"Where Is Our Radical Youth?" Washington Post Op Ed

[GeneJackit]

We can judge these things in retrospect only. Couldn't we also say that people 'back then' felt intimidated by the task of taking on 'the government'?

I'm sure if you were Black in the US back then, you would have felt like you were taking on the whole world.

I don't deny that we don't have symbolic domestic issues like abolishing slavery and blah blah anymore. But I don't think that mechanism for dissent is gone. It's just marginalized.

I mean, why would 'the establishment' censor the abolitionist movement. Or other past victories for equality/freedom/etc.?

It would make more sense for 'the establishment' to not show you things it didn't approve of in the 'here and now'.

And of course, my example isn't perfect. I don't believe we have a free and open debate on many issues. A lot of things are treated as dogma.

That doesn't mean contrary opinions are ALWAYS dismissed, rather they are - like I said - marginalized.

So I don't put too much credence (pun intended...) in our own retrospect. A lot of it is indoctrinated into us without knowing it.

I know I sound like a liberal hippie whiner *BUT* I do believe that basic spirit of resistance is never gone and we'll find new things to complain about.

I most certainly won't disagree about your last point...we will always have something to complain about lol

I think we have plenty of free / open debate...I think I may have painted the gov't with too large of a totalitarian brush...its not overt, its more of a soft tyranny...but i dont think its malicious really...for example, a politician who does whatever they can to stay in power isnt necessarily doing it for immoral reasons, but in the end it isnt good for us as a whole when there really is no check to gov't power

[Elvis]

Well I don't even think Bush is evil. I think these people occupy institutional roles that facilitate or require behavior that is - in and of itself - really wrong..

Like, Obama ordered that air-strike in Pakistan. At first the Army said it killed mostly enemy targets. Then upon further reporting, it was confirmed that wasn't the case. It had killed mostly civilians.

So is Obama evil now? Is he Bush II? Well, actually I don't think his ME strategy will be much different but all in all - I don't think he's evil.

I think he's responsible for those civilian deaths but it's via his institutional role as President of the United States. That power to order an attack half-way around the world.

But, this is just common sense I think. Same with Bush. Probably a good father? Good husband? I dunno. But he was a douche as President.

A better example for me personally is Jimmy Carter. I liked his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. But during his Presidency, he had his share of screw-ups. His support for Latin American thugs and those anti-boycott laws in particular.

Ironically about those anti-boycott laws - he'd become this symbol of the Palestinian cause decades later.

[GeneJackit]

Too many people hang the term "evil" around too many necks

I think we have a lot more perspective now, which contributes to what/how we protest...apathy is probably the large part, but a lot of people just dont get all riled up for (in the greater picture) minor problems

[Araelus]

Another part of this issue (GeneJackit hints at it) is that it's difficult to accurately predict what impact any given event will have, so things that are ignored or marginalized as "minor" can later have huge repercussions. Or even have an unseen impact as the consideration of importance is going on, depending on how people are related to the events in question.

Elvis, good point about how those in power can be strongly affected by the role they have to play. I certainly think very differently about Carter's actions as President and the things he did after leaving office.

[GeneJackit]

Another part of this issue (GeneJackit hints at it) is that it's difficult to accurately predict what impact any given event will have, so things that are ignored or marginalized as "minor" can later have huge repercussions. Or even have an unseen impact as the consideration of importance is going on, depending on how people are related to the events in question.

Elvis, good point about how those in power can be strongly affected by the role they have to play. I certainly think very differently about Carter's actions as President and the things he did after leaving office.

I wasnt alive during the Carter administration, but im sure he was pretty awful from what I can tell...no comment on what kinda person he is today...

I think you are hanging on too much to the "minor now, serious later" argument. This isnt like a butterfly flapping its wings in Argentina and making a Typhoon hit Japan. All we have is our prespective, can things get out of hand? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean we just throw our reason out the door and decide that we cant at least have a good idea of what is going to be a major issue 5, 10, 20, years from now...obviously the further out the harder it becomes, but that doesnt mean we cant at least have an idea....100 years from now no one is going to be talking about our time's struggle w/ gay marriage.

Im hesitant to open up this can of worms, but ill give it my best shot...im not going to discuss whether its right or wrong, but I would argue that the only historic moment we face today would be on the issue of abortion. It gets both sides furious, and people will rally to the cause. Say it is outlawed in 10 years (not gonna happen, but stay w/ me) then I am sure a decision like that would be discussed 100 years from now.

it seems to me that these issues only come up every 100 years or so...of course im sure that is a radical simplification

[Araelus]

Perhaps I misspoke. I meant that when people are deciding whether a cause is worth their time, if they can rationalize not dealing with it they will. The worse outcome is when minor issues get hyped up to the detriment of the real problems. I was trying to flesh out what you said in post #126, but misjudged its implications. So thank you for clarifying with #128.

[size](You may notice I didn't comment on what I actually think of Carter these days, either, simply that it's different than when he was in office...)[/size]

The most culturally important issues, in my view, are those which deal with people's basic notions. The civil rights movement was important because of a huge range of events, but in short it dealt with what it meant to be considered a person.

Different sides in different debates all disagree on what their stances really mean, so I don't know exactly how to proceed in that regard. But I've found it can be difficult to engage people in the really vital issues because a given issue is either so polarizing that discussion doesn't occur, or it seems too abstract for one person to have an impact.

[GeneJackit]

Perhaps I misspoke. I meant that when people are deciding whether a cause is worth their time, if they can rationalize not dealing with it they will. The worse outcome is when minor issues get hyped up to the detriment of the real problems. I was trying to flesh out what you said in post #126, but misjudged its implications. So thank you for clarifying with #128.

[size](You may notice I didn't comment on what I actually think of Carter these days, either, simply that it's different than when he was in office...)[/size]

The most culturally important issues, in my view, are those which deal with people's basic notions. The civil rights movement was important because of a huge range of events, but in short it dealt with what it meant to be considered a person.

Different sides in different debates all disagree on what their stances really mean, so I don't know exactly how to proceed in that regard. But I've found it can be difficult to engage people in the really vital issues because a given issue is either so polarizing that discussion doesn't occur, or it seems too abstract for one person to have an impact.

Ok, maybe i made more of your comment than i meant to. I agree, when people look at scope it can be a mistake...people really need to follow what they think is important, but i think smart people will realize that they probably won't change much, if anything at all.

your last point is also a great illustrative point on why people dont protest...it can be a huge hassle. I would argue that most people don't get involved b/c they dont feel strongly enough about a subject to stand by the courage of their convictions

I think overall I would say that I dont lament not having a protesting generation, i would say that personally I disagree w/ all those people who romanticize the 60s as some sterling/simpler time where everything eas great...yeah, not just disagree...i hate it...can't live in the past

That last part was off topic lol

[Lavik]

last books ive read were the shock doctrine by naomi klein and hedgemony or survival by noam chomsky
i read the progressive and mother jones every month
i voted for nader
i watch democracy now/inn/jim lehrer/bbc
and thats great and all
but seriously i dont feel like i do shit to help the country
thats probably because i dont
im going to start joining protests in nyc or yds at school or something

[Elvis]

same here really. i read as much as i can when i have free time. i try to introduce my friends and family to the issues too. overall, i havent done anything though D; like no protesting/etc. i think we all care about these things but we're just occupied w/ our own personal lives. and then there are those people who make those world issues, their personal lives.

[Plow]

I wasn't aware that the entire government was composed of the executive and legislative branch, and that the highest contributors to the campaigns of most of these politicians weren't corporations.

edit: you could put pressure on them by threatening their reelection, but as i've said, your point seems to be: IT'S HOPELESS.

I'm pretty sure one of the moments of greatest protest was the 70s, not 2008.
At this point, i think you and me are done. You are just being flippant and not making any points at all besides saying that protests are useless for some reason that is no more than some baseless opinion. Simple enough, voting for a new president and Congress isn't enough, these people also have obligations to their campaign contributors, furthermore, not all of Congress is replaced and the issue of a revolving door still exists(another issue is that even after the politicians are elected, people don't keep pressure on them, at least not with the same force that they voted him in with, it also doesn't help that the president doesn't really have a mandate). I've even already told you that government is meant for stability and conservation, not change, which should be obvious enough considering that any appreciable change through history was first even made an issue with massive civil unrest.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that you honestly believe what just happened was "just voting," and had nothing to do with protest/demonstration, lobbying, raising awareness, and basically every form of activism you can think of.

And I'll just leave it at that.

[GeneJackit]

last books ive read were the shock doctrine by naomi klein and hedgemony or survival by noam chomsky
i read the progressive and mother jones every month
i voted for nader
i watch democracy now/inn/jim lehrer/bbc
and thats great and all
but seriously i dont feel like i do shit to help the country
thats probably because i dont
im going to start joining protests in nyc or yds at school or something

So your reading interests include reading anything that confirms what you already believe? Doesn't that get sorta dull?

[Lavik]

So your reading interests include reading anything that confirms what you already believe? Doesn't that get sorta dull?

I read other stuff too, and I work in Barnes & Noble. Those were just the last books I can recall picking up.

[Diamicles]

/ranton

It seems to me that the mainstream media corrupts the younger people earlier and earlier in life, causing delusions about the world that make them think it's ok to be stupid, that there is no reason to think for yourself. The mob mentality, if you will. It is very obvious that a large majority of people will gladly take whatever is spoonfed to them on TV or the internet to be the true way of the world.

While I may be older than most that use these boards, I certainly did not graduate high school or college that long ago. Myself, along with the majority of my friends, were encouraged by teachers to branch out and expand our horizons, read about those that were seen as free thinking radicals in their time, and are now thought of as heroes and/or revolutionaries for their causes. A big portion of this is lack of social/historical/philosophical exploration is caused by the "No Child Left Behind" Act, which forces teachers to make sure everyone is in the same boat with their education, instead of giving each person their own boat, so to speak.

There has been a trickle down effect caused by this - and mainstream media has picked up on it. Market to the masses, not the niches. Presently, a lack of individuality is bred into our society from the start, which indirectly - but adversely - affects people's motivation to try and change for the better, thus the lack of radical/activist movements in college age kids.

/rantoff

[GeneJackit]

I read other stuff too, and I work in Barnes & Noble. Those were just the last books I can recall picking up.

I'm sorry if i came off like an asshole...i just laughed a little b/c it makes it sound like you are trying to become the perfect progressive lol...like a caricature of what a liberal should be.

[Kuya]

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that you honestly believe what just happened was "just voting," and had nothing to do with protest/demonstration, lobbying, raising awareness, and basically every form of activism you can think of.

And I'll just leave it at that.

This is perhaps the third or second time this happens, but... i've looked through all my posts in this thread and found nothing of the sort of thing you seem to be saying i believe. I don't really understand what you're doing.

[Araelus]

This is perhaps the third or second time this happens, but... i've looked through all my posts in this thread and found nothing of the sort of thing you seem to be saying i believe. I don't really understand what you're doing.

I think he is imagining what he wants you to be saying - whether on a conscious level or not is anyone's guess.

What do people think about the newspapers slowly closing?

Newspapers closing from my perspective is less about biases (or perception of bias) and more about the ever-shortening news cycle. A 24hr print paper can't keep up. They should be transitioning more to digital media.

Presently, a lack of individuality is bred into our society from the start, which indirectly - but adversely - affects people's motivation to try and change for the better...

What you describe is the leveling process (quite different than its RPG counterpart) and it's been going on since at least 1830-ish in a manner that the average person can detect and fight against (arguably it's always been around). Each generation deals with new instantiations of old issues, especially the struggle between individualism and group conformity. This also makes it nearly impossible to discern if a person is "going along with the crowd" or whether their well-considered opinion happens to coincide with the general norms. I would wager that lack of authenticity, not necessarily lack of "radicalism", is the real threat and will always be a problem.

[GeneJackit]

"No Child Left Behind" Act, which forces teachers to make sure everyone is in the same boat with their education, instead of giving each person their own boat, so to speak./rantoff

So, the overarching cause to our education problem is a law that came into effect just 7-8 years ago? Wow, that happened REALLY fast

What do people think about the newspapers slowly closing? I remember when I was in middle/high school, i'd get to school early just to read the newspapers that we had in there. Of course, part of me still wants to be a journalist, but there will only be so many baby showers i could write about before i'd implode.

My mom said she thinks that the people of the generation growing up now will be the last ones to see actual newspapers in print. For some reason that depresses me, greatly.

I feel the same way about the newspapers as I do about the lack of canal usage, and the lack of whale oil usage for our heating

[Diamicles]

I would wager that lack of authenticity, not necessarily lack of "radicalism", is the real threat and will always be a problem.

I concur. I get a little of track when I talk about stuff like that, because it pains me seeing already that the next generation is already pissing away chances to build on what so many others have started, just by observing how apathetic they are to their own causes.

I better stop before I start ranting again!!!

[Diamicles]

So, the overarching cause to our education problem is a law that came into effect just 7-8 years ago? Wow, that happened REALLY fast

Yes, it did develop rather quickly. I graduated in '99 from High School, and a lot of the problems seen now were not problems before that bill was signed. 95% of teachers in my area would agree.

[GeneJackit]

Yes, it did develop rather quickly. I graduated in '99 from High School, and a lot of the problems seen now were not problems before that bill was signed. 95% of teachers in my area would agree.

I'm sorry, but im calling shenanigans on you...we had most, if not all the same problems as they did, but kids have more technology...so instead of writing test answers on their hands, they just put it on the cell phone

where does this 95% figure come from? can u find any issue with 95% support?

Oh, and id like to see the graph showing the plummet in all education categories since NCLB just to illustrate how truly terrible it is for our poor children who will never be able to experience how awesome american education was Before 2001


EDIT: HS Class of '00 here