Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Did we of the 60s accomplish anything?
    
    yes...
    
    (though it's hard to think of it tonight, this night)
    
       ...but not enough.  It's never enough.  Our kids must do more, as
    we had to.
    
    Sara

    All I can think about is when my (now-ex) husband went off to Thailand
    to clean up after the war.  He was not in REAL danger, but he was shot
    at.
    
    I remember my father twice being sent to Vietnam, in 67 and 68. He came
    back safely, but others didn't.
    
    Did the 60's count?  Somehow I think the US took two 50's and went
    right into the 70's.
    
    Sigh.

    "there's no such thing as revolution
       it's got another name
         it's called evolution ... go slow"
    					   -- Shawn Phillips
    
    Yes, I believe we accomplished something.  In fact I believe we
    accomplished a great deal.
    
    Unfortunately for many of us, we seem to think we have failed because
    we did not accomplish it _all_.  We were idealistic, we had a great
    vision ... in retrospect, though, many of us can be said to have been
    aggressively rude and close minded, not willing to build the bridges we
    needed from our 'moral high ground' ... we _were_ going to do it all.
    
    The words above were written in both sadness and hope -- sadness,
    because our 'revolution' didn't bring the new Peacable Kingdom; hope,
    because it accomplished something and our continued effort could over
    time direct the 'evolution' to what we sought/seek.
    
    We, as a global entity, did not arrive at at condition of endemic
    violence in a mere few years.  It is naive to assume that a mere few
    years will bring Utopia.
    
    Even going slow takes an herculean effort.
    
      Annie

>    Did we of the 60s accomplish anything?

	Yes, you planted in the mind of every two-bit dictator in the world
	the idea that the US lacked the will to effectively oppose their
	aggression.

					Tom_K

    
    we have failed
    

�	Yes, you planted in the mind of every two-bit dictator in the world
�	the idea that the US lacked the will to effectively oppose their
�	aggression.
    
    When they only cost two bits, don't we usually just buy them?
    
    Ray

    I think the 60s did accomplish something, but it is important not to
    despair simply because the ideals of that decade didn't completely
    change the world overnight.  The real failure is in not trying; we
    simply can't worry about obtaining immediate results, because sometimes
    change takes a long, long time.  And if you *do* try, you sometimes
    find that you have planted the seeds, even if you don't see any
    immediate effects.  

    I believe that the 60s did plant the seeds.  The antiwar demonstrations
    that have risen up throughout the country are truly amazing.  The
    antiwar movement at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964
    was trivial in comparison to this one.  Not only that, but churches and
    religious leaders have been at the forefront of the opposition to this
    war--in stark contrast to the position that most churches took at the
    start of the Vietnam War.  The vote for war in Congress was the closest
    vote of any declaration of war in U.S. history--while the Gulf of
    Tonkin resolution was passed virtually unanimously.

    It would be nice to achieve positive social change at the wave of a
    hand, but that just doesn't happen.  It sometimes takes work, and a lot
    of seed planting, often creating effects that we never even realize. 
    But that is all that we can be asked to do.

    The next step is to continue the opposition to this war.  And as we do
    so, we will continue to plant the seeds.  So don't despair.  There is
    still much work to be done.

    -- Mike

    When is the U.S. going to stop thinking that they are the world; that
    they have the right to go in and 'stop aggression.'  Frankly, imho,
    it's none of the U.S.'s concern who is fighting whom, when.  Let them
    take care of the mess within its own borders.
    

    
    re: .9
    
    Agreed.
    

    < what happened to us?
    
    the normal thing in these cases... our nerves are tense and we find
    that we have to blame it to something.  Why blame it to the 60's? or
    the 70's? or even the 80's?
    
    the 60's brought a new type of freedom that we are paying for it now
    but it did not bring war, it bought lots of free love, (now we have
    AIDS, and huge amount of VD, herpes etc, etc, that derives from
    indiscriminate multiple sex partners) I see that as product of "make
    love, not war" slogans of the 60's... remember the steps of Damm Square
    in Amsterdam? full of hippies smoking marihuana... that also derived
    years later in not just marihuana but the sequel of hard drugs and the
    crimes associated to drugs.... the 60's also brought good music, (not
    everything has to be bad) and many other things...
    
    If we ever can manage to avoid the cathastrophe that we have pending...
    the 90's will never be forgotten! and if we don't, will never be
    forgotten either!  We must have faith in ourselves, do the best we can
    do, pray a lot, and hope that SU behaves like his "buddy" Ghadafy, that
    as soon as he got a little "punishment" stopped barking...
    
    If we get into war... I pray it will be swift and short.
    
    (and I heard that an "accident" to SH could completely avoid it...)

    Are we so intent on changing the world that we've failed to see what's
    in our own back yard?  How can we keep bailing out foreign countries at
    the present rate (including forgiving millions in outstanding debt)
    when there's so much to clean up right here?
    
    	The Homeless
    	Illiteracy
    	Infant mortality
    	Poverty
    	Education
    	Unemployment
    	Obsolete manufacturing processes
    	The S&L Fiasco (and how it's affecting everyone)
    	...to name but a few
    
    No, these problems won't go away tomorrow.  What's become of our
    priorities?  I listen to the news these days and ask myself WHY, but so
    far, no answer makes sense.
    
    Ironic that the deadline for Hussein fell on Martin Luther King Jr.'s
    birthday.
    
    
    Judi
    

    I think the 60's *did* accomplish something. Look at the quick response
    in cities all over the country. Lots of people are very upset about
    this and willing to show it. First crack out of the box. Maybe the
    politicians didn't try hard enough this time, but maybe next time,
    we'll try *every*thing before we "bomb the *******s".
    
    Still, one wonders how long it takes for ideas like "peace" and
    "equality" to really take hold. 
    
    --DE
    

    	I was there for the sixties too.  (Sixties is a misnomer.  It was
    really 68-73 when things were changing.)  There were quite a few of us
    then who thought that we were doing the right thing in opposing a group
    of people who wanted to imposet their views on others in Vietnam. 
    Unfortunately our leaders still have a lot of trouble distinguishing
    between opposing aggression and being aggressors.  (As seen in
    attacking a sovreign nation and taking its leader prisoner for failing
    to obey US drug laws.)  I think that if we had done the right thing in
    Vietnam 3,000,000 people would not have died a few years later in
    Cambodia.  Unfortunately at that time we had given in to the people who
    oppose any use of force anywhere for any reason.  
    	We haven't betrayed the sixties.  IN the present case we have
    finally gotten it right for once and done what we should have done in
    Vietnam, Cambodia and Iran.  If we had gotten it right the first time,
    the world would be a happier freer place now.  If we had gotten it
    right we wouldn't have spent a year watching an ineffectual wimp wring
    his hands over hostages in Iran that he was responsible for.  Remember
    just because a group of people who consider themselves to have a patent
    on right say that we've betrayed some ideal doesn't mean that another
    ideal hasn't been fulfilled.
    						John
    

    I've decided that displaying as much peace, love, and
    understanding as I can to the people around me -- the intolerant
    jerks at work, the imbeciles who cut me off, my family and my
    neighbors -- is more important than trying to implement government
    programs that tell other people how to live.  Maybe I can't stop a
    war or change the system, but I can ease some hurt, dry some
    tears, hold some hands, share some joy.
    
    --bonnie

    We Americans went a long time without a war. We have known relative
    peace since 1973. (please note the word relative) Had it not been for
    the influance of the 60's we may had our peaceful time shortened.
    
    Kate
    (Who grew up during Vietnam)

    We need to protest against war (pro-war people?!) but we need to
    know what and who we are protesting against.  It hurt considerably
    when people of our own age group called me and my husband and our
    military friends, "warmongers," "baby burners," etc. etc.  I tried
    to explain, on deaf ears, that he *didn't* want to be there either.
    But not everyone could run to Canada; they would've noticed.
    

    
    i think we (rhetorical device) neglected to protest panama and 
    granada and lebanon vigorously enough. i, for one, will not make
    that mistake again.
    

    I feel very sad for the the "children of the Viet Nam" generation. The
    reason is that they have no perspective about America. The only war
    such people know about is a "bad" war.
    The Viet Nam war is the third war I remember (i was born in 1938)
    I also remember the Korean war and the second world war.
    The U S of A has had its share of both good wars, and bad wars, and
    horrible wars. The Indian 'Wars' were somewhere between bad and
    horrible. The Vietnam War was horrible. The Korean War wasn't 'very
    good'. The Second World War was an honorable war, the first world war
    was an honorable war.
    I believe that we will look back on the Persian Gulf war as a good war.
    I think that this war is going to go a long war toward restoring the
    prestige that the U S of A deservedly lost as a result of our actions
    in Indo China. 

    <I think that this war is going to go a long war toward restoring the
    <prestige that the U S of A deservedly lost as a result of our actions
    <in Indo China. 
    
    Now I wonder just how long it is going to take for some person to
    attack that statement as horrific justification for a war?
    

My grandfather, who fought in it, did not think World War I was an 
honorable war. 

He ran away to Canada to join their army because the US was delaying
their entry, and he fought the full war -- he wouldn't be upset by gas 
masks; he saw what mustard gas did to people.  Chemical warfare is
nothing new.  And he stayed in Europe for a few years afterwards, Italy 
mostly, helping to rebuild.  

He thought it was a stupid mistake, stupidly carried out.  He thought that
the generals were to blame for an incredible unnecessary loss of life. 

He wasn't against war in general; he thought going into Viet Nam was the
right thing to do.  He died before he saw how we botched it.

--bonnie

    The identification of "good" and "bad" wars brings to mind the Studs
    Terkel book "The Good War".  I did not read the book, although I did
    read excerpts that were published in _The_Atlantic_.  The title of the
    book referred to World War II, which is almost universally perceived as
    a "good" war.  Yet the title was also ironic, because no matter how
    just the cause of the war was, the fact remained that it, like all
    wars, was a messy, bloody, horrible experience for those who
    participated.  No war is really a "good" war.

    Because of the actions of the Iraqi government, the Persian Gulf War is
    often being justified as a "good" war.  The inference is that a just
    cause necessarily implies a just war.  The term "just war" itself has a
    rather interesting connotation.  A "just war" doctrine was formulated
    by the Roman Catholic Church many ages ago as an attempt at defining
    when war was morally acceptable or unacceptable.  When British
    religious leaders (including the Roman Catholic primate of Scotland)
    signed a document last November 26 expressing opposition to a Gulf War,
    they pointed out that a just war "demands more than a just cause".  The
    just war doctrine spells out that while a just cause is a necessary
    condition for a just war, it is certainly not a sufficient one.  The
    document outlined in detail why a Gulf War would, in fact, violate all
    of the tenets of the just war doctrine.
 
    I have appreciated the moral voice that religious leaders have
    expressed in opposition to this war. One of the most heartening things
    (to me anyway) about the current antiwar movement is that religious
    leaders have been at its forefront.  These religious leaders have not
    by any means been restricted to teh Peace Church tradition, but in fact
    have come from many mainstream traditions (including the Roman Catholic
    Church and the National Council of Churches).  In the past, many
    religious leaders were less likely to exercise such a strong moral
    voice against unjust and unnecessary wars such as this one in the
    Persian Gulf.  Of course, there have been exceptions, especially among
    certain fundamentalist factions (Pat Robertson comes to mind, but that
    is hardly unexpected); but it is good to see so many leaders of
    religious communities exhibiting this kind of moral courage.

    -- Mike

    
               Since I started this note, let me express myself more fully.
    I believe that this war was/is necessary.  What I *HATE* was the
    mentality that caused it to be necessary.  I felt, in the 60's, that
    our job was to educate the world that peace is better than war.  S.H.
    started this by invading another country....he deserves what he gets.
    
               IF, and this is a *big* if, Viet Nam was fought as this war
    is being fought, then the outcome would have been very different and
    IMHO, peace today would have been closer.  
    
              An intriguing product of this war is the number of other
    countries who feel as strongly as we do that this invasion was wrong.
    Maybe...just maybe.....part of the world is seeing what we were trying
    to tell them 30 years ago.  In *ALL* aspects of life, there is someone
    that doesn't get the word....namely....S.H.  He may be thinking about
    it now....at least I hope so!
    
    
    Dave

<Set Romantic 60s Notions Off>
<Set History On>

Quick snapshot of peace and anti-war movements:

 1910  --  The intellectuals and youth of Europe believed the
           golden age of peace and wisdom was flowering.
           There were peace demonstrations of thousands (I forget
           just what for ...)

           Literacy is growing.
 
 1914? --  WWI breaks out.

 1930s --  The youth of Europe and America and the intellectuals
           believe, with hope and time, peace and minimal living
           standards are possible for everyone; and political power
           will be owned totally by the people

 1939  --  WWII breaks out.

 1940s --  Civil disobedience becomes a powerful political tool 
           in India.

 1950s --  The intellectuals of America (I dunno about Europe here)
           unceasingly ask why everyone -- especially the young --
           have turned into "a nation of sheep."

           The "intellectual" young in American are divided up
           between political parties and the beatniks, who are
           into "peace not war" but are not of a missionary
           posture.

           Literacy is still growing.

 1950s-60s The Civil Rights movement gains more and more momentum,
           and awakens much of American white middle class, especially
           the young, to the fact this is not the best of all possible 
           worlds, and much change is needed. The movement uses civil 
           disobedience as a powerful tool. 

 1962      Students at Carthage College in  Wisconsin, 
           demonstrate. They no longer wish to dress for dinner. (yes, 
           really, I saw it and heard the cherry bombs.)

           Literacy is still growing.

 1962-66?  The Berkeley free speech movement grows among the
           babies born during the war. The civil rights movement
           and the ever growing prosperity of America lead more 
           and more people to thoughtfully question what is.

           Literacy is still growing.

 1964-65   The war grows larger.
 
 1964-69   SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) becomes
           more high profile as they organize public protests and 
           marches thru out the country on campuses, statehouses, 
           city centers. 

 1965      The baby boom starts it freshman years at college. 
           Demographers deliver many scholarly papers on the social 
           and political effect (instability) of having such a large 
           proportion of young in the population. Large chunks of
           young at one time have historically led to political
           instability. It's always tough on the Powers.

           SAT and ACT scores reach an all time high.

 1965-66   The bulk of the "60s generation" are perturbed about the
           war. They don't like it ... but .... uh ... 


 1967      It becomes stylish and cool to be anti war and into drugs. 

           The face of American changes, like a kaleidoscope.
           October, 1967:  We drive down the East coast from Philadephia 
           to Miami. We see perhaps ten hitch-hikers, mostly soldiers
           and hoboes. August, 1968: I drive from Miami, up the East 
           coast to Canada. We see hundreds; young kids with long hair
           carry duffel bags.
              
           SAT and ACT scores drop.

1968-70    Anti war groups, both "youth" and adult, work together
           to halt the war.  Massive demonstrations, plus the
	   blood and logic of the thing, turn public opinion
	   against the war.  

           The youth movement canonizes itself and thinks it is
           the finest generation of people who have ever lived. 
             "Don't trust anyone over 30"
             "We Are the People Our Parents Warned Us About"

           "Let us work together to change the world" goes away
           and is replaced by a feeling of "we are a wonderful
           and special generation." 

           SAT and ACT scores drop.

1970-on    The war finally ends.

           The 60s generation moves forward in time, wrapped
	   in its self-woven sainthood.

           SAT and ACT scores still drop.
           Literacy drops.
           Drug use grows in all segments of society.

<Set Conclusion Mode>

1. There have been a lot of people in a lot of places that have
   helped drive the movement towards peace and a better world.

2. The 60s generation -- aka the baby boom -- was and is an
   oddity because of its demographic profile and its consequent
   influence.  (What a loss ... where would that energy have gone
   if we hadn't spent it on the war?)

3. The 60s generation sees itself wrapped in a shining light of
   goodness. 

4. Note 0:   > Did we of the 60s accomplish anything?

   I think Yes. But the accomplishment, to my eye, was primarily
   moving American society to a more liberal ways ... in dress,
   public conduct, sexuality, music, fashion.  The 60s gave us
   a more colorful relaxed America.

   Personally, I have a few grudges against the 60s.

   The 60s were anti-intellectual in many ways, and encouraged
   this as a social attitude. Interestingly, intellectuals resided
   at the birth and core of the anti-war movement, but when it
   became a massive social movement [dare one say "fad"],
   intellectuality was disparaged.

   The 60s generation -- much of the anti-war folk -- were
   incredibly self righteous.  And liked exercising its
   moral superiority, as was expressed in .17 BUEHLER
   > It hurt considerably ... called [us] "warmongers,"
   "baby burners," etc.
    
   There was a heck of a lot of that. Intolerance really
   flourished in the name of Love.

    Of course no war is a 'good' war! I was using good in a very colloquial
    sense.

    I feel it is disingenuous for people to take issue with my reply (.17)
    on that basis.
    
    I also feel it would be totally useless and incredibly naive for me to
    engage in a conversation with anybody whose initial premise is that
    war (killing people) under any and all circumstances is wrong.
    
    
    				herb

    .19
    
    sorry, there are no good and honorable wars, IMHO, of course.
    

    In my latest reply .25, I referred to .17. That was an error. I
    intended to be referring to my earlier reply, which in fact is entry # .19
    I apologize for any resultant confusion or inadvertent discomfort.

    
    				herb

    				

        RE: Whatever happened to us?
        
        Slowly, we  digressed  to  a  country  where flag burning was
        allowed and accepted (even by sixth graders  !), and the only
        rich people are crooks and politicians.
        
        Very sad !
        
        Matt

    Meigs, another boop on your timeline;
    
    1926 (or thereabouts) - Kellogg-Briand Pact outlaws war.
    
    DougO

    I thought the timeline was interesting...I'm not a student of history,\
    per se, nor an authority, so I didn't know some of the events. And
    I certainly hadn't seen them laid out in a timeline. I thought it was
    ...uh..revealing, I guess.
    
    Showed me how much things repeat. In this particular cycle, I
    personally had just gotten to believe that we *could* create a
    planet-wide consciousness of understanding, acceptance,
    communication... 
    
    Silly me.
    
    

> Note 645.30 by COLBIN::EVANS 

>    Showed me how much things repeat. In this particular cycle, I
>    personally had just gotten to believe that we *could* create a
>    planet-wide consciousness of understanding, acceptance,
>    communication... 
    
Well, I think it is happening. S l o w l y.  There are four billion
people on this planet and 1xx countries, most of which are run
with some degree of ... ah ... tyranny.  And last I heard, there
were 26 military conflicts.

It's slow!  Sometimes I wonder why it doesn't go faster, but then
I think how long it would take just to convince, say, 100 neighbors
to change grocery stores ... and it makes more sense.

    RE: .31
    
    Well, I guess to me it's not so much convincing 100 neighbors that
    changing grocery stores is a good idea (i.e., we should all do what
    I want us to), but that we should save the grocery store we've got, or 
    we will all starve (i.e, � la Mr. Franklin(?) "if we don't hang
    together, we will all surely hang separately").  
    
    But then, *I* think women's equality is a good idea, and women haven't
    been able to accomplish much in hundreds of years, no matter how many
    die in the trenches every day, and no matter how all of humanity
    suffers because of women's inequality. So what the heck do *I* know?
    
    --DE
    
    
    
    
    

>    But then, *I* think women's equality is a good idea, and women haven't
>    been able to accomplish much in hundreds of years, no matter how many
>    die in the trenches every day, and no matter how all of humanity
>    suffers because of women's inequality. So what the heck do *I* know?
    
A lot. You know things are getting better. It's now OK to teach your
daughters to read ... a few centuries ago it was going to interfere
with fertility (altho the Chineese foot was only unbound in the 30s
and 40s.)  And it was only a few decades ago that many doctors 
refused to discuss birth control. Most women's schools were founded
within the last 160 years. 

Altho ... odd things happen. The number of women earning Ph.D.'s
increased yearly from 1901 through 1938, then took a big drop 
throughout the 40s, 50s, and 60s.  Why? I dunno.

Similarly, the number of black students enrolled in colleges and 
universities has dropped in the last 10 years. 

    Charles hinted  at  something that's been bothering me for a while
    (and  yes, I'm actually trying to get back to the original topic),
    which is what I would call economic apartheid.

    We are  splitting into two societies that don't interact. The rich
    go  to  private  schools  (from kindergarten on), while the public
    schools (particularly in the cities) just get worse. The rich have
    their  own health clubs, parks (golf clubs), and even police force
    (there  are now more private guards than police in the US). When I
    go  into  cities  I  see  homeless  people,  I  see  people barely
    surviving, and I get uncomfortable, and don't go into that part of
    the  city again. I withdraw into my "safe" society because I can't
    deal with the other society.

    In many  ways,  this  is the mark of a undeveloped country. We are
    increasing  the  disparity  in wealth, and making the middle class
    smaller.

    Even in  the "thousand points of light" theory, the charities that
    most wealthy people support are used mainly by themselves. We give
    money  to  theatres  (tax  deductible as a charity), organizations
    that protect the environment (large parks far away from the city),
    and civil rights organizations (most people wouldn't know that the
    ACLU  exists  and  would  defend  their  rights.)  Is  this really
    charity?  It certainly helps us more than it helps poorer people.

    I wish  I knew how to prevent this seperation, because it can't be
    good,  but  I  don't see what will stop it, short of a revolution.
    I'm  hoping  that Watts won't burn again, but I can't say that I'm
    confident.

--David

    Witt, as usual, you make me think and rethink.
    
    I guess I've gone back to the future, or back to the sixties, or back
    to the land (in some sense, certainly not literally :-) by coming to
    Vermont.  A bunch of circumstances came together all at once to make it
    happen, and the child-of-the-sixties in me is a significant part of it.
    
    I never thought, as a high school kid (grad '69), that I would a. be a
    professional, b. ever work for a corporation, for c. 13 years!  I never
    thought I would be as personally involved with and committed to a job,
    a project, as I found myself involved and committed for some years. 
    (Many of you know of what I speak, and some share the feeling.)  I
    believe that committment was broken -- NOT by me -- and it made me
    reconsider quite a lot.  In particular, the child of the sixties
    resurfaced.  I even said at the time, "Turn on, tune in, drop out!"
    although I meant it somewhat differently than Timothy Leary did! ;-)
    
    So I moved up here, I live in a town of 2800 people, still rural here. 
    The kids are polite and friendly, not smart-alecky (the model kids get
    from tv and eachother these days).  The adults are reserved but
    friendly.  There is poverty here, but not the kind of problems Witt
    spoke of in the context of cities.
    
    I recognize that both the child-of-the-sixties in me, and the woman
    that I am now, consciously chose to absent myself from those problems.
    I haven't stopped caring, but I choose to make another life for myself.
    
    So what happened to us (me)?  I guess I've come full circle.  And it
    feels good, right for me.
    
    Sara