A Revolver Revolving Revolution: a comparative analysis of the protests of the 60s and the protests of today.
In the past 40 years, our country and our world have become significantly different places. Technology has made everything different- from news, to communications, to global politics, to war, and even in our access to information. However, on reflection of another war, nationwide (and even global) protests against military action on Iraq have made many people reminisce about the war in Vietnam. While the intensity and fervor of today’s youth is, without question, noble and dedicated, we need to remember our history, to see how successful any protest can be, and just how different those two ages are. There are several key differences that we have to look at first, before we come to any conclusions.
Frequency
In the 60s, protests were organized for two major causes: Equal Rights/Anti-Segregation laws, and Anti-Vietnam. Today, there are protests for everything. While some protests have legitimate aims, as well as an overwhelming desire to change society for the better, for the most part we have become over-sensitive, pretentious, and whiny. We protest for and against everything-- war, free speech, drug use, song lyrics, the right to bear arms, big tobacco, TV shows (see: the Teletubbies), religion, high prices at the mall, the Knicks scoring under 80 points, things that are green, and anything else we can muster the strength to bitch about. It seems there are marches every day- the million man march, the million mom march, the million bald fat guys march, the promise keepers march, the WTO protest, the Cincinnati riots, and the list goes on. However, an obvious desensitization has occurred in our society because of it. Like violence once tugged at our heartstrings, and now gets a passing mention (if any) on the news, America has grown sick and tired of protests, to the degree that a nationwide protest of high school and college students got barely mentioned on the news, and, when it was, it was to show signs like “Liar Liar, President Bush your pants are on fire,” and other childish and inane shots of the youths that could only act as counterproductive to their cause.
Reasons
In the 60s, protests demanded a reason- whether they were against segregation and the disenfranchisement of blacks in the US, or to try and stop a war that effected everyone. Since the issue of segregation is a thing of the past (anyone who claims today’s African-Americans have it as bad as blacks in the 60s is misinformed, and dead wrong), let’s look at the war protest.
There is one truism that came out of the Vietnam war protests- because of policies like a national draft, covert operations, and America’s almost religious need to win a war that was, at best, a pointless loss of life and a national tragedy (this is not to say the contributions and the sacrifices of the thousands of veterans means nothing- it just means the war was an attempt to flex our muscles globally, through the guise of fighting the Red Tide, that wound up costing us dearly for our moxy). The maxim in the 60s rang true- EVERYONE knew someone in the war, or someone deeply effected by the war. And that is what spurred the protests- a universally affected populace, striving for enlightenment, hungering for peace, trying to save friends, peers, and relatives from pain and death.
Today, however, we are much luckier. Technology, the buildup of our Industrial-Military Complex, the fall of the other great superpower, and the United States’ near-hegemonic dominance of world affairs, have put us in a much better position, both in terms of global influence, and warfare. We have achieved a virtual military stranglehold over the world (Fact: If North Dakota seceded from the US, it would be the 3rd largest nuclear power in the world, behind the US minus North Dakota, and Russia), which eliminates many of the problems faced in the 60s. Where necessity once dictated the committal of unsure bombing campaigns, and incredible amounts of troop deployment, today unmanned flights, smart bombs, e-bombs, satellite photography, increased intelligence, infrared and night-vision, and an exponentially growing inequity in terms of military spending, have allowed our nation to win wars with a minimal amount of lives lost (while we have over 200k troops in the Middle East right now, the amount of those who will ever be in the line of fire is significantly low. The odds of a draft and a universal sense of urgency in the nation are even lower.) So what, then, is the cause for protest today?
The facts are, today’s protests are a result of a bored and disenfranchised youth culture looking for something to give meanings to their cynical and heartless lives. It comes from a desire to give a nullified life purpose by championing a cause (even if that cause is completely asinine). The movement towards this tendency has made protests mean very little in today’s world. In the 60s, the protests were over freedom, rights, peace, and love – admirable goals that mean something. They were causes that REQUIRED protest, issues that NEEDED to be addressed. The difference is clear: in the 60s, the issue (and the need to change the world) fueled the protest, in the 2000s, the need to protest creates the issues.
Culture and Music
This leads directly to the issue of the national culture. The attitude in the 60s, once again, was markedly different than it is today. The 60s was a culture of love; the 2000s is a culture of hate. When you see the 60s, you see it as an era of peace and love, through sit-ins and festivals, body painting and manic dancing, through dialogue and growth. It was a time where we grew as a society, both in terms of our understanding of the world, but also in the range and strength of our people. It was a time where we came to understand the differences that existed between us, and came to appreciate that America was great because we allowed everyone to speak freely, because we, uniquely, appreciated John Stuart Mill’s concept of the Marketplace of Ideas. Basically, in an ideal society, all ideas would be represented. Once all were introduced, without prejudice, the best ideas would gain greater acceptance, thus rooting out the bad ideas. Only by hearing all views as potentially legitimate, and judging them based on their intrinsic worth, could we find what is best for the country, and, more importantly, for its citizens.
The present culture is a drastic turn around from the culture of the 60s. Most people today virulently and stubbornly grasp on to a viewpoint, and not only refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of another opinion, but hate those who disagree with them. There is an absolutely amazing site of videos (http://brain-terminal.com/topics/video.html) done by a guy named Evan Coyne Maloney, who I got the pleasure of talking to through email correspondence. He has a series of 5 videos (now available on DVD) that pretty much encapsulate the problem with today’s culture, as evidenced through the protests that occurred in New York City and various rallies in California. I strongly recommend EVERYONE go to this site and watch these videos. There are three main points that struck me from all these short videos, both of which I’ve discussed- first, the need to protest leading to the cause (and the need to do something with anger), second- the complete unwillingness to grant other people their own opinion, and third- the utter lunacy of some protestors. Here are some excerpts on both:
First-
The narrator, after being screamed at, “Although the protesters didn’t make the case to back up their opinions. They did seem like nice people for the most part. The kind of people I’d be happy to call friends. But I don’t think the name calling or extremist language helps their cause. And hopefully, the more hotheaded among them will some day realize that mere disagreement does not make one evil”
Anti-protesters were marching with protesters, but supporting the war. Showing, again, the fervent anger displayed to anyone who simply disagrees. “Protester: You’re not welcome here. Now you can go, or we can go get the cops. Anti-protester: so where do you want us to go? Protestor: we want you out of the park.” Narrator: While they employed the tactics they accused John Ashcroft of, first by roping in the protestors, literally. And, after the warriors left, a protestor followed them back to their van and copied down their license plate number.”
“Narrator: At least the protestors were comfortable having their opinions challenged
Man 1: BULLSHIT
Man 2: Get the fuck out of here. See you later
Man 3: You guys are bullshit, right-wing crap. Get out of my face.”
Second-
On the blatant anti-Semitism at the rallies (proving that, again, these people just need someone to hate. If Iraq is good, then Palestine is good, and Israel is bad.) “Narrator: The undercurrent of anti-Semitism at the recent protests is one of the most underreported aspects of the peace movement. . .” Signs that say “Zionism is Ethnic Cleansing,”
Furthermore, “Narrator: But I still didn’t understand why the Palestinian cause was so popular amongst these white urbanites. Man: I really feel we’re going to war to fight Israel. Woman: the Israelis are like the US in acting imperialistically and greedily. Narrator: Oh, I get it. So they tie Israel to the US and it gives the protesters another target for their anger. Man: The other side of my sign, I wanted it.. today.. to say ‘first dump bush, then dump our Zionist congress.’ Woman: I really felt unsafe, there was so much Jew-Hatred.”
“Narrator: The protesters preaching non-violence found plenty of excuses for Palestinian terrorism. Apparently not everybody deserves peace.”
Third-
One protestor, named Frank Chu, on why we shouldn’t trust Bush and the CIA, “Those are quintrological galaxies and alphatronic rockifications and humanoid spacifications and some quadraloglical, chemical war crimes with some tetralogical cosmopolitans with rockificiations, space stations and flying saucers with other populations on other planets across 12 galaxies that were top secret by the CIA behind closed doors in Washington outdating the automobile society and outdating those international airlines.” No, this isn’t taken out of context.
The cultural differences are also expressed in the music of the time. Without even going into the incredibly obvious difference between Woodstock ’69 (peace and love) and Woodstock ’99 (anger and commercialism), it would benefit us if we took a look at the bands that played both festivals. Woodstock 69 featured bands like Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin, The Who, Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young, The Band, and Ravi Shankar. Bands you know, no doubt, who defined the counter culture of understanding and love, while at the same time establishing their protests against society.
Woodstock 99 featured such peace-loving bands as Megadeth, Korn, Metallica, Kid Rock, Godsmack, the Insane Clown Posse, and Limp Bizkit. Most interesting to me, though, is Rage Against the Machine. Rage, more so than any band in this era, encapsulates our generation’s musical voice of protest. They, more than anyone, attempt to alert us, through their music, of the injustices that are running rampant in this world. However, when looking at a comparison between Rage and 60s protest music (e.g. Bob Dylan); the differences in culture also shine through. First, look at the name- rage against the machine. That isn’t a cry for peaceful change; it’s a call to arms, a plea for revolution. This is even more evident in songs like “Bullet in the Head,” “Calm Like a Bomb,” and “War Within a Breath.” The lyrics speak even more. Let’s look at a comparison between Rage and Dylan.
From their first single, “Freedom”, and they’re call of “anger is a gift” Rage Against the Machine have tried to educate, while, at the same time, incite. Two of the most prominent examples of their views both tear down their concept of America, while calling for a massive revolt. “Yes I know my enemies / They're the teachers who taught me to fight me / Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission / Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite / All of which are American dreams (“Know Your Enemy”, self-titled) Perhaps the most prominent example, though, comes from the song “War Within a Breath” from the CD “Battle of Los Angeles”: “A rising sun loomin over Los Angeles / Yes for Raza livin in La La / Like Gaza on to tha dawn Intifada / Reach for the lessons tha masked pass on / Seize tha metropolis / Its you its built on” Here, they draw from the Palestinian fight against Israel, and call for the people to forcibly take over Los Angeles. Again, change can only come about when you go out and forcibly take it.
Dylan, on the other hand, tries to educate while enacting a revolution of the mind. In the aforementioned “Masters of War” from “The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan”, Dylan wrote: “You that never done nothin' / But build to destroy / You play with my world / Like it's your little toy / You put a gun in my hand / And you hide from my eyes / And you turn and run farther / When the fast bullets fly. . . / And I hope that you die / And your death'll come soon” This may show the biggest difference. Dylan’s anger is manifested in a death wish on those with power, Rage’s anger results in a death threat. Furthermore, In “Chimes of Freedom” from “Another Side of Bob Dylan”: “As majestic bells of bolts struck shadows in the sounds / Seeming to be the chimes of freedom flashing / Flashing for the warriors whose strength is not to fight / Flashing for the refugees on the unarmed road of flight / An' for each an' ev'ry underdog soldier in the night / An' we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.” Once again, a marked difference. The freedom comes from refusing to fight, instead of inciting violent revolution.
Conclusion
All in all, while death, taxes, and a distrust of societal norms and the government live on, the undercurrent of our counter culture has changed dramatically in the last 40 years. The feelings of impenetrable love, and a sense of an unfaltering brotherhood with all of mankind has been swallowed by hatred, violence, intolerance, and a smug air of superiority or, for the very least, a sense of false enlightenment. I think, though, that its important to realize that, while not wanting there to be anything wrong in the world, that hatred, violence, and intolerance are allowed to exist, and need to be regarded as legitimate opinions, even if we don’t agree with them. If hatred is wrong, then it is always wrong, and that includes hating hatred.
The modern protest culture has self-destructed. It’s worn itself out, and barely holds any significance over our daily lives. It’s a shame too, that a historic, effective, and grassroots means of effecting change in society has managed to stamp itself out. The fact that there could be people who were protesting protesters should speak volumes on where this society now stands. We are a cynical, hell-bent collective, teetering between enlightenment and self-destruction, ready to take on the world, ready to unseat governments and overthrow armies, but scared of our neighbors. Maybe, just maybe, if we could fuse the realism and fervor of our time, with the community and tolerance of the 60s we could change the world. Maybe then we’d be strong enough to stand up for what we believe, while allowing others to disagree. Maybe we’d discover how far dialogue goes in terms of changing minds. Maybe we could move closer to a better life for all of us. Or maybe I’m falling into the main flaw of the 60s, an unfettered sense of idealism, as Hunter S. Thompson so beautifully describes in “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” ”a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody-or at least some force-is tending that Light at the end of the tunnel.” I just hope, for all of our sakes, that there is some force guiding us, cause I don’t think we’ll make it alone.
