Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The beast, resurrected
The Port Huron Statement was authored in 1962 by the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), and many argue that this document made the sixties as radical as they were. The SDS, thankfully, has been dormant for about 40 years, but this accidentally hilarious Times article says that’s about to change. A new crop of student radicals is about to resurrect the beast. This is not from The Onion. It’s from the Times. Read on.
Sixteen students sat around a table in the Manhattan cafeteria of the New School discussing where commas should go. They were rewriting, for the third time, a mission statement for their chapter of Students for a Democratic Society, the activist group that had been dormant for nearly 40 years. They wanted the document to be collectively produced, but after more than three weeks of communal drafting, no one seemed particularly content with the results.
One student thought the phrase “we accept all persons” should be broadened to cover animals. Another worried that the word “delineation” was alienating because “it means drawing lines, and don’t we object to lines?” The only sentence everyone seemed to support wholeheartedly was the final one: “Power to the People!”
HT: Phi Beta Cons
back to top27 Comments to “The beast, resurrected”
My sister fell prey to them for a while in the 60s. She’s better now. Ah, youth!
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
“Power to the People!”
I find it hard to believe they all agreed on this. It sounds suspiciously exclusive of other vertebrates.
Report comment to moderator
It’s also funny becaues of how they put their ideals into practice. Want to stand against the entrench patriarchy? Protest outside a Hummer dealership! Trying to show solidarity with the beleaugered people of New Orleans? Demonstrate outside a nuclear power plant!
I know what I wrote is an over-simplification, but this new SDS is just like traditional liberalism, with a generation of young people too naive to know that they’re miguided.
Report comment to moderator
Very funny, TJ!
Report comment to moderator
This is great! From the article: Ms. Rapchik’s parents were so opposed to her involvement in a radical organization that they threatened not to help pay for college if she attended the first convention, so she stayed home.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Report comment to moderator
It is hard to believe that anyone thinks the malarky that SDS pushed was going in any positive direction (unless, of course, one likes promiscuity).
Report comment to moderator
Slouching towards Washington!
Report comment to moderator
So after three weeks they agreed that they were for something, but they didn’t know what that was?
That’s pretty hilarious.
Report comment to moderator
Give the kids a break. The problems they want to address are real. And SDS played an important role in its time. Bringing it back does not strike me as strategically viable. These are different times and we need different tactics. When I was in college I flirted with the idea of starting a new national student movement. I came to the conclusion that it could not be done.
What will ultimately motivate youth is not a message of negativity and disempowerment, but one of hope and promise. That’s why so many of us are excited about Obama.
Report comment to moderator
And another thing. If you can take the time, read the Port Huron Statement. Try to see it through the lens of the times — Kennedy’s election, McCarthy’s crusade and fall, the Cold War, a real fear of nuclear annihilation, and serious unresolved racial strife in America — it is a rather remarkable document even today.
Other than its socialistic impulses, which were much more understandable at the time, I challenge you to define what about that statement is so unreasonable.
Report comment to moderator
DCL,
You sound suspiciously like someone defending scripture {:~)
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Janie. I suppose a statement like “Power to the Parameciums” would be better, but that would be discriminatory against the poor amoebas.
What will ultimately motivate youth is not a message of negativity and disempowerment, but one of hope and promise.
This may very well be true, but I don’t think you’re going to find that in the new manifestation of the SDS. Check out the following observations in the NYT article:
“According to a provisional statement, drafted at the national convention last summer at Wayne State University in Detroit, the group aims to combat “racism and white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy, heterosexism and transphobia, authoritarianism and imperialism.” [TJ: Wow! That's a lot of "isms"!] Chapters focus on any issue that falls under the rubric of “oppression.””
“But some chapters have distanced themselves from the ’60s generation. To Ms. Haut, at Queens College, it is not “productive” to work with “a lot of old white guys arguing about what they should have done.” As it is, the new group devotes a good deal of intellectual energy to self-analysis.”
“Nick Kreitman, a junior at Elmhurst College in suburban Chicago, participated in meetings about “Class Privilege,” “White Privilege” and “Hetero-Privilege,” in which, he says, members talked about the danger of coming off as the “liberal savior who is going to instantly solve all their problems.””
“Today’s organization has yet to depart significantly from the protest models of the past. Many members say they resent being overshadowed by the S.D.S. of 1968 and argue that their opposition will manifest itself in a way unique to their own generation. Beyond having a new organizing tool in the Internet, it’s unclear what this will look like. Students elegantly critique what’s wrong with the country but struggle to find new ways to channel their disgust.”
Also, check out the graphic of the comic book for the SDS. Not exactly warm and fuzzy and positive fare: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/01/03/education/edlife/06sds.2.ready.html
I thought this was a telling observation about the comic book:
““While few seemed to be watching,” it begins, “the demography of American youth had shifted dramatically and a new generation of students, more insecure, much more often the children of immigrants, had arrived.” The first panel features a couple kissing on a grassy hill. The second panel, representing the new S.D.S., shows an airplane flying into the World Trade Center while New York City is engulfed in flames.
The epilogue also includes a drawing of Pat Korte, with shaggy hair and big, alarmed eyes. Jessica Rapchik, 19, was the S.D.S. co-founder with Mr. Korte. She says she was surprised that her role goes unmentioned in the book. The omission, she says, points to “larger problems in our society — men being sought out as voices of authority.””
Same verse, same as the first.
Report comment to moderator
TJ — I didn’t suggest that these kids in the NY Times were going where I would have them go. I think the Times article ultimately is about as much press as they will ever get. SDS will not appeal to today’s youth. Not in its present form. If they try to recreate it as it was they will fail miserably from a tactical perspective.
Still, I submit, that doesn’t mean their entirely wrong in their observations and concerns.
Report comment to moderator
SDS will not appeal to today’s youth. Not in its present form. If they try to recreate it as it was they will fail miserably from a tactical perspective.
We are in agreement here, DCL. I misunderstood your last paragraph as an “endorsement” of sorts for the SDS.
Still, I submit, that doesn’t mean their entirely wrong in their observations and concerns.
Granted, except they are, imho, tilting against the wrong windmills. I saw nothing about them rejecting the “-isms” that really threaten them (and us): communism, naturalism/humanism, statism, terrorism, etc. With regard to the last of these, I found it repulsive to view the cover of the comic book and see the subtle implication being that because they had had succeeded in the past, 9/11 was the result. If that was their intention, then shame on them. If it was not their intention, then they might need to attend a few more classes and learn to express themselves better, instead of joining useless organizations in an effort to atone for their white liberal guilt.
Report comment to moderator
The guy kissing the girl in the comic — why is he wearing glasses?
Report comment to moderator
DCL – What promise of hope and change, exactly, does Obama bring? He doesn’t have anything of substance other than the same old fairly far left crap most of the others on the D side push.
He is indeed half-black, and it would be nice to see a person identified as black win something significant through a non-racially focus appeal (and I do credit Obama for running in that fashion – that is avery good thing for the US), but he hasn’t given anyone any real reason to expect anything other than the stadard D playbook.
Are you smitten by empty charisma here? Perhaps a white-guilt desire to see the (half) black guy elected?
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad that they included Animals being a llama and all but, I was talking to the plants, and rocks and they are quite upset about being ostracized by the new SDS. Most folks don’t know that some animals can talk to the plants, rocks and other seemingly silent things to humans and I can tell you the plants are thinking about rioting against the SDS and throwing rocks at them:-)
Report comment to moderator
“The Beast, Resurrected”
Initially, I thought the title of this thread indicated that this was yet another look at Hillary Clinton’s NH comeback…
Report comment to moderator
Guilt has nothing to do with it, KRM. I would suggest you read Andrew Sullivan’s piece in the December Atlantic Monthly. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama.
I think Obama is one of the smartest people in public life. I think his rhetoric is stirring and that’s important. He brings out the best in people. He, like Reagan and Kennedy, has the ability to inspire.
And yes, I would like to elect the first Black president, but no more so than I would like to elect the first woman president. I support Obama because he will put a different face, literally and figuratively, on American politics and on America’s foreign policy. I support Obama because I believe electing someone like him is the best way to demonstrate to the world and to ourselves that our 400 year experiment in Democracy is still relevant and still worth defending. I support him because I think America is ready to live up to the ideas of our founding documents–that all men are created equal–and America really is a place where a guy with a background like Obama’s (not just his race) can grow up to be president.
It’s the epitome of my politics and values to elect Barak Obama. It’s not about race or guilt or anything like that. Obama has found a way to transcend those issues.
At the end of the day, voters don’t really vote substance. They vote on feelings and inspiration. That was the key to Ronald Reagan’s success. It was why John Kerry lost. Most Americans according to polls agreed more with John Kerry on more issues than they did Bush. Same with Gore. But they couldn’t stomach Kerry and Gore as people. Obama touches a very different nerve and inspires people on all sides of the political spectrum.
My mother, no liberal, called me up last night at 11:00 gushing. “Did you see Obama’s speech?” she asked me. “It was WONDERFUL.” Some people in public life have a gift and Obama has it, and I trust he will use it to unite this country behind the challenges we face.
Yes, I am putting form over substance, but I really think that’s how people think. And on substance, I there is much to like about Obama and much that is already revealed if you take the time to really listen to his speeches over the past few years. There’s also a lot of achievement in his record as an Illinois legislator. I agree with him on the war. I agree generally with his approach to foreign policy. On other issues of importance to me Obama is not a lot different than Clinton or Edwards, which is fine with me. I understand that may not work for you. But if you agreed with the basic Democratic platform and had these three candidates (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) to choose from, why wouldn’t you pick Obama?
Report comment to moderator
I just loved it when Hillary said in the debate that she wasn’t talking about change like Obama but that she had actually made change over the last 35 years instead of just talking about it.
Well, I have no idea what change she has made. She had no position of power to make change until she became a Senator. Her try at health care reform while Wee Willy was president was a complete fiasco. She hasn’t managed to get any new laws passed as a sponsor since being elected and she certainly wasn’t able to change her husbands sexual predator nature either.
Why no one called her a change liar to her face in the debate I will never know but Obama lost a good chance to put her away for good.
The SDS was and will be if it is revived nothing more than another left wing terrorist organization but it doesn’t surprise me that some of the more left wingers here thought that they had fine world changing for the better manifiesto either.
Where I went to college they burned down the building that was home to music education, housed the marching band’s instruments and their uniforms. Possibly they were upset that the music that was being taught or played by the marching band was just too much of something they didn’t like
Report comment to moderator
DCL,
For your average leftist, what about today is so different? You’ve got Bush, Halliburton, Iraq, nuclear threat, terrorist’s threats, greedy corporate America, rich guys, poor guys, criminals and victims. There is everything now that was then even though the names and details have changed. For you, the same struggle continues. I’m sure there are more than a few on your side who still find the goals of the SDS as admirable now as they did then.
Report comment to moderator
A couple of funny ones from TJ today.
Don’t worry, though: they just left out invertebrates because they were trying to exclude politicians.
The students debated whether to demonstrate on the company’s property with a marching band, but the conversation soon digressed into the risk of using e-mail. Some worried that the authorities would read what they wrote.
They don’t have a plan, but at least they’ve got paranoia.
Report comment to moderator
Llama, read my previous comment. Perhaps they’re trying to atone for the marching band hatred of the past!
Report comment to moderator
I have read about the idealists of the early and mid60s who went south to register black voters and do what they could to combat poverty. It’s interesting to note that the same type of wide-eyed optimistic kids are still traipsing off to better the world. But they eschew politics and instead are in all type of ministry or missions work. The idealism of SNCC and other secular groups lacked any type of inner-guidance. And the young people then took to drink and drugs and– unlike the idealistic Christian youths one sees hammering houses in New Orleans– they fretted away their enthusiasm and hope at bettering the world and nation
Bully for Christian idealist/youth I say!
Report comment to moderator
The early 60s saw lotsa kids then become Goldwater-inspired Libertarians and Reaganites. They are the ideological grandparents of the Ron Paulistas!
Report comment to moderator
SAWGUNNER: And the young people then took to drink and drugs and . . .
Some experimented. Many took to it, and many who did, turned to Jesus and went to church.
The unrecognized truth about “60’s liberalism” is that we turned against it, rejected it, never forgave it, and have blamed and hated it ever since. There are a lot of reasons why this happened. One of them is that, even in the 60’s, most boomers were conservative like the country. The cultural war against the 60’s was already being waged by anti-black hardhats and Southern enlisted boys.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!