Yes. It’s true. College students all over the country are founding a revived version of Students for a Democratic Society.
Is this development epochal or quixotic?
Do we have any Dopers who remember the original SDS and can tell us something about it?
I had a small amount of involvement with the SDS in Australia, but (although they were into radical student politics), I don’t think it was quite the same as in the US.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Is this development epochal or quixotic?
[/QUOTE]
Normally I’d say that’s a false dichotomy, but since you got one of them right it doesn’t matter. They’re students, ergo it’s quixotic.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The SDS is back?!
[/QUOTE]
Of course, for anyone who followed shampoo labels through the decades, it never really went away. 
Like most of the things in the sixties, the SDS is a pastiche of high and low philosophic integrity. The original values included peaceful protest, and strict non compliance with what was perceived as totalitarian doctrine in the US government. Later, it attracted a lot of fellow travelers, some peaceful, some philosophic, some not so much.
One of the earlier meetings was punctuated by black members shouting out slogans to point out the very white majority that was basically in control of the organization. The most famous of these interjected comments was “Don’t need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.” The close associates of this more action oriented group was subsequently called “The Weatherman Faction” and they both advocated and practiced a much more confrontational brand of activism. Violence was not to be initiated, but passive resistance was not required. Eventually, some splinter factions of that group became actively violent. Some became completely criminal, and not politically motivated. (Some as in individuals, not groups.)
In addition to these well known factions, there were a lot of less radical members, and some social hangers on, mostly guys who thought “Radical chicks do it!” The sociometric included a lot of drug users, dealers, and felons that are inevitable when you criminalize political conduct, bringing philosophers in close contact with criminals. When the FBI is already investigating you for Sedition, and Treason, you kinda loose your horror over disorderly conduct, or possession of illegal arms, and taking drugs, some of which are not even strictly illegal.
Now day? Who knows. Probably the same mix, with maybe an internet faction thrown in.
“We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them.” ~ Abigail Adams (1774) ~
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
Like most of the things in the sixties, the SDS is a pastiche of high and low philosophic integrity. The original values included peaceful protest, and strict non compliance with what was perceived as totalitarian doctrine in the US government. Later, it attracted a lot of fellow travelers, some peaceful, some philosophic, some not so much.
One of the earlier meetings was punctuated by black members shouting out slogans to point out the very white majority that was basically in control of the organization. The most famous of these interjected comments was “Don’t need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.” The close associates of this more action oriented group was subsequently called “The Weatherman Faction” and they both advocated and practiced a much more confrontational brand of activism. Violence was not to be initiated, but passive resistance was not required. Eventually, some splinter factions of that group became actively violent. Some became completely criminal, and not politically motivated. (Some as in individuals, not groups.)
In addition to these well known factions, there were a lot of less radical members, and some social hangers on, mostly guys who thought “Radical chicks do it!” The sociometric included a lot of drug users, dealers, and felons that are inevitable when you criminalize political conduct, bringing philosophers in close contact with criminals. When the FBI is already investigating you for Sedition, and Treason, you kinda loose your horror over disorderly conduct, or possession of illegal arms, and taking drugs, some of which are not even strictly illegal.
Now day? Who knows. Probably the same mix, with maybe an internet faction thrown in.
“We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them.” ~ Abigail Adams (1774) ~
[/QUOTE]
That attitude sprung from the black rights marches which preceded the sds. Stokely Charmichael was the first to eloquently explain that while the blacks were greatful for the original organization ,it was time for them to take charge of thee organizations . hard to argue with. I was in the black marches and later the anti Vietnam marches. The organization was not designed to be physically confrontational. or agressive. Originally it was to be Ghandiesque and peaceful. But ,deal with enough authorities and you will change your mind.
Many of us actually believed that being peaceful would mitigate the police response. It did not.
Ann Arbor and Detroit were hotbeds at the time. Peace marches were common but other movements mingled. Some who believed in weed began their movements too. In Ann Arbor weed possession was a 25.00 dollar fine.
LOL.
The SDS on campus at UT in 1966-68, when I was there, was apparently dedicated to frying brain cells with various chemicals, then pissing and moaning about Vietnam.
Not much else.
Yep, nothing easier than being a radical lefty in Texas, those days. Probably just fashionable, you know, it being so popular, and all.
Yet, as to Viet Nam, for all their fried brain cells, they were right, and you were wrong. If I were you, that might have given me some pause. Apparently not.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Yes. It’s true. College students all over the country are founding a revived version of Students for a Democratic Society.
Is this development epochal or quixotic?
[QUOTE]
Would it have been that hard to just ask if this development was significant?
As to that, of course it isn’t.
I thought you were talking about a detergent.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Would it have been that hard to just ask if this development was significant?
[/QUOTE]
I would have thought “insignificant” was implied in “quixotic.” But why are you so sure it is not significant?
Now the irony… IF this is accompanied by a revival of the John Birch Society on the Right side of society, AND if the revived SDS’s has as a major goal getting us out of Iraq…
the new SDS & the JBS are both on the same side!
I JUST NOTICED THE :EEK: IS MISSING!
How did I miss the Eek the first time???
Corrected post-
Now the irony… IF this is accompanied by a revival of the John Birch Society on the Right side of society, AND if the revived SDS’s has as a major goal getting us out of Iraq…
the new SDS & the JBS are both on the same side! :eek:
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Now the irony… IF this is accompanied by a revival of the John Birch Society on the Right side of society, AND if the revived SDS’s has as a major goal getting us out of Iraq…
the new SDS & the JBS are both on the same side! :eek:
[/QUOTE]
How you figure that? When has the JBS ever been isolationist?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
How you figure that? When has the JBS ever been isolationist?
[/QUOTE]
Confused here. How is the JBS demand that we get out of the UN not an isolationist step?
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Confused here. How is the JBS demand that we get out of the UN not an isolationist step?
[/QUOTE]
That’s nationalist. But isolationists also demand an end to American military interventions abroad – and during the Cold War, the JBS was all for our presence in Vietnam, etc.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
That’s nationalist. But isolationists also demand an end to American military interventions abroad – and during the Cold War, the JBS was all for our presence in Vietnam, etc.
[/QUOTE]
What I mean is, it’s as yet indeterminate whether a revived JSB, in the current climate, would support the neocon or the paleocon approach to foreign policy – would be for Buchanan’s “A republic, not an empire” position, or against it.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I would have thought “insignificant” was implied in “quixotic.” But why are you so sure it is not significant?
[/QUOTE]
It wasn’t really significant the first time around. The first edition of the SDS existed in a context of dramatic social change and become, for some people, a rallying point for protest, especially against the Vietnam War. But in truth, the same protests and opposition to the war would have happened anyway; the SDS wasn’t causing change, it was swept up in it. The SDS really wasn’t an organization with any sort of ideological cohesion, as evidenced by its utter collapse in 1969.
The primary focus of the SDS, such as any focus existed, was the Vietnam War (though it did speak out against other issues.) It didn’t even last as long as the war did and in any event, contrary to what’s often remembered, public opposition to the war had very little to do with its conduct or when it ended.
Today’s America is a different place. It’s pointed in a conservative and extremely nationalist direction. With respect to the war, specifically, soldiers are venerated; speaking as an outsider, it strikes me as if many Americans believe military personnel are some sort of contemporary saints. Opposition to militarism is utterly verboten, and those who oppose the Iraq war are forced to couch their opposition in apologetic “But of course I support our troops” lingo. The environment just isn’t there for the SDS to find broad based support.
It is harder to protest now. I have been disapointed in the students of today not being loudly political. Sometimes I think they sense that the system is set up and extremely difficult to change. The lack of a draft is a huge factor. You can slide by and not make a stand.If the draft was reinstated and lives would be disrupted ,the protests would begin.