Post by JonathanE on Mar 8, 2009 12:58:07 GMT -5
......
No, actually, Skyfire was wrong in everything he said.
No he's wrong about the reasons. In short he's wrong because while he could cite factors that contributed to the decline in activism from the 60s and 70s, he didn't really understand why they were factors or how other things also played a role.
He's wrong because he clearly stated that Lennon's murder was one of the reasons for the decline in the protest era. His assessment of the signifigance of drug use was, at best, uninformed claptrap.
Except we were talking about why the activism began to wane, not why it started. Plus you are corroborating my point that society has changed. The 60s was a product of the events in society that proceeded it.
The social upheavals of the 1960's were a somewhat unique event. The civil rights movement traces its beginnings to the abolition movement. We were specifically talking about the mass protest movement, or at lieast I was. The protest movement, particularly the mass protest movement, by which I mean specifically the 1960's issue, gained momentum via the civil rights movement, which made activism a popular activity. With the civil rights bills of the Johnson era, and the expansion of the war in Vietnam, that energy which grew popular with the civil rights movement was transferred to anti-war protesting. If the Vietnam war, and the draft had not expanded when it did, ie, almost immediately after the JFK assasination, the movement would have been still born. Popular musicians actually popularized the whole underground culture prevalent amongst youth during that 1961-1973 period.
Hence my point.. you can't have society change and then expect things to stay the same.
Which was exactly my point, that the "peace" movement, the entire underground culture, DID affect change, in that it depopularized the war in Vietnam, the draft, attitudes towards drug use, and the status quo. Those effects are still playing out today.
You seem to have missed my point. Yes the majority did not go beyond marijuana. But as with activism, we are talking about not the majority but a select minority. Among that group, many did not stop with weed. Some went beyond it. And often these were the same people who were either an important part of or inspiring the sub culture. When your hero or best friend has an overdose, the effects go well beyond that one person.
Again, those of us who were intimately involved with the mass protest movement of those times, understood the difference between catching a buzz and mainlining. There was a short period (1965-68) where the advocacy of using hallucinogens was prevalent in the youth culture, but declined fairly rapidly. The media perpetuated the idea, but, apart from the herb, drug use wasn't as prevelant as it was made out to be.
again proving my main point.. society had changed. However, as shown in the OP, clearly protesting had not stopped by 1973.
No, protesting did not end in 1973. I never said that. The popular youth movement, and mass protest, however, did, because the aims of the mass protest movement were mostly met, ie the war ended, the draft was slowed, then ended. Society changed, which was due to the mass protest movement of this period.
Not quite. Gay rights technically began in the 1920s. But as we think of it today was already well underway in the 60s. In fact it owed alot to the black civil rights movement. (see Bayard Rustin). The modern gay rights movement is generally agreed by historians to have begun after the stonewall riots. The GLF was founded in 1969 while the Advocate began publication in 1967. The gay rights movement , like modern feminism , was shaped in large part by the sexual revolution of the 60s.
The first "gay liberation" parades/marches coincided with the "women's liberation" parades/marches, which initiated in 1968. The suffragette movement was about voting rights for women, the 60's version was much more wholistic, in that it demanded equal rights in ALL matters.
The term "sexual revolution" was very much a 70's term, not 60's. The 1960's mass protest movement was also about lifestlyle choices, about the hypocracy of our society, and the term "free love", which was very old, meant something different to those in the 1960's who were experimenting with alternative lifestyles.
As for Women's Lib, it certainly did not begin in 1968. It began with the suffragettes. Even the movement for total female equality predates Vietnam by at least 30 years. The fight against inequality as you are describing became a primary force in feminism in the 60s (and lasted to the mid 80s).
The POPULARIZATION of the feminist movement began, however, in the 1960's and was a direct result of the mass protest movement, ie youth movement. Yes, agreed, there were elements of feminist thought that went back to Marx, and earlier, but were not poularized until the 60's.
You seem to be confusing a movement existing with when it first began to attract large scale media attention. These are not the same thing.
Of course not, which is why I pointed out that they were popularized, not invented by the 60's youth movement.
Not that I am sure why we even arguing this anyway. Nothing you said refutes what I have said.
Except that the issue of Skyfire's extremely limited knowledge of the events discussed is reflected in his simplistic approach to the topic. In my view, he was and is totally wrong in his misconceptions about the "protest period".
Not quite. It became POLITICAL in the 80s. But AIDS began in the 70s. Recall what I said earlier...
Which did, however, refute the idea that AIDS had something to do with the waning of the protest movement.
I wouldn't say that AIDS revitalized the gay rights movement but you are correct by implying it gave new energy to it. But it also caused untold havoc and set back gay rights immensly. These are not contradictory.
As the disease progressed, lots of gay people began to become more politically active. But at the same time the experienced gay activists were literally dying off. AIDS provided a new focus for the movement but also took energy away from other issues.
In short, it was as if the army had millions of people enlisting to fight in a new war.. but at the same time the generals are being killed off en masse with a previous war still being fought.
Yes and No. That was part of it. But the country was already changing anyway and the seeds for that can be traced back to the 50s and even to WW2. And the expansion did play a part in growing opposition to the war but more because of the draft which was seen as making the poor bear the cost of a war the rich had started. I think I see the problem here. You are trying to force history into a series of discreet and isolated incidents. But history doesnt' work that way. It's a culmination of trends and events. If the expansion of the vietnam war had occurred in the 40s or without a draft it would have been very different. Nor was the vietnam war the ONLY factor that was changing American society.
And Rebellion is a perfectly good way to describe it. The people involved in the revolutions certainly described themselves that way. They wanted to change the existing order. How is that not rebellion? (remember, rebellion here is a morally neutral term. It merely denotes resisting the status quo)
Have you read Hayden's "Rebellion and Repression"? Of course, the events of the 1960's didn't happen in a cultural vacuum. There were many things that led to it. The entire baby boom generation were, by the 1950's, rebels without a cause. Jack Keroac's "On the Road" is an illustration of the idea that the burgeoning youth of the baby boom were dissatisfied with the status quo. The entire "beat" movement was but a precursor to the popularization of the open youth rebellion that was the 1960's.
Nor am I. But it was a very important part of our history and to understand how society has changed, we must understand how the 60s led to that change.
Which is why we basically agree. The changes were made. Culturally, we are much more open to change, to new ideas, to the understanding that repression based on appearance or ideas is wrong. This is due, directly, to the baby boom generation and its efforts to change society.
None of which I disgree with. Nor doe sit contradict the idea that "drugs and Free love" had at least some negative consequences.
I think you possibly missed my point. For example, I said Sky fire was right "ina way". That qualifier is important. I think you confused me agreeing with some of what Sky fire wrote with agreeing what Sky fire's argument.
Well I did say the 80s didn't help. And one can make an argument that Clinton's administration actually helped the trend from Reagan/Bush, at least in part. Quite a few of the policies that Shrub used against dissenters were first employed by Clinton.
And no I am not making an argument that Clinton was as bad as Shrub or Reagan. But he was no progressive either.
But just an important, the society changed as well. IF it hadn't, Reagan would never have gone beyond acting.
Reagan's election was, in part, a result of the backlash to the 1960's protest movement. (see Hayden's book)
Yes and I agree with that point. But part of my point is that the events between 61 and 73 didnt' just happen nor are they only factor in what is going on today.
That wasn't my argument, but much of what we regard to day as normal, progressive thinking was popularized by the protest movement. That's all I meant.
As for complacency, ironically part of the reason for this is because the protesters back then were largely successful. Earning a living is important. It's hard to take time to do activism when you also need to work to support yourself. But that by itself doesnt' stop it. Peopel still needed to eat and pay rent in the 60s and 70s. Gay people fighting AIDS had even more monetary burdens.
Which would explain why events like Vietnam and AIDS and Prop 8 cause more activism. It shows people that earning a living isn't enough.
First "free love" historically began as early as the 20s. Even earlier if we go outside the US.
And again, you seem to be atomizing history into discreet bits. The Sexual revolution was in full force in the 70s but it had influence on the larger societal changes that stemmed from the 60s. Both Women's Lib and Gay rights owe much of their start from it.
The movement was about ending the war, mostly. Once that battle was won, the raison-d'etre of the movement was gone. That is why the protest movement ended, because the war and the draft ended. We won, we ended the war, influenced the country enough to get rid of Nixon, and overt racism became unacceptable.
Again you are ignoring history to make it into a group of unrelated facts.
The civil rights movement, for instance did not come about because Vietnam. IF there had been no Vietnam, MLK probably would have stilled marched.
Does that mean Black civil rights and the anti-war movement didn't influence each other? OR course not, they influenced each other greatly. But so did the other movements of that time.
In fact, you seem to be confusing the anti-vietnam war movement as the ONLY one with protesters.
Look back at the OP that started this thread, the one I was replying too.
The protest it talks about was against the "save Our Children" campaign by Anita Bryant, an event that happened 2 years AFTER vietnam ended.
Clearly Vietnam was NOT the only factor. Indeed, by then it wouldn't have been a factor at all. But people clearly were still protesting stuff.
You missed my point entirely, though. What I said was that Vietnam coalesced the civil rights protests into a wider, societal rebellion. Vietnam was the catalyst that gelled the movement. Without Vietnam, following so closely on the JFK assassination, there may have been a much smaller youth movement in the 1960's. Trying to separate the Vietnam war, the civil rights movement and the assassinations of the 1960's is futile. They are bound together, and the timing ensured that the youth movement of the 1960's would become a cultural force.
My approach is neither superficial, nor shallow. I intimately understand the precursors to the 1960's period of rebellion. I also intimately understand its aftermath.
My entire point in refuting Skyfire was to illuminate SOME of the factors he blithely ignored, and remove those that were not relevant to the movement.
As I have stated in other posts, I am a student of history, my degree is in history. I totally understand that things don't happen in isolation, nor am I trying to deconstruct events to meet my preconcieved notions.
As a person who was active as an anti-war activist, I was actually directly involved in the movement. I can assure that had Johnson not expanded the war, the protest movement of the 1960's may have been still-born.
Look, we agree that Skyfire is a douchbag with limited knowledge and less understanding. I wasn't attempting to pick a fight with you over the minutae of the 1960's protest movement, or the minor factors that led to its waning.
It waned because it succeeded in ending the war. It waned because we got older, and sought personal liberation. It waned because the draft ended. It waned because elements of the movement actually believed that armed revolt was the inevitable consequence, and the majority saw that for the batshit crazy idea that it was. It waned because of all of these things and more. Drugs and sex were only marginally influencial in its decline. It wasn't a part of the youth culture anymore, since the youths who were part of that movement grew older, and began to recognize the shades of grey that our society is.