:
compared2what? wrote:
A flat-out large woman was not automatically outside the scope of consensus beauty standards in Hollywood by fiat then as completely as it is now.


c2w, you Vixen you!


That's niche, not consensus. (And not a niche I fill, as it were, though just as proud to be a mental vixen!) You know, I didn't even consider the Russ Meyer beau ideal when surveying my internal database of views pertaining to women, weight, and normative social models pertinent to same for the previous post. I'm sorry to say. Because you've got to figure that'll knock some points off my score in the cultural-critical all-arounds when the judges start winnowing the field for the semi-finals.

Hmm. I owe a short dissertation on the male gaze to Op Ed over on another thread. And I hate to speak in gross generalities about unnecessarily complicated French theory, but since I was raised to regard being totally perfect and never failing to consider every single applicable thing as an intellectual imperative I might be severely disciplined for ignoring:

I call no-fault attribution of this omission to the quirks of male gaze-ness. We, the people of gender hold it to be, in gross general terms, a self-evident truth that the male gaze is a subject that has to be considered in light of the fact that people of all genders have no choice other than to dance (and gaze) with the culture what brung 'em. And that therefore, the oddly common assumption that the male gaze is the exclusive province of the male gender is mistaken. Rather, it is the inclusive province of all parties to the society in which normative standards of visual representation and interpretation are, by default, male. And that's not necessarily oppressive to all individuals whose gaze is not literally male. Because, as all graduates of the University of Duh are aware, on an individual level, all god's sighted children got gazes that may or may not be oppressed by the gender-inflected imagery that surrounds them, there being more to oppression than imagery, gender and gaze.

That said, and still in gross general terms, there are definitely large areas of the terrain of modern imagery that are just regular features of the natural landscape to a simple majority of persons of one gender that -- whether for good or for ill -- are more like exotic scenery to a simple majority of persons of another gender. As a result of which, perceptual, identity-relative and social-pressure-disequilibrium hijinks ensue. Those that ensue in a way that confers a power advantage along gender lines are disproportionately, though not solely, advantageous to males.

That style of super-vixenity would be an excellent example of this to me personally, insofar as it's just not any part of the natural landscape of my internal native habitat, which is why I didn't see it during my initial survey when writing the prior post. It's more like a scenic view familiar to me as part of the environment that is my lifelong habitat, but nevertheless not my native clime and never will be, nor in any way that I will ever really able to make an evolutionary adaptation to accommodate.

In that sense, living in a world defined by the male gaze -- though it is the same gaze I myself use without even thinking about it just in order to function during the routine performance of a wide variety of social and professional tasks -- is, experientially speaking, indisputably an alienating environmental factor in a low-key but near-ceaseless way, from my perspective, at least.

And though I'm not speaking for all women here, my guess would be I'm not just speaking for myself, either. It's a little like being biracial is to some biracial people, as they express it.

To get back to the busty Russ Meyer-style super-vixen image as a niche model for female beauty. I forgot about that. Sorry! It is not only A-okay with me, as it happens, but fun and interesting, too.

So I'm still perfect and can now relax. What a relief.

Hey! Now that I have a moment to breathe a little, I'd like to add that, btw, none of the above means you guys aren't freaks! Because you are! Friggin' T&A-obsessed freaks! Plus, I'm talking about standards of female beauty as if they were only an issue for white people. And that's hella wrong. But I don't think I could get much further off-topic without actually typing my way through a wormhole and onto another site. So it'll just have to stand. :)
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:19 pm

Weekend Edition
Apri1 12 / 13, 2008
Ignorant History
In Praise of Hippies and the Counter-Culture

By BILL HATCH

These thoughts are provoked by Gerald de Groot's Reflections on The Sixties Unplugged, an arrogant volume by an ignorant historian which argues that the '60s counterculture achieved nothing of lasting importance.

There are two kinds of hypocrisy about sexual and political matters in our generation: the left hypocrisy and the right hypocrisy. Between the two, one ought to prefer the traditional approach of the right -- mis-, mal- and nonfeasance in office and in bed. The left invented the dialectics of "relationship," and while no less promiscuous than Republicans, they have proved themselves far more self-righteous about it. The left, in general, also runs the American bureaucracy and has invented an entire alternative form of English to explain what they are doing to individuals and why. Only the well-to-do escape this aberrant form of our language.

One of the great achievements of the hippies is that they have never been a part of either faction in terms of ideology, sexual or otherwise. Although they are capable of a social cohesion at times, under certain specific circumstances (from a good party to a political action), hippies are firm believers in the individual's right to private property and will fight any timber corporation to prevent encroachment on it. I didn't even understand Peter Coyote's statement, quoted reverently by De Groot, "Any structure is mutable, but once you've chosen it, you have to accept it -- if you're ever going to get any depth. Because depth only comes in the struggle with limits." But, I have no doubt whatsover that Ringolevio, by Diggers founder Emmett Grogan and Coyote's leader, was the best book ever written on the Haight Ashbury, generally considered to be the fountainhead of lamentable "anarchist excesses." A second take always worth rereading, is the series of articles written by Nick Von Hoffman and illustrated by the great photography of Elaine Mayes, on the anarchic market in marijuana in the Haight. It could not be organized even by organized crime, which tried.

What de Groot, no doubt irrigated by the rouge corncob placed somewhere on his person where the sun never shines, fails to see is that the hippies were and remain the only genuine working-class movement that came out of the Sixties. The other thing he fails to notice is that the hippies, as opposed to their "leaders," transcended hippydom, in fact and later fiction on the period. At Berkeley, a friend who would definitely be classed as a former hippie, told me years ago, "You watched the anti-war speakers. When they left the podium, you left the crowd because the cops were coming." Basic working-class wisdom as old as the Haymarket Massacre.

My finest tidbit of revolutionary romanticism from the era comes not from the hippies but from the new left, a friend announcing in a frenzy of ambition that Cesar Chavez was starting a revolution. He meant one that would bring down the state. Any movement based on people not gringos was grasped fervently by the new left to be used as a club against the hippies, those messy Americans (white, black, brown, red or yellow -- whatever) having fun. And for those of us who had actually done farm work in the San Joaquin Valley, oh well, how could our opinion count? It is essential to the misappropriation of the complexities of Marx's critique that anyone with any empirical experience with any memory of actual hard farm labor should be silenced by the terribly articulate suburban pink diaper set.

Although the hippies preferred to make love, not war, when attacked by police they exhibited excellent abilities to defend themselves. My favorite scene from the chaos of late 1968 was, during yet another SWAT invasion of the neighborhood, a fellow with a molotov cocktail alight in his hand, who streaked through several cops, threw it under a squad car and escaped as the car blew up. In the context of that and other riots of that time, it was not fundamentally an attack on the federal, state or local government; it was a statement: Get the fuck out of my neighborhood, quit beating my neighbors and scaring our women and kids. One did not have to be an admirer of either Dylan or Marx to appreciate the magnificently courageous gesture of our neighbor with the flaming cocktail that night.

As for the hippies' contribution to the election of Nixon in 1968 and the general breakdown of the Roosevelt coalition in the Democratic Party, oh well, whatever, as the hippies would say. De Groot revises the history of the Sixties anti-war movement from the standpoint of the anti-Iraq War movement? Our academic neo-Reds are on the prowl again. The latest credit crisis provides the excuse and once again we get secondary causes as reasons to do what? Man which barricade, where? These clowns haven't learned anything since the last depression. Socialism is the answer, right? And the question is: what government produces the happiness of its people? The three anti-war demonstrations in which I marched down Market Street, San Francisco, were as far as I could tell, organized by Palestinians. Willie controlled the cops, the Palestinians controlled the peaceful crowd, and it all worked except for the inevitable bullshit provocateurs. The press called them "anarchists," yet an Asian hippie woman I know and met in the crowd on one march handed me a broadside of a beautiful poem written by a real anarchist postman from Mendocino County. Your basic theoretical anarchist ain't got no experience in what he preaches.

At least from the vantage point of having worked that summer of 1968 for the US Senate candidate with the most unambiguous stand against the war, while living in the Haight, I have another analysis for the Nixon election: Larry O'Brien was the only Irishman in America who did not indulge himself in a four-month wake after the assassination of Bobby. When the Kennedy faction woke up from the hangover, it was too late. If they had been able to really mourn the man instead of the power they lost that night, they might have realized more important things were at stake than their collective self pity. One need not even mention Lyndon Johnson's incredible legislative achievements on behalf of the American working class, the huge backlash among racists, or the totalitarian excesses of the Chicago convention to indicate that it remains a bit difficult to blame Nixon on the hippies, who took the brunt of the Daley Machine beating. By that year, out on the west coast, they were already leaving San Francisco in droves to make their amusing, profitable contributions to rural life on the north coast of California.

The greatest achievement of the hippies was and remains humor -- comedy asserted in the face of tragedies, including their own. Speaking personally, an unavoidably literate hippie will inevitably find his way to Don Quixote, even if led there as a result of writing articles for hippies about anti-NAFTA politics in Mexico. The only other source books that provides the necessary philosophical scope to understand hippies is Aristotle's Politics and, of course, Leopold Kohr's Breakdown of Nations.

Absurd drug laws and the whole mature, corrupt system of prohibition are a hippie comedic specialty, providing endless amusement around hippie winter fires to this day, along with the occasional tragedy of busts, murders, and other misfortunes common to the entire history of the American working class. Also, once out of the compression of the city, hippies turned out to make excellent parents. The happiness and intelligence of "hippie kids" alone gives the lie to almost everything De Groot is saying. Teachers on the north coast who do not suffer from authoritarian complexes prefer these fine children to all others. They exhibit independent thinking early and have shown themselves to be creative in a number of academic fields already, to my knowledge, from medicine to computers. Five hippie teenagers in the alternative high school of a town I once lived in, created a virtual reality machine on a few computers made of parts cobbled together by one father, an electrician. Their patron was a blameless horticulturalist who in his youth had been a denizen of Socialist youth camps.

So, yo, De Groot, don't tell me that you know anything significant about hippies. I brought my son as often as possible to stay with me in what Thomas Pynchon called Vineland, because of the sweet, good people there, whom Pynchon neglected to describe. My first house, a converted chicken shack, was called "Heartbreak Hotel," because hippie men repaired there after they lost their loves, to smoke, drink and play poker. The poker games in that establishment of which I became the host, were the only poker games I have ever been in where a winning hand was applauded by losers. There was one rule: if you fall off your chair you lose it. This is the joy of life itself and we reinvented it right here in America out of pure hell, but the puritans of the left like De Groot absolutely cannot abide it. Nor can they abide that after the wounds healed, the old husband and the new husband collaborated with the wife to raise the children well, supported by the wisdom, love and affection of their community. Ex-husbands fell off those chairs in despair, and their poker-playing buddies picked them up, let them cry and put them back together to face the next day.

The De Groot tribe of academic hypocrites cannot abide the care of the elderly that hippies generously provide their parents and their friends' parents. De Groot and his cannot abide the creation of real, organic communities that endure for love and affection. De Groot is totally ignorant of how love grows beyond the couple to the group, of how the "stupidity" of a man and woman in love can transcend themselves into the community. De Groot and his have no idea of friendship on their idiotic march to get us to their imagined barricade just in time to get mowed down by, really, quite overpowering police armament. De Groot and his hate happiness, period. They hate the gesture to the homeless or the alley cat or any gesture of human solidarity. They are all Commissars without an ounce of Wobbly in them. On the other side, we have the Republicans, many of them fascists. But, tell me the difference among the swine that would lead us now.

Historically literate? Not particularly, but the hippies have a good grasp of the history they've made for themselves, which is better than the books De Groot is reading and writing. And they don't watch much TV but their villages contain the most interesting video rental shops in the state. They also have lively community radio and alternative press.

In the miniscule world of American poetry, starting about 30 years ago, the best nature poetry in the country in these environmentally conscious times has come out of the northwest coast, roughly equivalent to the redwood belt -- from Santa Rosa CA to Seattle. You will hear the best American poetry about the natural world in places like Mendocino, Arcata, Portland, Walla Walla and Seattle.

De Groot's preference for the Beats is as nostalgic as is the nostalgia of which he accuses America for its love of the Sixties. If you want Greenwich Village 1955, Anywhere USA, but specifically in North Beach in San Francisco, the Beats (the few still alive and not yet on walkers and oxygen) are good. If you dig heroin, even better. If you want to live in a neighborhood where no one who is anyone can speak for more than 10 minutes without mentioning New York City, that's cool. It is also what Wallace Stegner spent his entire career resisting. Bierce, Miller, Norris, Sinclair, Steinbeck and Kesey were fine writers, ahead of the New York orthodoxy most of the time. The western US matters.

Finally, one imagines that the neo-Red set, aghast at those "anarchist excesses" of the hippies, obsessed in hierarchical fantasies on leaders of the "movement" that nobody in those days regarded as leaders anyway (not that hippies are not entertained by good rhetoric), is envious of the fun we had and still do have. A cultural sidebar to end this is that empirical observation indicates that people with rigid ideologies of either right or left, when under the influence of marijuana or LSD or even good red wine from north coast vineyards, develop symptoms of serious paranoia as their minds unwittingly wander to the authoritarian roots of their social existence. So, like dude, they can't get stoned and play guitar and drums as the women boogaloo outside the cabin under a full moon in the woods. People like these are unable to imagine people who, in the midst of mourning a beloved neighbor lying dead in his bedroom, bring his corpse out from his cabin and prop him in a chair, because "he always liked a good party." They are unable to conceive of a conga drum and burial society. They got no friends worth the name.

In short, these tedious pedants don't know shit about love or mourning, comedy or tragedy, or life. They reflect the sickness of our society and call it "criticism," and hate those who worked to heal it in their communities. "Un-fuck 'em," said the sexy wife of a candidate for state Assembly from the deep San Joaquin Valley in 1966.

Bill Hatch lives in California. He can be reached at: wmmhatch@sbcglobal.net
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Ziggin' and a Zaggin' » Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:31 pm

Image
User avatar
Ziggin' and a Zaggin'
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:36 am
Location: The Great White North
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby tKl » Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:48 pm

MacCruiskeen wrote:There have been a striking number of books and articles purportedly debunking the Sixties lately. It's almost as if they're trying to nip something in the bud.


That's what I would say. Oh, and people.
tKl
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:55 pm
Location: A big time lag called "now."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:07 pm

.

Getting back to the OP a few months later, here's another column from a couple of days ago on that thing-called-THE-SIXTIES as perpetual scapegoat/bete noir/nemesis on the horizon.

http://counterpunch.org/sommer08272008.html

August 27, 2008
Get Over It
Blaming the Sixties

By BOB SOMMER

THE SIXTIES. That’s where the trouble began. Just ask Rush Limbaugh or David Brooks or Bill Bennett, or just about any right-wing pundit. THE SIXTIES is the problem. Of course, they don’t mean the decade but rather THE SIXTIES, a casserole of selected ingredients that includes the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, the chaos of the ’68 Democratic National Convention, and the myths of Woodstock and Haight. This familiar, even clichéd, stew excludes far more than it includes and always paints these events in the brush strokes of mindless anarchy, somehow implying that COINTELPRO and bombing Cambodia maybe weren’t so bad, after all.

Consider this recent comment by Washington Times columnist Victor Davis Hanson: “Those who protested 40 years ago often still congratulate themselves that their loud zeal alone brought needed ‘change’ to America in civil rights, the environment, women’s liberation and world peace. Maybe. But critics counter that the larger culture that followed was the most self-absorbed in memory.”

Why is change in quotes? Is it too distasteful a word? And what’s the logic here? That separate drinking fountains were better than the perceived solipsism of a generation? That lattés and organic food stores were too high a price to pay for recognizing the environmental havoc of industrialization? That every baby born from 1945 to 1955 turned up in Chicago in 1968, or would have if he or she could?

Or that segregation would somehow have faded away and the Vietnam War would have been “won” without the zeal of activists who had run out of options in the face of a recalcitrant administration (an all-too familiar problem)? What would it take to get the attention of all those nuclear families eating their TV dinners on TV trays in front of their TVs?

The narrative of how THE SIXTIES doomed America is familiar: An over-indulged generation of suburban babies born into the postwar boom became The Me-Generation. Pass the first dose of blame to Dr. Spock. Then move on to television, birth-control, Elvis (or the Rolling Stones, according to Alan Bloom), Timothy Leary, Earth Day, marijuana, acid, Abbie Hoffman, and lately (because of a loose Chicago connection, déjà-vu-all-over-again) Bill Ayers. Gordon Gecko, it’s fair to assume, would have stopped off at Yasgar’s farm on his way to Wall Street. The Port Huron Statement, the 1962 manifesto of the SDS, presciently anticipated the argument, opening with these words: “We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort, housed now in universities, looking uncomfortably to the world we inherit.”

Why this obsession? For one, it suits well the Rovian tactics that have become the trademark of right-wing discourse: Strawman and ad hominem attacks have replaced actual debate. You can demonize anyone by attributing this mythologized heritage to them. You can add dirty words like socialism and communism and welfare state. You can invent ties between Obama and the Weather Underground. Best of all, you can make him responsible for losing another war, even though every major strategic assessment he’s made has turned out to be right—and some, like the Iraq timeline and negotiating with unfriendly nations, have been enacted by the Bush administration.

But THE SIXTIES is flexible. You can blame it for anything—national debt, high oil prices (we could drill, if it weren’t for those hippie tree-huggers and their obsession with caribou in the ANWR), Janet Jackson’s malfunctioning wardrobe (oops, what about Foley, Craig, Vitter, and company?), and godlessness (which has infinite possibilities).

This revisionism, of course, discounts (or mangles) the other historical and cultural influences of the postwar era, including McCarthyism, the growth of the suburbs and our ensuing reliance on the automobile, the application of scientific and medical discoveries to our increasing affluence and improving health, the expanding ties of American (and foreign) corporations to our expanding military (and its expanding presence around the globe), the mobility of Americans, and the explosion of the entertainment industry. It dismisses the rejection of consumerism by the anti-establishment movements of the Vietnam era, as capitalism, like the Borg, assimilated everything it touched, creating a need for endless growth and expansion—with consequences that have now begun to manifest themselves in the housing collapse, the debt crisis, and the international turmoil and environmental disasters we’ve created.

Notably absent (or grudgingly mentioned) in most accounts of THE SIXTIES (like Hanson’s) is civil rights, which somehow, we are to assume, would have resolved itself, given time, if only THE NEGROES had been more patient. Lynard Skynard summed up this complacency in its defense of “the southland” against Neil Young’s “Southern Man”: “Now we all did what we could do.” And that’s it. What more do you want? Whatever happens happens. Why stir up trouble?

As to Vietnam, according to the narrative, we “lost.” That is, we could have “won” if it weren’t for the traitors on the homefront. This narrative has been often retold in recent years. Of course, it leaves out “the most trusted man in America,” Walter Cronkite, muttering about Vietnam, “What the hell is going on?” which, granted, is more temperate than “UP AGAINST THE WALL, MOTHERFUCKER!” but still landed him on the same side of the divide. He finally went to Vietnam to see for himself—and now the nuclear families began to listen.

Whether stated or implied, THE SIXTIES is very much a part of the current presidential debate. Sturgis, South Dakota, echoed recently with a thunderous roar that seemed to come all the way from 1965, when the Hell’s Angels rolled headlong through an antiwar protest march in Berkeley. Thousands of bikers in Sturgis revved up their support for John McCain in a Harley hallelujah chorus that resounded with both their endorsement of the Bush-McCain non-strategy for Iraq and their disdain for the environment. And their hooting and cheers also mocked a half century of progress by women when McCain offered his wife up for the Miss Buffalo Chip contest as 100,000 leering eyes envisioned a topless Cindy McCain (and probably a banana). But you do have to wonder if McCain knew what a buffalo chip actually is, though the look on Cindy’s face suggested that she did.

Bob Sommer’s novel, Where the Wind Blew, which tells the story how the past eventually caught up with one former member of a 60s radical group, was released in June 2008 by The Wessex Collective.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:50 pm

Yea! And in France, Europe elsewhere, the whole YEAR has been full of "that mad, MAD year 68" "Will 68 happen again!"

Makes you wonder, even thou it is now 40 yrs later..That year, we had good ole riots and all here in Europe too..

Mebbe they afraid that we lil peeps, maybe, get back to righteous rioting?
Proactive propaganda.
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

uaw/mf

Postby compared2what? » Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:50 am

I love this thread.

Just saying.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Username » Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:03 am

~

In Defense of the '60s

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/380 ... f_the_60s/

The pursuit of happiness is a dream for all generations

By Peter Marcuse
August 1, 2008

The protests of 1968 ­ symbolically, the occupation of the Columbia
University buildings, the student uprisings in Paris and the street
protests in Berlin ­ are now in danger of being denigrated as the
actions of spoiled, confused, if not neurotic, students and
rebellious youth who were "finding" themselves in making trivial
demands of their uncomprehending and benevolent societies.

An April 23 op-ed by Paul Auster in the New York Times calls 1968
"the year of the crazies." Another op-ed, by Jean-Claude Guillebaud,
on May 24, calls the protesters "useful idiots," and the current
attention on them a "frenzy of nostalgia."

In the process, the serious changes brought about by the events of
'68, the substance of the protests, the reasons for the discontent,
and the desire for change, are either ignored or superciliously
dismissed as childish daydreams.


Article continues here. <----- (check out this blog on the 60's)
Username
 
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:27 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

duh duh duh duh duh

Postby jam.fuse » Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:13 am

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

-Teddy Roosevelt


Hippies, Shmippies

It ain't what you do its the way that you do it
It ain't what you do its the time that you do it
It ain't what you do its the way that you do it
And that's what get's results...


Paraphrasing an acquaintance who went to high school in NYC in 'da sixties —

"Back then there were the hippies, and there were the radicals. The difference was the radicals would fight, the hippies wouldn't. I was a radical. One time a bunch of white kids from a neighboring high school had some beef with some black kids from our school. These white guys showed up en masse one day in disporportionate numbers ready to kick the shit out of them (black kids), who were our friends. Me and my boys got in between and told these motherfuckers 'You got to go through us first'. They turned tail and disappeared…'"


I am pushing fifty, but associate with all manner of artists, freaks and outsider types from the teens on up. I haven't a shred of doubt that the world in 2015 will be as unrecognizable compared to the present day as 1965 was to 1958. And not in a completely bad way. A little bird told me.

Speaking of dada, There's a helluva Dali show at MOMA, for those in NYC area 'til september 15.

BTW the kid with the flag in Diane Arbus photo is wearing a button that reads BOMB HANOI, too small to see in the reproduction.
User avatar
jam.fuse
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 6:49 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:46 am

60s weed > modern weed...




probably not


best of the sixties > worst of the naughties

well obviously...

But what actually came out of the sixties that was any good or made people's lives better?
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:53 am

Joe Hillshoist wrote:60s weed > modern weed...




probably not


best of the sixties > worst of the naughties

well obviously...

But what actually came out of the sixties that was any good or made people's lives better?


If by "the sixties" we mean the mixed bag of countercultural, radical-political, and socio-cultural/personal political movements that were then underway in the United States, France, Great Britain and, I think you'd have to say, China, since they were having a cultural revolution that was initially experienced by a segment of the youth/Red Guards part of it as something that they were driving, not something they were being driven to by an authoritarian state, well....

...That's not a simple question, and it doesn't have a simple answer. I was born in a college town in the United States in 1960, and grew up in a series of various college towns after that, so my impressions of the world were formed in an environment where all of the American parts of that mixed bag were very prominent. And, as with most historical eras, the sixties didn't really end with the sixties in every single way. We had race riots at my high school that were chronologically in the seventies but very much a part of a movement that was sixties in kind, quality, and meaning, colloquially speaking. Violent race riots, which shut the school down. There was a lot of that stuff still going around until, roughly, 1975, is my point, particularly in the arenas of race and gender. And those are two arenas wrt which you could say some good came out of the sixties. I'm not saying that any of the radical movements of that era succeeded in addressing any problem at its root, which, according to the etymology that got them tagged as "radical," is what they were allegedly aiming for. Because they failed miserably at that, to the extent that in big-picture, sociopolitical terms, the root causes of the mixed bag of targeted problems are intact to this day.

But overall, the strife over women's and civil rights did manage to force some small and compartmentalized changes through before running out of steam. And those changes have their pros and cons, of course. C'est la vie. But averaged out, I'd say there was a small net gain for both women and minorities. And that's not insignificant, if only because the number of times that both of those groups have tried to make a small dent in the implacably unjust societies in which they live outnumbers the number of times they've succeeded by, like gazillion to one. In fact, it's such an infrequent occurrence that almost all people who aren't in those groups as well as at least half of those who are haven't recovered from the shock of it yet, and they've had forty fucking years to come to terms with it.

Nevertheless. A gain is a gain, and despite what those still reeling in shock like to claim, no one else sustained a significant loss as a result of it. That's not as good as it gets, ever, but it's much better than it usually gets.

To return to the more consequential subject of me -- growing up in the midst of that mixed bag of etcetera did definitely leave me with the unshakable conviction that as a member of a free society I have rights and responsibilities that are absolute. And that keeping them that way is just part and parcel of what being an adult is and, consequently, irremovably part and parcel of who I am for as long as I'm alive.

That may have been a mistaken impression, but there's really nothing I can do about that now. It's kinda like: From my point of view, it's less that they can't take that away from me than that I can't take that away from me. And I think that in some form, most Americans from non-chronically-oppressed backgrounds who were born between 1950 and 1960 feel an equivalently unshakable sense of entitlement that isn't dependent on the economic circumstances in which their immediate worldview was formed.

Which also has its pros and cons, as god and several other continents know. But it's a potential good, and by definition, can and should be a realized good, as I can't help understanding it, anyway.

Though as I already said, my understanding may be based on a false premise. Still. That's strength of a kind, if not definitively a good kind, and it did come out of the sixties. Right along with me. So it's not easy for me to see it as an era that yielded nothing that made anyone's life any better. The sixties made the life I have. Know what I mean?
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Don Smith » Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:14 am

The initial essay starts with WWII.
This event went a long way toward loosening up the social ideas of many people in this country. As the fight against fascism and racism abroad could not be kept away from the protected shores of the U.S., expectations of a better world were held by persons who may have never considered such things before.
The G.I. bill allowed many to recieve an education. The education of the forties was very strong on liberal arts and was not geared to the uniformity which was imposed after the dreaded "Sputnik" threatened the nation with nuclear terror.
The armed forces were desegregated, this was a shock to those still believing that Steppinfetchit was the norm of American Negroes.
For a few short years, it seemed that many of the ideals of the nation might be a real possibility.
This was crushed as a new "Cold War" was put in place to bleed the taxpayer for the benefit of the same old mob.
The Rosenberg executions served as a warning not to question the HUAC, not to deviate from the course of self appointed righteousness.
The U.S. became the mirror image of the very militarism which the war had tried to end.
Fear and terror controlled much of the social and economic structure of this new, corporate state.
The glitch was that the children of those idealists who had bled and paid for WWII had absorbed a dream of a better world.
Racism was not part of the better future many hoped for.
A continuous warfare state was not part of the speeches of Lincoln.
The generation of the sixties were partly motivated by the promise which had been made to their parents, the ideals which had been used in wartime were not forgotten.
A world without want, without fear, without tyranny, these were ideas which had been given lip service by the propagandists of wartime America.
The children of the veterans did not believe that these ideals were mere empty phrases.
Segregation, equal rights, economic security, and many more hoped for changes were the drivers behind much of the activism, then and now.
Back in the day, I believed that the government had betrayed the people.
I still do.
Kent State, Jackson State, the murder of the Black Panthers, these were not aberrations, the murder of workers and activists has always been in the arsenal of this benighted republic.
It still is.
The marvel to me is that so much coverage was given to these actions on the part of the citizen. As mentioned above, such mass demonstrations are now treated as "special interest groups", or "unrealistic dreamers".
They wont cover it, so it does not exist.
How Orwellian is that?
Very good thread, (echo), luv it!
"A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends."-V.I. Lenin
Don Smith
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: Puget Sound
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chlamor » Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:42 am

Kicking this for the excellent comments throughout.

When folks talk about the "failure" of 3rd party movements or the "failure" of alternatives to today's duopoly they have omitted an entire history of purposeful destruction of such possibilities.
Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?
chlamor
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

star gazing freak writes...

Postby jam.fuse » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:58 pm

'...And no matter who ends up in the White House, the next five years will see a tremendous nationwide struggle between the fight for individual rights and liberties and a crackdown against rebellion that will make the 1960s look tame.' - Michael Lutin

(okay he is an astrologer)
User avatar
jam.fuse
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 6:49 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MacCruiskeen » Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:56 pm

Students are revolting: The spirit of '68 is reawakening

Campus sit-ins began as a response to the Gaza attacks, but unrest is already spilling over to other issues. Emily Dugan reports

Independent on Sunday, 8 February 2009

Image
Oxford students demand the university condemns Israel's attack on Gaza

They are the iPod generation of students: politically apathetic, absorbed by selfish consumerism, dedicated to a few years of hedonism before they land a lucrative job in the City. Not any more. A seismic change is taking place in British universities.

Around the UK, thousands of students have occupied lecture theatres, offices and other buildings at more than 20 universities in sit-down protests. It seems that the spirit of 1968 has returned to the campus.

While it was the situation in Gaza that triggered this mass protest, the beginnings of political enthusiasm have already spread to other issues.

John Rose, one of the original London School of Economics (LSE) students to mount the barricades alongside Tariq Ali in 1968, spent last week giving lectures on the situation in Gaza at 12 of the occupations.

"This is something different to anything we've seen for a long time," he said. "There is genuine fury at what Israel did.

"I think it's highly likely that this year will see more student action. What's interesting is the nervousness of vice chancellors and their willingness to concede demands; it indicates this is something that could well turn into [another] '68."

Beginning with a 24-hour occupation at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) on 13 January, the sit-ins spread across the country. Now occupations have been held at the LSE, Essex, King's College London, Birmingham, Sussex, Warwick, Manchester Metropolitan, Oxford, Leeds, Cambridge, Sheffield Hallam, Bradford, Nottingham, Queen Mary, Manchester, Strathclyde, Newcastle, Kingston, Goldsmiths and Glasgow.


Among the demands of students are disinvestment in the arms trade; the promise to provide scholarships for Palestinian students; a pledge to send books and unused computers to Palestine; and to condemn Israeli attacks on Gaza.

Technology has set these actions apart from those of previous generations, allowing a national momentum to grow with incredible speed. Through the linking up of internet blogs, news of successes spread quickly and protests grew nationwide.

Just three weeks after the first sit-in at SOAS, students gathered yesterday at Birkbeck College to draw up a national strategy. The meeting featured speeches from leaders in the Stop the War movement, such as Tony Benn, George Galloway MP and Jeremy Corbyn MP. There has also been an Early Day Motion tabled in Parliament in support of campus activism.

At the end of the month students from across the country will gather for a national demonstration calling for the abolition of tuition fees, an event that organisers say has rocketed in size following the success of the occupations over Gaza.

Vice chancellors and principals have been brought to the negotiating table and – in the majority of universities – bowed to at least one of the demands. The students' success means that now there is a new round of protests. On Wednesday two new occupations began at Strathclyde and Manchester universities, and on Friday night students at the University of Glasgow also launched a sit-in.

Emily Dreyfus, a 21-year-old political activist in her third year of reading classics at Oxford, was one of around 80 students to occupy the historic Bodleian library building in the city and demand that the university issue a statement condemning the Gaza attacks and disinvest from the arms trade. She said: "I found Oxford politically very dead when I arrived, but it's completely different now. There seem to be more and more people talking about politics, which is so exciting. It's really been aided by the communication tools we've got, things like Facebook."

Wes Streeting, the president of the National Union of Students, said: "What we've seen over the Gaza issue is a resurgence of a particular type of protest: the occupation. It's a long time since we've seen student occupations on such a scale. It's about time we got the student movement going again and had an impact."

Establishments that have not previously been known for their activism have also become involved. Fran Legg was one of several students to set up the first Stop the War Coalition at Queen Mary, a research-focused university in London, a month ago. Now they are inundated with interest.

"Action on this scale among students hasn't been seen since the Sixties and Seventies," she said.

"This is going to go down in history as a new round of student mobilisation and it will set a precedent. Gaza is the main issue at the moment, but we're looking beyond the occupation; we're viewing it as a springboard for other protests and to set up a committee to make sure the university only invests ethically."

As the first generation of students to pay substantial direct fees to universities, their negotiating power has also been strengthened. Their concern over their college's investments have been given new legitimacy because it is partly their money.

Ms Legg said: "For the first time, you've got students getting principals to the negotiation table, saying they don't want their tuition fees funding war. Everybody wants to know where their money is going."

The activist: 'Students will see they can take action'

Katan Alder, 22, student leader speaking from the occupation at Manchester University

"We've been occupying the university since Wednesday. More than 500 people came to an emergency Students' Union meeting and we took the vice chancellor's administration block that afternoon. Israel's assault on Gaza made people angry, and we heard about the occupations at other universities through blogs. This is the biggest student campaign we've had and it's also the most wide-reaching. We'll stay until the university lets us meet with the vice chancellor. I think students will see they can take action on more issues, such as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the education system; the Government's refusal to stop the marketisation of education has provoked a lot of anger."

The '68 veteran: 'It changed our lives'

John Rose, 63, former student organiser at the London School of Economics in 1968; now a lecturer and author on the Middle East

"I arrived at the LSE in '66 as an extremely naive liberal student and I left in '69 as a revolutionary socialist. It changed our lives. I was one of the student organisers with Tariq Ali and attended all the demonstrations and occupations. We did think a revolution was coming; we thought mass action of students might overthrow capitalism and bring genuine equality. It took us some time to realise that wasn't going to happen.

"It wasn't just about rioting and having fun, it was political argument that probed all the assumptions about the world. It was a highly intense period and the memory stays powerfully with anyone involved; it's the memory of those times that has kept me going.

"It was a feeling of fantastic elation: we began to realise that mass action could change things. Once it started, we developed a taste for it and began to consider mass activity as a way of doing politics, which is what's happening now. People are fed up with bankers, politicians and elite institutions. Hundreds of us thought the revolution was coming in '69, but maybe the revolution is coming now."


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 04043.html
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 165 guests