| |
|
There's been a trend lately in the mainstream political press for exhuming members of the radical movements of the late 60s (the weather underground, baader meinhoff, '68 paris student rebellions.) The articles have two spins: (a) The radical in question is now part of the establishment, and look how responsible he/she is given his/her confused politics in the 60s (b) the radical in question isn't contrite about the actions he/she took in the past and is thus a danger to democracy.
Examples:
The Passion of joshcka fischer
Former street-fightin' German radical, now Green party bigwig and Foreign Minister/vice Chancellor is the motivating force behind NATO interventionism in Europe. The article contains an interesting albeit slanted summary of the different political philosophies (neo-Marxist and anarchist, basically) of the diverse revolutionary groups in Europe and the States. Warning: Long.
David Horowitz on the Weathermen
Everyone's favorite 60s radical turned 90s ultraconservative writes another infuriating article about how the 60s generation destroyed everything. This guy always makes me want to hit something.
The Skull and Bones of the Radical Underground
"Edgy enthusiast" Ron Rosenbaum, who seems obsessed with Skull and Bones, equates that secret society of the establishment with the Weather Underground while reviewing the memoirs of Bill Ayers, a former leader of that group, now a "tenured radical" (along with his wife)
I seem unable to find two or three other articles I read on Slate.com about the same subject, but i will continue to search for them if anyone's interested.
Could this renewed interest in the last generation of radicals have anything to do with the fact that the Seattle-Genoa protesters have garnered so much media attention lately? What's the connection? Could accounts of the 60s movements help the new radicals avoid similar pittfalls, or are these radicals propaganda to dissuade people from joining these movements? |
|
|
