8 10 250 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/6b3ce70f63f39ade40bb7933b8dfbcbe.jpeg 861a5a56666b99a4dc9386e13c2901ed https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/111ffdd478bb5debea1b363cc14b212c.mp3 048f8020713e74a3d57c1c88d93b729d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 24 August 2022 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Dr. J. Keith Saliba Biographical Text Dr. J. Keith Saliba is an associate professor of journalism at Jacksonville (Florida) University, where he teaches narrative nonfiction and mass communication theory. He has been writing about the Vietnam War and military affairs, first as a reporter and columnist, and later as an academic. He is the author of "Death in the Highlands: The Siege of Special Forces Camp Plei Me," a Military Writers Society of America 2021 gold medal winner in history. Dr. Saliba has a Ph.D. in Mass Communication and International Relations from the University of Florida. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 1:38:49 Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Digital file Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords Vietnam; War; Veterans; Book; Special forces; South Vietnamese; Camp; Americans; Helicopter; Supplies; Vietnam War Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: J. Keith Saliba Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Lynn Bijou Date of interview: 24 August 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM: 00:00 All right, I think we are going to start. Again, I am interviewing Dr. Jay Keith Saliba, is that the correct pronunciation? JS: 00:11 That is the correct pronunciation. SM: 00:12 Yeah. Well, thank you very much for agreeing to be interviewed today. I would like to start off with a question about your upbringing. Where were you born? Your early experiences in high school and college, so forth in your beginning years. JS: 00:30 Born in Alabama, did not grow up there, though. I went back to visit quite a bit, had a family and so forth, but lived most of my life in Florida. And that is where I live now. Experiences, basically, kind of run a mill, you know, school and so forth. You know, nothing really to write home about it, they say, but you know, I do not know, maybe as it pertains to your book, some of my earliest experiences were, you know, sort of seeing in the 1980s, you know, the first generation, if you will, Vietnam, you know, gotten some separation from it. You know, and so I just, for whatever reason, I think it was a documentary, it was narrated by Richard Bass Heart, and it was called, "Vietnam: The 10,000 Day War," was playing, I do not know, maybe on PBS or something. But I was always a kid who's very interested in this sort of stuff. I know, I read the papers about foreign affairs, you know, at 11 years old, or whatever. And it is something about Vietnam just really struck me as fascinating. And I, of course, at that point, I knew nothing about, you know, all of the conflict and strife that, you know, that did in January in the United States or whatever. I just thought of it as just being a very fascinating subject. And I, I sort of looked at that, that documentary is the thing that introduced me to at a very young age, and I continue to revisit it, over all these years. SM: 02:13 Now, what year was that? Was that in the early (19)80s, that program? JS: 02:18 I want to say, I want to say it was. I do not think that is when it was actually created. But it was probably when I saw it, it was either late (19)70s or early (19)80s. SM: 02:28 What was, what was it about that, just seeing that war? Because obviously, you knew about World War I and World War II and Korea, what was it about Vietnam that, that really perked you up? JS: 02:42 Well, you know, it was, it was probably the tragedy of it, you know, the, even at that young age, I kind of knew that there was something that, that was very hurtful about the whole thing. And, and, you know, I saw all these guys who have gone and done, done what they were asked, what their government asked him to do, and I thought that they were not very well treated. And in some of the news accounts, and some of the popular media, I remember a time it is sort of, it is kind of been a theme that I have seen, you do not see it nearly as much anymore, because, you know, Vietnam sort of faded in the background. But you do see it with, like Afghanistan, Iraqian war, and an Iraq war, but it is the same sort of thing. It is sort of like the crazed, dysfunctional, you know, vet who, you know, you never know what he is going to shoot up or blow up, or you always has all these different problems. But I remember, that is what I saw sort of Vietnam, as being portrayed as in the popular media, movies, you know, that sort of thing. And now, again, you do not see that so much anymore with Vietnam, because it has faded in the rear view, but you see a lot of movies and shows, that depict these really dysfunctional Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, and you know, all of that stuff just sort of rubbed me the wrong way from even, even from an early age. SM: 04:08 Oh yeah. JS: 04:09 But again, we are just kind of talking about Vietnam. No, obviously, at this point. And so yeah, I, I do not know. But it was fascinating too, there is so many facets to this, the story. Some of it was, political, military, you know, protests, all of these different things really, you know, sort of tied into this very, very interesting story that, again, I continue to come back to time and time again. SM: 04:35 What is interesting is when you saw this program, narrated by Richard Bass Heart, that is the era when the Vietnam Memorial was opened, in the early (19)80s, 1982 which was when the wall was opened and all the veterans- JS: 04:50 Steve, Steven you are breaking up here, can you hear me? SM: 04:54 Yes, I can hear you. JS: 04:56 Okay, maybe sometimes, if you call me right back, it might reset because you are really breaking up badly. SM: 05:03 Okay let me, let me call you again. And I will stop this right now. Okay, thanks. Here we go, very good. Yeah, I was just trying to say that, the, at the time you saw that documentary that was the time that the Vietnam Memorial was opened. And the timing was interesting, because that is when Vietnam veterans for the first time felt welcomed home. And, so kind of interesting that you got into it at that particular time. Before I actually start asking you questions about [inaudible], I would like to ask two things that I saw on your biography. You had done your master's thesis on Esquire's coverage of the Vietnam War. What did that, what, what did you learn from that from, from that project? JS: 05:06 Okay. Well, the you know, Esquire, as you may know, was sort of a hotbed of what was once called, "new journalism," or literary journalism, right, where you sort of use the tools of a novelist to tell nonfiction stories. And it is a, you know, it is a genre of writing that I have not only taught, but I have tried to employ some times in my own career and something I really enjoy. And so, I just looked at this unique partnership between Harold Hayes, who was the editor of Esquire at the time, and two, sort of gifted writers, John Sack and Michael Herb. And you are probably more familiar with Michael Herb, his work with dispatches- -and his, you know, screenwriting work with-with films like, "Apocalypse Now," and, and, and "Full Metal Jacket," right. You know, but John Sack was, you know, sort of a celebrated literary journalist who covered war, pretty exclusively, he did other topics, but he was always the type of guy who was drawn back to conflict, so. And so, they had a very unique partnership, and they really, you know, sort of gave some, a unique perspective to journalistic coverage of Vietnam, and, you know, sort of Esquire and Harold Hayes and his support, allowed them to go and just kind of roam around the country and, you know, absorb different stories and different perspectives, maybe you were not seeing as much in, you know, mainstream coverage. So that was what the thesis was about, was just sort of, you know, exploring that technique. And, you know, what those guys found out, you know, the, you know, with dispatches her, you know, it was really more of, even though it was kind of a nonfiction take, right of his, his experiences there. There were also some fictional elements in it. Whereas John Sack M, right, where he followed that empty infantry company through basic training all the way through their first action, Vietnam, that was, you know, much more factually accurate. And he did not take as many sort of literary licenses as her did. Both of them had their unique approach, and they were both supported by, you know, both financially, and, and, you know, journalistically by Harold Hayes and Esquire so they, they-they gave us a, you know, a unique way of looking at the Vietnam War that maybe in that mid (19)60s area that was not really coming out yet. SM: 06:31 Oh, yes. Yeah, you mentioned those movies. I used to bring quite a few veterans back to the universities I used to work at. And they had a lot of problems with a lot of the Vietnam movies that were made. Because they do not think, they did not think they were real. There were two that, there was the one that really bothered them the most believe it or not, was "Platoon". And I do not know, I do not know what you thought of the movie. But it was, I had three distinguished Vietnam veterans from Philadelphia and they disliked the film, they talked about it, but they thought it was Hollywood. And, and so, if there was one film and I am going to get back to what we are talking about here, what is the number one film that you have seen on the Vietnam War that you like? JS: 09:19 What did I like? SM: 09:21 Yeah, that is real. JS: 09:23 I like a lot of them. And of course, I am not being there, not even really being born for most of it. I do not know what it was actually like, but certainly what I have heard from some Vietnam vets when asked that same question, they sort of say that "Full Metal Jacket," to them represented a more accurate military life but of action in Vietnam. "Platoon," what, sure, Hollywood right, Oliver Stone, it was well done from a Hollywood perspective, but you could definitely see why vets would not like it. They were not portrayed very well in that film. And, you know, everyone, anyone is perfect in the first place. I always liked "Apocalypse Now," too, I even have the four-hour version of it. I liked " We Were Soldiers." You know, I got to meet and talk to Joe Galloway on several occasions, including through my book. And that was, you know, exciting. And, and to be able to kind of, you know, meet the guy that was, that wrote that and participated in that was, was great to me. So it is hard for me, Steven, to narrow it down to just one. SM: 10:38 Right. JS: 10:39 Those are certainly some of the ones that I liked the best. SM: 10:41 I know Jan Scruggs liked "Coming Home," because that was his inspiration to create the wall. JS: 10:47 Yes, yeah, you are right, that going back a little ways to that, but that I remember that one now, too. Yeah, another great one. SM: 10:54 And the other item before we get into the main reason I am talking to you is, you also had an experience recently talking about the psychological effects of the Tet Offensive. And I have done a lot of reading on that subject matter of 19, early 1968. But, could you just briefly describe what you were saying, when you gave that presentation in Texas? JS: 11:18 And I sort of combined two things. It is weird, because that Texas conference is really mainly historian that I came at it from a, you know, more of a mass communication researcher perspective, right? We have framing theory and-and, and confirmation bias, were the two perspectives that I linked to sort of look at the coverage of that. And so, my contention was that, by that time in the war, the journalists who were there had pretty much decided on what it was all about. And they you know, one thing about confirmation bias is it says that we humans, and that means all of us, not just you know, not just the-the unwashed masses, but everybody, including the most learned people in the world tend to see things through a certain prism, once we have decided that we have, we have just know what is going on, right, we start to see information only that confirms what we already believe. And so my contention was, as a journalist, at that time, were sort of immediately framing and putting into certain categories, what they were seeing, and they could not see anything else. And so, one point that I made was, is that that is why the narrative quickly changed from the Vietcong are winning on the battlefield, right. And I believe they pushed that to be at the beginning, but then they sort of changed it, even though the Vietcong were being devastated, actually, and really, they never really recovered as an effective fighting force after that. Both, either politically, or militarily, they had to really be, you know, their numbers had to be stocked with people from the north-north-north Vietnam. They, they then sort of morphed into this narrative of how it was a psychological victory. It was a, the Tet Offensive, was a moral victory. You know, because they, you know, just simply because they could do it, and all the rest of it. And so the journalist would push back on that, they would say, Well, this was in reaction to all the rosy proclamations that the, you know, the five o'clock follies, and all the rest of them would put forth, you know, every day. And so, you know, that is why maybe we have swing the, in exactly the opposite direction that we went from, well, they were telling us that we were winning and then this, they were able to launch this big, you know, attack. Right, so then it became, the narrative became that it was, okay, well, we will admit that it was a military defeat, and it devastated that political infrastructure, the Vietcong infrastructure, as well. But we were going to say, we were going to let everybody know that it was a psychological victory, it was a moral victory. And in the end, that is all accounts is that they were able to pull this off. So, that was really what I was kind of contending there that, you know, we all have blind spots. And when we, when we decide how things are, we tend to only see information that supports our preconceived notions. And my, my ideas were that by that time in the war, journalistic presence in Vietnam had been well established, and they had kind of, they all kind of decided this is how things are going, this is how it is. And, and even though they were looking at really a massive defeat for the Vietcong, they just could not, I do not know, allow themselves to-to put it that way or even just to, even see it for themselves. They had to almost invent a new, you know, a new outcome and a new standard for victory. This was not winning on the battlefield, but winning psychologically. SM: 15:06 Right? Well, I, I can tell you from all my reading and studies, I think it certainly surprised L.B.J. And, and I love that surprise of the Tet Offensive as being the beginning of many dots leading up to his surprise of withdrawing from running for president. I think there is two direct links there. I am going to get into the main portion, now of what I want to talk about, but I want to say it because of your book, I look at cities and locations as linking different eras in the (19)60s and early (19)70s. Certainly, these cities are part of that (19)60s, Dallas, Washington, D.C., Selma, Montgomery, Birmingham, Chicago, Kent, Ohio, New York City, Berkeley, Saigon, Hanoi, the [inaudible] valley, [inaudible], Miami and San Francisco. Cause, the major happenings happened during those, that era in those locations. And now, because of your book and learning more about Plei Me, I put Plei Me right in there. I just want to say that. My first question is, you know, I also read Joe's book on the [inaudible] valley, and I saw the movie. And he was very vociferous, when he always talked, I brought him to Westchester to speak, that the [inaudible] valley was the first major war of the Vietnam and during that period. And then of course, when I read the back of your book, he praised you, and what happened. I guess the question, the main, the main reason I am asking is why Plei Mei?. Because you know, you-you do so brilliantly your book, all the other locations, the small villages, this, different locations, and I know about Plei Mei's location near the Ho Chi Minh Trail. But why Plei Mei, just your thoughts? JS: 17:06 When you say why-why did the North Vietnamese choose it, or? SM: 17:10 Why, Why did they, they were doing things out in the highlands, they were doing a lot of things, but why Plei Mei? JS: 17:18 Well, I mean, as you mentioned, it was, its proximity to home Chi Minh Trail complex was-was, you know, an ideal ingress point for them, right. I mean, they were able to stash a lot of supplies, a lot of men and material, across the border, but I will say that they tried to do something similar at Duco, a few months earlier. And, but they had two, they separate from two main drawbacks, from the Vietnamese, North Vietnamese perspective, and that was that, Duco, they did not have enough combat power to overcome what was, what was able, what the allies were able to bring against them. And two, and that, and this sort of correlates with that, was Duco's location was on a major highway. And even though it was right on the Cambodian border, you know, the South Vietnamese and their American allies could get supplies and things into Duco a lot easier even though it was surrounded, and Plei Mei was much more isolated. So, that is really what happened was, is they had been trying to do this sort of stuff for years. You know, this sort of, this lure and ambush where, you bring a remote outpost under, you know, siege and then not only crush the outpost, if you can, but you know, destroy the, the responding force, right, they just want to take these big chunks out of the South Vietnamese army whenever possible. And so, they tried it at Duco. But they did not have enough combat power, they did not have enough troops committed. And it was also in an auspicious location even though it was close to their base areas in Cambodia. They, it was, you know, you could get to it pretty easily you know, you could bring armor in there to Duco, pretty easily. And so, Plei Mei was much more isolated, it was a little farther away from the border. But you know, there was just that provincial route five, which linked it with highway 14, and you know, you would have to, that is a single lane dirt track, and it was a perfect spot for an ambush. So they could you know, they could secret all of these, these regular army forces around Plei Mei, and make them think that they were about to be overrun, right, make them, bring them under enough attack to where the south Saigon would have to send, or at least [inaudible] who would have to send in, you know, rescue force and then, then you could, you could isolate that rescue force on that little spin dirt track that was heavy foliage on both sides of the road, and then just destroy it. That is what they dreamed of, is destroying a large Arvin formation and then once that happened, once all those defenses were wiped out, they could pretty much roll through what you know, [inaudible] and [inaudible] because there would not really be anything else, you know, to stop them, I think [inaudible] even, they stripped down to where they really only had maybe a battalion in reserve to defend what was pretty, a pretty large town at that time. And so they had to bring in, you know, the-the first cab to, you know, that was part of the whole thing, right introducing the first cab- SM: 20:30 Right. JS: 20:30 -and kind of, sort of guaranteeing the provincial capital-capital safety so that Arvin could then go and rescue this besieged camp. SM: 20:40 One of the, one of the things that is very important too, is that the, we are talking about the early stages of the Vietnam War, and the Gulf of Tonkin was in (19)64. So, everything starts going forward there, even though we are there from (19)59 on, in support and somewhat. With McNamara, and certainly with Westmoreland being the general there at the time, they were all about numbers, it was bringing in the numbers, kill, the kill ratios. And we all learned about that, I, that we were all growing up with that. I, we all experienced it as young people as members of the boomer generation that reports every day about how many were killed on T.V., and so forth. So, it was all a numbers game, in the beginning, the feeling that America could just keep killing, and killing, and killing, and the Vietnamese would finally submit. And then, then some of the critics of the war, the very early critics would say, "Well, wait a minute, you do not really know about the history of Vietnam, and what the battles, they fought for centuries were against their enemies, their most recent being the French and now the United States." Your thoughts about, the numbers game that was being played at that particular time, right, before Plei Mei, and the American strategy up to that point that it was a numbers game? JS: 22:01 Yeah, and I think that directly stems from Westmoreland's, you know, restrictions. And the restrictions that were placed on him by, you know, the higher ups, L.B.J., number one. He did not want a wider war, he did not want American forces in Cambodia, or Laos. And, you know, when you allow an enemy to have that kind of freedom of movement and sanctuaries, just across the border of not one, but two countries, with really rugged terrain, with mountainous terrain, areas, you know, canopy jungles where you can, you can hide entire regiments without being seen from the air. And indeed, in the [inaudible] massive complex, that is exactly what they did. They had supplies, secreted in there. And they have would place it, the North Vietnamese could go and rest and recuperate and build up, you know, supplies and all of which can be completely covered from any aerial observation. So, so I guess, if I mean, looking back, in hindsight, you look at it, and you think, that does not seem like a smart way to go, it is just trying to, you know, you know, because if you are, if you are going to go by body count, you are going to go by, so this war of attrition, then it automatically incentivizes field commanders, who are, you know, looking for, at the very least some sort of success, you know, to maybe inflate what they see, or inflate what, with the counselor, right. So in hindsight, you look at it, you say, "Well, that does not seem like a very smart way to fight a war," is just, you know, trying to out kill the other, without destroying base, sanctuaries, and cutting off access, and all the rest. And there were various plans that were in the works to do that, invading Laos, and you know, completely cutting the Ho Chi Minh Trail and, leaving that whole area occupied by strong forces, you know, none of that ever came to fruition. So I, to me, it just seems like, you know, that is what Westmoreland was dealing with. You know, in the book, "The Best and the Brightest," you saw sort of the calculated mentality, of a lot of the, president's advisors, and top military men at the time, it was all statistics and all, you know, analytics, and this is how you win is by you know, x number of this versus x number of that, all the, all the rest of it. And, and I do not know that it just seems like that belies, like thousands of years of human history that, that is not really, you know, that is not really how wars fought or won, certainly. SM: 24:40 You brilliantly talk about some of the leaders of South Vietnam, DM and, and his, his lack of leadership, I believe, because he has enemies himself. But, you talk also about the importance of morale. And what, and-and Plei Mei was really about morale as well. Because if it went down, that would look terrible to the people in South Vietnam who, and certainly the United States who were supporting the Vietnamese. And we lost this very important thing, because we knew that morale was also important to the North Vietnamese, because that is why they trying to do these surprise attacks, which ended up being the main goal of Plei Mei, by killing as many people as possible. Your thoughts on, the both sides trying to win this morale battle, so that whoever wins this or that, that will get rid of the government of South Vietnam or make the leaders of the North Vietnamese look bad? JS: 25:45 Yeah that and that was, that is part of the other aspect of it is, you know, Plei Mei was not just sort of this isolated thing, right. The real goal was to destroy large Arvin formations whenever possible- SM: 26:00 Right. JS: 26:00 -but what was [inaudible], you know, so a secretary of North Vietnam, what his, his ultimate goal was, was not to inspire an uprising among the South Vietnamese, right. And so, they figured that if they could make the quote, puppet, in Saigon look bad enough, that they could destroy enough of this forces, and winning up victories on the battlefield, it would make the people say, "Look, this is, you know, at the very least, this is inevitable, we need to rise up and get with on the winning side," at the very least, right, and you are right, that is about crushing the morale and inspiring this general uprising, he had hoped for the general uprising all the way through the 72 Easter offensive again, and it did not materialize again. Even though the North Vietnamese through, you know, upwards of 200,000 troops in a holy conventional invasion of the south in (19)72, it still did not inspire, it inspired a lot of panic, it inspired a lot of people fleeing, but it did not inspire this, this sort of general uprising that he, long hoped for, right. So that is, that side of things. And yeah, I mean, even though there were only a handful of Americans at Plei Mei you know, your-your prestige, becomes- SM: 26:00 Right. JS: 27:17 -entwined with holding on, that maybe even though these camps were, you know, part of the CG program, and offensively under the South Vietnamese special forces, it was really the Americans who were running it. And, you know, to lose something like that, and to have these guys overrun, and more importantly, to lose a very important, you know, government outpost like that would be, would be terrible. And I think that is why, you know, one reason anyway, right, why the first cab was introduced to kind of come in- SM: 27:55 Right. JS: 27:56 -and, and, and help save the day. But it was also this idea that, you know, we need to get the Americans in there, we need to test this new air mobile division, and we need to show what we can do. We need to, you know, it is time for us to take over, and it is time for us to actually win this war, because the South Vietnamese are not capable of doing it, you know. SM: 28:15 Right. JS: 28:16 And I think that was, there was a lot of, that was part of it too, this eagerness to get the first cab in there. SM: 28:24 Yeah, I think, at the very beginning of your book, you talk about President Kennedy and the fact that he liked Special Forces and, and he was he liked it because they were more flexible than, during Eisenhower's reign as president, where he still used the nuclear deterrent as a, as a force, a threat, to prevent conflict. And then, of course, we lost President Kennedy, he was assassinated. And of course, it is interesting, that within three weeks, Diem, and [inaudible] both, were both assassinated or killed in a coup. So, a lot was changing there. And also all these other leaders that came in, in the South before [inaudible] and [inaudible]. They, I do not, were there any decent ones that, that the people supported, before [inaudible] and [inaudible]? JS: 29:19 You know, it was, it was, it was a rough time, was not it? I mean, that is what coups do is that is they, they-they destabilize. And you know, Diem was, you know, even though, yeah, he was, he had his corruption problems, that is for sure. And he, you know, was not well loved and he cracked down on the Buddhist. I mean, they had their problems as well. I mean, these armed factions, some of them infiltrated by communist agents. I mean, there is all of these different facets, right, that is going on. So, I mean, he was dealing with a, a rough situation, and he was also paranoid, but he was also an ardent nationalist, and he was an ardent anti-communist. SM: 29:59 Right. JS: 30:00 So you know, and he, there was a certain level of stability with him in power, and, regardless, right, and so with his loss, then you were ushering in, you know, almost like, you can go back to Roman history, like this time at the barracks emperors, where there is just- SM: 30:16 Right, yeah. JS: 30:16 -one after an uprising, you know, and then being, you know, as either assassinated or, you know, at least put out of power. And then you finally get to, as you say, to event two, and, you know, things stabilized there, but also probably because the war had stabilized a lot more by the time, you know, [inaudible]'s presidency sort of matured. But, you know, good ones. I mean, I do not know [laughs]. You are right, yes. I mean, it is, it is just, you know, it, you are just wondering, you think back what, all the intrigue that was going on, and the different factions and, you know, not knowing who was who, and who you could trust and, and, and Diem was, was, you know, often vilified for, you know, putting people in power that he could trust rather than who were necessarily the most effective. SM: 31:11 Yeah. JS: 31:12 But then when you, you know, this is also the guy who gets overthrown in a coup and executed. So, I mean, there was probably some reason, right, some good reason for that paranoia. SM: 31:23 Yeah, he was also paranoid about the people that were helping the Special Forces, the Hmong, and the mana guards. I would like you to talk about, first off the twelve-man units. I, I learned a lot in your book, I learned an awful lot. And I have got to underline all of it, because I have learned so much. And could you talk about, when you talk about the special forces, these twelve-man units, what were they, and who were, what were the characteristics and qualities that was necessary, they were Americans now, but to be successful? JS: 32:00 Yeah. So as you rightly point out, President Kennedy saw a lot of value in so called coin, you know, counterinsurgency, and he thought it well, I do not know how much thought he gave it, but certainly some in, in the echelons of the military and political establishment thought that, you know, some of the lessons of the counterinsurgency, lessons from World War II had been lost, had been forgotten. And it was time, if you were going to take this flexible response approach, it was time to sort of reinvigorate them again, and Special Forces was, was a vehicle through which that could happen, at least from the Kennedy perspective. Where they, they were twelve-man alpha detachment, and they usually had two officers, a captain and a first lieutenant, First Lieutenant serving as executive officer. And then ten, ten enlisted, and enlisted usually were, you know, senior enlisted, at least, to the level of sergeants, and so forth. But you know, you would sometimes you would have other specialists in there as well, but, you know, especially some of these early guys, and some of the offshoots like, Delta, the Delta project, which I have mentioned in the book as well, I go over the book, you know, these are some grizzled characters. These are some hard-nosed fighters from Korea, and World War II paratroopers, and this is what you know, the type of guy that was drawn to Special Forces, who were the independent minded. They, they, they were very well trained, trained in weapons, and communications and demolition, and, and medical, you know, medical treatments and so forth, right. And they were often cross trained. So that you get, if one guy goes down with that specialty, someone else has training that can step up. But, there is a whole idea of really between, about these, alpha detachments was that they needed to be able to operate alone, they needed to be back in the back country, working with indigenous forces to organize them to, you know, talk [inaudible], whatever enemy they were fighting against. And again, this was not just in south, southeast Asia, but we were talking about even in Europe, they had units like this in place to try to, in case the Soviets actually did invade, then you would be able to operate behind enemy lines and organize you know, European citizens to put up a guerrilla resistance, and all this right. This is all tracking back to those old-World War II units. And so, the reviving this kind of stuff. And so what was the average Special Forces Trooper like he was, you know, he was not really young, he almost surely had conventional military experience. And, it was an air airborne billets. So, you know, they all had their jump wings. And they, but they were also sort of Mavericks, you know, kind of independent. SM: 35:09 Yep. JS: 35:10 And, you know, the conventional army looked askance at them, they thought, you know, you know, what are these guys doing, they were off on their own and these camps, so they were kind of running their own show, and, you know, they grow their beards, and they got their hairs- -into [inaudible], and, you know, all the rest. SM: 35:23 [laughs]. JS: 35:26 Uniforms and rags, and all the rest and, and, and, you know, but when it came down to it, and you are in the middle of nowhere, and you are in this little bunker, and all you got, besides you as a few other Americans and some [inaudible], who probably do not speak very much of their language. And then the beast out there in the darkness waiting beyond the wire, you know, these are the type of guys you want out there, and do not need nearly as much support and can think on the own, and can act on the own. And, you know, so, I guess in a way, that is what it is what it was, he was talking about Special Forces and these-these teams, you know, they were, they were unique and, and I again, a lot of them told me that this some of them were assigned there, they did not volunteer, some of them were assigned to it to fill out the ranks. And they said, it was not exactly career enhancing in those days, we, we sort of think of Special Forces now is like the greatest thing, you know, the average person thinks of him as like, you know, on a pedestal. But in those days, the regular army despised them, and, and even the guys who were, who were put into Special Forces, they knew, I mean, in a big, Cold War environment, the best way to advancement in the military was commanding of infantry battalion, or commanding an armored squadron or something like that, or even our artillery battery, you know, those were the names because they were expecting the big, the big set piece battles of the Cold War. And to be in Special Forces, some of them as one of my sources call them you know, "Those weirdos over on Smoke Bomb Hill," you know, they were always out there, eating snakes or whatever. SM: 35:26 Yep. [chuckles]. JS: 36:25 But now, I mean, we look at him as like, you know, we are, we do it, we think, the highest the highest about Special Forces operators these days. SM: 37:20 Well, I tell you, when the when the reinforcements had to come in to save, Plei Mei, getting Charlie Beckwith was very important. And I think, could you talk about, this is just one man we are talking about here. I think you had also said that he had, had not been in combat or something like that. You gave him a really great description of his whole background before he was given the, in charge of Delta Force. But, how he picked his men and what they had to possess to be, to pass by him so that he would be okay, you know, fighting by their, by his side, just talk about Charlie Beckwith, who he was and how he picked them, and what kind of men he wanted by his side? 38:10 He was, he was an irascible fellow, from all accounts, I mean, he had died before this book came out, so I was never able to talk to him. But just from talking to people that knew him, looking at, archival documents and so forth. He just was a, he was a character. And he, and, you know, he had his-his way of that he, he wanted things done, he wanted sort of an American version of the SAS the British, the Special Air Service of the British, right? He wanted those independent, tough operators who could do all kinds of things behind enemy lines. And, and, you know, he finally ended up getting the chance to do that when he was given Project Delta, which eventually, as you noted earlier, morphed into the current incarnation of what we call Delta Force. JS: 39:02 Right as operational, Operation Detachment Delta. So, we colloquially call it Delta Force. And so you know, that is what he wanted. He, one of my sources the late, great Yule White, who was at Plei Mei and recently passed. He passed maybe, within the last year. He said that Beckwith had, had an idea about the two types of men, there were two types of men in the world to Beckwith, they were either piss cutters, or dipshits. SM: 39:02 Right. [chuckles] JS: 39:35 And you really did not want to be in the latter category with Beckwith, right? SM: 39:38 Right. JS: 39:39 If he liked you, you were a piss cutter. And that meant, you know, you were a hard charger, you were someone who could get the job done. You were someone who, you could, someone you could depend on, especially in a fight. And if you were a dipshit, you better just stay away from them, you know, and get out of the unit if you can, and get away from them. And so, Yule White was, Beckwith referred to him as a piss cutter. But even then, years later, White told me I do not think I put this in the book. He told me, he said, he met Beckwith later on, and Beck tried to get him involved in some other thing, years later that he was doing and, and, Yule wanted to no part of it, he said he had [laughter] enough of that in Southeast Asia in those crazy times in Plei Mei, of course, he was wounded pretty grievously. SM: 40:26 I think, I think Beckwith, he wanted these people to be volunteers in Vietnam for six months, they must have earned a Combat Infantry Badge, and, and it be at least a sergeant. Now, I think there is one person that he ended up wanting, who did not qualify for hardly any of those. [chuckles] Because he considered him the first category. JS: 40:57 Yeah, that was Yule White. SM: 40:59 That was Yule White. [chuckles] JS: 41:00 Yeah, he had airborne and all the rest of it, but and he told me and again, he corroborated this, where I found elsewhere. But, you know, Beck would sent out these flyers, as soon as he took over Project Delta. And he said, "I can promise you a metal, a body bag, or both." And he stuffed them in every outgoing mail bag that was going to go out to Special Forces, eight camps around Vietnam, and he dumped a bunch of those fliers in there. And he says, the response was overwhelming. There was a bunch of guys who wanted to go, they were already out there on the fringes, already out there. You know, in these, in these camps, pretty much doing whatever they wanted, there was very little oversight, you know, so they were just they were on their own. And, they wanted even more they wanted to, they wanted to take it up another notch, and do some Long-Range Reconnaissance and all the rest of, is what, you know, Beck would get started with Project Delta. SM: 42:00 Did not he-he- he promised them they either get a medical badge, or body bag or both? JS: 42:10 Yeah, well. Medal [inaudible] SM: 42:12 [chuckles] Yeah. JS: 42:15 That is, that is a heck of a sales pitch, whatever group that worked. And so you know, and as I said, when he got to, you know, he had been clamoring for such a command for years, and nobody wanted to be part of Beckwith right in the upper but he had a few friends. And they finally said, Look, we were giving you this project, Delta, you know, go to go to Vietnam. Mm-hmm. And he showed up in in, I believe, was NhaTrang. And tried to, you know, see what his guys were up to, they were all nowhere to be found. They were all party and downtown, and you know, with the bar girls and all the rest. And he just, you know, he went ballistic and fired nearly all of them. And that is when he put that call out. He says, if these guys do not want to do what I want them to do, then they were going to go- and then I am going to find my kind of guys. And that is that is how we did it by reaching out with those flyers and saying, look, I can promise you a metal of body bag or both. And you got to be these certain things and come on, but he liked [inaudible] even though he was not he did not have the CIB. At that point. He liked White. And he thought he was a peace guard. And he was older, you know, 31 I mean, that is, that is what Beckles was looking for, you know, they one of the sources said, These guys made you feel good, because they were older. You know, they had they had their brizzle they that white and their beards and-and you know, they had been through some shit and Korea and World War Two, and you just felt safer and better when those guys arrived on the scene? SM: 43:03 Yep. Yeah, when I visit the Vietnam Memorial on Memorial Day, Veterans Day, I always see people who are a few of the Montagnard who are there. And they make reference to it sometimes in some of the guest speakers, but I do not think there has been enough written about them and-and their importance in the Vietnam War, especially being our fighting side by side with Americans. Because in reality, I believe you state pretty emphatically that they did not like the Vietnamese that well, because they were treated as less than human almost by them. And could you talk a little bit about the role that the Hmong and the Montagnard have played in the Vietnam War? Now you describe it in the very early part of the war and in 1965, and 64. But they were they were there throughout the war. So who are they? Where did they live? And-and how important were they in the war for America? JS: 44:54 Well, um, the and I will hasten to say this, I do not know about the Hmongs but I do know about the mind yards that not all of them were on our side. There were minors who sympathize with the Vietcong. And were, you know, be a con agents. So there was always that danger, right. And several special forces camps were sort of attacked from within. Because the Montagnards that were in there were actually Vietcong agents, even though they were ethnically Montagnards. You know, so I think that sort of disdain, you know, went, you know, kind of both ways, right, I oftentimes think of the way the Montagnards were looked upon by the Vietnamese is the way that like the Americans of the Old West looked upon the Indians, right? The Native American tribes, it has been there a long time, but they just did not, they did not like them. And they did not treat them well. And they were different. And they were primitive by their standards, and all the rest of this sort of, and of course, that empathy was returned heartily by, you know, tribes to the Apache and Comanche and so forth. Right. Same thing with the-the Montagnards. So they were not uniformly on the American side, but they were there, enough of them were, especially when they could be with Americans. And they could see sort of, like the broader advantages of being with Westerners, right, with new technology and education and improved agriculture, and things like that, they can kind of see their own their own self-interest. And plus the, you know, largely the Americans that they dealt with did not, you know, they were not, they were not conscripting them, like the Vietcong were and so forth, it was more of a, a little bit more of a partnership rather than kind of conscripting you into the service of the infrastructure. So they were they were very valuable. And, you know, the, the civilian regular Defense Group. CG, right was something that was valuable early on, because it helped secure, otherwise endangered villages from being taken over by the Vietcong in the back country. It sort of taught though, in law, these were mountain art villages, right. And so it taught them to defend themselves. And, and it is sort of spread, if not total allegiance to Saigon at least resistance to being taken over by the Vietcong. Right, so this is something they were happy with. But when one the program began to morph into an offensive instrument, rather than self-defense, but actually organizing the Montagnards and into strike forces, and saying them out and putting them on ambushes, and, and really even more so uprooting them from their, you know, their ancestral lands and moving them into these heavily fortified camps, it is sort of, you know, you got some manpower, and at least for the most part, this manpower was not being used against you. But it was not quite that organic, you know, self-defense, vibe that was going on early on the program. And a lot of the reason for that is, you know, because it was the control that was devolved from CIA and Special-Special Forces to, you know, MACV. And so they wanted, they wanted to, they had all these guys on their arms, they want to put them out there and do interdiction and, and, you know, ambush and offensive operations against the Vietcong. But they were they, you know, it just like we were seeing, you know, just like you see all the PTSD that people in Iraq, who helped us, you see the people in Afghanistan, who helped us the interpreters and all the other people who put their faith in the United States, you know, in the end, they get abandoned. And that is what happened with the Montagnards. SM: 49:03 Yep. JS: 49:05 And they have got, you know, and you know, some of them really had some pretty terrible experiences, and so-called reeducation camps and all the rest after the war, and, you know, horrific injuries, and, you know, all the promises that were made for pensions and, and health care, and all of these things that, you know, they were promised earlier on in the war, obviously, they cannot be fulfilled, that there is no longer a South Vietnamese government in the United States long gone. And so they were left just left out to dry and, you know, it is just, it is tragic. And it is, it is, it is infuriating. And, and I guess it is just, you know, the way we do things, you know, because you see it repeated in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to this day. SM: 49:53 When you look at the-the early part of the war in 64 and 65. I looked at the leaders that were leading at the time in South Vietnam and in America, and all of them were under a lot of pressure, they felt that- Johnson did not have it in the beginning because he had a lot of support for the war and everything. But the one person that stands out as a leader is Ho Chi Minh. I remember reading a book that said the in before he died, that he was Vietnam. There was no question even the people in the north and the south, he was admired by a lot of people because of who he was and experience and he had one- is the one that wanted to support the Geneva Accords. And-and of course, the United States and South Vietnam would not have anything to do with it. But that because they probably knew that, you know, he would be the one that they would be elected or whatever. But that just I do not know if you have ever thought of that. But they-they revered him. So people have been off for the on their side revered Ho Chi Minh. JS: 51:07 Yeah, one thing that I would- that I learned over the course of all this is that by the time all these figures died in 69, and so by the time a lot of this stuff was transpiring, even the early part of the war, he had already become something of a figurehead. SM: 51:21 Right. JS: 51:21 And, but he was still a symbol, right? SM: 51:24 Mm-hmm. Yes. JS: 51:26 -Calling many shots anymore, even-even into the even into the early and mid (19)60s. He just getting old, you know, but SM: 51:33 Right. JS: 51:33 -he had been around a long time. And he had to gather gravitons. He has had the chops. And you know, and I think to do from a strictly real politic perspective, he was willing to do or say whatever it took to get, you know, what he wanted? And that was the independence of Vietnam under whatever government. SM: 51:51 Mm-hmm. JS: 51:53 You know, so, but you are out and you are right. I think the average person in Vietnam would look at him and say, you know, that is, you know, that is Uncle Ho, that is the leader. SM: 52:03 Yeah. JS: 52:03 That is the That is the guy. Right? Who's, who's been at this for decades? SM: 52:09 Yes, yes. JS: 52:11 Yeah. And that another reason why Giáp was so revered too, because he had, you know- -not only was he effective military commander, but he-he paid his dues. He been in there for so long. And of course, you know, all when you start getting into political machinations of what was going on in Hanoi, you know, Lai [inaudible]. And, you know, he had usurped you know, they were on two opposite sides of things. SM: 52:17 Yep. JS: 52:19 Mm-hmm. -And, and, and he had you serve both-both Ho Chi Minh and Giáp and, you know, marginalize them, but still recognizing that, you know, they, they had their people who revered them. So, it is interesting to see the different, you know, leadership qualities, but they were always [inaudible] Giáp and his, his, his supporters were always going for the big, dramatic win, and Ho and Giáp we are all about, you know, let us take it slow. What is going -on mental it is going to happen, you know, let us not you know, and, and believe me, the Vietnamese are South Vietnamese, South Vietnamese communists, were, you know, quite skeptical of Lai's wild strategy, because they knew they were going to be the ones who took the [inaudible]. And they did in (19)68, when they rose up in Tet, they took horrific beating. And they destroyed all these carefully built, you know, cadre and infrastructure over the years and not to mention, you know, just plain old main force units just wiped out. And they took a huge hit for My Lai’s desire, this dramatic victory in this this win-win now mentality. Right. Right. Right. SM: 53:49 Early on, when he early on in your book, you talk about the first group that was taken care of Plei Me and then the tragedy were four, four were killed in a helicopter crash. And I think it is important that people read your book, because not only do you describe this important whole event itself, and it is linkage to early part of the history of the Vietnam War. But the fact is, it shows that Americans are dying little by little by little by little. If you look between (19)59 and (19)65, how many really died, you go to the Vietnam War and you see that there is, you know, how it gets bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. We are, we are, we do not talk about the Americans who are dying now in (19)64 and (19)65 advisors. And so you really do a great job of that, you know, itis sad to hear about number six died here for died here, but those add up JS: 54:54 Mm-Hmm. SM: 54:54 -and they are Americans. And I almost cried when you when you talked about the helicopter that crashed and the four young men, the four men who died their age, whether they were married, you know where they came from. And you-you did a great job. And in some in sections of the book about their backgrounds where they came from how they ended up in Vietnam, I mean, a tremendous job, just but could you talk about those four their pictures or in the book two of those four that were in that helicopter? JS: 55:30 Yeah, that was, that was the-the helicopter gunship that was trying to get- they had been running. They have been running close air support all through the night, up until that point, and because, you know, the Air Force could not get there soon enough. So they were really the kind of the first responders if you will, and they, you know, they had run story after story. They had gone back. refueled rearm that on how many times and then they were tasked with putting in Captain Lanny Hunter who was the-the C two surgeon, and they felt like if they could get him into the ground on Plei Me , then they would- he would be able to do things not only you know, care for the wound and everything but also it was something that he called the physicians mystique, it would make the-the guys who were there kind of look and say, you know, the doctors here the real doc, not a medic, but a real surgeon, a real who knew a lot of the guys who was well respected. And they said it can it can it not only it can, he can do things and help save lives that an average medic could not do but he could also inspire he could also be you know, a real morale boost. And so he agreed to do that he talked it over with his-his commanding officer and they said what you are doing at first light and this was the very first morning of the of the Plei Me siege. And so but the you cannot just fly a medivac chopper in by itself, you got to have some kind of gunship support. And so these two crocodiles, which is what the-the 119th called, they were, they were gunships. They were, they were alligators and crocodiles, right the alligators with slicks, they were the ones who killed the troops and, and supplies and so forth. And the gunships were the ones who were just the bristling helicopters with weapons. And so they say you got to fly in. And that is what happened is they flew in, and they were going to, they needed to get Lanny Hunter into the camp. But they also needed to get some wounded out, they needed to drop off some supplies. So you tried to get make the most out of every helicopter run into this into the teeth of all this anti-aircraft fire. And, you know, what happened was they- you know, they went in the metabank, that love Lanny Hunter was on came in, and sort of when he went into his flare, he came in too fast, maybe and caused them to be a little too high. And so he was a sitting duck. And so what happens is the gunships have to go and draw fire away from them. And they did that. But they unfortunately went right into the teeth on the southern portion of the camp of where most of the North Vietnamese anti-aircraft fire was concentrated. Got shot down. And you know, and the real tragedy for the whole unit 119 was they-they could not go get those guys, the area was just too hot. And they just, you know, they died like that in there. They crashed SM: 58:47 Mm-Hmm. JS: 58:47 -molting bolt in flames, and they all burned. And they were just young, you know, young guys, SM: 58:53 Right. JS: 58:53 -wives and kids on the way and everything like that. But they could not go get them until the siege was over, because it was just too much fire too much, too much any enemy activity. So they just stayed out there for days and days and days. And finally, you know, as you know, for the book, I was able to talk to one of the guys who went on the mission to get them. And it was just a really, really horrific event and heartbreaking to say the least. SM: 59:18 And you lost another one there and Mr. Bailey. JS: 59:22 Yes. Joe Bailey. Yep. Yep. And he was he was on the ground, right, one of the one of the Special Forces troopers occupying or, you know, garrisoning the camp SM: 59:36 Mm-Hmm. JS: 59:36 and then to go out and try to rescue these guys who had been shot down and the way they were man, the way they described it was this, you know, because I asked them all the same question. I said, "Why would you risk yourself to go and get someone you did not know" or "Why would you risk yourself to help some guy on the ground that you did not know?" And they all said the same thing "It was because they do it for us, you know." So it is like reciprocal agreement, that even though we may not know each other, we were all we were on the same team, and we were going to try our best to save you under any circumstances. So the guys that were in that helicopter that got shot down, we were trying to help the guys on the ground, and they had been helping them all night running gun runs, you know, to try to suppress the NBA attacks. And, and on the flip side of that, the guys on the ground saw that helicopter go down, and they said, We got to go get them. SM: 1:00:36 Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:00:37 It does not look good. But we got to go try. And they went out onto the wire, and they got ambushed, and they got, you know, Joe Bailey lost his life that day trying to help guys who he did not even know, but who would have to help him. SM: 1:00:52 Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:00:52 And that is that free to call that thing that is in the military that that so many of them say they miss that you just you cannot you know, just some average civilian or something who did not know who you can trust. You know, meanwhile, this guy, they do not know each other, but they were, it is just part of the ethos. They tried to help me so I am going to go try to help them and I made and lose my life in the process. SM: 1:01:13 We need that in America today. JS: 1:01:17 Well, the [inaudible] right- SM: 1:01:18 -[inaudible] about everybody. JS: 1:01:22 That is what a lot of these guys coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan have said in the past is like, you know, how do you know who to trust? -You do not have that camaraderie. You do not have that, that that brotherhood, that sisterhood that you had, while you were downrange. And, you know, Sebastian, younger, I do not know how what you know about him. But you know, if you are interested in such things, he has written, you know, very, very passionately and persuasively about, you know, young men in combat and what they miss, about being in combat- SM: 1:01:55 Hmm. JS: 1:01:56 -and about being military and so forth. SM: 1:01:58 Hmm. JS: 1:01:58 And, you know, he is a guy, you know, he is one of those, those long form journalists, as literary journalist who goes and does the thing. You know, he is with the guys. Right. And that is one thing that is, that is always impressed me is the, you know, he spent [inaudible] spent months in the Korengal Valley in Afghanistan with his group, and he did a 3-3-3 documentary films and- SM: 1:02:23 Wow. JS: 1:02:24 -at least one book on it. So I do not know, Steve, if you are interested in things like that. I just throw his name out there. SM: 1:02:29 Well, I am very interested in and of course, I knew Wallace Terry, who wrote Bloods. And he was with the African American soldiers by their side during the war. JS: 1:02:39 Yeah. SM: 1:02:39 -yeah. So that is something and of course, Joe Galloway. Oh, can say about Joe, my goodness, one of a kind. Could you give us- for people who are studying this down the road? Plei Me, you know, it had been there a while but as you start your book with that first group, and then you have got the back with group coming in and three reinforcements with Delta Force, and then the [inaudible] comes in, right to the very end of your book, you talk about the reason why Plei Me, the soldiers and Plei Me survive. Could you talk about the thanks that you gave to the groups that came in that dropped the food that dropped bombs around the sort of camp? Could you talk about those people who risked their lives to say these to save Plei Me. JS: 1:03:33 Yeah, I mean, I heard it described by many sources that it was just a wall of anti-aircraft fire every time you would approach that camp like you would like, like if you were out in the woods, and you have got a stick and you actually hit a hornet's nest and they will just come buzzing out I mean, every time that they would fly their helicopter or fixed wing aircraft near that camp, this round would just light up with an aircraft fire just trying to just shoot down as many aircraft as possible kill as many people as possible SM: 1:04:03 Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:04:04 and of course you know all that ratchets up the pressure right on we got to get this relief force there and of course their ideas they want to ambush the release force too. Yeah, I mean, think about that for a second. I mean, all of those guys and those helicopters and in those-those a One Sky Raiders which was like a, an old-World War Two prop plane that they use for close air support and Vietnam. And you know, coming in and laying down Napalm and you know, cluster munitions and 20-millimeter cannon fire, all of this to constantly try to beat back the NBA assaults on the wire to try to, you know, to bomb them at least enough to keep them far enough away from the camp even so that they could not just constantly rain down fire SM: 1:04:56 Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:04:57 benders and you know, and then you get the resupply, right, coming in, on-on-on-on these big transports for both the Air Force and the Army. And, you know, these are lumbering aircraft compared to, you know, a Canberra, you know fighter bomber or SM: 1:05:21 Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:05:21 even a helicopter and maneuver around these things are pretty much flying in a straight line, and they would make up these pallets of supplies. So that they would, they would drop even faster because the area that they could drop the supplies in was very, very limited Plei Me was not that big to begin with. And then they had this sort of inactive defense that went far out away from the act of the active line of defense where there were man gun trenches and all that they had sort of like a no man's land that was outside of the camp with barbed wire and claymore mines and things like that. But if supplies landed in there you would be you take you take your life in your own hands trying to even get to it because it was constantly under fire, SM: 1:05:38 Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:06:07 -And so the just the skill of the pilot, and the Air Force, or I am sorry, these special forces, riggers, right the ones who rigged the pallets up in the first place, specifically, so that they would drop quickly. And so the planes would come over, they only have a second or two to release the load. And they wanted it to drop right into the camp. So they not only the guys who get it, but so that the NBA could not get it SM: 1:06:07 Right. JS: 1:06:32 -It is the level of skill. And meanwhile, you have got the board air controller, sort of like I would like it him as like the conductor of an orchestra. And he was up there in a little O-1 bird dog observation plane. It is like a Cessna. And you know, he was marking things down with a grease pencil on his plexiglass of his of his of his of his plane, you know, all the different flights that he has got stacked up and he was in ease and again, he was orchestrating all of this and calling in okay, you know, flight 2 you can go now SM: 1:06:32 Mm-Hmm. Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:07:06 -going to run, okay, we have got a supply run coming in, imagine the pressure, SM: 1:07:11 Yeah. JS: 1:07:11 -of that skill that is involved in that, all of that to keep these guys on the ground alive. SM: 1:07:18 Yep. JS: 1:07:19 -And, again, not knowing any of them. Really, I mean, you might, you might have met a guy here, there. But for the most part, there is guys on the ground that need help. And in to do all that and to bring in all of that heavy-duty ordinance so close to the base, but not kill anybody. was amazing. They wanted some, including the camp commander Harold Moore took some shrapnel from close air support, they came in too close. And a couple of Montagnards were crushed to death when a supply pallet came right down on top of their gun trench. SM: 1:07:54 Wow. JS: 1:07:54 So it was not it was not without hazard. SM: 1:07:57 Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:07:57 But most part in a hot complex situation. These guys really, the skill and determination they exhibited over that week was just amazing. SM: 1:08:09 Could you give um if someone wants to know more about Plei Me, what would be the date, the date the month and the days in 65. JS: 1:08:20 Mm-Hmm. So that is going to be October 19th through October 25th is the official length of the siege 1965 There are things that happened before it there was leading up to it and there were some things that happen after it. SM: 1:08:37 Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:08:38 Both are talked about in the book, but that siege itself ran from October 19 to which was a Tuesday I believe all the way through the 25th is when the seed was officially lifted when that South Vietnamese armored Task Force finally arrived. SM: 1:08:55 Yeah, and-and then the La Drang Valley was only about three days later. JS: 1:09:01 Well, well- SM: 1:09:02 -that means remember, like, JS: 1:09:05 The pursuit started almost immediately. But you are right. When you think about the, you know, Colonel Hal Moore -and most of the seventh and what we think of as the beginning of the La Drang on November 14. SM: 1:09:13 Yep. Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:09:19 That would be that was after a really frantic pursuit of the forces that had to besiege Plei [inaudible] and Plei Me that was always the big complaint from American commanders at that time. Was that the Viet Cong and again, they thought these were the Viet Cong up until maybe halfway through the siege and they started to realize oh, this is actually the PAVN right People's Army of Vietnam as the NBA. And so that one complaint they always made was that they were always allowed to attack and then just drift away and to pick and choose their time. They were going to attack and the first cab was like, we were not going to do that we were not going to allow them just to attack and run away and regroup, we were going to pursue that. We were going to we were going to kill them however we possibly can. And so it was a frenetic frantic pursuit over those weeks until how more landed has the first of his battalion in at the, at the base of the Tupac massive in on November 14. And it was marked by some success. But mainly, it was, it was, it was pretty frustrating for SM: 1:10:32 Right. JS: 1:10:32 first [inaudible]. SM: 1:10:33 Yep. JS: 1:10:34 You know, they-they could pin him down sometimes, but the you know, they-they burned a lot of fuel. And they had a lot of mechanical problems because they kept running the helicopters so hard. You know, they get an A for effort. They were trying to make it happen. But they got a quick introduction to how difficult it was to deal with that terrain and with an enemy that can, you know, can hide and disperse. And but they both sides finally got their battle on November 14th. And we know what happened after that. SM: 1:11:06 Yep. Joe Galloway was lucky to get that, or unlucky. But I think he would say lucky to get that helicopter ride into the area. 1:11:16 And he came into Plei Me to you know, he sort of BS his way on and had a buddy and all the rest of it. That got him into to Plei Me and he told me that story for the book. So he kind of got that first. You got his debit there and then left with the first [inaudible] and then ended up, you know, of course, going in a couple of weeks later. On that first. SM: 1:11:41 You-you talk about also toward the end of your book, The you break down the losses from Plei Me how many Americans died? And how many of the enemy you think died? Could you break that down a little bit more? 1:11:56 Yeah, well, we had seven Americans who were killed. 11 if you count the four guys that were on the recon, that really re-catch up, it was a gun, gunship escort for when Beckwith was looking for a proper LZ for his insertion. So those that have a mechanical player, but they still died and they died in service to their country. And when the rotor came away from their helicopter, technically, you could say that they also perished in the siege because they were directly participating. Then you had you know, scores of South Vietnamese and Montagnard were killed. And the NVA regiments that were there were they fared pretty poorly. The counts on the 33rd regiment, which was the one that actually laid siege to Plei Me are much more accurate. Whereas the 32nd, the one that was tasked with ambush in the relief column, they- body counts are not nearly as reliable. But the 33rd definitely took a horrific beating. And one of the reasons was and ironically, it may have been because their seeds went on so long, that they just were they were subjected to relentless and brutal air bombardment SM: 1:13:23 Yes Right. JS: 1:13:23 -and attacks from the camp itself for seven days, you know, nearly you know, and, and doing the-the South Vietnamese relief force was so slow in getting there, it just, it just drove the siege out day after day after day. And these guys just were pummeled. So I do not remember the exact figures off the top of my head, but I know that several, several, several companies pretty much cease to exist. In the 33rd I know that several battalions they lost all I think all of their battalion commanders was killed, or maybe two or three, they lost a lot of a lot of their equipment, which at that time was in really short supply for the North Vietnamese, you know, there was any aircraft guns and, and, and recoilless rifles and all that stuff was-was gold to them, especially in those early days and they lost a lot of that, but also lost a lot of manpower. -32nd even though it had taken a beating out there on Route five, again, body counts are not as reliable. Most sources seem to think conservatively they lost a couple of 100 guys, which is still a chunk, you know, that is a lot that is a that is a lot of people to lose, and but they were able to escape and make their way out and I do not think that they saw any more action for quite some time but the 33rd was harassed and chased the whole way from Plei Me by the first cab until they actually got to the base areas in the Ia Drang. And I think if memory serves now we are getting into Joe Galloway's territory here. But I think that the 33rd did participate somewhat in the Ia Drang battles, it was mainly the 66 NBA regiment, but I think the 33rd did in that course they lost more guys. SM: 1:15:18 Right. JS: 1:15:19 So, by the time it was all said and done, they and they abandoned South Vietnam and started across the border to Cambodia, SM: 1:15:28 Right. JS: 1:15:29 Both of those regiments, the 33rd. And the 32nd that besieged Plei Me were pretty badly mauled. But they could then take-take refuge in Cambodia, and get replacements and rest and recuperate and get more supplies. And then when they were ready, they could go back into the fight, which is what those sanctuaries allow them to do. SM: 1:15:54 I have a couple of questions now that are just general questions on Vietnam, and I just like your thoughts. A lot of the books and a lot of historians have stated that America was not prepared for this war. They did not understand the culture of Vietnam, they did not, they were not prepared for a guerrilla war. I think Special Forces though, were pretty good at countering them. But they did not understand the language. They should bet-bet-better understood the history. And when Robert McNamara wrote his book, In retrospect, several years ago, he admitted that he, he knew we were not going to win the war. But he still left in 1967. And the war was still going on. And I know Senator McCarthy never forgave him for that. Because I interviewed Senator McCarthy and said that, In retrospect, was a bunch of garbage in his view, because he should have done that way before 67. Your thought about America? What has America prepared for this war? JS: 1:16:54 Prepared? That is right. What are we talking about? Are we talking culturally, politically, militarily? All of the above- SM: 1:17:01 -all of the above? Because, you know, because did they understand guerrilla warfare? Do they understand the history of Vietnam? You know, all you had to do was listen to Ho Chi Minh, he could have told you everything. So just your thoughts? JS: 1:17:17 Yeah, I mean, I think right, culturally, I think that, that they did not, they did not even a lot of Americans did not even know where it was right. And they did not, they did not really see public fans are the nuances of, you know, Cold War geopolitics, it was pretty much like, where our president says, we need to be there. Those are the commies we need to do. And that is probably the deepest it was ever thought of by, you know, just on the average American, those who are even aware of it. Then you get the guys who are charged with prosecuting the war. You are right. I mean, ever since 1945, in the end of World War Two, America had been preparing for a large set piece, geopolitical struggle against the Soviet Union, and to a somewhat lesser degree, China, right. SM: 1:18:22 Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:18:22 And so the emphasis was on, you know, big weapons, big units, air power, all the rest to defeat a foe that could pose an existential threat to your country. And-and, of course, you know, Vietnam was not that, you know, it was. So I agree, I think today, they were taking somewhat by surprise, I think that they thought that kind of like the incremental. The incremental approach gradiated pressure that McNamara approach with LBJ is at least acquiescence, right? SM: 1:19:01 Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:19:03 To keep the pressure up, and, you know, keep trying to get concessions and keep trying to get them to come to the bargaining table. I mean, they did not I do not think they knew what they were dealing with. And you would think that you could look and just see from the-the perspective of the French. But again, I think that the Americans thought at the time, and they were justified in thinking that we had more capabilities than the French SM: 1:19:29 Right. JS: 1:19:29 -we had, we had better weapons, and we had better tactics. And we were- the French had just gotten beaten in World War Two and works for some of the reasons we supported them in Vietnam was to try to get them back on their feet because we saw it as a way to do as an anticommunist block to have a strong France again. Probably a lot of Americans leadership did not they did not want to see colonies anymore. They did not want to see they knew the third world was changing. You are right. I think a lot of these things it took them by surprise and-and just like inch by inch, step by step, they got deeper into something. And I think by the time they realized and adjusted strategy, and then we are talking getting into (19)72, which kind of comes to my, my second book that will be coming out here in a few months, is that, you know, by that time, all of the goodwill and all of the political capital, everything had been expended. SM: 1:19:47 Mm-Hmm. Mm.-Hmm. JS: 1:20:12 And that by that time, Congress wanted no more part of it, and neither did the American people. And so, you know, that is the Nixon felt, felt a heavy pressure, he had to get out, and he had to get out. And, you know, the election of 72 was-was the-the new Congress coming in the new was going to be sworn in, in early 73, 93rd Congress, and he knew it was going to be hostile to Vietnam, especially it had been growing more so. And so I think that by the time they figured it out, they figured out how to fight the war, what the priorities should be, and all the rest of it. That coupled with the defeat of the Viet Cong in 68 Tet all of those things came too late. And I think that by the time they figured out what they should do, and then Watergate happened in Nixon lost all of whatever little capital he had, and then finally resigned. And at that point, we just pretty much washed our hands of the whole thing and, and left South Vietnam on its own. In the process- SM: 1:21:44 Yep. Arthur Schlesinger, the historian who was a special assistant to President Kennedy, said, said that Kennedy picked the best and the brightest for his administration. And of course, administration stayed on with LBJ, a lot of them after Kennedy was assassinated, set for Bobby who took off within a year. Look at what they did under Kennedy and Johnson. And when we are talking best and brightest, he is referring, I think, and mostly to Robert McNamara, and McGeorge Bundy. JS: 1:22:23 Mm-Hmm. SM: 1:22:23 And can you throw Dean Rusk in there as well? I get that. Yeah, they might. is bright, always smart. That is the question I want to ask. And, and I do not think they were very smart. If they could not see what was happening, and particularly and I have different views. I have interviewed Robert McNamara's son. He has got a new book out too, on his father. And I have a little more and even Bobby Mueller grew to like Robert McNamara in overtime because he debated him. However, what Eugene McCarthy told me after In Retrospect came out is that his book was a bunch of garbage is what a lot of people felt because it was a little too late. JS: 1:23:11 Mm-Hmm. SM: 1:23:12 If he knew this before, he should have been in the office with LBJ and said stop. I- you know, so, you know, just when you say you know, the best and the brightest, it always goes to Arthur Schlesinger because he was in that group from Harvard, but maybe they were not the best in the brightest, after all. Any thoughts on that? Oh Yeah- yeah, Halberstam wrote that. But you know, Fletcher's always saying it [inaudible] JS: 1:23:33 Yeah, I mean, that is the that is the book right? It is, we-we look at that and and-and we see it was Halberstam right? Who wrote the book- -Yeah, yeah. And it is true. I just I think that, you know, there is this adage that you fight, you are always trying to fight the last war. And I do not know, I think that they were trying to blame a-a-a-a- the American way of war. I think you are trying to bring it and make the war fit the way we wanted to fight it rather than the realities of what was going on. And again, slash injure or Eugene McCarthy's take on McNamara, you know, it was a little too late. And I would add to that, I would say that, you know, in a different sort of little too late, it was like, they finally figured it out. And we were having real success, but it was too late because they had already they had already burned all the bridges and SM: 1:23:50 Yep. JS: 1:23:53 bended all the little and no one believed him anymore and, and then, at that point, they just the people just wanted out in Congress, you know, was going to make that happen one way or another and I just I would look at it, Stephen, I just look at it. It is such a such a tragedy, right? SM: 1:25:04 I agree. Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:25:05 But if you get if you do it, right, if you do it, then the very least you can do is to is to be successful and to be and to win the thing. And this is what we come back to our beginning of our conversation, the thing that struck me as a young kid starting to watch this stuff starting to study, it is like, it just seems like such a waste. -and one of these guys lost, and then countless others who were named and, and who do you know, even though I said, I did not like the caricature of the Vietnam vets, it is in popular media, I mean, a lot of them did have a lot of problems. And a lot of them came overcame those problems, a lot of them went on to live a very happy and successful lives and still do. In fact, the great majority of them do. But the thing is, is you make that if you make that commitment, and you tell these young men to go do something, at least have the decency to be successful, and make their sacrifice worth something. And to me, that is, that is the tragedy too. And the tragedy is the is the millions of Vietnamese who were who lost their lives. And we were- SM: 1:26:15 Yes. JS: 1:26:16 -we were just split. And-and so, you know, what was all that for, you know, to-to, again, I hate this keep coming back when we spent 20 years in Afghanistan, and yet the scales of the enormity of what went on were not, were paled in comparison to-to Vietnam. Still, what was it all for? I mean, what was all those guys who were killed and lost legs? And what was it all for? If you are just going to wash your hands and-and bug out in an embarrassing display at the-the Kabul airport or in Saigon in 75? You know- SM: 1:26:29 Yes, It is like, it is like in your book use you talk about when all the bombardment is happening around the outskirts of pre-May in how parts of bodies around the wires? I mean, you know, after the all the bombing and taking place, these are these are human beings to from North Vietnam or the Viet Cong. I mean, they were they were babies, ones that have parents that love them and had families and they end up on body parts on a on a, you know, on a wire around a camp it is tragic. And I think the one thing you said at the very end of your book, because that person who saw that soldier, and it was actually thought that the soldier was just in the one I am talking about with a maggots. JS: 1:27:46 Yes, yeah. SM: 1:27:47 Could you talk about that, too? Because this is what the tra- this is what tragedy war is all about? JS: 1:27:53 Yeah. No, it was I think I called it one of wars, little atrocities. I mean, it was just, you know, somehow this, this North Vietnamese soldier had escaped the bulldozers that would have pushed all the bodies into the trenches that they dug themselves and then covered him over and he was propped up against them some foliage. And he would have he had died and compound fracture of his leg probably bled out at that moment, but he had the maggots had gone to work on his face instead of the leg wound. And, you know, the guy I told you about the helicopter pilot, who was walking around kind of looking to see, what he could see was just guessed. You know, he could not he could not believe his eyes. And it is you put it so well, I mean, he hears these guys, and they will they suffered, they suffered on their way down the Ho Chi Minh Trail, they starved and they were sick. And you know, these are things that, you know, we do not really think about, but just the hardship of just that, of just war itself, not even being shot or anything else, just the physical toil that it takes on your body, even as the young man and then at the end of that whole long, arduous, starving sick trip and they get to their their reward is to storm into this camp, and get bombarded by Napalm and become body parts in the wire. And a tragic thing that I found out in my research was is that the the NBA commanders knew that those that they were sending these guys into this mall have-have heard horrific fire. But they had no intention of taking the camp at that point. They just wanted to make the defenders think they were about to be overrun. SM: 1:29:40 Unbelievable. JS: 1:29:41 And in these guys against the wire and getting them slaughtered, knowing that really the whole point was is to first destroy that ambush or ambush that relief column and then overrun and destroy the camp. That was all part of the plan. And they knew it. I do not know if the I do not know if the company commanders knew it, but certainly the regimental commanders must have known it. That that was part of the plan. SM: 1:30:07 Yeah. -wars, not only hell, it is insanity. And then that you just proved it there. And Jan Scruggs wrote a book called Heal a Nation. I do not know if you saw that book. And it was about the importance of the wall and healing America, and certainly healing the families and the loved ones of the Vietnam soldiers who lost their lives in the war. Did that, as Jan said, heal a nation, does a wall heal the nation. JS: 1:30:07 So but- 1:30:39 I think that it certainly had a powerful effect. And I you know, I have been to it several times. And I have, I have, I seen the reverence with which the people approach it. And not all the guys are, you know, 70s, you know, in Vietnam age, you know, I mean, a lot of young people too, and, and people from different walks of life, and mean, something. And, you know, another thing I think, that helped heal the nation was-was Operation Homecoming, which was, as you know, once the Paris Peace Accords, were finally signed, there was the agreement to get the Viet W's out. And, and the reception that those guys got, everywhere they went, and the POW bracelets and the people the way they were treated, and the way that the-the citizens came up around the country to greet the planes and all of that. I mean, it was really inspiring. And that is what I asked again, that is, that is part of the second book that I am publishing this this winter, is I asked him, what was that? Was that a healing effect on the nation? And I really think that it was I think, law and things like that. helped me get a little better in the end. SM: 1:32:09 Did you talk to Jan Scruggs at all? If not, he is a good man to talk to. JS: 1:32:17 Steven I, I will, if I had the chance, I will reach out. But I do have to say this, but I have to go because I got to take my son to eye, to his eye appointment. SM: 1:32:28 Very good. JS: 1:32:29 So- is there any kind of last thing you wanted to ask me or? SM: 1:32:33 Yeah- I was going to say if there is one word that stands out in the 60s and 70s, what is that one word? JS: 1:32:44 60s and 70s. alike, all the way to the end of the 70s. SM: 1:32:47 What is there is one word that comes to mind when you think of the (19)60s and the (19)70s? What is that word? JS: 1:32:56 Chaotic. SM: 1:32:58 Yeah. All right. Well, yeah, my mind was Vietnam. Yeah. And the last thing I want to ask is, and this is just-just your thoughts? Why did we lose the Vietnam War? And who was the most responsible for this loss? 1:33:14 Why we lost it, I think the strategy, my view was ultimately the strategy. I think that the American- whenever would have lost the American people if we were if we were actively winning, rather than just holding off rather than trying to hold territory or rather than just trying to accumulate body count. But then that opens up an entire other hand, does not it? What how would the Chinese have reacted? If we invaded Laos? I was a Chinese or how would the Soviets have acted if we invaded Cambodia, or at least, you know, create a buffer zones- SM: 1:33:58 Right. JS: 1:33:59 -that help prevent those supplies? And, you know, that is the that is the thing is that it is- we do not know. I mean, you got hindsight, we can both look back, and we see the mistakes now. And maybe we do not even see it, maybe we still do not see it. But it is just at the time, you know, Korea loom large and that experience and having all those Chinese forces come in. And I know that America's leadership did not want to do it. They also wanted to, in some ways for NSA, we were not even fighting a war. And if you are going to do it, you got to, you got to go to the American people and say, here is what we have got. SM: 1:34:43 Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:34:44 What we need to do, can you support us and lay it on the line and say, this is what we really think is happening. ' SM: 1:34:53 Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:34:53 This is what we need to do. And I do not think that the leadership did that. And I think that the Because of that, it constrain the strategy to one of attrition and holding, you know, trying to hold on to South Vietnam territory, and really fighting it sort of a defensive that. SM: 1:35:15 My last question is this real fascinating go. I have been asking the last 25 people I have interviewed, what word of advice would you give to the people who are listening to this interview? Who are not even born yet? These tapes are going to be at our center, and people that are born 50 years from now are going to be probably looking at your book listening to this tape. What words of advice would you give to them? JS: 1:35:46 I would say this, sometimes nation states have to go to war. Just make sure that you get your government to fully explain why you are going to war and-and why it is necessary and what they intend to do to win it. SM: 1:36:06 Mm-Hmm. JS: 1:36:09 If they cannot answer those questions satisfactorily, then you have got to not support what is going to happen. And, again, war are sometimes necessary for any sovereign nation, but you do not do it. You do not engage in it. Unless you fully believe and intend to win, and the secure objectives. And if you cannot do that, and your government cannot explain that to you, as a citizen, then you need to be mighty skeptical of it. SM: 1:36:41 Well, thank you very much, Dr. Saliba. I am going to turn this off now. And I just want to thank you for doing for doing the interview with me and I wish you the best on your new book. Are you still they still-still there? JS: 1:37:00 [inaudible]. When the book comes out [inaudible]- SM: 1:37:07 Oh, I would be looking forward to it- JS: 1:37:17 [inaudible] SM: 1:37:22 -well, all that-all the people in Binghamton they are-are going to know so that is all you know, we got Dr. Nieman Dr. Nieman in the History department. So you know, you are going to be known that this book, I just want to say that this book that you just written is so important. So important. And I learned an awful lot that I did not know. And I thank you for this and the people anybody connected with Plei Me. I mean, they are American heroes. They are American heroes. That is all I have to say. And what will happen is we will be sending you a copy of this tape digital copy to your email address from Binghamton and then you can listen to it and if you if everything's fine and Okay, so we can place an onsite loan with your picture and a brief biography. JS: 1:38:15 [inaudible] SM: 1:38:15 And I tell it to your university that you work at is very lucky to have you that is all I had to say. JS: 1:38:20 [inaudible] I like that- SM: 1:38:26 [chuckles] Yes, you are lucky you are You take care. You be safe now. Bye now. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. J. Keith Saliba https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/1b0ef99ddb7a7e56b70f1074434cecf0.jpg 536c14a8456bb5ce32012c41c14be12d https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/5111a50ae3c22fbcf16b15f4621d181c.mp3 6929a256181a5f65964b01dcd873782c Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2002-07-29 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed James J. Kirschke Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;James J. Kirschke is currently an English professor at Villanova University. Kirschke earned his Bachelor's degree from LaSalle College, and his Master's degree and Ph.D. in English at Temple University. He served in Vietnam until was medically retired in 1968. He recounted his experiences in an autobiography entitled Not Going Home Alone. He is also the author of Henry James and Impressionism, Willa Cather and Six Writers from the Great War, and Gouverneur Morris (1752-1816): Author, Statesman, and Man of the World.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:15105,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">James J. Kirschke is currently an English professor at Villanova University. Kirschke earned his Bachelor's degree from LaSalle College, and his Master's degree and Ph.D. in English at Temple University. He served in Vietnam until he was medically retired in 1968. He recounted his experiences in an autobiography entitled <em>Not Going Home Alone</em>. He is also the author of <em>Henry James and Impressionism</em>, <em>Willa Cather and Six Writers from the Great War</em>, and <em>Gouverneur Morris (1752-1816): Author, Statesman, and Man of the World</em>.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;John F Kennedy's Election; Nineteen sixties; Ron Castillo; Grace Slick; Baby boom generation; Nineteen sixties government distrust; Bobby Mueller; Disabled veterans; La Salle University in nineteen-sixties.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:3,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:14275305}}">John F Kennedy's Election; Nineteen sixties; Ron Castillo; Grace Slick; Baby boom generation; Nineteen sixties government distrust; Bobby Mueller; Disabled veterans; La Salle University in nineteen-sixties.</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 91:45 Subject LCSH College teachers; Villanova University; Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Veterans; Kirschke, James J.--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. James J. Kirschke Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kirschke, James J. ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource College teachers; Villanova University; Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Veterans; Kirschke, James J.--Interviews Description An account of the resource James J. Kirschke is currently an English professor at Villanova University. Kirschke earned his Bachelor's degree from LaSalle College, and his Master's degree and Ph.D. in English at Temple University. He served in Vietnam until he was medically retired in 1968. He recounted his experiences in an autobiography entitled <em>Not Going Home Alone</em>. He is also the author of <em>Henry James and Impressionism</em>, <em>Willa Cather and Six Writers from the Great War</em>, and <em>Gouverneur Morris (1752-1816): Author, Statesman, and Man of the World</em>. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002-07-29 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.76 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 91:45 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/5b90fd76eda81b7eac0a698a93680c1c.jpg 12aa9e73391a5079e05a24ea5a71948d https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/b3bafa5660c345ff6f313b2d4c679e78.mp3 8c8abdf2bc7f131670d3ba5d6352d252 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-08-02 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed James Quay Language English Biographical Text <p>Dr. James Quay grew up in Allentown, Pennsylvania.&nbsp; He earned a BA in English from Lafayette College and then performed two years of alternative service in central Harlem as a conscientious objector. He and his wife moved to California where he earned an MA and Ph.D. in English Literature from UC Berkeley. He was a lecturer at UC Santa Cruz and an associate producer with California Public Radio where he co-produced a six-part radio documentary, <em>Vietnam Reconsidered: Lessons from a War</em>. He served as executive director of the California Council for the Humanities from 1983 to 2008. Since his retirement, he has been a facilitator for the Center for Courage and Renewal.</p> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 159:49 Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;College campus; Activism; Volunteerism; Wounded Knee; Black Panther; Stonewall; Quaker; Kent State; Jackson State; Chicago.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:515,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:16370588},&quot;12&quot;:0}">College campus; Activism; Volunteerism; Wounded Knee; Black Panther; Stonewall; Quaker; Kent State; Jackson State; Chicago.</span> Subject LCSH Radio producers and directors; California Council for the Humanities; Quay, James--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: James Quay Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 2 August 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:03): And again, any questions will be all over the place. They are not going to be in the order that I sent them to you, but I will start out with the first question, which is, in the early years when you were young, what were the greatest influences in your life, your experiences growing up, your high school years prior to going to college, and then of course your college years as well. I think you were at Lafayette College and I know that quite well. And then your experiences at Berkeley. So tell me a little bit about those early years. JQ (00:00:35): Well, I grew up in Allentown, Pennsylvania, which is city of about 100,000, maybe 70 miles north of Philadelphia. And it was literally an all-American city. Got that designation, I think, twice, actually. So naturally, the biggest influence for me early on where my parents. My father managed the shoe store and had never gone to college. My mother was a nurse, not working at the time, but she started working to put my brother and I through college, to help with college. And it was a very big tranquil, safe childhood. Remember walking a mile and a half to elementary school without any adult supervision. Nobody worried about it. So I would say my parents early on were strong influences. In high school, a classmate named Earl Lampson was the first... I was a pretty much of a straight arrow, and he was the first person to really go off into some intellectual deep places. He knew about the Beats. He knew about blues and jazz and folk music beyond the standard repertoire. So he was a very strong influence for getting me to see other ways of seeing the world than just the standard, conventional way that I saw. Though I must say, I was not one of those who rebelled against my conventional upbringing. I just saw that there was another way. And in college, my professors were really influential, especially one English professor named James Lusardi. SM (00:02:48): How do you spell that? JQ (00:02:51): L-U-S-A-R-D-I. He died about six years ago. He was influential not only as a model, I decided what I wanted to be was an English professor, but also he had, there is a kind of easy, sophomoric cynicism that college students can have, or certainly I did at that time. I think it was a leftover from the Cool Beat (19)50s era, and he challenged that. That is really cowardice, and it is really, you are just being a punk. It is just a posture. You are actually trying to protect yourself from... There is something fearful about that posture. And all this was happening about the time that protest against the war was heating up. So we started getting involved more with challenging the [inaudible] administration rules on conduct as well as protesting against the war. So I guess those were the major influences for me, the ones I personally had, anyway. SM (00:04:11): Now before we even get into it really in depth, on the Vietnam Memorial website, they have your description of when you first went to the Vietnam Memorial for the first time. JQ (00:04:23): I did not even know that. SM (00:04:26): Yeah. Well, that is where I first really found out about you. It is on the website, and it is as a conscientious objector from the Vietnam War area. And then of course, it has listed that you were the executive director of the California Council of the Humanities. But go back to those days again when you were young in college. At what juncture did you become a conscientious objector? Was it at Lafayette College, or was it at Berkeley? JQ (00:04:55): Oh, no, it was at Lafayette. I did not get to Berkeley until 1970, and I must say by the time I got to Berkeley... SM (00:05:05): Can you hold on a second? Someone is trying to reach me. Hold on a second. I am on my cell. Hello? This is him speaking. Good. No-no-no-no. I retired in February of 2009, and I have not worked since. Yep. You bet, bud. Sorry about that. JQ (00:05:55): That is all right. SM (00:05:57): That was Social Security. I am going to be able to get social security for the first time. They do not believe I am retired. Well, anyway, where were we? Sorry about that. That will be the last interruption. JQ (00:06:14): Yeah, it was at Lafayette and not Berkeley that I made that decision. And I think about the evolution. I remember when I turned 18 in September of (19)64, I forgot to go to the draft board to register. I did not go for weeks. And in 1964, that was no big deal. If that had happened, I am guessing, two or three years later, it probably would have been a big deal. And I started paying attention to the war, I would say, in 1966 and (19)67, which would have been my junior year. I had a student deferment, of course, and so I was not thinking about the draft that way, but I was starting to read people like Camus and Thoreau, and think about what my stance was going to be when I graduated. And I toyed for a little while. I knew I did not want to participate in the war. And I toyed a little while about the 1-A-O status, which is conscientious objector, but in the military, usually work as a corpsman or something like that. Decided against that, and I guess it was sometime around Christmas or January that I decided to file as a CO. I remember telling my father, and I do not remember him having any strong objections. He had gone quite willingly to World War II. In fact, I think he volunteered. And it was more that this was a different situation, something he had not encountered. He could tell me how to follow my government's instructions, but he could not tell me how to resist them. So there I turned to by some of my professors and also the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, which was then based Philadelphia, I think still is, and started to think about what my claim would be. And I was lucky because it was a Supreme Court. Mine was not a religious objection. I was raised Lutheran, and the Lutheran Church did not have a passive stance the way that the Quakers do. But there had been a Supreme Court decision, (19)65 or (19)66, a secret decision, I think, in which the justices said it was not necessary for someone to be a member of a peace church, but that the conviction that you had against war had to occupy the same place in your life as it would in that of a belief. Very important. It is funny, a lot of the theologians that were cited in that decision, I then read later freshman required religion course that I took. [inaudible]. SM (00:09:42): Oh, yes. JQ (00:09:56): So basically, my position was that we create our gods out of our own values, and the values that I most agreed with were love and justice. And I do not know if you are familiar with the CO form, but the first question is, "Do you believe in a Supreme Being?" And there are two boxes: yes, no. It is not a particularly sophisticated theological docket. Then the second question is, "What is the nature of your relationship to that between being," I am going to forget the exact wording, "That makes it impossible for you to participate in war?" It says something about your relationship is higher than any human relationship. And I said that since human beings were the carriers of love and justice and all these important values, to kill other human beings would be to more or less kill God, because human beings, in a sense, are the divinity. And that was the basis of my claim. I remember giving it really a lot of thought, and it was accepted in June of (19)68. So I filed it on the first day of spring in 1968, and then it was accepted into... SM (00:11:51): Did you have any choice about what you were going to do for alternative service, or were you just assigned? JQ (00:11:56): That is a funny story. What you do is you send three options to the draft board, all of which has to be outside, I think, at least 90 miles away from your home. And the three that I sent to my draft board were the New York City Department of Social Services, the Judson Memorial Church was a church in Greenwich Village that had a reputation as peace church, and the United Nations. And I actually started working for the Department of Social Services because I had heard that other draft boards had accepted that as alternative service. Not all, but some. And then my draft board sent back a letter saying, no to the United Nations note, to the New York City Department of Social Services, and what is the Judson Memorial Church? So I sent an appeal back. I realized that they knew that the name of the social service had been the Department of Welfare, they had just came to me. And that welfare to somebody living in Allentown, Pennsylvania did not mean, clearly, what I was experiencing in Harlem. So I sent them a letter, I think, detailing what I did in the course of the week, hoping that would persuade them that what I was doing was truly both in the national interest, and true social service. And it took two tries. I got another letter back saying, "We voted. The vote was two to two with one person absent. We will let you know next month." And then they finally did accept that. I should probably also say that I waived my physical, because I did not want to be exempted because of any physical injuries. So I volunteered for alternative service. SM (00:14:21): Yeah, that experience, you were there two years? JQ (00:14:23): Two years. SM (00:14:23): And it is my understanding that most positions that, or people that serve in conscientious objector positions, it was not meant to be easy. JQ (00:14:35): Yeah, that is right. SM (00:14:37): And so... JQ (00:14:38): His life was to be... I think the idea basically was fairness. Your life was disrupted the way someone who had to go into the military's life would be disrupted. SM (00:14:51): From that two-year experience, what did you learn, not only about people and about yourself, but about this country? JQ (00:15:02): That is a big question. I would say that first of all, I had never seen poverty at the scale that I saw it in Harlem. Never. And at the same time, I saw people and got to know people who were not the face of the poor anymore. They were individuals. I remember one fellow who was, I think he was a little mentally disabled, but he was a very gifted sculptor. Who would have thought? And I discovered that a lot of the misery in Harlem was caused by absentee landlords who lived far away and did not care about the condition of their building. I learned that if I walked down the streets of Harlem, I was afraid of the same people that the people living in Harlem were afraid of. That is, a deranged drug addict, and that they really were human beings just struggling to make do with very few resources, et cetera, et cetera. And it was really eye-opening for me. It also made me realize that doing social service work, especially in a big bureaucracy, was just crushing work. That it was not for me. That I was going to take my constitution some other way. SM (00:16:55): Would you say that, because you were in a very prestigious position for 25 years in California, in the humanities, were doing documentaries and programs, and would you say that the experiences you had as a young man serving in a conscientious objector status for people, a lot of people had nothing, that you were able to use that experience and use it in a position like your director position in terms of doing quality work with less money? JQ (00:17:36): Well, I do not know if it enabled me to do quality work with less money, but I would say that it informed what I hope is a very powerful populous stem to the way I see the world. That when I was with the Council, what gradually evolved was a program that centered on strengthening community as much as possible. Bringing people together, whether it is across racial lines, class lines, as much as possible. It is very difficult work to do, as you probably know, but that the idea of including everyone and that everyone's story is an important story. That derived, in part, I think, from my experience in Harlem, it is hard to say, it is a chicken/egg thing. Did I see what I saw in Harlem because I already had that value, did it just reinforce that? I do not know. But certainly there is a consistency there. SM (00:18:52): There might be some sort of direct link with that and your first position after you got your PhD, where you did that documentary on the Vietnam War. JQ (00:19:01): Well, yeah. What really happened there, I remember listening to National Public Radio and their coverage of the dedication of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. And they had a short clip where they were reading the names, and I was just absolutely transfixed by that. It just really, really struck you. Now, this is in (19)82, and there had not been very much discussion of or talk of the war after the US left. And especially after 1975, it was just like the whole country went completely silent and was mourning, I believe, but mourning quietly, silently. No one was talking to Vietnam veterans at all, it was as if they had disappeared off the face of the Earth. So this was the first public reawakening of the war back into consciousness. And very shortly after, maybe two or three weeks later, a man named Walter Capps I interviewed, he had just written a book called The Unfinished War, 1982, and he was a professor of religious studies at Santa Barbara, and he had begun in 1979. This could be a long story, but I will keep it brief. He had started a course, very first in America, and so he did lecture of this, and in the three years since he had started the course, I think the first one was in (19)79, at first, it was a course that had 30 students. By 1982 or three, they had to put it in the largest auditorium on the campus, 900 deep. That is what interest there was in the war. And I had gotten a little hint of that when I was teaching writing at the UC Santa Cruz from 1977 to (19)79. I actually taught a course on the (19)60s, a research course. I was a writing instructor. And to supplement the course, I had a little film series that would show films every Monday night. And, oh, I always forget the name of it, a very powerful film about the Vietnam War. SM (00:22:00): Coming Home? JQ (00:22:06): No-no. It was more of a documentary film. I just cannot think of it right now. But I rented the film and showed it, and 500 people showed up to see this film. And that was the moment I realized that the war was not over. The war was still psychologically going on. So let us see, that was in (19)79, (19)82. Walter talked about, well, you can tell from the title of the book, the Unfinished War, that he, too, felt that this was happening in the American psyche, and that Americans really had not dealt with or healed from the war. And I think it was around that time that I decided to apply for $1000 satellite grant, which we got. And we went down and we recorded the first conference to talk about the Vietnam War, called Vietnam Reconsidered, at the University of Southern California. And there were some really outstanding people. Francis Fitzgerald was there, I do not think Westmoreland spoke, but people of that caliber, Arthur Miller spoke. SM (00:23:36): Wow. JQ (00:23:39): Robert Stone spoke. But by far the most powerful session, and it was just one of many sessions, was the one where the veterans spoke. And again, I was just by myself, just completely transfixed by what I was hearing, and mostly the pain that I was hearing. And we decided to take all the hours of tape that we had, package them into six one-hours, put a binder, put some information, and send them, sell them, actually, for cost, to public radio stations all over the country. And we did that for several years. And the response to that was just overwhelming. It was very gratifying. But I knew that we were just scratching the surface. It was largely through Walter's course... Walter, now, this was February of (19)83. Walter, it turned out, became the chairman of the California Council for the Humanities. SM (00:25:01): Oh, my gosh. JQ (00:25:02): And was part of the group that hired me four months later to become the executive director. SM (00:25:08): Oh, my gosh. JQ (00:25:10): Oh, it gets even wilder than that. I had my final interview. There were two finalists. My final interview was in July, on July 20th of 1983. Three days, before we found out that California public radio had been blue penciled out of the California budget due to the governor. Governor Deukmejian. Suddenly, there was no more California public radio. And on the final day, I had my interview. Went back, we taped the final showing of the 15-minute news program that we did, California Edition. And three minutes after that final show, I got the call that I got the job as the PCH Executive Director. SM (00:26:06): Now was Walter a professor there, too, in California at that time? JQ (00:26:11): And later became a congressman in 1996, and then died tragically a year later of a heart attack. But he became my mentor in the sense that the power of stories, and the power of telling one's story, and being able to have one's story heard, the veterans were in some way healed by the fact that they had an audience that was listening to their story, and not judging their story. And the course is still being taught. It is being thought by a professor named Richard Peck to this day. And Walter told me before he died that he felt that the course had gone through three phases. The first one was welcoming the veterans home, and bringing them out of the shadows onto the stage, telling their story. SM (00:27:16): And that was (19)79. JQ (00:27:17): That was (19)79 through about (19)83 or four, I am going to say. SM (00:27:20): Okay. JQ (00:27:22): But this is pretty imprecise. From (19)84 or five to (19)91. It was healing the nation, that the veterans, by telling their stories, were inviting the rest of the country to deal with what it had not dealt with before. Because there was a lot of grief in this country, the loss of ideals, the loss of the view of your country that you may have once had, that I certainly had, that was destroyed by our participation in Vietnam. And then after (19)91, after the Gulf War, the Gulf War ended that morning moment, because suddenly war was triumphal again. Look at that big victory we just had, and the concentration then was he was getting lots of students in the class who were the sons and daughters of that. SM (00:28:21): Oh, yes. JQ (00:28:22): And so there was, how does information get transferred generation to generation? It may be even a different phase now, but that one was the one that was going on when I was there. SM (00:28:34): So let me turn- JQ (00:28:36): He invited me in 1985. I asked him during the interview back in (19)82 if he had ever had a protestor or a conscientious objector speak, and he never had. And he said, "That might be a good idea." So finally in (19)85, he actually did invite me, and it was the first time I told my story, How I Came to Be a Conscientious Objector. And he later included it in a book on the Vietnam, A reader on the Vietnam War that he created. SM (00:29:09): Let me change the side here. We just finished 30 minutes, so let me just change this tape here. Very good. We are back. That is quite a story. JQ (00:29:20): Well, I am saving my big story for... SM (00:29:22): Okay. JQ (00:29:22): [inaudible] story is probably the big story. SM (00:29:28): I am going to get near there in a couple of minutes. But I also wanted your thoughts as a CO. You have been very descriptive as to why you became a CO, and you have talked about the experience and what it meant to you. What did you think about the conscientious objectors who went to Canada, the people that left the country and refused to even do alternative service? Because we know that Jimmy Carter, in (19)79, pardoned anybody. Amnesty was given. That was very controversial. But a lot of people never came back to the United States. They stayed up in Canada. And some people say some of the top leaders up there are former Vietnam vets to even today that have gone on, become very successful businessmen, and they are in government and everything else. Your thoughts on those who went to Canada and did not really, they paid a price by separating themselves from their families and not being able to come back to home. And secondly, something when I interviewed James Fowles, who is an unbelievable person, veterans admire him because he admitted that he was basically a chicken during the Vietnam War, that he evaded the draft, and he was very specific about this. He says there is a big difference between those who went out and protested the draft, and those who evaded the draft. And he evaded the draft like a lot of his friends at Harvard, and he feels guilty. He has gotten over it, but he has been very honest. So my question is basically- JQ (00:31:02): What did you do in the class war? Daddy, I think. SM (00:31:09): Yeah. So basically, I am asking what do you think of those people who went to Canada and never did any kind of alternative service? And secondly, what do you think of those people who evaded the draft without any sense of, "I am not going to protest against the war, I am just going to get out of the draft." JQ (00:31:27): Yeah. Well, my only experience with anybody who went to Canada was a friend who was working at the same welfare center as I was. His draft board was in St. Louis. He worked at the same work I did for four years, twice as long, but his grant board refused to accept it. So he lives in Toronto today. So I guess what that has told me is I... JQ (00:32:03): What it has told me is, I cannot judge people as a class, I would have to hear each individual story. I just cannot make that judgment. I know it is true and this is one of the things I learned from the Glendon Waters story, was that, when I was going to college, existentialist literature was very big to Moon and Sartre. And the notion that your life is what you do, you are what do, you find yourself by the actions that you take. And of course, since this is happening for me between the ages of 18 and 21, it is also part of my identity formation. So this is a very rich stew. So I saw, becoming a conscientious objector, as making a choice, making a statement about my life, embedding the things that I believed in and acting on them and that was very important. But what I learned later was, that that was a very privileged position to be in. I got to read Kabul and Thoreau. I got to be on a college campus, where I had the leisure to do that without having to earn a living or et cetera, et cetera. And there were people who did not have those privileges and did not have that opportunity. Now I would like to think that I made the right choice, given what was given to me, to know about those things. But I do believe that it was not given to everybody to know about those things. Glendon Waters grew up in Dallas, Texas. It probably was not a peace church within 150 miles of Dallas, Texas. Whereas, I grew up 70 miles North of Philadelphia in an area that had peace churches and dissenting churches everywhere. And even if you were not a member of them, that atmosphere, Quaker presence. So that took me in directions and made choices available to me that were not available to others. I would guess, that there may be a lot of, be it conscience on the part of the school to who did that, what you are calling, draft evasion. But I guess what I feel is, that the choices that we make sometimes as very young men and women, we cannot possibly know what the consequences are going to be later in life. You just make this wager. And if get that wrong, you do suffer consequences later. And that the most serious are the ones, the judgements you make of yourself, the way Fallows did. SM (00:35:27): Right. JQ (00:35:27): And not the judgments that others may have. I did find that veterans treated me with respect because I had done the alternative service and had taken a stand, and they did tend to have a lot of contempt for those who simply abated the draft. But I just think moral decisions are, well, sometimes they do not even present themselves as moral decisions. So I tend not to make a blanket judgment of that. SM (00:36:07): I know that in the oral history book, The Wounded Generation, that came out around 1980, I have interviewed like Phil Caputo and Bobby Mueller and John Wheeler. I have interviewed a couple of people linked to that book. And James Webb who is now our Senator from Virginia, he made a comment back at the time of a symposium, that was interesting. We talk about the generation gap being the battle between parents and their children, over ideas and lifestyle and all other things and that was obviously happening in the (19)60s and (19)70s. Webb said that he felt, or at least in the conversation between these gentlemen, "That the real battle was within the generations, not necessarily between generations. Between those who went to war and served in Vietnam or were Vietnam era veterans who served in this country or around the world. So you have to include them too and those who did not serve." And so his commentary was in the end, that we always think of the (19)60s generation as a service-oriented generation, one that went into the Peace Corps, went into Vista. They followed the ideas of John Kennedy, either by going into the military, like a lot of the guys at West Point did and Annapolis. So they used the military as service, where others went to Peace Corps, the other ways. But in reality, as Mr. Webb said, and then the conversation was very good, if you look at the book that, "This was not a generation of service." And I thought that was interesting because we think just the opposite, the service really began then with the idea of the Peace Corps and John Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for us, what you can do for your country." What are your thoughts about those comments that came out of that discussion in the book, The Wounded Generation? I know that Mr. Webb said some of those words, but it was a conversation in response to his words. JQ (00:38:17): Well, I know that that conflict has reared itself at different times, especially in the (19)90s, I remember the way President Clinton was viewed, et cetera, et cetera. It may still be true. Again, I like to avoid generalizing because first of all, the generation is so large, and as you pointed out in one of your questions, only 15 percent, I think protested in any way. So we tend to lump everybody together and it is really not accurate to do that. SM (00:39:08): Yeah. In fact, some people say that 15 is, you are way overboard, Steve. It is really about 5 percent. JQ (00:39:13): Is that right? SM (00:39:15): Yeah, it depends on who you talk to. There is no real answer to the total numbers but it was minor. JQ (00:39:26): Yeah. SM (00:39:26): Yeah. JQ (00:39:27): Well, I can understand that. I mean, I remember the first time I carried a protest sign, I felt very self-conscious. It was walking out on stage without your clothes or something. I mean, I got more and more used to it, but the first time certainly, it just seemed very strange. SM (00:39:51): What was that first time? JQ (00:39:52): Pardon me? When was it? SM (00:39:53): Yeah, do you remember the exact moment you said, "Geez." I think that is the question I have is, there comes a moment when you have to speak up against injustice or you see something you do not like and you know that when you do, you are vulnerable. That is what being an activist is. You got to be vulnerable. JQ (00:40:08): Yeah. So I do remember actually, because I think somebody from the South Vietnamese Embassy came to speak on my campus and about 10 or 12 of people I knew protested outside. That is by protested I mean, they were holding signs saying, "Stop the bombing." SM (00:40:36): This is at Lafayette? JQ (00:40:38): This is at Lafayette and this is in the spring of (19)67. And I was not one of those people. One of my roommates was, but I did not go. And for an hour or two, they were surrounded by a mob of many members and water was thrown, bricks was thrown, foul language was thrown, and the campus police were nowhere to be found, for some strange reason and that galvanized me. So my first demonstration was in favor of the First Amendment. We spoke of that the next day, walked around the campus with signs, I do not know, maybe 30 of us, 40 of us, still not very many, but more than a dozen. And we pressured the administration about, where were the campus police, why suddenly, there was no protection for these people. So in a sense, that broke the ice for me. There was no doubt in my mind, I mean, the First Amendment, is there anything more American than the First Amendment? SM (00:42:05): Right. JQ (00:42:06): And so that protesting, you could protest in favor of something American and you were not protesting against America somehow. So it took patriotism and it began to sometimes, I mean, you see this going against your government, is the more patriotic active space, so that was the beginning. And then I think the first protest, I took part in against the war, was in early July, in the summer, where we just handed out leaflets at our church and then went inside and attended the service. And I heard the minister denounce, "Those outside, as tools of the Moscow line." And I certainly knew we were vulnerable because we had started to do a silent protest Saturday morning from 11 to 12 in downtown Easton. And some of the people who passed by were not particularly happy. SM (00:43:21): That still happens in Westchester. Yeah. JQ (00:43:26): But I was never physically threatened but you knew that taking the steps meant you were crossing a certain kind of line. SM (00:43:36): Yeah. Before we get into this, talking about the March of Death in (19)69, I have a couple questions. But did you feel that after that first time that you carried that sign or you spoke up, was there kind of a, "I feel good." I mean, there is always the threat, the fear the first time, doing something you have never done, you take the chance. But it is like what Teddy Roosevelt always said, "That if you are going to be a change agent for the betterment of society, you have got to get out into the arena of life." Because the arena life means that yes, you become vulnerable. People are going to maybe criticize you and attack you and not like you, but no one who sits in the corner and hides is ever going to be able to do anything for anybody. JQ (00:44:26): Right. SM (00:44:26): And so I always look at what I call, the Teddy Roosevelt moments. And obviously, you had one, in just what you described. JQ (00:44:36): Yeah. Also, a part of that good feeling was, that though we were few in numbers, we felt connected to people we admired who would come before us, like Martin Luther King, like Perot, like the Founding Fathers, so that matters. SM (00:45:07): Continuity. JQ (00:45:11): Yeah. So it was not me who was betraying the country, it was my government that was betraying the country. And that was a total reversal, I could not possibly have had that mindset, when I was growing up in the (19)50s. SM (00:45:35): I have had different people comment about the boomer generation. Do you like being labeled, being a part of the boomer generation? I have had a lot of different comments from people saying, they do not like it because many of the people born between 1940 and (19)45 were some of the leaders of the anti-war movement, but they just were not born in this timeframe? JQ (00:45:59): Yeah, I guess I do not think it is a very helpful or useful label because I mean, the only way in which it is descriptive is, that I suppose that from (19)46 to (19)64, there was this population gain, which is why we are called boomers. But it does not tell you very much about that entire group thing to me. Those of us born between (19)46 and let us say, (19)55- SM (00:46:29): Yep. JQ (00:46:30): ...Vietnam is very, very important to us because we had to make life and death decisions about how we were going to participate or not participate in that. But after (19)55 to (19)64, you were not subject to either the draft or the lottery, so the war might be less important in forming you, than Watergate, let us say. SM (00:46:55): Right. JQ (00:47:04): So I certainly do not like it when it is used as a dismissive term, as it often is. SM (00:47:10): Right. JQ (00:47:13): But I do think it is possible because we were the rat moving through the python. I mean, the fact that there were so many of us coming onto the scene, simply because of an accident of birth, that it does have an impact on the country and on other generations. What I certainly hope is, that they do not look back at this large generation of people and say, "Well, they used up all the resources. They ate the seaport and left us with nothing." That would be a terrible legacy. It is just because of sheer numbers. I do not know that it is- SM (00:47:55): Yeah, I have been really sensing, in the last one third of my interviews, that the people born between 1940 and (19)55 are really united in so many ways. And those that were born after (19)56, (19)57 to (19)64, they were like 10 years old when some of these things were happening and they were still in elementary schools. I am not quite sure, although we know that the (19)50s when we were young, really had an influence on us in many ways. I got one question before we head into this section on the March of Death- JQ (00:48:33): ...sure. SM (00:48:33): ...and that is this area. I have been trying to get people, in their own words, to describe what these periods mean, in terms of, this is the period that boomers have been alive, from 1946 to 2010. So just in your own words, what did that period, 1946 to 1960 mean to you? JQ (00:48:57): Well, for me, I was born in (19)46. So for me is, growing up in relative security, in a lower-middle class, Republican household, being a little aware of the world, but not very much aware of the world, everything's pretty local. So I remember being proud to be American. I remember looking at maps of the world, as the different colonial colonies became independent and thinking, "Oh, they are just like us, they are getting their independence from France or from Britain." Or from whoever it happens to be and I was certainly aware of communism. I was certainly aware of Duck and Cover, and that was part of my consciousness. But the single moment that ended that stage, I think it was May of 1960, was the U-2 influence. SM (00:49:56): Oh, yeah. Gary Powers. JQ (00:50:10): Because Eisenhower was a revered figure in my house. And if the communist said, "It was a spy plane." And Eisenhower said, "It was a weather plane." It was no concept in my mind, it was definitely the weather plan. And when it turned out the be a spy plane, it was like, "What? An American president did not tell the truth and the communist did?" Now, it did not split me, but a little split just opened up in my consciousness, at that time and then that widened in the (19)60s, the next decade. SM (00:51:00): Yeah. The next decade is from (19)61 to (19)70. JQ (00:51:03): Yeah. Well, first of all, it is coming of age for me. I am 14 to 24, so I am really forming a strong identity. I am falling in love. I am finding out what it is I want to do in the world and the Vietnam War. Well, first of all, early on, Civil Rights was very inspiring, Martin Luther King and others, and all the African-Americans protesting and struggling for their freedom, that was enormously inspiring to me. What else? It is almost the beginning of becoming aware of other kinds of consciousness. But at the end of that era I expect to read, since then, Buddhism and Alan Watts, experimenting with drugs myself. The (19)50s for me, because of my age, represented a kind of unitary homogenous world, now the world is becoming much more worse and fragmented, which is both sad, you do not feel as secure, but it is also exciting. You are learning things about the way the world really is. SM (00:52:44): How about (19)71 to 1980? JQ (00:52:47): I think of that as a period of mostly grief and mourning in the country. Certainly for many people, Watergate was, I just disliked Nixon for many, many years. It was a fall of innocence for many Americans who trusted their government and all of a sudden, they learned what we had learned during the Vietnam period. We were much more attentive to Johnson's lies, that Nixon had been lying. So I think in some ways, the country is still rebounding from that, both to its self-confidence and to its belief in and trust in government. We lost the war in Vietnam. That was the first time that had ever happened because I think there was just a deep mourning and grief in many ways, unacknowledged. But I think the country elected Carter, probably because of his kind of religious, we need to atone. And then in 1979 with the hostage crisis, people were done atoning. Okay, they were ready to hear Ronald Reagan say, "We have nothing to be sorry about. This is a Vietnam syndrome in America. Let us move on." SM (00:54:33): That is (19)81 to (19)90? JQ (00:54:36): That is right. That is right. I think that is a period of reaction, if you like, so the reaction almost began in the (19)70s with the Moral Majority, et cetera, et cetera. But it really got underway, I think in the (19)80s. Plus all the financial shenanigans on Wall Street came at that time, kind of a false prosperity thing and we are back in the world. And that was passed by the Gulf War, which absolutely put an end to any kind of mourning about Vietnam. SM (00:55:18): That gets us to- JQ (00:55:21): We can win a war with very little cost in American lives. SM (00:55:24): ...right. JQ (00:55:25): Right. We are back. SM (00:55:30): Yeah. It was George Bush was the first, who said, "The Vietnam syndrome was over." JQ (00:55:33): Yeah. SM (00:55:34): Yeah, that was (19)91. And then we had the ending of his short reign, and then we had Bill Clinton. So that (19)91 to 2000, what does that symbolize in your eyes? JQ (00:55:43): Yeah, that is harder because you still have the Republican and the conservative backlash, full force. And now liberal rules have become moderate and they are kind of fighting a rear-guard act. I heard a very interesting panel about eight years ago, in about the (19)60s, and I had forgotten they had Peter Coyote, who had been one of the original figures. SM (00:56:26): Yeah, I interviewed him last week. JQ (00:56:26): Oh, no kidding? SM (00:56:26): Yeah. JQ (00:56:32): I bet that was interesting. And then a fellow named, Frank Bardacke, I think he helped organize the Stop Grass in 1965, he had been working with workers in Watsonville. So this is somebody who really dedicated his life to working people. And they resurrected a division that I had forgotten about, which I remember was real. And that is between people who were politically active and people who were culturally active. And Coyote was one of the people who was culturally active. He thought changing people's consciousness, that was the way to affect real change but politics and voting, that was not so essential. SM (00:57:21): Let me change the tape here again, that we have done one hour now. JQ (00:57:24): Okay. SM (00:57:24): Okay, here we go. All right. All right. Go right ahead. JQ (00:57:32): Okay. And what Bardacke said, "For him, the 30 years since the (19)60s ended, had been an unmitigated disaster, whereas in the (19)60s, there was still an ideological alternative to capitalism." Which in fact, most people thought was eventually going to win in some form, including Henry Kissinger. Kissinger said, "On the short-term, I am very optimistic, long-term I am pessimistic." In a sense, capitalism was on the way out. So to find himself 30 years later in the heart of the political reaction, was just a prediction in the (19)60s. Now, on the cultural front, what Coyote said was, "That is true, but look at the way we talk about gay people, the environment, food, just about anything you can imagine, it is race. It is completely different than the way we talked about it in the (19)60s." So that there has been a real change. And it bothered me as I was listening to those two speak, that they are connected. That the reason for the political reaction is because those people who are leading the reaction, feel that everything else is changing out from underneath them, the environmental movement, the women's movement, all of that. And they are profoundly uncomfortable with that and that is the reason for the political reaction. I mean, I am not the first person to say, you just look at the history of somebody like Norman Podhoretz and all the neocons, the more anarchic elements of the (19)60s scared the country. We might have thought that Abby Hoffman was amusing, but he was deeply scary and terrifying to many people. I think that is what formed the political reaction that we saw really, brought to fruition in the (19)80s and then into the (19)90s with the Cambridge Revolution. SM (01:00:09): Of course, she had Bill Clinton. Any thoughts on Clinton's time? JQ (01:00:13): And Clinton he was fighting a rearguard action for the most part. He was just trying to hold on shards of the new deal, that is still out-standing. SM (01:00:23): How about this last decade, 2001 to 2010? JQ (01:00:28): Well, yeah, I do believe that is pretty well defined by 9-11. SM (01:00:34): Right. JQ (01:00:35): And unfortunately, the country's leaders did not have enough confidence and were themselves, so terrified by what happened, that the only response that could be, was a response of force. And so we give a forceful response, military response, that elicits the continuing growth of Al-Qaeda and reaction to it and it is the usual tit for tat. And one can only wonder what would have happened if we had let those feelings in those first three or four weeks when the rest of the world was identifying with America, if we had taken another path, we had been strong enough and confident enough to not take the military option at that time. I mean, I do not know. SM (01:01:36): What is interesting now with President Obama, is that he tries to distance himself from the (19)60s. People say, "Oh, I am not the (19)60s." Yet, his critics say, "He is the reincarnation of the (19)60s." So here is a president who is trying to separate himself from that era and then his critics are saying, "He is just the reincarnation of that era." Your thoughts on that? JQ (01:01:59): Well, I think it is true that Obama, he is post boomer. He is not Clinton. So he is a bit more moderate in his views and in his values. Again, it is hard to say what the views of the military, that are identified with people with (19)60s and race, particularly. But I think his critics, when they see him espousing things that they identify with, they will tag him. But I do think, I am actually glad to see that he does not carry that bag. The whole notion is, the next generation should not have to fight battles that we fought. We may think that they are skipping out on battles, I do not believe that. But I think for example, that the next generation great battle is one that is only beginning for us and that is the environment. That is true. SM (01:03:18): Yeah. JQ (01:03:18): That is going to be the defining thing for my kids, kids. SM (01:03:24): And of course, that was 1970 when Earth Day happened, and I had interviewed quite a few people. I interviewed Gaylord Nelson's daughter, Tia Nelson, and I interviewed Gaylord Nelson because as you remember, this project started, it in the late (19)90s when I was a full-time administrator. And I have interviewed several other environmental leaders, as well. Let us get right into the March of Death in (19)69. Could you tell us about that experience, about carrying the name of Glendon Waters and going to the March of Death? I believe in (19)69, he had died in (19)67, and that whole experience of marching in front... 1967, and that whole experience of marching in front of the White House and reading the names, and then linking it years later with going to the wall back in 1984. JQ (01:04:14): Well, my wife and I, and a couple friends got to Washington because of Coastal Service Employees Union. And that was part of, because I was then a case worker at the [inaudible] welfare center. Just had lots of buses going down for the big march on Washington. I cannot remember whether it was the Moratorium March, but the vote before the big march was this march against death, 40,000 of us participated in. We were each given the name of an American soldier who had died in Vietnam, people could carry, if they knew someone, people could carry the name of that person. I did not know someone, so I was simply given a name at random. And all I knew is that that Glendon Waters, Texas. That is all I knew about him. And we started, I believe at the Arlington Bridge. It was very cold that night, 20 something, and we had a candle and we had the placard hung around our neck. And we walked from the Arlington Bridge to the White House where there was a very small platform, creeping by. And as you stepped onto the platform, you turned towards the White House and yelled, shouted, cried the name that you were carrying and then went on. And it is interesting, there is an echo. You see the echo in the Vietnam wall, having the names, but somehow shouting the name made the person individual and real in some way, which I think is also the purpose of the meaning from the wall. These were people, these were real people, not aggregates of casualties, something like that. Individual people. The idea was to feel the loss more. Then we walked to the Capitol, where the placards were deposited in casket that were then carried the next day in the big march. For the big march, I think that is 4,000 or 5,000 people, it was overwhelming. So I did not think any more about that march or about Glendon Waters until 1986. So this is 17 years later, when through Walter Cap, the photographers at the Smithsonian who were doing the book Reflections on the Wall, asked me to write one of the three or four prefaces. And as I was sitting in my living room, I remember this moment very clearly, thinking about my first visit to the wall. And the name that I had for called was Glendon Waters, I realized I had to find out more about Glendon Waters. I knew nothing about them, except what I had learned from the catalog that they have at the wall. So that I learned that he was from Texas. I learned my surprise that he had been born in 1928. So that he was, when he died in (19)67, was a great deal older than most Vietnam casualties, who were between the ages of 18 and 21, mostly. So I did a little research about when I found out the date of his death, which was in July, I think July 8th of (19)67. That is about exactly the day I took part in that first protest at the church. It is ironic. But I did a little research about what battle was taking place that day, etc., etc. But I could not find out a whole lot. But I did decide to send a letter to the Department of the Navy, through them, to the next of kin of Glendon Waters saying that I wanted to send them a copy of the book. I had no idea whether there still were any family members or kin. But I guess about six weeks later, after I had more or less forgotten about having sent the letter, this letter arrived in my house. It looked like it was written by say, one of my aunts. I did not recognize the handwriting, and I opened it up, and I will never forget this moment as long as I live. And I have the letter. It says "Dear Mr. Quay, thank you for writing to me. It took time to get to me. I am the widow of Glendon Lee Waters. We were married 22 and a half years and had two children. He was a very dedicated Marine and we were very proud of him. He gave his life so we could have a free country. Your words were re a tribute to Glendon and I really appreciate them. I would love to have a copy of the book, and would pray for having it. If you would care to talk to me, you may call. Yours truly, Anna Carver." Well, I got goosebumps. SM (01:10:33): Wow. JQ (01:10:33): All over my body. I gave the letter to my wife, she burst into tears. And I did not know what river I had just stepped into, but I knew it was deep water. Long story short, I called Anna, I asked if I could visit. She said yes, and in January I flew to West Fork, Arkansas to interview her, and her son and daughter, and husband. And a funny thing that happened was that the idea was I was supposed to fly in, get my car, go to the motel and then call her. And instead as I am walking across this tiny, tiny air terminal in Fayetteville, Arkansas, I hear a voice say, "Jim?" And I turned and I saw this person who had to be Anna. And I said, "Anna, what are you doing here?" And she said, "Well, I had an advantage. I knew what you looked like, but you did not know what I looked like." And I laughed and I said, "Ah, Anna, so what if I had been a creep?" And she said, "I would have not answered. I would have gone home and not answered my phone the evening." So she knew what I looked like because I had sent her a videotape of my presentation to Walter's class to see, because I wanted her to know who she was dealing with. It was very generous to invite this guy from California into her home. And she said, "But there was a second reason that I came." Kenneth, which is her husband, is also a 20-year Marine. And she said, "He is a man of very few words. But after he saw the video, he simply said, I could tell that young man is singing truth, and I just want you to know that his bark is worse than his bite." So she was alerting me to Kenneth. Well, what happened in the course of that weekend is I was doing these interviews. When I was finished, I asked if I could interview Kenneth. So I had done a lot of research by then and I knew where Glendon had been, how he had died, etc., etc. And so I knew a lot about what Kenneth had experienced also. And he had never, of course, this was very true then. He had never told and talked to anyone about this experience. And when I left after that weekend, he gave me a handshake and he said, "You are welcome here anytime." SM (01:13:31): That is nice. JQ (01:13:32): So it told me the power of, again, telling one story to someone who is not judging you, and the power of that experience to begin a healing between people, and between positions that I still very much believe in it. SM (01:13:54): Could you also share when you went to the Vietnam Memorial for the first time after, I think that was in (19)84 when you wanted to look up his name? JQ (01:14:03): Yeah. Well I would say the preface I wrote really says everything. What I remember is I was walking towards it and I kept thinking, "Where is it? Where is it?" And suddenly there it was. And as you walk down the pathway towards the apex, I felt powerfully that I was walking into an open grave. That is what it felt. And when I got to the bottom, I just stood there. I was completely overwhelmed. I did not burst into tears, but just emotionally, I could not speak. I could not do anything. Excuse me. I just stood there for, I do not know how long it was. And then you walked back out to one of those catalogs and looked up Glendon's name what, hand off his name to [inaudible], and walked back down and saw his name. I made a bronze rubbing of it that I am looking at it right now, it is hanging to my office today. So it was a powerful, powerful experience for me. And I know Walter used to take a group of students back to the memorial at the end of each class, and I know it was powerful for them. One of my favorite stories about that was Ed Bradley, the CBS correspondent. SM (01:15:54): Yes? JQ (01:16:03): He had been a correspondent in Vietnam. And Walter invited him to come to the class, and he was doing a special on the class for 60 Minutes, I think 60 Minutes did two special on Walter's class, actually. And the first one, Bradley had never been the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial, and he could not. He did not want to go up to it for whatever reason. He just stood in the trees near, you know the area in front of the Memorial? SM (01:16:51): Yeah. JQ (01:16:51): And then the trees where the statue is. And that is where he was with the cameraman. And he had been to Walter's class, and so he knew some of the students. And he saw that there was a woman, the daughter of a man who had been killed, and his name was on the wall and she could not reach his name. So he walked across the field, got the bronze and everything, and did it for her. SM (01:17:16): Oh my God. JQ (01:17:17): But when the cameraman moved in to get a shot of this, Bradley blocked the camera with his back. This was a different moment. It was not a moment for broadcast. SM (01:17:33): Right. JQ (01:17:40): A different kind of moment. So the Memorial Palace was a symbol and there was a place to go. And there is a fellow named Wilson Hubble who is associated with the course at UC Santa Barbara. He too, is a veteran. And he goes back with the class each year that they go. SM (01:18:03): Wow. JQ (01:18:03): And his take on the sculpture of the three soldiers is that they represent all veterans, and that the sculpture is their guarding and standing watch over the memorial and will be there after he is gone, and all Vietnam veterans are gone. The guys who guard the memorial, which I think is a lovely way to think about this. SM (01:18:29): Yeah. Now they have a woman's memorial on the other end. So, same thing for the women. I want to read these, because this is something that I have on a sheet that you send. And this is very important, because I think it is one of the most beautiful descriptions I have ever heard of anybody describing the experience of visiting the wall, and the impact it has on people. So I am putting this for the record, and this is on quote. "The names of the dead wait here for the living to come close and touch them. But as the wall gives them to us, it also takes them away again, for touching the names only makes us feel how far away they are. They must remain there, united by their shared catastrophe, while we, the living must leave united by our shared grief." And I also like the fact that you talked about the Lincoln Memorial, and the importance of the wording inside the memorial with malice toward none and charity for all. You felt that your pilgrimage was complete when you saw that. JQ (01:19:36): Yes. SM (01:19:36): The grief of Lincoln who is always, he is there and he is not only grieving about the Civil War, he is always looking over the Vietnam Memorial, too. JQ (01:19:43): Yes. SM (01:19:44): And then I want to quote this, too. "I am profoundly grateful to the dedicated men and women who built the memorial, for they have given all who were hurt by the Vietnam War, the shrine we need if we are ever to be healed. Like the war it recalls, a memorial has been denounced and defended. But like this book, it brings together the conscientious objector and the general, the protestor and the warrior. Important differences between us may remain, but the memorial has given us something still more important, the common ground of grief. So long as such grief is heartfelt, shared and remembered, always there is hope for peace, and so for us all." And then your conclusion is unbelievable, and I think this should be required reading in a course on the (19)60s and the Vietnam War, "The generations wounded by the war will come to the wall, bringing our scars and our memories with us, looking for healing. But to truly heal ourselves, we must ensure that when future generations look upon the memorial, they will not have lost what we have lost. To feel the absolute silent sorrow embodied by the black walls, the American names that are on them, and the Vietnamese names that are not." I think that is just, you hit it right on the button. JQ (01:21:06): Yeah. Thanks. SM (01:21:11): So, thanks for telling that story, too. What an experience. Do you stay in touch with her? JQ (01:21:21): I do. We came to [inaudible] every year. And Kenneth, I thought of him recently when the movie, I think it is called The Messenger came out. It is about the men who have the detail of going to tell families that their sons or daughters have been killed, that he had that duty in his Marine career. And we did not talk about it a lot. We talked about a little in our interview, but... SM (01:21:53): I guess the one question I have here, because one of the major questions I have asked in all of my interviews is a question of healing. Did the Vietnam Memorial heal the nation? Jan Scruggs wrote the book, To Heal a Nation. Not only did he want to heal the veterans themselves and their families, and Vietnam veterans, but he hoped that the wall would heal the nation. I have had a lot of different responses to that question. What are your thoughts? JQ (01:22:16): I think as a public symbol, it began the process of healing. I do not think it itself could, but it began it because it was something tangible, something maybe argued about, but it was something tangible that there was not any pro or con. It just depicted the loss, the absolute loss that war was. So I thought it was an amazing beginning, and I thought that the [inaudible] Memorial was miraculous, quite frankly. SM (01:23:04): I know that there were a lot of veterans that did not like it in the beginning, and some still do not. Some them said to me once, "Well, the divisions over the design of the memorial was like the divisions in the (19)60s. It was equal." JQ (01:23:18): Someone called it the black gash of shame. I do not remember. I do not feel that way. I know there are many veterans who do not feel that way. But right now, there is a project that is just underway that is creating civilian veterans dialogue. And I am sure some of them are Vietnam era, but I believe there were also, and I hope through so far Iraqi War and Afghani War because that gulf between the warrior and the civilian is a dangerous one. And it is one that is exacerbated now by the fact that we have an all-volunteer Army. So we have a group of people who are putting themselves in harm's way, and then another group of people who may or may not want those people to do this, but who are certainly served in some way by the fact that they are willing to do that. And when those warriors come back home, they often feel seriously estranged from civilian life. I know Vietnam, I talked to Vietnam veterans who felt this way, that what they experienced in combat or in the combat zone, that is real reality. And this domestic life over here is just, it is not real. It is something artificial about it. And that they felt alive in a certain way, and it was hard for them to recapture that in civilian life. But older cultures than ours had ways of reincorporating warriors back into ordinary life. And I think we do not do that as a country, and we need to do that. I think we have a moral ethical obligation to do it, as well as psychological need to. It was really exacerbated in Vietnam, because they were so shunned for so long, I do not believe that happened for Gulf War vets or Afghani vets, but I think the scope is still there, and still [inaudible]. SM (01:25:55): Very good point. I took a group of students when I was a college administrator to Washington to meet Senator Edmund Muskie, to one of my questions. And I had developed a relationship with the Senator Gaylord Nelson. We had a leadership on the road programs where we met US senators. And so, we met nine of them that were friends of his over the years. And when he got the Senator Muskie's office, he was not feeling well. He had just been in the hospital and he apologized, but he still gave us [inaudible]. I am going to let it keep ringing. Excuse me a second. I will let it ring. Cell phone. I got to learn to turn this, I got a new cell phone and I cannot figure out how to turn it off yet. Hold on. There. Okay, sorry about that. Pretty loud. When we left, the students came up with this question that we asked the senator. And the question was this. Due to all of the divisions in America at the time... Still there? JQ (01:27:03): Yeah. SM (01:27:04): Due to all the divisions of America at the time, between Black and white, between male and female, between gay and straight, between those who supported the troops, those who were against the troops, those who supported the war, those who were against the war. Do you feel that the Boomer generation will go to its grave, like the Civil War generation, not truly healing? And that was the question we asked Senator Muskie, because he was the vice-presidential running mate in 1968, that terrible year with cops and students hitting each other in the streets. And the two... Whoops, got to change the tape here. The two assassinations that took place, the two assassinations that took place during that year, and the president resigning, and Tet, and you name it. It was an unbelievable year. And the question is, do you think that the Boomer generation has a problem with healing? JQ (01:28:04): Again, I have wanted to avoid generalization, but I will give you one anyway. I would say no. And the reason is that I know Muskie said we have not healed since the Civil War, and we certainly had divisions in the (19)60s. No doubt about it. But we were not shooting at each other for the most part. Kent State was traumatic, Jackson State was traumatic, but Americans were not killing Americans. So you do not have that kind of bitter blood going on, and I would point to the reaction. SM (01:28:51): Can you hold on one second? Bear with me. Hello? Jeff, I am on a long-distance call. I am doing an interview. Okay, I will call you back. About an hour. All right. Still there? JQ (01:29:13): I am. SM (01:29:15): One of my former students just got a job at Georgia Tech. Well, he has been in higher ed for a while, but there was some things. He took the job, but then he was having second thoughts. I said, "Be happy you got a job." JQ (01:29:29): Oh, really? SM (01:29:29): Yeah, because he was unhappy in his current job elsewhere. So, go right ahead. JQ (01:29:35): Well, what I would point to was how I believe most of us in the country felt after 9/11. I am just speaking for myself, if evoked in me feelings of love of country that I did not know I still had, and I believe that was true of others, as well. So the word healing, if the healing means the split between the citizen and his or her country, I believe that is healed. And it is only unhealed when the country acts in a way that we do not admire. And that has certainly happened since 9/11 in some instances, but I do not believe it was a lasting legacy of the (19)60s to feel, as the Right often says about the Left, "Well, they just hate America." I do not believe that is true. I believe that the Right tends to equate any criticism of the American government as hatred for America. And I just think that is nonsense and absurd. SM (01:31:05): Senator Muskie, when he responded, he kind of was similar to that scene up in New England where it was snowing, and someone had attacked his wife and he had showed some tears and that really, he was not manly enough to be present or something like that, but it kind of looked like he had a tear in his eye. We actually had this on videotape. We videotaped it, and he did not give an answer right away. And then he looked up like a great senator that he was and said, "We have not healed since the Civil War because we still have an issue, the issue of race has not been solved." And he went on to talk about it, and he talked about the loss of 430,000 men, almost an entire generation in the South. So the deaths that took place, and it really affected him because he had just seen the Ken Burns series when he was in the hospital. So he did not even answer according to the (19)60s and what the students wanted, he just talked about the Civil War, that the issues that we still have go way back even then. And so anyways, that is kind of the way he responded. Another question I ask is, the issue of trust. Seems like you cannot say 74 million boomers do not trust, but a label that has been put on them is they are not a very trusting generation. And that is pretty obvious when you already mentioned the Eisenhower lie back in the late (19)50s. For those that were cognizant enough of that lie early on, and then we see President Johnson with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. And I think that was a lie. Then we had Watergate with Nixon. And of course, even if you were up-to-date on history, the questions you even have about why Diem was killed during the Kennedy administration in November, well actually in the fall of 1963. Questions come up. JQ (01:32:54): Before Kennedy was killed. SM (01:32:57): Well, yeah. Just before Kennedy was killed, there was questions about why Diem was killed in Vietnam. And he had given the okay for the overthrow, but I do not think he wanted him killed. He thought that they were going to be shipped off to France or something. So the question is this, is the Boomer generation a nation or group that cannot trust, and is that a positive quality within a group? And they pass this feeling on to their kids and their grandkids. Is that healthy? JQ (01:33:29): Okay, again, I am going to break it down a little bit because it is such a big question. Trust is certainly an important and precious commodity. And I do believe it is true people with the Boomers' historical experience, that they are now skeptical that as they do not take on face value, things that their government said. I happen to think that that is a healthy attitude to have. I think it can become unhealthy if you simply dismiss everything that a public official says as a lie. We used to say that there were conformists, there were anti-conformists, and there were nonconformists. Anti-conformists are just conformists to do the opposite of what conformists do, but they are still conformists. It is better to be a nonconformist and make some judgments on this. So I trust, I know Lois Capps very well. She is Walter's widow, and she is now serving in the Congress. And when I hear someone make some easy, cynical remark about those politicians and how crooked they are, and they are just in it for the money, I think to myself, "You do not know any politicians." You do not know the sacrifices that these people make in their personal lives in order to serve. You only see the big stories that occasionally blow up about a Charlie Rangel or somebody else. And you do not see the government people, the bureaucratic people who very quietly, day after day, do trustworthy work, and that is what holds the country together. If everybody was government and bureaucracy was completely corrupt, we could not function. We would not be functional. Paying bribes like crazy. I mean, you would be a third world where there is no trust. We actually, I think, have a great deal of trust still in this country. JQ (01:36:02): I think have a great deal of trust still in this sense. But it is trust to still have to be earned. It is not the word. You do not just give it and then, okay, I am not going to ask any questions about it anymore. I am just going to trust you. That is dangerous in a democracy, right. SM (01:36:28): Well one of the things you learn if you are a political science history major like I was, you learn early on that not having trust in your government is a healthy thing because it shows the descent is alive and well in America and it shows that different points of view are accepted and actually desired. So if you do not trust your government, that is a healthy thing. JQ (01:36:50): Well it is interesting, I just finished a very good book by a man named Tony Judt, J-U-D-T, called Ill Fares The Land, and he is talking about what is left of social democracy ideal, the kind that you still see functioning in Europe and do not see functioning so much here in the United States. And he made a very interesting historical point, and it might be of interest for you, because he is talking about the boomer generation. But the generation before them, experienced the pressure in World War II and those were common experiences in which the government took steps to counter a very pernicious enemy of poverty in the case of expression and fascism in the case of World War II. And so people had, the country had this experience of coming together behind their government to do something. And that persisted on both political parties well through the (19)50s and into the (19)60s. For the (19)60s generations, our major value was individual expression. In other words, we did not want government telling us what to do. We were experiencing it as the draft for the most part, but the right of an individual to express themselves. Sexually, politically, racially, environmentally, was really important for us and still is. That dark side of that is you do not experience your government as something that you get behind, you experience it as an adversary. And the light has taken this up now, so the government is the enemy. So I thought that was a very interesting common point and a way I had not looked at the history before. We have a largely inexperience of distrust and suspicion of government and so how would you expect a country that feels that way and has not had the historical experience that the World War II generation has? How would you ever convince them if government could do anything good at all? SM (01:39:34): One of the qualities that many boomers thought when they were young, particularly college age students, that they were the most unique generation in history. That they were going to end racism, sexism, war homophobia, all the bad things, and they were going to create a better world. And obviously we see the world today and a lot of positive things came out of that period. But still, we have war, we have racism, we have sexism in some respects. We have come a long way but we have got a long way to go. What are your thoughts about that attitude that many had and maybe some even older boomers have, but they still were the most unique generation in American history, both before and since. And secondly, I know you cannot generalize about a whole generation of 74 million and when we are talking about boomer generation now, I am not talking about white men and women, I am talking about African Americans, Latinas, Asian Americans, Native Americans. And so what do you think some of the positive and negative qualities might be based on the people that within that generation? JQ (01:40:52): Well, the aspirations that you named at the beginning of the first question, I think are worthy aspirations to have. And I would hope that every generation would happen. And it is sometimes only possible to happen before you have experienced a lot of the world. Experiencing the world, I think tends to humble you a great deal. There were times we could be a very self-righteous group of people. I certainly was. Partly because that was the only authority we had, we did not have the authority of experience, we only had the authority of our values. That could make us very self-righteous and not particularly humble. I know I remember thinking when I was at Woodstock that wow, not that we could change the world, but that there were enough of us to make a difference. I think that is still true and in many ways just because we are such a large generation, I think it is still true. We are the most unique, actually [inaudible]. You cannot be more unique, if you are unique, you are unique. So there is a way that every generation is unique. It is shaped by historical forces that it did not necessarily create and so you cannot take credit for the fact that... Well, it makes the difference that the country was so prosperous. Most of us never thought, oh my god, what am I going to do to make a living? It is just, there is going to be a job and the idea is to get a job that really counts and that his authentic good work. Well, if we have been born into the depression, we might have responded completely differently. So we were a very privileged generation in ways we are just now, I think beginning to appreciate because we are seeing other people who do not have those privileges that we have. We did not earn them, we did not create them, they were given to us. And so I think it moves us to think what gifts could we possibly give given our experience to others? And as we get older, that is the question I think that a little bit of our self-infatuation begins to go away and we begin to think, how can I contribute? And hopefully there are enough examples around, and certainly true in my life of people who have done amazing things is that you can feel some pride as well as some shame in things that the generation has accomplished. SM (01:44:01): Those people that criticize that era of the (19)60s and (19)70s as the time when a lot of the problems in American society began and continued through today, I know new people like New Gingrich and Governor Huckabee on his TV show and some of those shows on Fox, obviously some of those people say it as well as George Will and some of his commentaries throughout the year, they like taking these shots at the (19)60s, generation and (19)70s, particularly in areas related drugs, the drug culture, the sexual morays or lack thereof, the breakup of the American family divorce rate. A lot of the things that the welfare state, even some say, the creation of special interest groups that have become a very big problem in their views. When you hear that, what do you think? JQ (01:45:01): Well, I think that to some extent it is certainly true what they are saying. Many things that were not being questioned in the (19)50s unravel during the (19)60s and authority of almost every time came into question. I mean, I had the bumper sticker "Question authority." On the back of my bar for years and decades, but it was not as though we got together in some big meeting and decided to do this to the country. It turned out that authority was not serving us very well. There was something about the norms and the conventions that were in fact unreal. And so they could not stand the pressure of questioning and in some cases, mass disobedience. We did not know the pill was going to come along and that revolutionized sexual behavior completely. So I think in a sense you can be saddened by what some of the effects of drug use and the loss of authority have been. And I share that with them, but I do not share their charge or blame that a generation that in fact anybody is responsible for this as if it is just that the authority that they worship, we do not worship. And when that authority is gone, it has to be rebuilt on a new basis. It cannot be just reinstated at the end of a band net or by a sermon. It has to feel that it is authentic and real in their lives. It is almost as, and marriage is, the divorce rate went to 50 percent, but my understanding is that it also has not continued to zero or to a hundred percent it leveled off. So not the decay has just linearly continued. SM (01:47:33): Some people think that is why so many people revere Ronald Reagan is that when he said, "We are back." a couple of people said, well, they never heard him say that in the speech, but it was a perception that was out there when he said, "We are back." He went, "We are we are going to build the military back up again because the military had totally disintegrated during the Vietnam War." Because a lot of the problems that we were facing in society from say (19)67 to (19)71 with the drug culture, the divisions between black and white were seen right in the military. And it was part of the demise of the military and I actually talked to people who at the 25th anniversary of the Vietnam Memorial was down in Washington, they had a concert going there. And some of the guys said the only reason why they went into a second tour of duty was that they could get cheap drugs. I could not believe it. JQ (01:48:26): Well, I know they refused that the American, the US Army was just coming an apart of the scene. SM (01:48:31): Right. JQ (01:48:32): But that is what happens when you lie to people. I mean, that gets broken. The discipline in a free accord, vanish, morale goes down. So it is like, do they expect that you could lie to people or pretend that a certain reality is not so, and your authority is not going to be eroded? Only a fool would. SM (01:48:55): Yeah, some might say they want to go back to the (19)50s, mean of course the (19)50s parents were very good to their kids, so there were good things in the (19)50s too. One of the questions I want to ask is, when did the (19)60s begin and end in your opinion? And what do you think was the watershed moment? JQ (01:49:11): Oh, boy. Well, let me start with ending first. I would say it was the concert at Altamont. The fact that it is December of (19)69 just happened to be an accident. But if you saw the bright side of the counterculture at Woodstock in August of (19)69, you saw the shadow side at Altamont. Idea of having the Hell Angels access believe. I mean, it was just childish. It was process. So that kind of insofar as it was a make love, not war innocent about us, that ended at Altamont. And again, we are talking about a half of 1 percent of the generation even being conscious of this, something I am not sure. When it began it was a lot harder for me anyway, because it is like asking somebody what they believe in God? You have to tell me what God do I either believe in or not believe in? So when you say the (19)60s, is it the spirit of exploration and openness to new things? Well, I think the beat sort of started that in a certain way. SM (01:50:57): And that was in the (19)50s. JQ (01:50:58): Yeah. SM (01:50:59): And so I remember seeing Allen Ginsburg when I was in high school and he seemed peculiar to me, but also attractive in a certain way. The things he was talking about, he was really a gentle soul in many ways and he just seemed like a latter-day Walt Whitman. So I did not see him as threatening or alien, in some ways I saw him as the embodiment of what America does. He keeps reaching out, bringing in new things from immigration and ideas and et cetera, et cetera. So when did that, I am not sure, I guess the reading at the Sixth Gallery of Powell, but that was in the (19)60s I think, yeah. I do not know. Was there a watershed moment or some event you think that really was shocking or were there any other? JQ (01:52:02): Well, shocking. Certainly. SM (01:52:02): A lot of them. JQ (01:52:07): Yeah. Well, the two I think of are the Cuban Missile Crisis and the assassination of President Kennedy. SM (01:52:14): And where were you when President Kennedy was assassinated? Do you remember the exact moment when you heard? JQ (01:52:18): Oh, sure. Yeah. So I was a senior in high school. I had just come out of a chemistry class, which was in a separate building from the rest of the high school. I saw a gym teacher standing on the street just saying, yelling, "Did they catch the guy yet?" Not knowing quite what that meant. By the time I got into the building, I had heard that the president had been shot. And I had a meeting in the principal's office three o'clock that day. And by the time I got there he announced that the president dead. It was quite different feeling than that he had been shot, shocking enough that he had been shot. But to hear he was dead and remember sitting there with people in the [inaudible], I felt sick in my stomach. He did not feel good either. We just sat there and silence. SM (01:53:11): Wow. Yeah. JQ (01:53:15): Watershed moments are hard. SM (01:53:19): Yeah, I got just a couple more and then we will be done. I am not going to ask you all those names because you have really responded in a really good... Because remember, I have a question I was going to ask your response to. JQ (01:53:29): Yeah, that would take another year. SM (01:53:29): Yeah, that would take a year. Forget that. I want your thoughts again on... Or just your thoughts on the movements because the late (19)60s, early (19)70s was really when all these movies came about. And actually a lot of people leave the (19)60s really went to (19)73 because a lot of things are happening from say, from the time the President Kennedy was assassinated till the fall of (19)73, it was still in the (19)60s. So there is quite a few people have fought the early (19)70s and then there was a line of demarcation around (19)75 when the plane went off the roof in Saigon. But your thoughts on the movements, the civil rights movement was actually a role model for, and the anti-war movement were the role models for the other movements that evolved. And history has shown that a lot of the women left those two movements because there was rampant sexism, thus the formation of the women's movement. But there was the Chicano movement, the Native American movement, which was the American Indian movement. We had Earth Day in 1970 and we had Stonewall, which was the gay and lesbian revolution in 1969. And so all these movements were trying to coming together and there seemed to be a uniqueness and there was a unity amongst all of these groups that anti-war protests or events. I do not see that today. I see these groups have become so special interest all of them, that you and the civil rights people, you do not see the other groups together and the women's, they are all separate. I mean, your thoughts, it seems like what became collaboration and working together has now become integration or segregation again within the movements. JQ (01:55:08): Well, I would say it is specialization, segregation. At the beginning you share newness with other organizations, you are facing some of the same problems, you are borrowing technique from one another, et cetera, et cetera. And then I think it is just a kind of majority process. You have to be careful not to become so professionalized that you lose track of what it is you are trying to do. I would say it is a drive for professionalization that that is just as innate. It is not anything that anybody has discovered or created on purpose, but it is part of the life process of every organization and movement. I do think it made me think about what the (19)60s had. It in one way, it may have been at Kennedy's inaugural in the sense of this notion of new possibility, a new generation taking charge that was not our generation, but it was a new generation, something fresh. And as the Civil Rights book who been, and again describes towards individual expression. I have the right to express my sexuality, my race, I do not need to hide this any longer. The environmental movement is a little bit different. But there is that common thread going through. Plus I want to say one of the more important publications of the (19)60s was the Whole Earth Catalog. SM (01:57:02): Oh yes. JQ (01:57:05): Sort of a LLE catalog of how to live an alternative lifestyle. And I believe it was to what true what they said, the fact that we, for the first time were able to see of picture of the full earth from the moon, really made it impossible to ignore the fact that we lived on this beautiful, precious, and increasingly fragile planet together and had to find a way. I really think it was very cautious of expanding somehow. So if the root was all these movements, they have certainly changed the mindset of American today and I can talk around the world and continue. SM (01:57:59): Let me change this tape. I have only got two more questions and then we are done. JQ (01:58:11): Okay. SM (01:58:11): Let me get my tape here, bear with me. JQ (01:58:11): I am warning you, you got me talking, right? SM (01:58:11): Well, it is great. I mean, I can probably do another hour with you, but then I do not want to take away from your time and I appreciate this. Okay, hold on a second. Let me get this, get on tape here then. Okay. You were involved obviously all these years for 25 years in the humanities in California. And cannot not ask you a question on the arts before letting you go because when you think of the boomer generation, you got to think of the music, you got to think of the art, you got to think of theater. I think of Gorilla Theater a lot because it was such an important role and Peter Coyote told me about that because he was involved in a lot with the diggers. Your thoughts on the importance of the arts in those three areas, theater, art and music in the (19)60s, and the influence it had on the generation and shaping it, not only personally, but dealing with the politics of the time because most of it was all linked to politics. JQ (01:59:18): Well, it was a time of great experimentation in an area. I could remember there used to be, I think there still is something called the Publications of the Modern Language Association, and it was the journal in English and American literature and comparative literature. And it would arrive in this olive green bumper with tiny prints and the most obscure kinds of articles in it that you could possibly imagine. And I remember the May 1970 issue arriving. The cover was bold white and blue-black, I opened it to the first article was in entitled, "Something is Happening Here, but You Do not Know What it is, do you Mr. Jones." By a Berkeley professor named Henry Nash Smith. A second Berkeley professor read through, his article was, "Do literary studies have an ideology? Something had changed." something had changed. That was really exciting. So the academy felt that certainly in music before, the music industry corralled the raw energy coming out of rock and roll. Every generation, the music from the time you are maybe 15 until you are married let us say, or working or have a family, is really important to you because it is the soundtrack of your life. So for me, the Beatles were important, the Stones less so but still important. And we remember the Beatles Stones split, which one is more revolutionary? That was the culture of politics split. Street finding man versus relaxing slow downstream. The Doors were important. The folk movement had been important because of its authenticity. That was a big word for us, for me back then. Authentic. Something had to be authentic in the Pony somehow. Theater tried to get more real, I cannot remember the name of the married couple, the Living In Theater I think it was, and nudity on stage, hair. SM (02:02:04): Yes. JQ (02:02:07): It was trying to take old forms and bust them open and build them with new contents And that is something I think that that happens perhaps the less explosive and revolutionary waves than it ways that it happened in the (19)60s. But it is the way a culture grows and remains true to itself. We were not very reverent about the containers of the culture and I am now much more aware of how important they are to help transmit values and content. But they do have to keep reshaped and sometimes destroyed every once in a while or they cut off the real flow that is constantly going on of change and absence. And so I think our just a particularly yeasty period because the authority of the old forms was broken. And so we were making things up and sometimes we did a bad job. And sometimes things have lasted. I mean if you, we have traveled it to Utah just recently in the Northern California and I am curious to other areas, and you still see, and especially in the rural areas, vestiges, hippy culture, the way bread is made, the kinds of fabrics and fashions that there are. Those things are still persisting. For some people, all that was just artificial trapping. But subsequent generations have found enough that was real in that to keep certain of those forms alive. And I just think that is part of the history of culture and the way things evolved and changed. But a generation says what is real? What is real about this? And sometimes we were lucky because we were not particularly fearful. Maybe we should have been. Economically, we were not fearful and enabled us to experiment in ways that a more soft generation might not be able to do right away. SM (02:04:25): Yeah, it is amazing. When I think of art, I always think of two people, Andy Warhol and Peter Max because Peter Max was the poster guy of the late (19)60s, early (19)70s. And that poster I had on my wall., I wish someone said, if I had it now, it would be worth a couple hundred bucks. And it was a poster that said, "You do your thing, I will do mine. If by chance we should come together. It will be beautiful." Which is a kind of a hippie kind of a thinking. You were involved obviously all these years for 25 years in the humanities in California and I cannot not ask you a question on the arts without before letting you go. Because when you think of the boomer generation, you got to think of the music, you got to think of the art, you got to think of theater. I think of Gorilla Theater a lot because it was such an important role in Peter Coyote told me about that because he was involved in a lot with the diggers. Your thoughts on the importance of the arts in those three areas, theater, art and music in the (19)60s and the influence it had on the generation and shaping it not only personally, but dealing with the politics of the time, because most of it was all linked to politics. JQ (02:05:59): Well, it was a time of great experimentation in those areas. I could remember there used to be, I think there still is, there was something called the Publications of the Modern Language Association. And it was the journal in English and American literature and comparative literature. And it would arrive in this olive green cover with tiny print and the most obscure kinds of article in it that you could possibly imagine. And I remember the May 1970 issue arriving, the cover was bold, white and blue-black. I opened the first article was entitled, "Something is happening here, but you do not know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?" By a Berkeley professor named Henry Nash Smith, a second Berkeley professor, Fred Cruz. His article was, literary Studies have an ideology. "Something had changed." something had changed. That was really exciting. So the academy felt that certainly in music. Before, the music industry kind of corralled the raw energy coming out of rock and roll. Every generation, the music from the time you are maybe 15 until you are married, let us say, or working or have a family, is really important to you. JQ (02:08:03): Working or have a family is really important to you because it is sort of the soundtrack of your life. So for me, the Beatles were important. The stones less so, but still important. And, we remember the Beatles Stones split. Which one is more revolutionary? That was the culture and politics split. Street Fighting Man versus Relax and Slow Downstream. The Doors were important. The folk movement had been important because of its authenticity. That was a big word for us, for me back then was authentic. Something had to be authentic and not phony, somehow. Theater tried to get more real. I cannot remember the name of the married couple, the living theater I think it was, and nudity on stage, Hair. SM (02:09:00): Yes. JQ (02:09:04): It was trying to take old form and bust them open and fill them with new content. And, that is something I think that that happens perhaps the less explosive and revolutionary waves than it the ways that it happened in the (19)60s. But, it is the way a culture grows, and remains true to itself. We were not very reverent about the container of the culture and I am now much more aware of how important they are to help transmit values and content. But, they do have to be reshaped and sometimes destroy every once in a while where they cut off the real blow that is constantly going on of change and [inaudible]. So, I think ours was just a particularly yeasty period because the authority of the old forms was broken. And, so we were making things up and sometimes we did a very bad job and sometimes things have lasted. I mean, we traveled to Utah just recently in the Northern California and I am sure to another area, and you still see, especially in the rural areas, vestiges of hippy culture. The way bread is made. The kinds of fabrics and fashions that there are. Those things are still persisting. For some people, all that was just artificial trapping. But, subsequent generations have found enough that was real in that to keep certain of those forms alive. And, I just think that is part of the history of culture and the way things evolve and change. But, a generation says "What is real? What is real about this?" And, sometimes we were lucky because we were not particularly fearful. Maybe we should have been. Economically, we were not fearful and enabled us to experiment in ways that a more strapped generation might not be able to do right away. SM (02:11:31): Yeah, it is amazing. When I think of art, I always think of two people, Andy Warhol and Peter Max. Because, Peter Max was the poster guy of the late (19)60s, early (19)70s. And, on that poster I had in my, well, I wish someone said, if I had it now, it would be worth a couple hundred bucks. And, it was a poster that said, "You do your thing, I will do mine. If by chance we should come together. It will be beautiful." Which is a kind of a hippie kind of a thinking. And, then of course we cannot forget Motown and the creation of Motown because what they did. JQ (02:12:08): Just the contribution of what had been in the (19)50s, a pretty separated black culture. The way it informed popular culture and white culture. But, now we do not say black and white culture. SM (02:12:27): Right. JQ (02:12:29): It is incalculable. SM (02:12:33): I keep saying we are down to our last three questions, these are the final two. The free speech movement was very important. You went to Berkeley and got your PhD there. But, for anybody like me, whose life has been about higher education and understanding the history of higher ed, those events at Berkeley in (19)64-(19)65 are historic. Not just because it is a protest, but because Mario Savio and his peers did something about the importance of free speech on university campuses. And it is interesting, all came about by chance because the whole history, they were told that they could not hand handout literature. And, one thing you do not know to student populations, whether there is differences in their politics is you do not tell students what they can and cannot do and that united the campus from all angles. JQ (02:13:22): But, I think an important question to ask, why did it erupt then? In other words, did not students care before then? And, I think one of the reasons is, you had on the Berkeley campus a significant number of people who had been in Mississippi the summer before. And, I think that motivated them about their own rights in ways that, again, it is experience. You do not know what an experience, what consequences are going to be. They had that experience trying to register a black folks vote, they come back to their campus and they cannot hand out literature? So, suddenly there was that experience that a year earlier, the very same student had not had who were on the campus. So, the history and our response, but. SM (02:14:26): Well, Mario Savio said, "The university is about ideas, not about corporate corporations running the universities." And, what is interesting, we are still having the same battles today in the universities because I interviewed Arthur Chickering the great educator, because he wrote Education and Identity, the book that we all used in higher ed and our degree programs at Ohio State. And I said, "Do you have any closing remarks?" At the end of the interview and he said, "Yes, I have one disappointment in higher education today. The corporations have taken over again." And this is from a conservative, he is a conservative. And, because what you are seeing today in universities is that everything is based on scholarship monies and fundraising. Everything has to be linked to raising funds for this. You name a building, it is a fundraising effort. You bring a speaker in, it has got to be linked to a fundraising event, it is like controls again. And, it is kind of upsets me as a person who was in higher education for two or three years to see that what happened at Berkeley in (19)64 and (19)65 is being forgotten in some respects. And, I would like your thoughts on the whole issue of activism on the university campus. Volunteerism is very strong all over the country. I mean, 95 percent of students are doing volunteer work and it is great and it is part of all the service programs. But, a lot of it is required if you join an organization. And, I think there is a big difference between the term volunteerism and activism. And, it is my perception that universities today had been for quite some time afraid of activism because it brings back memories of the (19)60s and (19)70s and fear that it could happen again. Where students such threatened the university's power in many ways by questioning too much, demanding to be on too many organizations. Do you sense that there is a fear of activism? JQ (02:16:37): I do not know because I am not on campuses enough. Well, I teach a little bit, but here is what I would say about activism. There may be a fear about it, but activism is very difficult to sustain as a light. That is, some people can, because they are in groups or they have a salary from an organization. And, the specialization we were talking about before where you have large organizations that do employ people, but for the basic person, once you are out of school and you are having to work, so-called activism becomes a part-time at best occupation. And, so I would say that activism may be feared because it tends to happen in concentrated form on campuses, people with time be active. And, that volunteerism is a bit more sustainable because you can tuck it in the activities of a normal life in a way that activism demands almost a total commitment. So, I guess I would not want to privilege activism over volunteerism because I am thinking again, of the average person who has to get a job, has to raise a family, et cetera, et cetera. And, does not have that total 24 hours a day unless something comes along so outrageous that, "Okay, we have to stop this, et cetera, et cetera." I mean, I had a very dear friend, Oakland fireman, we would talk about this and I coined this term or he thought I coined it, "Sustainable Activist." And, he responded so much to that because he was a very active guy, but it can eat your life up. And, I think we all have met professional activists who somehow it has taken hold of them in a way and become an obsession in a way that does not look particularly healthy and can turn you into a self-righteous person who thinks everyone in the world could be doing their particular cause. A hundred percent, 24/7. SM (02:19:27): Good response. That is an excellent. JQ (02:19:33): The way the world works. SM (02:19:33): Why did the Vietnam War end, in your opinion? JQ (02:19:41): Because, the truth, the reality on the ground overwhelmed the reality that American commanders were telling themselves. The Vietnamese lived there. They were not going to go away. We are going to find the same thing as true in Afghanistan, I believe. And, so their commitment was just more tenacious than ours was. I remember Colonel Harry Summers. SM (02:20:24): Oh yes, I know. Yeah, actually I talked to him before he died. JQ (02:20:28): Well, yeah, he remembers going to the Paris Peace Talks and saying to a Vietnamese general, I think it was, "You know, you never defeated us in any battle." And, the Vietnamese general said, "That is true. It is also irrelevant." SM (02:20:48): Yeah. JQ (02:20:49): It blew Summers mind as it should have. But, we did not win because we could not. SM (02:20:59): Well, the best history books are written, which is normally long after a particular period, 50 years. JQ (02:21:06): Oh yes. SM (02:21:06): Yeah, for World War II books. But, the question I am asking, when the last Boomer has passed away, the last member of the Civil War who fought, if you go to Gettysburg's Battlefield, you see a statue there in 1924, the last participant in the Civil War soldier died, and they have his name and a statue for him. When the last Boomer of the 74 million has passed, what do you think the historians and the sociologists and the commentators will say about the generation that grew up after World War II and their impact on the society and the world? JQ (02:21:47): Boy, the real answer is, I do not have the slightest idea. But, I will of course take the crack at it anyway. I think it will be that it was just as we have forgotten many of the details about the Civil War, but its legacy remains in the country. I think the legacy that will remain is the very variegated desire for liberation of all kinds that for whatever reason, got unleashed during this particular time. Political, sexual, racial. In some ways we can talk about environmental liberation. I think those processes will still be going on for 50 years from now or a hundred years from now. And, it is not even that they necessarily started in the (19)60s, though some of them did. But, they got a rather explosive propulsion during this time. And, like the Big Bang, it will still be expanding during that time, for better or for worse. I mean, in a sense, the brain of certain morality and ethical standards is also, it maybe the darker side of the liberation movement, but there it is. SM (02:23:44): Do you think that the- JQ (02:23:44): The light of the dark. SM (02:23:46): Do you think that what became very popular in the early (19)60s of nonviolent protests that Dr. King talked about in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s, the trend toward violence, students for Democratic society always had a lot of respect. But, then when it became the weatherman, it went down like a sunken ship. And, even the American Indian movement that started at Alcatraz in (19)69 ended up at Wounded Knee violence in (19)73. You had the Black Panthers that some people say were or were not violent, and the young Lords who kind of fit them in the Puerto Rican community that kind of followed the Black Panthers as well in their movements. You could even say even at Stonewall, they to fought, it was a reckoning, but they ended up fighting the police. Do you think that violence gets you anywhere? And, that the violence is why people are so upset oftentimes with the generations as opposed to all the other things? JQ (02:24:48): It may be. I think violence may have a dramatic effect short term, but it is long term effects I think are always pernicious because it invites a violent crime. And, it requires patience and a long view of history to stick to a non-violent approach. But, I believe in the long term, it is the one that is going to succeed because it does not invite that kind of reaction. Rather, it tries to include and incorporate. And, if I could tell a quick story that Parker Palmer, who's the inspiration to the center that I am part of now tells about, I am forgetting his first name now, Wollman a Quaker who in the 18th century felt that he had received a kind of visitation or understanding from God that slavery was wrong. And, the Quakers at that time were slave owners who were prospering quite well, thank you very much, as slave owners. And, so when he went to his own meeting and to others and tried to convince people that slavery is wrong, they did not be [inaudible]. But, what they did do was they said that they would support Wollman, W-O-L-L-M-A-N, and I just cannot remember his first name. They would support him as he went from place to place, from meeting to meeting, trying to convince people that what he had received was in fact the truth. This was of course how the Quakers were. And, so for 20 years he did that. He refused to serve by a slave. If he received anything made by a slave, he paid that slave. And, as a result of his going from place to place, I think it was in 1783, where at some time near then, Quakers became the first religious organization to condemn and [inaudible] flavor, 70 years before this. SM (02:27:47): Wow. JQ (02:27:47): So yes, it may seem like it is going to take a long time, but here is someone who managed to convince others in a non-violent fashion and in a way that led those others to participate in the anti-slavery movement and did not invite the reaction that it had, had he been John Brown or [inaudible], he would have. Violence is always a sign of impatience. Sometimes it is necessary or deemed necessary because the enemy is at the door. So, what are you going to do? But, it is always impatient and for that reason, I think it affects the short term, and they invite the very opposite of what you were in fact, trying to do. SM (02:28:43): And, as an add-on and I know we are saying we are done, but as an add-on to what you just said, why do you think Chicago's convention in the summer of (19)68 and the killings at Kent State and Jackson State had on the psyche of this generation? And, I am not only talking about those who may have been the five to 15 percent of them are activists, but the entire 74 million, you cannot help but forget those two major events because they both were violent. And, to have deaths on two university campuses. Whereas Mario Savio said in 1964-(19)65, "Freedom of speech was guaranteed." And, then of course the Chicago convention was sad for everybody and that is the last question. JQ (02:29:33): Well, when you mentioned those events, I will tell you what comes to mind. One was, I was working at the welfare center at that time in the Dykeman Welfare Center in New York. And, the day after Kent State, I wore a black arm band and everybody knew why, there was no question. There were a lot of... And, it was very shocking and many people were already paranoid, but it really made people even more paranoid. Two weeks later, when Jackson State happened, I came in the next day to the workplace and I had a black armband on and I remember a black case worker, welfare worker asked me, he said, "What is that for?" And I said, "I am mourning the students at Jackson State." And, his eyes filled with fear. I mean, he knew damn well what had happened. But, the fact that a white guy. SM (02:30:46): Yes. JQ (02:30:47): Would say that he was mourning the black students at Jackson State as opposed to, well, that happened in another place in another time, really affected him. And his response, of course, affected me because what was happening was, Chicago just showed the divisions within the country and how ugly they were. I think my brother and my father watched the same TV footage I did, and they were probably rooting for the police. And, so just before I left for California with my wife, I remember saying to my father, it was a cruel question to ask. And, I was not estranged at all from my parents. A lot of people were in this, I was not. But, when I think about it now, I said to him, "Dad, if you were to find out that I had been killed at a demonstration on a campus, what would you say?" And, it was as if I take it a two by four and hit the man in the chest. The question, just the notion, the idea of imagining that the event hit him so hard and he said, "Oh my God, I do not know what I would say." And, I felt so polarized at that time that I thought he might say, "Well, I would say, well, he deserved it. He should not have done it." And, that was not true at all. That was not the emotional... That was some kind of media imagination that I had. Had nothing to do with flesh and blood actual response. And, so it has always made me wary of big responses to far away events as opposed to the real flesh and blood. How normal human beings respond to one another when they have the, you know? SM (02:32:57): Are there any questions I did not ask that you thought I was going to? JQ (02:33:02): Boy, after almost two hours now, I cannot think of any. I cannot think of any. SM (02:33:09): Well, that is it then. Thank you very much. I will keep you- JQ (02:33:14): Oh yeah. SM (02:33:15): I will keep you updated on the project and certainly you will see the transcript eventually. And, I will need a couple pictures. JQ (02:33:23): Okay. SM (02:33:23): And, I will get the tape to you, may not be right away. JQ (02:33:28): Oh, that is all right. SM (02:33:28): But, you will get it. I am going to be transcribing all these myself. And, so you said Walter Capps' wife is in Congress? JQ (02:33:34): Yes. Lois Capps, she represents the Santa Barbara area. SM (02:33:40): Golly, I think I have that book by Walter Capps. JQ (02:33:45): Oh, "The Unfinished Floor." SM (02:33:45): Yes. JQ (02:33:46): Yeah. SM (02:33:48): I wonder if she would be willing to talk. JQ (02:33:50): I will bet she would. I will bet she would. SM (02:33:53): So- JQ (02:33:56): I mean, I met John Wheeler through Walter. I think he had just written his book. SM (02:34:03): Yeah. Well, I interviewed him a week ago in Washington. JQ (02:34:06): Oh, no kidding? SM (02:34:06): In fact, I will send you a picture of him. I got a great shot. If you do not mind, I will send a picture I took of him. JQ (02:34:13): Sure. SM (02:34:13): He was very tired, and I guess there is a story with him. His sister, excuse me, his wife's sister was murdered in Memphis by drug people. JQ (02:34:24): Oh dear. SM (02:34:25): Yeah, about a year or so ago, so they were going to jail. The trial's going to be happening and his wife has to go. So, he is going through a lot of. JQ (02:34:37): Oh, I am sorry to- SM (02:34:38): Yeah. And, of course he was at the Commonwealth Club in Washington where I interviewed him one. And, I still have another hour to interview with him, but I will send you his picture. JQ (02:34:49): Well, give him my regards when you see him next. SM (02:34:51): Oh, I will. JQ (02:34:52): I remember I very much meeting him. We were of course very different politically, but I thought Touched with Fire was a very important book. SM (02:35:00): Oh, it is a great book and he signed it for me. JQ (02:35:01): It began really with retreats for public school teachers in that, Parker Palmer's wrote a book called The Courage to Teach, in which what he was saying was, people go into service professions like teaching not to make money. They go in because there is something in their heart that makes them want to do this. SM (02:35:27): That is why we go into higher ed. JQ (02:35:29): That is right. And, in fact, he has just written the book on higher education called The Heart of Higher Education. Book just came out three weeks ago, actually. But, what happens is people then get into institutions whose behavior is almost the opposite of its mission statement. And, teachers get burned out very badly and they get twisted and it is really difficult. And, what these retreats do, is they do not have a particular content or ideology, but they using poetry and silent and conversation in small groups, they give people a chance. SM (02:36:14): Wow. JQ (02:36:21): And, usually the response after the first retreat is, "Oh my God, this is so wonderful. I realize how poisonous the environment I am in right now, I am out of here." But, after the second retreat, what people are saying is, "I will be damned if I am going to be driven out of this profession, which I love." SM (02:36:42): Wow. JQ (02:36:42): "I am going to change things." SM (02:36:44): So you- JQ (02:36:48): But, now there are retreats for clergy. There are retreats for health professionals because there are a lot of service professions where people are suffering the same way. So, it is great work. I really love it. SM (02:37:00): And, what do you moderate or? JQ (02:37:02): I help facilitate retreats and I am now, I am on the board. SM (02:37:07): Well, my gosh. JQ (02:37:07): Administrative [inaudible]. SM (02:37:11): Well, let me tell you this, when I am done working on this book I was in higher education for 30 years. I did over 500 programs on forums, debates, conferences. JQ (02:37:21): Oh, no kidding? SM (02:37:21): Yeah. It is my whole life. So, if there has ever an openings there, I would be curious to... Because, I love that because higher ed has been my career and students are my life. And, we did five major conferences that I organized at Westchester. One was a major conference on Byard Rustin. We did one on Jackie Robinson, National tribute to him. We did the Wall That Heals, which was a four day conference where we brought the traveling wall and Jan Scruggs. And, we had a whole series of speakers in the fall to educate our students about the war. And, we had over 6,000 people in the community that came. We did a conference on Islam, which was very controversial in my last month, where we packed a 500-seat auditorium for 10 straight sessions. We packed nine of them. Totally. And, they were out the wall outside the hall trying to get in. So, we have just done a lot of speakers. It is just amazing how many that I have done. So, just what you are talking about, about trying to bring people together and to keep people in teaching, because teaching to me is the greatest profession anyone can ever be in because you are shaping the future of America and the future of the world. JQ (02:38:44): Yeah. SM (02:38:44): So, we do not want to lose good teachers. JQ (02:38:46): That is right. Well, one thing I might invite you to do is go to the website, which is www. [inaudible]renewal.org. And, they give these retreats. They are not done in a systematic way, but they are all over the country and you might want to just experience one. SM (02:39:08): Yeah. Super. Well, what an honor to talk to you. JQ (02:39:15): Well, I thank you for your questions and for your interest and your passion. SM (02:39:17): Yeah, well I do. And, I wish I had known you when you first went on board out there in California where I lived. But, you are a deep thinker and you have a lot of passion for what you do. And, boy, that must have been a big loss to leave that profession well, that position. But, you are in something else that you love, and that is important. JQ (02:39:41): It is true. SM (02:39:41): Okay. Well, you have a great day. JQ (02:39:41): Well, you too. And, good luck with your project, Steve. SM (02:39:42): Thanks. Bye now. JQ (02:39:42): Bye-bye. (End of Interview) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. James Quay Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Quay, James ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Radio producers and directors; California Council for the Humanities; Quay, James--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. James Quay grew up in Allentown, Pennsylvania.&nbsp; He earned a BA in English from Lafayette College and then performed two years of alternative service in central Harlem as a conscientious objector. He and his wife moved to California where he earned an MA and Ph.D. in English Literature from UC Berkeley. He was a lecturer at UC Santa Cruz and an associate producer with California Public Radio where he co-produced a six-part radio documentary, <em>Vietnam Reconsidered: Lessons from a War</em>. He served as executive director of the California Council for the Humanities from 1983 to 2008. Since his retirement, he has been a facilitator for the Center for Courage and Renewal. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-08-02 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.95a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.95b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 159:49 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/d51080ba635afac48cc084b4d99954e0.jpg 14082c53d3626dedeacdac8d72c8f034 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/ac4e39dc523df40910ab7600cb0650a6.mp3 8efa2d6c0a1176632b0865a73e75ea51 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-07-30 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Jerry Lembcke, 1943- Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Jerry Lembcke is an associate professor emeritus of Sociology at Holy Cross University. He has a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Oregon. He is the author of The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam, and The Legacy of Vietnam and Hanoi Jane: War, Sex, and Fantasies of Betrayal.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:7043,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,5099745],&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;}">Dr. Jerry Lembcke is an associate professor emeritus of Sociology at Holy Cross University. He has a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Oregon. He is the author of <em>The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam</em>&nbsp;and <em>Hanoi Jane: War, Sex, and Fantasies of Betrayal</em>.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Vietnam War; Baby boom generation; Service; VISTA; Peace Corps; Army draft; Larry Siegfried; Anti-War; Barack Obama; George McGovern; Birth control pill; Beats; City Lights Booksellers and Publishers; Terrorism \n &quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:4993,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;10&quot;:0,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;}">Vietnam War; Baby boom generation; Service; VISTA; Peace Corps; Army draft; Larry Siegfried; Anti-War; Barack Obama; George McGovern; Birth control pill; Beat generation; City Lights Booksellers and Publishers; Terrorism<br /><br /></span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 144:35 Subject LCSH College teachers; Sociologists; Lembcke, Jerry, 1943--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Jerry Lembcke Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 30 July 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) JL (00:00:05): Jeremy. Excuse me. Jerry Lembcke. SM (00:00:14): I might be taking some quotes here too for your reaction to that. You write in your book, Hanoi Jane, that many of the attacks on her are oftentimes based on the need to explain our defeat in Vietnam through betrayal on the home front. Then you also add, "the emasculation of the national will to war." Can you explain what you mean by that in more detail? JL (00:00:41): Well, I think that the United States went into Vietnam, slid into Vietnam, with no idea that it would ever maybe be fighting a major war to begin with, and much less that it would lose its first war on foreign soil. The defeat in Vietnam was a very hard pill to swallow for a lot of Americans. Still is, I think. We were almost, I think, universally self-imagined to be the most powerful nation on earth. Our trajectory in the early (19)60s was even upward from those expectations. Indeed, materially speaking, we were far superior, should have been far superior to the Vietnamese. We had more gunpowder, gun power, better-trained, formally-trained troops and so forth. And yet we lost the war. I think that the country turned inward for explanations for why we lost the war. The short form on that is a scapegoat or scapegoats, alibis, excuses for why we lost the war, and looking for reasons internally. We were too weak. We were not manly enough. That is the emasculation part of it. Vietnam was an emasculating event, I think, culturally speaking for a lot of people, for a lot of people. Looking for reasons for that, looking for scapegoats for that kind of loss, I think you look toward the feminine side of the culture. You look to women perhaps, and Fonda, for reasons we might go into, Fonda fit the bill pretty well. SM (00:02:50): Bobby Muller, who you are aware of- JL (00:02:52): Sure. SM (00:02:52): He was one of the most vocal anti-war vets, once he came out of, after overcoming those terrible tragedy, losing access to his legs and everything. But he said he went into that war knowing that America was a good nation. We were a good nation. We did not do anything wrong. And he came out of that war feeling that we were the bad guy. If you talk to some other Vietnam vets, who also had similar experiences, though some of them will say, "Oh, Bobby. Bobby does not have the attitudes that a lot of other vets had. He just continues to think the way he did and a little bit more critical than he should be." But he has not changed much. Is that part of it too, that even we can use scapegoats with Jane Fonda, we can use scapegoats to the anti-war movement as prolonging the war. That could be a myth too. But really, United States was now seen as not a very good guy in world affairs. JL (00:04:08): Well, I came home from Vietnam having re-thought things that way. Maybe I was not quite as conscious of America as Bobby Muller was going in, a vague... I grew up in an apolitical environment, so I probably did not think about those kinds of those things very much. But to the extent that I did, certainly... I had uncles that fought in World War II. That was part of my sense that in World War II, there is still no doubt in my mind that we were on the right side- SM (00:04:41): Oh, I agree. JL (00:04:42): Of those conflicts. And so sure, going into Vietnam, I thought, "Well, the country goes to war. All the wars I have ever heard of the United States going into, we were on the right side. Why would not Vietnam be the same way?" But in the course of being in Vietnam, and for me, part of coming to that Bobby Muller kind of consciousness was I, being a chaplain's assistant and working for about half the time I was there for a chaplain who was opposed to the war. So if we are talking about religious righteousness, in a religious sense of righteousness, here is the priest, a Catholic priest, and he had worked in the mission’s field in South Asia before the war and had volunteered to come in as a chaplain, which "to do his stint" as he said. But he did not support the war. He was one of the first people from whom I heard, "We are going to lose this war." SM (00:05:54): And what year did you hear that? JL (00:05:56): 1969. SM (00:05:57): That is right in that (19)67 to (19)71 period, which is the real crazy time there. JL (00:06:02): Yeah. Here is the chaplain telling me, "We are going to win." And I suppose I said, "Why? Would you say that?" Or excuse me. He said, "We are going to lose. We are not going to win." His explanation for that was that these people do not want us here. That was his explanation for it. I felt like he knew what he was talking about because he had been in the mission’s field in South Asia. That was a key moment for me in... "Okay, we are on the wrong side of this war. And there might be a righteous side to this war, but we are not on it." As I was going along through this, my questioning became, I think, more sophisticated, more nuanced, to the point where even today I am not a pacifist principally. I think that in the case of Vietnam, I think there was a righteous side to that war. I think the Vietnamese cause was a supportable cause. But we were on the other side. We were on the other side of that. SM (00:07:19): What year were you there? JL (00:07:21): (19)69. I got to Vietnam, I think, New Year's Day, 1969. And I left about the 1st of February (19)70. SM (00:07:34): Were you drafted, or was it volunteer? JL (00:07:36): I was drafted. I was drafted. I was a junior high school math teacher in Fort Dodge, Iowa- SM (00:07:44): Oh, wow. JL (00:07:45): In 1968 and got snared by the Johnson administration's post-Tet call-up of more people. I had been deferred, of course, for college. And then I had been deferred for two years for teaching. SM (00:08:08): Your deferments are running out. JL (00:08:10): I was about to turn 25, and my friendly draft board in Le Mars, Iowa, which is Plymouth County, Iowa, they kept telling me with a smile, "But you are going to have to go eventually. Yes, we will defer you for one more year. But eventually you are going to have to go." SM (00:08:29): Had you been involved in any anti-war activity while you were in college? JL (00:08:30): No, not a lick. SM (00:08:32): Of course, as a teacher, you probably could not because you could lose your job. JL (00:08:35): Well, yeah. But no, I was not. I was political. I was not political right up into induction. I tried to stay out of... I tried to still stay out on the grounds that I was a teacher and that I was of better service to my country as a math teacher than I would be in the army. SM (00:09:04): Yeah, because that whole era was about service. And I got questioned about the different opinions about service, pro and con, later in the interview. JL (00:09:14): Sure. SM (00:09:14): Another charge is that protests at home prolonged the war. I mentioned that as previously. College students on college campuses are [inaudible] that helped lose the war for Americans took place within America so that the North Vietnamese only had to wait it out. Le Duc Tho, I think, was the one in his biography who states that, "We knew America was not going to stick." There was protests going on back in the United States and that they were not going to stay the long course like they were. And of course, they had always stayed the long course in their history, no matter what. JL (00:09:49): Sure. SM (00:09:51): But do you consider this also another one of these myths that we constantly hear, particularly amongst the people that are against the anti- war movement, the New Left and that group, that they prolonged the war by their protest? JL (00:10:06): Yeah, I do not think that that is true. I think that if anything, the protests shortened, shortened the war. I think we lost the war because we were beaten by the Vietnamese. We were not beaten by the anti-war movement. There is a chemistry there between the resourcefulness and the resilience of the Vietnamese people and what is going on back home, on the home front. There is no doubt that the anti-war movement initially, that some people in the anti-war movement saw the Vietnamese cause as a righteous cause and protest the war because of that. And you have got pacifists at home who are protesting the war because it is a war, who are not going to support any war. As time went on, I think, more and more Americans came to the anti-war movement, simply because of the length of the war itself. The war went on and on, and people could see no light at the end of the tunnel, and so begin to be won over to the anti-war cause, if not the pro-Vietnamese cause, but simply because this war is not going anywhere. People came to see it as being divisive, a drain on economic resources. But if the Vietnamese had not been doing well enough to at least fight the US to a stalemate, to a standstill, then a lot of this other stuff would not have been going on at home. So I think that, to the extent that the anti-war movement becomes a factor in the outcome of the war, that in turn is attributable to the Vietnamese themselves. So it is really back to the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese won the war, and they won the hearts and minds of a lot of American people. SM (00:12:20): There is no question that we could have physically won that war with all of our military capability and of course, that mentality of the - I forget the generals - and those bomb to the Stone Age, that that kind of mentality, "Yeah, we could have ended the war there just like we did in Japan, with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." But the key question is, they won psychologically, I believe. JL (00:12:45): Sure. SM (00:12:46): They won the psychological game. And it is because they knew who they were, and they knew their history, they knew their culture, and they knew that they were not going to be defeated, no matter what. JL (00:12:56): Right. SM (00:12:57): Whether it be the French, whether it be the Chinese, the Japanese, or any other, back in their history. JL (00:13:03): We are fighting, we are fighting on their terrain. The commonplace interpretation is that, "Well, then they know the hills and the valleys and then the jungles." That might have been true too. But I think it is more psychological. It is the emotional. They are fighting for their homeland, and we are not. So they are going to be more committed to that. They are going to stay the course for a long period of time. SM (00:13:37): You said you learned from the chaplain that this war was not going to be, that we were not going to win this war. But from the time you arrived on the airplane in Vietnam to the time you left, can you specifically state when you personally felt an experience, not necessarily with a chaplain, that said, "This is ridiculous. We are not going to win this thing. Or that something is wrong here, the strategy's wrong," and whether you were saying this to your peers? That maybe you were not saying it, but other soldiers were saying it. Was there a specific instance where... JL (00:14:13): There are two that come to mind right away. Maybe as we talk more, there might be maybe. But two things that come to mind. Very early on, I saw the remnants of the French presence there. And I had no clue whatsoever. I do not know that... I graduated from college in 1966, Augustana College in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. I was a math major. I had had one American history class. I am not sure I had ever heard the words "colonialism" or "imperialism". When I saw the first... I still have the photograph; occasionally I run across the photograph of a bridge. I traveled around my little Instamatic. It was a bridge that had a French word on it, probably the French construction company that built the bridge and a date on it. I think it was 1941. I asked the Chaplin about that. Probably I did not even know that word was French. But I asked, "What is this?" I began to learn. I began to learn about the French colonization of Indo-China. That was hugely enlightening for me. That was just a big light pole that went off. That was one thing. The other thing that does not quite fit into your question, but I think it belongs here anyway, was seeing the permanency of what the US was putting in place there. For the first six months I was there, I was near, I was in a small Army camp near Phu Cat Airbase, which was just west of Qui Nhon. Most Americans, still to this day, have never heard of Phu Cat airbase. But to get to our little Army camp, we had to drive through Phu Cat, had to come through the main gate and then go out on the other side, so we were in and out of Phu Cat all the time. I remember vividly the cement roads, the cement - not asphalt - cement roads, cement curb, curb and gutter. "Holy cow, this is built to stay." This is not like my little Army camp that is half tents and sandbag bunkers and stuff like that. This airbase permanence, its permanence. "What is going on? What is going on with this?" Again, a light bulb, began to ask, began, "Why would we be building, why would we be building this thing here?" And I suppose at some point even, not consciously, that French bridge, the permanency of that, and the permanency of this air base began to come together. And then seeing on the air base, seeing the swimming pools, the bowling alleys, a library, football pools 10 years from now, the Sioux Bowl. Now, when I hear about Iraq, I hear the same things. SM (00:17:41): And Afghanistan. JL (00:17:42): People who have been there - and maybe Afghanistan too - say the US is building these big bases. SM (00:17:48): This gets right into my next expression here, which is Ronald Reagan, I interviewed Jack Wheeler. I do not know if you know Jack. He was a fundraiser for the Vietnam Memorial, and he was in Vietnam. He had done a Triple Heart. Ronald Reagan, he said, "Listen to Ronald Reagan's speech in (19)84," because Ronald Reagan did not come to the Vietnam Memorial when it opened in (19)82, because it was politically feasible to be there or was not the right thing. But in (19)84, he came to the Wall, and Peggy Noonan had written a great speech for him. But he said, Ronald Reagan's famous 1984 speech at the Vietnam War Memorial, he said, "We will never enter a war again without making sure that we are going to win it. We are going to give the military everything they need." And basically, he was blaming it on the leaders of the time, plus we must be... When you figure this also out, if he had been president, he probably would have been tougher, even though Nixon was pretty tough. He blamed it on the leaders. And then he also believed that we must be tougher on the dissent. Like his years as governor, where he came to power fighting students in (19)64 and (19)65 in the Free Speech Movement and (19)69 at People's Park. Reagan came to power based on two things. Number one, his law and order mentality against the students at university campuses in (19)64, (19)65, and in (19)69, when Meese was with him. And secondly, on ending the welfare state. That was the mentality. So my question is, what are your thoughts on that speech? And is this a myth? Because you have already brought the fact that we lost the war, but he is saying that if we had put everything into it, like Jim Webb and others have said, we would have won that thing. But we just did not have the will. We did not have the strategy. We did not have the desire to, whatever. Is that a myth? Is what Ronald Reagan is saying, that if we put everything into it, we would have won? JL (00:20:07): I think, no. I do not think we would have won. I think we could have prolonged the war. We might have been able to occupy Vietnam in a reasonably peaceful manner for a while. But the Vietnamese would have eventually thrown us out. SM (00:20:32): You think, even if they had done, "God, this never would have happened." I think, was it Hershey that... Who was the guy that had the mentality of dropping bombs and putting them back to the Stone Age? Was that General Hershey? JL (00:20:46): Oh, no, that was... SM (00:20:49): Oh, what is his name? Come on, Steve. I see him. There is a biography out on him right now. But anyways, we would never do that. But if by some chance we had ever dropped one bomb on Hanoi, do you think they would have continued? JL (00:21:04): Yeah, I think so. I do not know. That is the thing. SM (00:21:15): See, there is only one major city. They did not have any other major cities like that. JL (00:21:19): Yeah. But again, it maybe depends on at what point that bomb was dropping. By the end of the war, Hanoi was pretty much evacuated anyway. The Christmas bombings in 1972- SM (00:21:31): Yeah, they really did not hit much. They were bad though. JL (00:21:34): They were bad. But everything was out of the city. They had moved manufacturing out of the city, decentralized it. They had moved schools and art institutes and this stuff. It was spread out all over. It became, by the end of the war, Americans, I think, widely recognized that a country that is not very industrial is not very susceptible to bombing, because there is nothing to bomb. In 1969, as a chaplain's assistant, I was out and about all the time, on the roads, either on the roads or in helicopters. I was in an artillery unit. I was assigned to an artillery unit. These artillery units get broken up into these little gun pods that are on hilltops and checkpoints just all over the place. The chaplain and I, on a weekly basis, we made our rounds to all of these gun placement sites. The ones that we could reach by road, we drove to. The other ones, then we would helicopter to. But my point here is that I do not think there was a bridge that was still standing in the central highlands where I traveled. All the bridges had been bombed out. We had come up to the river or the creek and down into it. Maybe there had been some gravel down there, so the water was not too deep, if there was water at all. But the bridge itself was gone. SM (00:23:18): Wow. JL (00:23:21): So what are you going to... I do not know, I do not know. SM (00:23:25): When you were with the chaplain, did you give Last Rites to many? Was that part of his role? JL (00:23:31): Yes. Yes. A few. Oh, Last Rites as opposed to memorial, not a memorial service. SM (00:23:36): A combination either memorials of those who had died, and then of course, Last Rites right at the spot. JL (00:23:43): Well, not right at the spot, no. At the hospital, the chaplain would follow up after a fight. We were never on the scene of a ground attack on an LZ or a fire base. We would come in afterwards. In fact, there was a few times when we stayed in a helicopter in the air until things were cleared out. People in combat roles do not want you around if you are not part of it. They really do not. SM (00:24:29): So then in combat- JL (00:24:31): Combat's work. It is a form of work. I came to see what these guys are doing like looking at a construction site. When people are working on a construction site, they do not want you wandering around looking at things, because you are in the way. You might get hurt. SM (00:24:52): So those Joe Galloway stories, I know journalists were allowed to go with these troops. But the Joe Galloway story's a rare one. JL (00:25:01): You know what though? You better follow up on a lot of these stories about journalists going out? A lot of that stuff is baloney, because you... Closer to the truth is that they could not, they could not, they were not allowed to. There are good exceptions. SM (00:25:20): So that is another myth. JL (00:25:23): I think that is a big myth. And it has grown bigger over the years. SM (00:25:26): Well, the Joe Galloway was the big one, because we were soldiers once and brave, and he was there. And I know the story about catching the last helicopter, and he was there. And he had to take a gun up. And that is true. But that might have been a rare case then. JL (00:25:43): One of my best friends, the artillery unit where I was assigned, was the press officer. Well, he was not an officer. He was a Spec/5, but he was the press liaison person for the artillery. You have batteries. That is different, a different terminology. The artillery also have group. Those are the 41st Artillery Group. He was the press liaison officer. And I asked him, I said, "What do you do?" I said, "I never see you doing anything." This is what he said. He said, "My job is to see that any journalists who make it out here to Group Headquarters do not get any further." SM (00:26:30): Oh, wow. JL (00:26:32): He said, "I give them a story and send them back to Saigon." SM (00:26:37): Does that include the TV people? Because Walter Cronkite and Morley Safer and Dan Rather, and the African American person from 60 Minutes, Bradley, they supposedly were out there with the troops. JL (00:26:53): In 13 months I was there and out and about all the time, never saw a journalist of any kind. And more importantly, never heard of one being there. And these are places where, if there had have been a journalist at LZ Uplift, they had have been talking about that for six months. SM (00:27:11): How about the photographers like Larry Burrows and I forget the guy. There is several. Kenley, James Kenley, I forget his name was. Let me get into this from here. You wrote the great book, titled Spitting Image. First, what was your main inspiration in writing it? And second, when it was shown that this myth had little visible facts, how did Vietnam vets respond overall? Let me finish my other comments here. "The image of the vets being spit upon is still out there because I know. I have heard from people that I thought would be a little more educated about this issue. Some vets continue to use it as an example of how they were treated when they came home. The image of vets was based due to My Lai and other atrocities. Many vets were upset that they were placed in situations that made no sense and cost lives, upset with the strategy. People were upset with the leaders, and the military leaders and political leaders and the anti-war protest protestors were really not against the troops." There was a lot here, but what has been the reaction of your book Spitting Image in the Vietnam veteran community? JL (00:28:31): Almost 50-50 from what I hear. That was the pattern to begin with, and it continues to be the pattern. About half the guys I hear from say, "Right on, this never happened. It is about time somebody wrote this book," even though I wrote it, now, 12 years ago. And just as often, I hear from people who are just outraged, just beyond themselves. SM (00:29:00): But the ones that are outraged though, are they people that say... SM (00:29:03): The ones that are outraged though, are they people that say, it happened to me? Or are they going from hearsay? JL (00:29:10): It is a bit of both, but quite often it happened to me. That is what I hear. And the stories seem to get wilder all the time. By that I mean less believable, less plausible, loaded up with more exaggeration. And the guys who are locked into that are really locked into it. And I think the exaggeration reflects a kind of desperation on their part to be believed. And they keep loading in more stuff. SM (00:29:48): Is this another one of those reasons why some, we lost the war, this is our way of blaming others for the situation we were a part of? It is not like the anti-war people protesting and prolonging the war or Jane Fonda should be sent to jail for crimes that she committed against the nation? JL (00:30:18): I think it is a victimization identity. A victim identity or almost an ideology is what they are hooked on. It is a twist in the culture. It is not rational. You cannot really make sense of it. But it is that to be a victim is a credentialing. In the same sense that having a Purple Heart is a kind of credential. It is a way of saying, I am the real deal. Because I have a Purple Heart. The spat upon story. I have to step back on that one. The Purple Heart, if you are wounded, in a sense you are a victim. You have suffered, you have taken a loss. SM (00:31:11): Right. JL (00:31:13): You extend that a little bit, give it a little bit of a twist. Being spat on is also victimization. And if you believe that the real war all along was at home, not in Vietnam, if you got a Purple Heart in Vietnam, that was one front of the war. SM (00:31:32): Let us change this, this the 30 minute. This is the 40. All right, bear with me. Okay. JL (00:31:43): Vietnam was one front of that war. You got your Purple Heart there. Many people would say the real war was at home and I got my Purple Heart at home when I was spat on. You see what I am getting at. It is identity construction and they are really locked into that. SM (00:32:13): I have also wondered if people are not, they were not actually spit upon physically, but they used the term I was spit upon. It is a term they used if I was treated like crap. I am wondering if people interpret it differently? JL (00:32:33): It might be that their own thinking started that way, but then that they congealed it, or what is the word I want? It became more graphic to them even that they really were spat on. And then they start telling the story that way. SM (00:32:54): Well, I have two examples. This is your interview, but I want to bring this in here. And that is, I have been at the Vietnam Memorial now since 94, both for Memorial Day and Veteran's Day. I sit down amongst a lot of people and let them know I am not a veteran right away. And I am proud, I am very close to a lot of the Vietnam vets and I care about them. And I sat next to a mother when John McDermott was there, the singer who was singing a song and she had tears in her eyes and she said "right above John McDermott's shoulder is where my son's name is." She could see it from a distance and you know something, "the anti-war movement, when my son was buried near Penn State," that is where they lived. "The anti-war protestors were screaming and yelling and calling all kinds of names, baby killers. When my son was being buried, it was a protest. And it probably was not against the person who had died, but it was against the military as a whole." And so she said, that is an experience she will never forget. And the second person I sat next to many years later, it was raining at the Vietnam Memorial, and she said to me, there was an experience. "My son was buried at Arlington and that was a fresh grave. And there had been a major protest in Washington." And she went out to Arlington to visit the spot where her son had just been buried with the dirt put over. And it was raining and they had put canvas covers over the spots. She went out there and she noticed that somebody was moving around underneath the spot. There was an anti-war protestor underneath that little tarp to protect themselves from the rain and laying right on her son's grave. And she was so upset with him saying that, "how dare you lay on my son's grave" and "I am just protecting myself from the rain." And she said, "You are a protestor?" "Yeah, I was a protestor." "Do you really care about the war?" "No, I was paid to come here to protest." He did not care about the war at all. It was just an experience I wanted to share there. One powerful Vietnam vet said, "that the real generation gap was within the generation itself, not between parents and children." I think we know that there was a generation gap between the World War II generation and their kids. That is a well-known fact. But I had never thought of it in terms of the generation gap within. I want your comments on these, those who served and those who evaded the draft. And we are not talking about people who protested the war. We are talking about people who evaded the draft. This same person thought that the boomer generation saw service is a good thing. Because Kennedy, when he gave that speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." I have interviewed several people that were inspired by that. And that service could be serving in the military, serving your country in the military or in the Peace Corps or VISTA or whatever. But the reason that same person says that he defines the boomer generation as a generation that was weak in service because they did not understand that when your nation calls, you go to war. The Peace Corps and VISTA is not enough here, if you are talking about defining generation. Being a service-oriented generation is that when you are called to serve, you do. And I will mention who this person was in a minute. This is based on the Lost Generation book and the symposium that took place with James Webb and Bounty Mueller and several others, Phil Caputo and everything. Basically it was James Webb who said, who was not even a United States senator, that said that "I do not consider the boomer generation, that generation that was raised after World War II as a service-oriented generation that we look of them as because of the fact that they evaded the draft, that there were many that evaded the draft just to save their own skin." And even James Fallows has written about the fact that he felt guilty that he had evaded the draft and he had not protested against the draft. And he has felt a big difference. And he has come to terms with that and has admitted his wrongs in front of vets. He has gained the respect to vets. I would just like your thoughts on that concept that the generation gap is as strong between parents and children as it is between young people within the generation, those who served Vietnam and those who evaded the draft. JL (00:38:13): A lot of people who evaded the draft went on to serve, if not this country, serve humankind in wonderful ways. My learning for this, there is a book called Northern Passage. SM (00:38:33): Yeah, I have it. JL (00:38:36): You have it? Okay. I reviewed that book for a Canadian... SM (00:38:39): Kind of a conscientious objectors. JL (00:38:40): Yeah, both all the people who went to Canada and what an enormous talent drain that was from the United States. Some of these people have become some of Canada's most creatively productive citizens. People working in the arts, people working in politics, people working in education. People in my view, the way I view service with a huge commitment to serve and to put your talent to good use. And I know a few people who evaded the draft and who did alternative service and things like that. And there is not a slacker among any of those people. And I go back to what I was about to say at the beginning here was that I think a lot of people tried to stay out of the draft. I tried to stay out of the draft because I thought being a teacher, being a math teacher in a junior high school was a much better way for me to serve the country. And I think that motivated a lot of those people. I do not think it was to save their own hides. I do not think those people were afraid in the usual sense of the term. Some of them were philosophically or morally opposed to the war. But again, they were not trying to stay out of hard work or something like that or to stay out of service because they did service. They did service in some other way. SM (00:40:28): When I was a senior Binghamton, I remember playing basketball in the gym, my junior and senior year on athletics. And I can remember all the conversations of the draft, the lottery numbers were coming up. I was actually 72. And students were saying, oh, I do not have anything to worry about because I am going to get an alternative service as a teacher. And I remember some of the students saying, why are you going to be a teacher? I do not really want to be a teacher. It just gets me out of the draft. And the question I asked Leon Botstein, I did not interview him for my book, but I interviewed him when he came to our Westchester University campus. And I asked him, do you think there is any link between the quality of education that went down after the boomer generation in terms of quality based on the quality of the teachers? And he did not really come up with an answer. He said, nothing has ever been written about it. But I knew that those people that were becoming teachers were going to quit as soon as they could get another job as soon as the war was over. This is not about you now, this is about, do you think there is any link between the poor quality of teaching that took place after the (19)60s, we are talking late, mid (19)70s and beyond, because the teachers were not dedicated enough to being good teachers and they were only there to get out of the draft, particularly male teachers, and then they quit once the draft ended? JL (00:42:01): I have never thought about that, because I have never heard anything like that. People get out of teaching because the pay is not very good and the conditions are pretty hard. I still say today it is the hardest job I ever had teaching junior high school math. That was a tough job. That was a hard job. And I think that is why maybe, I would have to think about the political economy of education for a minute, but it might have been in the (19)70s that funding for various education programs were cut, things like that. I do not know. SM (00:42:46): I think he was making reference. I think somebody needs to do a study of this because you may be onto something. Because there was a period that students were not as well prepared, not in elementary education. Elementary education has been sound from the get-go, something happens when they reach seventh grade. JL (00:43:03): People do not stay in teaching long now. I teach at Holy Cross College and we have quite a few students who go out of college that go into teaching but they do not stay. It is a gateway or a stepping stone, a holding pattern, just something else. There are not many who go into it and stick with it. SM (00:43:22): You are teaching in a great school though. JL (00:43:24): Oh, thank you. SM (00:43:25): I know all about Holy Cross and long before Bob Cousy. Because I read about that. JL (00:43:31): That goes back a long way. SM (00:43:32): Yeah. I was a kid and I saw Bob Cousy play at the Syracuse War Memorial when the Celtics came in and played the Syracuse Nationals and they were on an 18 game winning. We lived in Binghamton and my dad drove me up. It was a winter storm there and I will never forget. The Celtics were on an 18 game winning streak. And the Nationals beat them and I will never forget Tommy Heinsohn putting his fist up with his flat top as they were booing. And then of course Jim Loscutoff got a big fight. JL (00:44:01): Geez, I have not heard these names. SM (00:44:03): And Larry Siegfried called me... JL (00:44:04): Oh my god. SM (00:44:05): Larry Siegfried was an Ohio State guy. JL (00:44:07): Ohio State guy. Yeah. SM (00:44:09): My dad and I went up to him for an autograph and he said, get out of here you little runt. Yeah, Larry Siegfried, he was as mean in person as he was on the court. He got in a lot of fights with the Sixers. Larry Siegfried and the Sixers, and of course Loscutoff was their hatchet man. Have you had any thoughts about other myths linked to the Vietnam War? I would like to list two myths that I think are here. you have already talked about the spitting image myth and the image of Jane Fonda. We are going to get in and talk about Jane in a couple minutes. But these are two myths that I came up with. Nixon's Peace with Honor. Peace with Honor was what he said in his speech in 1973. Peace and honor. What we did to Vietnam by killing 3 million people and destroying the land and agent orange and generations and so forth. Honor? I think that is a myth. And secondly, the people of South Vietnam supported their leaders and made every effort to defeat the north. We had advisors there since (19)63. I remember when I interviewed the professor at Harvard, Hue-Tam, I cannot pronounce her full name, she teaches Vietnamese history at Harvard. And when I mentioned the fact that Thieu Ky Diem regime knew, that particular group, that they were puppets. She really got upset that I said that. And she went from being a friend, and I am not going to put this on the tape, but she got very upset. She said they were elected. Let me tell you that Diem, Thieu Ky were elected, whether you like it or not, the people voted them in. Well, I thought they were puppets, but it is her interview. JL (00:45:58): Yeah, sure. SM (00:45:59): And then she said, by the way, Diem put my father in jail. It is not like she liked him. What other myths do you see in Vietnam or anything linked in Vietnam? JL (00:46:15): I wish I had some time to think about that. It was only a few days ago or a couple weeks ago that I had one really good thing in mind, but I cannot remember now what it was. You are catching me by surprise. SM (00:46:30): You can email me. JL (00:46:31): Maybe it will come back to me, but something quite big, quite broad that I did not think anybody had taken a look at. There are smaller pieces that I think need to be looked at. The journalism one, the idea that journalists could go everywhere in Vietnam. SM (00:47:00): My batteries are going in pretty good. Yeah, I am fine. JL (00:47:11): The one that I get-get asked about occasionally is the stories of throwing prisoners out of helicopters. That the US took captive VC and took them up in helicopters and we would throw one out in order to make the others talk. And probably a couple of times a year I get an email from somebody saying they have heard this story, is this story true? And I doubt if it is, but it is certainly out there. But now the question about that for a scholar like me is not the story in itself. Maybe it did happen once. I think things like that could have happened. But how does that play in then to the American imagination? That is the myth. A small story that is really a building block for something that is quite larger. It is like the spitting stories. The spitting stories are really about the myth that we lost the war on the home from. That is the myth. Where does this prisoners out of helicopters? SM (00:48:28): I have read it in books. I have read it in history books on Vietnam. Very top-quality books where there is a scene in one where there is three prisoners taken up in the helicopter. And the guys knew in the beginning that they were only going to have one coming back no matter what. Speak up. Tell me the truth. You got to tell me the truth. Are you going to tell me the truth? You got to tell me the truth. I am going to throw this guy out here if you do not tell me the truth. You do not believe I am going to tell you the truth. That kind of stuff. JL (00:49:03): The story goes also that I have heard it half a dozen times, that you never counted prisoners when you put them on the helicopter because the number might not square with how many you had when you got off the helicopter. SM (00:49:19): Is not there another one here that Americans turned over their capture to the South Vietnamese army and they basically killed them all? I remember we had Country Joe McDonald on our campus during then and Country Joe brought up something, James [inaudible] was in the room and he did not say anything, but he made a reference. [inaudible] they know why there were no prisoners of war on our side. We got POWs, but there were none on our side. And then of course, nobody ever said anything more than we just went back to the conversation about other things. But I think he was making a reference where do we ever hear about POWs on the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese forces were there? And we did hand them over to the South Vietnamese army. Did they kill them? JL (00:50:13): I do not know that I have ever heard that they did. We tried to convert them, get them to turn over, turn around course. We did that. There were the tiger cages on Con Son Island, the South Vietnamese did imprison some people there. There was the Phoenix program that was an assassination program that we operated. SM (00:50:46): I think Senator Kerry was in that too. Was not he the one, the president of the new school? Was not he a Phoenix programmer? I think. JL (00:50:54): I believe so. I believe the story that he tells that he was a Navy Seal. He tells one of the stories. Yeah. I do not know. That is a good question there, actually. SM (00:51:06): These are stories to get down to the truth of things. It is always the context. From the truth to the reality or some of these personal experiences may be just a onetime experience and it may not be across the board. And we cannot get caught up in, what do you call it, stereotyping and generalizing reality. A personal experience may be true, but a general experience may be ridiculous. JL (00:51:30): Yeah-yeah. SM (00:51:31): You bring up in your book Hanoi Jane, the destruction of characters as a key to opponents of when the neocons or the people on the right, they try to destroy character. I mentioned just some names here and I would like you to respond because you talk about Jane Fonda. But certainly Daniel Ellsberg with what happened to him and Nixon trying to find his psychiatric files or whatever to try to destroy his character. Obviously Bill Clinton went through a lot with what he did many of it on his own behalf. John Kerry in 2004, saying that he lied about his military record trying to find the Achilles heel. And nobody's perfect to that, trying to destroy character. Could you talk a little bit more about that and particularly with respect to Jane Fonda? JL (00:52:30): What seems to bug some people on the right is what they consider unstable character. The character flaw that they see is instability, inconsistency. And I think the sources of that are religious or religious ideology. What comes out of the Old Testament and the New Testament is, stories of deception, stories of betrayal, that evil masquerades as good, the good people are tricked by, are fooled, are misled into following false gods, false saviors. People need to be aware of that. People need to be able to trust what they see and what they hear. Instability becomes a clue maybe that there is something that does not meet the eye going on here. She does not seem to be stable. She herself seems to be susceptible to other characters. She is easily wooed by this or that. Again, in the religious terms, somebody who follows one image of goodness for a while, but then changes and follows a different image of goodness for another while then becomes part of the problem. They are easily deceived by Satan, easily deceived by the devil. In political terms, then that person becomes a liability, a political liability, because the enemy can use that person as an inroad. And I think they might not articulate it that way. They might not even think about it that way, but you are asking me why they, the political right in America today is very infused with Christian conservatism. And those notions are fundamental. That is those ideas, those fears of betrayal, deception, that book of revelation Christianity is fundamental. SM (00:55:32): Is another way of saying it, when people are unpredictable. When you work someplace, you would like to have people around you and you can predict how they are going to act or react in a certain situation. But when a person is unpredictable, that sends all kinds of waves up. The person may not go with the flow, may not agree with us, may be against us, may just be at the center or whatever. And it seems like we need more of those kinds of people unpredictable than we need predictable because they make us better because they challenge us more. Challenge our ways of thinking. That is when I look at Jane Fonda and I think of Daniel Ellsberg and I think of John Kerry and I think of all the other people, I consider them unpredictable people who have a conscience and will speak their minds but not necessarily agree with the mainstream. JL (00:56:27): Well, Howard Zinn notably said that the problem is not dissent from authority. The problem is complicity with authority. We got the Holocaust because people were too obedient. People were unwilling or unable to resist authority. And I think that that is true, not universally true, but I think certainly in the last half of the 20th century, I think that that was true. And I think it continues to be true today. Another thing that factors into this with the Hanoi Jane, John Kerry, had all kinds of characters and the attack on their character is the difference between people whose worldview is based on belief as opposed to evidence. People who live in an evidence-based epistemology or live with an evidence-based epistemology or worldview way of knowing the world are going to change based on new information. New information changes your view of how things are. And that is a part of what makes the... JL (00:58:02): That is a part of what makes the educated people, the intellectuals, that is what makes them intellectuals. But it is also what makes them suspect by people on the fundamentalist, religious right wing. They are suspicious of people who know quote unquote. Who know as opposed to who believe. SM (00:58:30): Beautiful. Yeah. JL (00:58:31): Knowledge is one thing. Belief is something else. And that goes clear back to the suspicions about the French Revolution, the role of intellectuals in the enlightenment period of European history. And the religious based people were always, well, the Christian, religious based people were always kind of suspicious of people who thought they... SM (00:58:56): That explains intellectuals being killed throughout the decades. JL (00:59:02): And so that is why I think, I tried to make that point in the book. SM (00:59:05): You do a good job of it. JL (00:59:07): Oh, thank you. Because she is, people would not usually think of Jane fond as an intellectual, but she works in that world of ideas. SM (00:59:17): Yes, she does. JL (00:59:18): The world of ideas and images, and a world that affects how people view the world, how people feel about the world. And so, in the way I use the term intellectual, she is an intellectual. She does intellectual work. She is a part of intellectual America. And I think that adds to her... SM (00:59:47): Yesterday when I interviewed Dr. Baxandall, I brought this up about the 1950s. Because we are talking about boomers now, people raised after 1946. But I am going to preface this by saying that I believe people born between (19)40 and (19)46, (19)45 are in this group as well. Because most of the leaders of the anti-war movement were born before 1946. And probably about one third of the people I have interviewed cannot stand the term boomer to begin with. It is about a group of people, it is about an idea, it is about a period, and they have a problem with even the younger boomers. JL (01:00:20): It might be about a marketing demographic. SM (01:00:22): Yeah, marketing demographic. But I bring up the (19)50s, because I think the 1950s are a very important part of the psyche of just about all boomers, whether they were activists or not. And I said this yesterday, and I will say it again today for your response that in the 1950s it seemed like there were three things that stood out in my mind above anything else, there was a concept of fear. There were a lot of good times for young people in the (19)50s because the parents were home. But there was a concept of fear because the Cold War was happening, the threat of nuclear war may have been in the backs of people's minds. And of course, the McCarthy hearings that anybody of the early boomers saw on television, seeing these voices saying that, "Are you or are you not a communist?" And lives being destroyed, careers being destroyed, people committing suicide because they could not get a job. Those kinds of things. So a concept of fear. Second is that the concept of being very quiet. People were quiet, they did not speak up very much. Security meant everything to people seemed like in those times. And thirdly, I felt that we were naive. And I think as boomers have evolved, the naivete was hit real hard in the 1960s, because you started seeing that black and white television, there were no black people on black and white television, you saw what was happening in the south, issues with the women and African Americans, and certainly Native Americans, the black and white cowboy and Indian culture. So what I am getting at here is the kind of a do not speak until you are spoken to mentality, which was what the (19)50s was about. Then you get in the 1960s where fear is replaced by being assertive, quiet becomes outspoken and naive becomes, you see the injustices and you want to speak. You want to speak when you have something to say, kind of a different mentality. So I would like your thoughts on that. That the (19)50s was really the very important in shaping everything that followed. JL (01:02:40): The one thing that I would add to that, and I think you are onto something, there might be an intra generational thing here. The people who are a little older and maybe... People who are a little older... JL (01:02:59): What is this? Is this... SM (01:03:01): Not that one. Hold on. Actually, this does a better job. I got to get my 45 into this one. Okay, this cannot be used again. There we go. [inaudible] JL (01:03:23): People who are a little older and who maybe came to political consciousness in the late (19)30s maybe, or during the World War II years themselves, and were more politically conscious at a younger age, might have had that sense of the 1950s. SM (01:03:50): Right. JL (01:03:52): People Who are a little younger may have experienced the 1950s as years of economic security, of hope and promise. The idea that you would ever be unemployed, growing up in the 1950s at least where I grew up, unthinkable. That was the (19)30s. I grew up hearing about the old days. That was the 1930s. My parents were working class, by the way. My father went to seventh grade country school. SM (01:04:47): I heard all about the hobos and all the stories from my parents, my mom and dad. My mom's family did not have any hard time. My dad did because he was a son of a minister. JL (01:05:01): But what I am getting at here is that maybe the masses, so to speak, of the (19)60s generation come out of the (19)50s with a lot of audacity, a lot of strength right there. A lot of resilience. A lot of that might have been false, but they were, what is the term? Possibilists? SM (01:05:32): Possibility thinkers? JL (01:05:33): Possibility thinkers, yeah. So you put those two things together. People who have a little more political consciousness, the older people, with a large bunch of people who really are not afraid of anything. I was not afraid. I did not go to college for job security. I went to college because my parents thought I could have a better life if I went to college. It was not out of necessity so much as it was taking advantage of an opportunity. SM (01:06:15): Right. And that is what the GI Bill was all about, was taking advantage after World War II, of getting a degree and education. That is another quality too, that the (19)50s was the beginning of the importance of higher education. It was always there, but the (19)50s and the (19)60s to me are at the time when the higher education really blew. JL (01:06:36): Really took off. SM (01:06:36): Particularly in the (19)60s. JL (01:06:38): Really grew. SM (01:06:38): Yeah. Really big community college movement and everything else. I am going to get back to Jane Fonda here, because I think she is fascinating in so many ways. Fonda, I am going to read this. It is page 154. I know some people do not like me to read their stuff. I have got to get my glasses again. 154. So when something strikes me, I have to put it in the interview. And I have done it, with Dr. Lifton, I had so many things. Okay here it is. Actually, sometimes I ought to ask the author to read it, you want to read it? JL (01:07:24): I am willing to. SM (01:07:25): Yes. Some people are not. JL (01:07:27): Now I need to get my glasses out. SM (01:07:28): Yeah. To me, this paragraph on 154, I want you to respond to it because I think this is very important because when I interviewed Dr. Baxandall yesterday, a lot of things she said about her life and a lot of females were comparable to what you say about Jane Fonda in this paragraph, and about speaking up for the first time. So if you could just read this paragraph from there to there, and I will have it on record. And I think it is a beautifully written paragraph. JL (01:07:55): "In an April 1974 Playboy interview with her and Tom Hayden, for example, Fonda speculated that the rising hostility to her was due to her having violated feminine norms by speaking her mind in public places. Punctuating the point by saying she would quote, 'No longer accept the image of a mindless Barbarella floating through space.' Unquote. Intending to strike a pose of mindfulness through those words, she inadvertently and unnecessarily in the light of later interpretations of Barbarella, fed the perception of discontinuity in her career that critics would soon throw back at her. 10 years later, she was still putting distance between herself and the galactic warrior woman, telling Erica Young for a Lady's Home Journal interview, that the film and her role as an activist were contradictory." SM (01:08:49): Yeah, I think that is beautiful. And it is like speaking up. Dr. Baxandall yesterday told me that she was in meetings with men and she had all the ideas, and they took her ideas during the anti-war movement. She was the one that came up with the ideas, but they did not want her to speak. Do not speak until you are spoken to, but we will take every idea that you had, and we will take the idea and say that we thought it up. JL (01:09:15): Yep. SM (01:09:16): So it is like, this is a recognition too. This is obviously, when you talk about an intellectual, she is getting it. She is getting these things here, the stereotypes about women. Do you have anything else to add on that paragraph? JL (01:09:38): One of the things, it is the galactic warrior woman thing there. I think that is the most troublesome image of Fonda for a lot of people. And I think that has gone unrecognized, and I think it is unspoken. That is what bothers a lot of people about Fonda, is this outspokenness, but it is also the combativeness for gender and sexual roles in the roles that she plays in her films. There is a real continuity in her film career, certainly from Barbarella on. SM (01:10:27): Oh, yeah. Coming home was just like, whoa. Of course Klute, we all know Klute. I remember going to see all these movies, and Coming Home was, all I can say is, wow. And there is another one, it was... There were two movies. JL (01:10:48): Well, Julia is on my mind because I read in the course of working on the book, I do not know if I wrote it in here. Do you know the film Julia? Late (19)70s, she played the Lilian Hellman. SM (01:11:00): Yes. JL (01:11:01): And in there, one of the reviewers, or one of the critics said, "It is the first romantic kiss between two women in a major Hollywood film." Now that is pretty breakthrough, breakout kind of stuff. SM (01:11:18): And oh On Golden Pond too, which was (19)81, which is the conflict with her dad, and coming together. I remember going to see that movie and all the press. It was 1981. And of course her father was an interesting person as well. You bring it up here that he was really a liberal. JL (01:11:34): Quiet. SM (01:11:34): Yeah. So his influence on her way of thinking, that is... What you do in this book is, and I think it is very important with college students, is do not believe everything you read. The gossip columns, there is context to everything. Even though I do not like Newt Gingrich personally as a politician, I do not dislike him as a human being. And I can remember (19)94, and I am a liberal, and the Women's Center had put a sign up on the door, Women's Center I hate Newt Gingrich. I said, that is inappropriate. That is inappropriate. And of course, I had to do it with the administrator on the side because I did not want to embarrass the administrator in front of the students. But I did confront the students. The students thought I was... What are you, a conservative [inaudible] guy? So I just think, you do not know Newt Gingrich. You do not know him. I do not like his politics, but do not judge him. They said "Oh, he is just some southern [inaudible]." And I said, "Did you know that he was born in Pennsylvania? He lived the first 12 years in his life in Pennsylvania near Harrisburg." JL (01:12:38): Yeah. SM (01:12:39): He has also a PhD. You may not like his politics, but anyways. This is the question you may have already answered. How did you become the person you are? Who were your greatest influences in your life, and who were your role models? Who were the role models that you most admired in the (19)50s through the (19)80s? Basically, when you were very young who were the people you looked up to that kind of inspired you? You have already talked about the chaplain you served in Vietnam, but of all the personalities and figures of that period, when boomers were young in the (19)50s, (19)60s, (19)70s, and early (19)80s, who did you admire? JL (01:13:22): I think it was people in my family. Because as I have said already, I was not politically conscious at all. My parents were not political people. I did not have much of a sense of culture or popular culture in those years. So were I to think of a film star or a political figure or something like that, there would be nobody. So it would be my Uncle Clay, who was a medic in World War II, and was sort of the, I guess, family war hero. Although he was, I guess the kind of classic reticent war veteran who would not say anything unless you have asked him. And then it was all medical stories, no combat stories. And then as I began to come to political consciousness, then political figures became more important to me. And then it was mostly labor people. And I have a former life as a labor historian. SM (01:14:46): Probably know about Bayard Rustin then, do not you? JL (01:14:48): Oh, yes, Bayard Rustin. SM (01:14:52): We did a national tribute at Bayard in Westchester, and we brought in Norman Hill and Rochelle Horowitz and that group. JL (01:14:56): Yeah. And so I became, oh gosh, there were so many labor sort of labor people from the 1930s. My dissertation was a study of a CIO union... SM (01:15:09): Oh wow. JL (01:15:10): In the lumber and wood products' industry. So those were my... I was a little bit older then. It was after Vietnam when I was in graduate school in, I moved away from math and into sociology and history. But it was union organizers, the people who organized the auto industry and the steel industry, and of course, the lumber and wood products industry that... SM (01:15:40): So you were probably a Woody Guthrie fan then too. Was there a... JL (01:15:46): Yeah-yeah-yeah. Woody Guthrie. SM (01:15:49): And Pete Seeger and their music. And I think it was John L. Lewis, was that the guy that... JL (01:15:52): He was the head of the CIO. SM (01:15:54): He was a big, big guy. JL (01:15:56): Yeah. Really important. SM (01:16:03): What kind of feedback you have gotten so far from this book in terms of, did you hear from Jane Fonda at all? JL (01:16:10): Oh, she blogged about the book before... I saw the cover of the book for the first time on Jane Fonda's blog. SM (01:16:20): Oh, wow. JL (01:16:20): Her January 13th blog. And she liked it. And then she was on the Larry King show probably two months ago, and she mentioned the book on the Larry King show. SM (01:16:38): Oh, wow. Very good. JL (01:16:39): So yes, she has weighed in, and she is very... SM (01:16:44): Did you talk to her at all? JL (01:16:45): Not since the book came out? I did... SM (01:16:48): Interview her for the book? JL (01:16:49): Well, I did not interview her. This is preface. SM (01:16:54): I tried to get her to interview for my book, that is when she was with Ted Turner, so I have been doing this for... JL (01:17:00): Well, you should try again. SM (01:17:01): Yeah, some people think I should try again, because some of the feminists that I have interviewed are friends of hers. JL (01:17:07): This is the first sentence of the preface. "'Oh, So it is not about me?' Jane Fonda asked, when I told her I was working on a book about Hanoi Jane. Right, I replied, it is the biography of Hanoi Jane. A phrase laden with myth and legend that plays into people's memories of the war in Vietnam." SM (01:17:28): Yeah. JL (01:17:29): We were in Harvard Square. She wanted to talk to me. It was when she was working on her memoir. SM (01:17:37): Oh yeah, that is right. I have that book too. JL (01:17:38): And she wanted to talk to me about The Spitting Image and the film chapter in The Spitting Image where I wrote about Coming Home, the 1978 film Coming Home, because I had gotten into the film archives in Los Angeles for Coming Home. And she was interested in some of the things I wrote. So she, through her research assistant called me into the Charles Hotel in Harvard Square to talk to me about that. And then in the course of that, I said, "You might be interested in the new book that I am working on." And she said, "What is that?" And I said, "It is about Hanoi Jane." SM (01:18:22): Oh my gosh. JL (01:18:24): And that comment came out, and after about a two and a half hour sit down together, which was just wonderful, there was a knock at the door, maybe a phone rang first. And she said, "Yes, I am almost finished. Come on up." And Howard Zinn walked in. SM (01:18:49): Oh my gosh. JL (01:18:52): Yeah. SM (01:18:53): So he was there the whole time you were there? JL (01:18:55): No, he just came in just as I was finishing, just as Jane and I were. SM (01:18:58): Oh, okay. And you were with her for two hours? JL (01:18:59): Yeah-yeah. A little more than two hours, yeah. SM (01:19:02): Did you tape it? JL (01:19:07): No. The terms of it was that it was not to be an interview. That was the terms of it, that I was not to be interviewing Jane, because we were talking about the Spitting Image. If anything, she was kind of interviewing me to find out... SM (01:19:23): Oh, okay, JL (01:19:25): So where did you get this? SM (01:19:29): Oh my gosh. JL (01:19:33): Because I did not like that Coming Home scene in the film, when Bob gets off the, Sally's husband, Bob gets off the airplane. And he gets off the plane and he says, where are the protestors? They told us on the plane that there would be protestors here to greet us. And then as they drive away from the airport they are greeted by protestors, and Bob flips them the bird as they drive away. And so I wrote in the book, I said, "That scene, that is fictional. That never happened. That is not the historical truth." I have met her one more time actually, when the film No Sir came out, and I saw her again at that point, and she turned to somebody, it might have been Cora Weiss actually, who was... Did you interview Cora Weiss? SM (01:20:34): No, I do not even know who Cora Weiss. Is- JL (01:20:37): Carol Weiss was the woman who, she was one of the founders of Women Strike for Peace, but she founded the Underground Mail Service between the US and Hanoi. SM (01:20:58): Where does she live, New York? JL (01:20:59): New York City, yeah. SM (01:21:02): She retired now? JL (01:21:02): Oh yeah. SM (01:21:04): Oh, wow. JL (01:21:06): But anyway, Jane Fonda turned to her, and then pointed at me and said "He is the one who said, that we got the Coming Home scene all wrong in the film." So apparently she had been talking to... Because Fonda and I were both in that film, Sir! No Sir! You probably know that, right, or not? SM (01:21:29): No, you are in the film itself? JL (01:21:32): Yeah. Because of the book, The Spitting Image. SM (01:21:37): I got to go... JL (01:21:38): Yeah, you got to see that film. SM (01:21:39): No, what is it? JL (01:21:42): Sir! No Sir! SM (01:21:43): I think I saw it. JL (01:21:44): I would think probably you have. SM (01:21:47): I go to the Ritz Theater in Philly, may have been shown there. Well, that is interesting. I might try. Although one of her best friends, I am not sure if it was Holly Near or Torie Osborn, who I interviewed, they said she does not like to talk about Vietnam at all. JL (01:22:06): Fonda? SM (01:22:07): Yeah. JL (01:22:08): I would not be surprised. In my case, that is why we were talking, but I did detect some reluctance. SM (01:22:20): In a nation that professes that free speech and the right to protest is part of the definition of liberty. Why has our government been so rough on the people who challenge the system. And I use these examples of historic events through the time that boomers have been alive. We all know about the McCarthy hearings in the early (19)50s, the HUAC hearings in the late (19)40s, the stories about the Hollywood Ten, several movies have been out on that recently. The stories of COINTELPRO that are terrible. I have had several revelations of what happened to some people, and what they did to destroy lives and the infiltration, and they did not care. We just got to go get them because they are against us. I do not care what happens to them. No sense of humanity at all. This is a United States of America, and we have a constitution and we can disagree, but they are the enemy. And of course, in a simpler way, the enemies list. A lot of people seem to be very happy that they were on it, including the late Daniel Shore who just passed away. And of course Watergate, we all know about that. Why is it that the most articulate seemed to be the greatest threat? Yes, we do not murder activists like they do in other countries, but we tend to subtly destroy them through the issue that you talked about, the destruction of their character. And you are not one of us, you are a troublemaker, all kinds of labels to put out people. We are supposed to be in a democracy where people agree to disagree. JL (01:24:14): I am not sure I can make this compelling. When I am in the classroom I am more prepared for this. But the answer is, it is precisely because this is a democracy. It is precisely because the people are sovereign, that notion of popular sovereignty. SM (01:24:35): Give you this, especially on my 45. JL (01:24:39): In the context where the economy is privately held, there is no democracy in the economy. And so the two of these together produces a kind of passive-aggressive political culture. I do not know, if I just start talking, it probably becomes less clear. But it is that trying to reconcile those two, that makes criticism of that incompatibility so dangerous. And so criticism has to be shut down. Because the people are empowered for the ballot, then the people have to be dumbed down. The people have to be kept uninformed. SM (01:25:59): The term liberty means a lot to me, and I think it is a term we do not use enough of. We talk about other terms, but liberty, it is freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to be who you are, freedom. And then we hear these kinds of things happening in the United States, and even leaders that we admire will destroy a person who disagrees. I heard stories about Al Gore, if someone went against him he would really destroy their careers. I do not know if that is true, but I heard about it. Just because they disagree with them, or said bad things about them or whatever. You got to have thick skin to be in politics. And it amazes me that democracy is a really good system, that we have a constitution that protects these things and that liberty is something we aspire to and we are proud of, and we do not kill people, but we can destroy them in other ways. That is what bothers me... SM (01:27:03): Them in other ways. And that is what bother me about that. And certainly the Vietnam War is that whole period. And the whole period the Boomers have been alive and they have seen these things throughout their lives. But it may be is part of the whole human experience throughout time too. It has probably been forever. And it may be for... It is just it confounds me and we go on, so to speak. But the breakup of the American society is due to the activities in the (19)60s and (19)70s. Now I bring up the breakup... Make sure I got my glasses here. The breakup of the American society due to the activities in the (19)60s and (19)70s. Newt Gingrich, when he came to power in 94, Mike Huckabee on his TV show. Glenn Beck all the time does this on his show. Hannity, Rush Limbaugh. I do not want always say conservatives. There are some liberals that do it as well, but they blamed a lot of the problems that we have in our society today in America on those times back in the (19)60s and the (19)70s. They say that the loss of family values, that fewer people are going to church. The divorce rate is skyrocketing, there was rampant sex. There was no commitment to the "love the one you are with" mentality. There was a drug culture. There was a lack of respect for authority. And we need to get all those values back because that is what the (19)50s were about. And that is what America's about. It is about... And just your thoughts on that because George Will, oftentimes in his books, make commentaries on this. And other people have written about it that they like to go back and whip that period, constantly whip it. And even Barney Frank, when he wrote his book, "Speaking Frankly", which was a very good book, he said that the Democratic party is going to survive and has to say goodbye to all those people that supported Montgomery. The anti-war movement and all the... He writes about it, and that was in the (19)90s when he wrote this book that the Democratic party is going to survive. It has to say goodbye to the anti-war people. So then that is a diehard, a liberal thing. JL (01:29:20): Well, Barack Obama was quoted in some way that is very close to that too, that the words there that you used goodbye to the anti-war movement. There is an internet site called Open Left. And they picked up on a conference paper that I wrote out of this. And it is in there that whoever edited that piece had a quote from Barack Obama that distances him. He is distancing himself from the anti-war movement. So that is interesting. Me putting those two together, the Barney Frank with Barack Obama, I think that maybe there is something there to pursue. SM (01:30:12): See, the book "Speaking", it is a little thin book, a great book that came out. And there is a biography on Barney Frank right now, but this is at the time he was younger. We are talking 15 years ago. It is a very good book. And I got it underlined and it is basically talking about the survival of the Democratic party. JL (01:30:27): Yeah. SM (01:30:28): And that McGovern, if you were linked to McGovern, you just simply kind of disassociated yourself with those kinds of... JL (01:30:36): I think the key word here on the view of the (19)60s that you are referring to here, I think the key word is permissiveness. That is what really bothered them. And some of that has to do with religious values. And again, things are already talked about, the instability unpredictability. I mean, those are almost antonyms or predictability antonym for permissiveness. You can kind of see those things. But there is a gender component too, to this permissiveness part of it that I think is important. The idea that maleness, that masculinity is about discipline, whereas the female side of the culture is more permissive. It is more fluid. It is more free ranging. And that we lost the war in Vietnam and America is losing its way because we have lost our focus. We have lost our discipline. And it is the quote unquote "feminine" in the culture that has percolated to the surface and did so big time during the war in Vietnam. And so what really cost us was culture. And of course that the culture was- SM (01:32:15): We all know what the pill did. And women had brought that up, this pill. It is crucial for women. And to deny that what was happening in the (19)60s was not happening in the (19)50s and the forties... Not the people that I knew. (01:32:37): Want to take a break here, Chris? (01:32:37): Where are we going on this one? This looks like... SM (01:32:37): Here we go. SM (01:32:53): This next question deals with the healing. I took a group of students to Washington DC in 1995 to see Senator Edmond Musky and the students and I came up with this question that they wanted to ask him based on the divisions that they saw on video. They were not alive in 1968 of the police and the students hitting each other. And they knew about the assassinations that year, Bobby and Martin Luther King. They knew that the president had resigned and they saw the burnings in the cities and so forth. So the question they wanted to ask is, do you feel that the boomer generation or that generation that was reared after World War II and was shaped by those first 20 to 30 years of the life and the divisions between those who supported the war and those who were against the war, those who supported the troops and were against the troop, blacks against whites, gays against straights, men against women, and all the other isms that we saw at that time. Do you think that because of all the tremendous divide that was happening in the Stratton atmosphere on every side that the boomer generation is going to go to its grave, like the civil War generation not healing? And I will tell you what must be said after I get your response. This is a whole issue of healing. And this is a lot of what I was going to talk to Dr. Lifton about, because he has written about healing with respect as the survivor concept and the whole concept of guilt and things like that. JL (01:34:44): Well, I think the notion of healing is kind of mythical because it is an idea that American society was- SM (01:34:55): No, that is that side. Oh, here we go. Wait a minute... Now that is the other side. It is an hour and a half, I am going to do this. I only started using two tapes in the last six interviews because somebody said if something happened to one, so... Go right ahead. JL (01:35:17): The notion of healing presumes that the society was, that there was a oneness or unity to the society. SM (01:35:28): Hold on one second, let us see which one. There is a... I guess that is... It has got to be here because I put the tape in here. SM (01:35:42): Very good. All right. Sorry. JL (01:35:48): The notion of healing presumes that there was a oneness or a unity to the society to begin with. And I think that the nine... Maybe some people coming out of the 1950s, maybe growing up in the 1950s, and I say it was only maybe, right, might have had that kind of illusion or an illusionary sense of America that was not already divided racially speaking or class wise. A lot of people of my age would remember Michael Harrington's book, "The Other America", is that what it was called? SM (01:36:39): Yes. That was the one Kennedy was in for... JL (01:36:42): A re-discovery, right, of poverty in America that had been there all along, but which a lot of things in the 1950s had sort of masked the presence of. People did not see it. So I guess what I am getting at here is that the notion of healing or the Boomer generation or (19)60s generation needing to heal has never been part of my thinking at all. Not at all. So will we heal or will we not heal? I guess I would be inclined to say that that is a wrong question. I mean, heading down that road probably is not going to produce anything that is very useful. SM (01:37:27): Somebody said that it might have been a better question by saying, simply put, those who served in the war and those who protested the war, whether they were going to be able to come to be, because certainly the wall was built to try to heal the Vietnam generation that served in Vietnam. And Jan Scruggs wrote "To Heal a Nation", that was his book. It was not only to heal the veterans and their families in a non-political way, but as he hoped would help heal the nation over this war that seemed to divide us so much. JL (01:38:05): Well, I have never felt like that there was a big divide between those who fought the war and those who opposed the war. I think that by the late (19)60s that there was a lot of mutuality between those two groups and large numbers of Vietnam veterans were coming home opposed to the war themselves. Some of them joined the anti-war movement. So I think the reality is one of more solidarity and unity than there is a wound between the two that needs to be healed. I do not think there is a lot of healing that needs to be done. Now on the margins, certainly there are people who came home from Vietnam, still very pro-war and very hostile to the anti-war movement. Chris Appy in his book "Working Class War" writes about that. More hostility that way than from the anti-war movement towards Vietnam veterans. Although again, on the margin, right, on the outer margin, I have heard some expressions from people who say that they were part of the anti-war movement and bad feelings towards people who fought the war. There was some of that. I do not know how much of that surfaced during the war years itself. I am not aware that it did. But in retrospect, there is some of that. But I think that is pretty marginal. SM (01:39:55): Musky did not even respond to 1968. I thought students thought he was going to talk about what was happening in the streets of Chicago and the divisions. He did not even mention it. His comment was, and he kind of gave a melodramatic pause, looked like he had a tear in his eye too, and he said, "We have not healed since the Civil War over the issue of race." And then he just simply commented that, and he had just seen the Civil War series with Ken Burns and it had touched him because 430 bows of people had died in that war. Almost an entire generation of men. So that is what he was referring to. The Boomer generation. Do you like the term or is... Do you like the term the Boomer generation? JL (01:40:40): No. As a sociologist, no. I think it is kind of meaningless. I think it is too broad. I mean, even the arguments go on about how to date it, right? SM (01:40:53): Yeah. It is supposed to be (19)46 to (19)64, but some people do not like Boomers also do not like the Greatest Generation. They do not like Generation X. Millennials... JL (01:41:06): I am a sociologist. And one of my favorite sociologists is Karl Mannheim, who wrote a book called "The Problem of Generations." And he wrote that generations are in some sense about chronology and time, but they are also about politics and ideology and culture. And so people born at very different times can be part of the same generation, culturally speaking. And I find that to be a very powerful insight. So young people who were active against the war in the late 1960s had a lot in common with people much older than them who were part of the anti-fascist movement of the 1930s and the 1940s, or who were union organizers in the 1930s. And likewise today as a college professor, occasionally I meet students who are very young. They are in their twenties today, but they strike me as people who would have fit in comfortably with people of my own age. Or we could go out and have dinner tonight, and it would not be as though they are 22 and they are with a bunch of people who are 65. Right? It would be a very free flowing conversation there. So those are some of my thoughts on generations. SM (01:42:44): It is interesting that some of the people within the Boomer generation, and I know I do not like, I am starting to not like the term either, but is that they thought they were the most unique generation of history because they felt, and I know this from talking when I was in college, we were going to change the world. We are going to make it better. We are going to end racism, sexism, homophobia, and bring peace. Nothing will ever be the same. That was kind of an attitude. Maybe it was kind of naive, hopeful, what is the term I want to use? But not realistic. So when you hear people within the generation say, we were the most unique, how do you respond to that as a sociologist? JL (01:43:25): I do not hear people say that very often. SM (01:43:27): I mean, when they were young, did you ever hear anybody? JL (01:43:30): No. SM (01:43:31): No? JL (01:43:31): Not that I remember. No-no-no-no. SM (01:43:35): Well, there was that... I went to Bingham tonight, a few students that you were saying about that. What the thing here too is something that Phyllis Schlafly said to me while I interviewed her, and David Horowitz has written about in his books, and that is the troublemakers of the (19)60s, probably making reference to the new left, run today's universities and are in charge of the curriculum. They run the women's studies, the gay studies, the Holocaust studies, the Native American studies, Latin American studies, black Studies, environmental Studies, and Asian American studies. Basically, they run it all. And it is not the way people thought back because they are not conservatives in any way. So just your thoughts on that the troublemakers of the (19)60s run today's universities? JL (01:44:24): He might be right that they run all of those programs, but they do not run the universities. I mean that is sort of the whole and part kind of thing. The whole is larger than the sum of the parts. You know what I mean? You got people running all these specific programs. But in some... I mean, again, as a sociologist speaking of this, it might be the very fact that liberals run these programs that insulates the people at the top who really run. There is a compartmentalizing that goes on, a divide and conquer. I think in some ways when it comes down to budgeting and those kinds of things- SM (01:45:16): I worked at Westchester and there is only two faculty members that are willing to admit they are conservative, and one of them is very big. JL (01:45:24): Well, liberal is different than left too. SM (01:45:27): Yes. JL (01:45:27): That is another thing. I quite commonly say to students when it comes up in classes that the colleges are run by centris, right? SM (01:45:38): A la Bill Clinton. JL (01:45:40): And it is not. People on the right and people on the left are a minority in the college and university system, and we are tolerated. Both the right and the left are tolerated. The center is quite large, quite powerful. And most administrators, in my view, come out of the center. They are pretty tolerant, which I think is a characteristic of centris, but that is different than left. SM (01:46:14): Yeah. Although left could run these programs though. JL (01:46:18): Oh, yeah. Oh, yes. Absolutely. SM (01:46:20): In your opinion, when did the (19)60s begin and when did it end? JL (01:46:26): I do not know if I have anything unique to say about that. Anything that... SM (01:46:36): A year, an event that you think started the (19)60s or... And when did it end? Was there a specific event and what was the watershed moment? JL (01:46:46): When did it end? On that, the one thing I would say on that is, I do not know. I think it just bled away. I do not know. Those years I lived through self- consciously, quite self-consciously. And I do not know, I would be very reluctant even to try to think about- SM (01:47:11): Beginnings and ends? JL (01:47:12): Beginnings and ends. SM (01:47:13): How about the watershed moment? Is there something that "This is a (19)60s..." Or actually, "This is when Boomers were young." And... JL (01:47:23): Yeah... SM (01:47:26): Same thing? JL (01:47:27): Same thing. And I think that has to do with my biography. I think the way I lived that period of time, I think makes me not a good... I know you are not looking for a source on that, that is not the point. But I did not have the consciousness coming through those periods to think in those kinds of terms. SM (01:47:53): How important were The Beats in shaping the attitudes of the (19)60s? Because they were in the (19)50s and they were the group that oftentimes was looked at as the beginning of non-conformity- JL (01:48:04): Conformists and the hippies. SM (01:48:06): And intellectuals who are not going to be part of the status quo. JL (01:48:12): Well, somehow or other they did. The Beats influenced me as a kind of nonconformist intellect. I think my own coming to self-consciousness as an intellectual was influenced. Some of the first poetry I ever read period was Ginsberg, and that is The Beats. And so that is important. SM (01:48:45): His poem Howl was banned in 1955 from schools. JL (01:48:51): Yeah. SM (01:48:51): [inaudible] JL (01:48:53): Yeah. And going to City Lights Bookstore and the old Midnight Special Books when it was in Venice. SM (01:49:06): I was in the Bay Area for a while and I never went to City Lights. I do not know where the heck I was, but... JL (01:49:09): Those were important. Those were kind of pilgrimages for me. Well, when I was in graduate school in Oregon and just kind of beginning to find myself, to me those were "wow" moments. SM (01:49:23): Yeah. Ferlinghetti still runs the City Lights Bookstore. It is amazing. He is 92. JL (01:49:29): I would like to go there with Hanoi Jane. SM (01:49:32): I bet you-you can get there. JL (01:49:33): It could be... SM (01:49:34): Just, I think all you have to do is contact, because I know that Paul Krassner has been there many times. Do you know Paul? JL (01:49:44): I know who he is. I have never met him. SM (01:49:44): Yeah, he has led me on to some good interviews. We are getting close to the end here, but this is an important one too. In your own words, describe the America that you see during the times that Boomers have been alive. Now I know, let us just forget the term Boomer, but the generation that grew up after World War II. And as Boomers age, and Boomers are now 64 years old, the oldest ones and 48, the youngest ones. So there is no spring chickens any more within the Boomer generation. And also, they now realize the concept of mortality that they are not going to live forever. But I am just going to mention these years and just give me a few thoughts. Nothing in light, just immediate reaction. 1946 to 1960, what does that mean to you? JL (01:50:35): Post-World War II America, riding the wave of victories in World War II and global respect, supremacy, domination, to use kind of pejorative terms, but riding the wave of success and victory. SM (01:51:05): 1961, this is the period when Kennedy started, to 1970? JL (01:51:20): Second wave, new Deal. The New Deal comes into its own. SM (01:51:33): 1971 to 1980, the (19)70s? JL (01:51:40): A retreat, the beginning of the downside. SM (01:51:48): Do you also believe that when you define the (19)60s, you really, the first three to four years of the (19)70s are the (19)60s too? Because (19)70, (19)71, and (19)72 and half of (19)73 were still the (19)60s. So just like you cannot put generations, sometimes you cannot put decades. JL (01:52:07): Right. No, I would agree with-with that. Although as the war and the anti-war movement began to fade in or decline in importance during those years, the counterculture begins really to come into its own, begins to gain dominance, gain influence. SM (01:52:38): How about 1981 to 1990? JL (01:52:43): Oh, the retrenchment, pessimism, loss of optimism, reaction. SM (01:53:01): Conservatives might say, we are back. That is what Ronald Reagan used to say. JL (01:53:07): Yeah. SM (01:53:08): And President Bush said the Vietnam syndrome is over. I do not think it was, but when you look at 1991 to 2000, the year of Bush and Clinton, what do you think of in that decade? JL (01:53:26): The beginning of a new Cold War against the Arab world, the Islamist world, or some... Yeah, a new war period. SM (01:53:42): And then that 2001 to 2010 with George Bush II and now President Obama, that decade? JL (01:53:54): The decade of fear. SM (01:53:54): Terrorism. JL (01:53:56): Terrorism, fear. Yeah. SM (01:54:00): Now, terrorism was also part of the (19)80s with taking over of airplanes, and it was kind of evolving. And of course you had the Olympics in 72 where the terrorists came in. So you saw some signs and things were coming. What do you think of Boomers will do in their remaining years? A lot of people think that they are going to change the retirement. They have still got 15 to 20 years left because a lot of them have taken care of themselves. They will live longer, particularly females. Think you expect anything from them? I do not. JL (01:54:36): You do not? I do. SM (01:54:38): Yeah. JL (01:54:38): I expect reforms in healthcare. Elder care. Jane Fonda's new book, new project is on aging. And Fonda has always been on, I do not know, the cutting edge or she has always had a sense of what was going on. And that is not to predict that she is right. Again, that, that is not my point. But Fonda, as a public face of that generation of people and this age group that you are talking about here, I think that that is promising. I kind of bond as a bell weather of where our generation might go. SM (01:55:40): It is interesting. Dennis Hopper just passed away. He had that ad on tv, but you guys have got to plan because you are going to live a lot longer. That ad was under quite a time and he was kind of a symbolic of a generation, even though he is a little older and now he has passed on, you do not see the ads anymore. A question on the books of the period, there is three books I wanted to ask you on. SM (01:56:03): On the books of the period, there is three books I wanted to ask you on, seeing if they were good books or you read them and they were right on, or a piece of junk, basically. Theodore Roszak's book, The Making of a Counterculture. Did you ever read it and what did you think of it? JL (01:56:18): Sure. One of the books that educated me about the counterculture. I read it in graduate school when I was trying to understand the counterculture and what it was. I knew the counterculture through books like that more than I knew through participation in the counterculture. SM (01:56:40): How about The Greening of America by Charles Reich? JL (01:56:43): Read it. SM (01:56:45): Seen to be a classic book. JL (01:56:47): Oh, my. Gosh, it is so important for me, but I am at a loss for words to say what that was, because it was so long ago and I have never talked about it. I do not think I have... I have never heard that title. SM (01:57:05): Those two books are very influential to me too, and they were powerful. JL (01:57:09): But I do not remember how and why. SM (01:57:11): They were required in grad school to read. I interviewed Daniel Bell, the great associate from Harvard, and I asked him about these two books. He said, "They are terrible books. They do not have any ideas in them," because he is... Then I asked him, "Well, how about Eric Erickson's books?" because they are also very good, and the one... Oh, come on, Steve. Kenneth Keniston. He said Kenneth Keniston's books- JL (01:57:38): Youth and Rebellion. SM (01:57:43): Yeah, those were good. They were good. And then the other one was The Culture of Narcissism, which a lot of people... Christopher Lasch. JL (01:57:49): Yes. Yes-yes-yes. SM (01:57:50): That is where a lot of the Boomers were heading or whatever. JL (01:57:53): A lot where they were heading, uh-huh. All these are... SM (01:58:00): I am down to my last... Do you have five minutes more? JL (01:58:04): Sure. SM (01:58:07): These are just real fast responses to... This is what I did yesterday with Dr. Baxendale. And quick, real fast responses. What do you think of these people, or this? What do you think about The Wall, the Vietnam Memorial? Just a quick... JL (01:58:23): Do not like it, did not like it. Did not like it, do not like it. SM (01:58:30): In what way in particular do not you like it? JL (01:58:33): It evokes wrong feelings. It makes Vietnam veterans the victims of the war and shifts the sentiments away from the Vietnamese as being victims of our aggression. That is it. SM (01:58:59): What do you think of Kent State and Jackson State? JL (01:59:06): One thing I have never been clear on is whether they belong in the same sentence. I just do not know, because I do not know... Jackson State, I have never quite been able to get a fix on what that was about. SM (01:59:19): 10 days later [inaudible]- JL (01:59:20): 10 days later. Was it? SM (01:59:23): Yeah, it was. JL (01:59:25): Somewhat... SM (01:59:28): At Kent State, they have made an effort to make sure that when they could do their remembrance, that they conclude them both and they bring speakers in from both. Because it was a loss no one... Whenever I talk about Kent State, so predominantly white campus and black campus, they did not talk about it. There was also Orangeburg too, earlier on. JL (01:59:45): I wrote a large piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education this spring. I do not know if you saw this- SM (01:59:49): No, I did not. JL (01:59:49): ...if you know about that. Yeah, it was the cover. It was a cover story. There was the weekly insert. SM (01:59:59): Oh, yes, I know. I know. JL (02:00:00): It is very good. And my piece was the cover piece, April 26th edition, I think, of it. SM (02:00:09): And what was that on? JL (02:00:09): On Kent State. SM (02:00:11): Oh, really? JL (02:00:12): Yeah. The title of it is The Times, They Changed. The point of it was why is there so much quiescence on American campuses today, 40 years after Kent State? And what I was saying, it was not the students. It was not the students, it was the times. Sociologically. You know what I am saying? The times made the students then. The times today are making the students now. SM (02:00:46): Very good point. JL (02:00:47): With an emphasis on the management of higher education, the administration of higher education, and the proliferation of a lot of those programs that you mentioned is part of that. A lot of those programs came out of that time period. And the effect of a lot of those programs is a cooling out effect. It is to say would be activists, "Here, you have got your program, you have got your budget, you have got your offices, now get to work." And that has worked. And the thing that is worked better than any is study abroad programs. SM (02:01:33): No, they are good. Yeah, I know. Every student I know is doing it. Every student, for at least one semester, and I wish I had done it. JL (02:01:41): Usually their junior year. But it completely fractures campus politics. It completely fractures political organization on campus. SM (02:01:52): As well as the amount of work they have to do to survive. They got to work so they do not have time for other things. JL (02:01:58): Do not have time for other things. So all of that is in there. SM (02:02:02): A few more and then we are done. I find it interesting that the women nurses that were murdered in 1989 up in Canada, that the Women's Center will now have annual events just about on every campus in remembrance of those female students, think 11 or 12, yet universities have never remembered Kent State, ever. And they tried to not remember it at Kent State, but now it is [inaudible] you go back. And the [inaudible] University, the (19)60s was the homecoming theme a year ago. And I would have nothing to do with it, because I was there. They were making it look like everything was happy, rock and roll. And yeah, there is a lot of good, happy remembering times, but I think they were taking away from the serious parts of that particular thing. JL (02:02:51): Last... SM (02:02:52): Go ahead. JL (02:02:53): Well, last summer at this time, (20)09, 40th anniversaries of Woodstock were all over the US News media. Everybody was talking about Woodstock and, "Were your parents at Woodstock?" Huge big deal. What, three months later, 40th anniversary of the October moratorium. Not a word. Not a word. November moratorium of (19)69. Not a word. Very little leading up to Kent State, 40th anniversary of Kent State. There was not much. Kent State came very close, the 40th anniversary came very close to going with no attention. SM (02:03:43): See, I have been there the last four years at the events, and if it was not for the [inaudible] of the world and the people pushing on that student organization, which is about 15 people... JL (02:03:53): The piece I started to write on Kent State was, I was going to start out with Woodstock and compare 40th... SM (02:04:00): Most of my interviews have been long because of... Anyway. JL (02:04:15): Yeah. SM (02:04:18): How much time do you have? JL (02:04:19): I really should... As quickly as possible, we should wrap up. SM (02:04:22): Just real fast, just say one or two words. Free speech movement. JL (02:04:32): Well, very, very important as a run-up to the anti-war movement. SM (02:04:44): Freedom Summer. JL (02:04:45): I was not part of it. I knew it was happening. SM (02:04:55): Seemed to be a great education vehicle for many of the activists down the road. The Montgomery Bus Boycott, which is Dr. King's big thing that he came to prominence. Any thoughts on Emmett Till? JL (02:05:08): These are all things, the civil rights movement. I knew about it through the news, but did not have any involvement in it. SM (02:05:15): The March on Washington (19)63? JL (02:05:17): No. SM (02:05:18): How about 1968 as a year? What are your thoughts on the year? JL (02:05:22): Oh, well, I got drafted. I got drafted in 1968. My dad died in 1968. 1968 was a keystone year, a watershed year for me. SM (02:05:33): These other events, Chicago Eight trial, the Gulf of Tonkin... Well, that was (19)64. And Tet, which was a major- JL (02:05:42): Well, I got drafted because of Tet. I started paying attention probably with Tet that year. SM (02:05:50): These are two things that we are not very proud of as Americans, and that is My Lei and Attica. Just your comments on those two. JL (02:06:00): Attica, I followed quite closely. It was shortly after I got home from Vietnam, I am thinking, right? Was 1970, (19)71? SM (02:06:10): Yeah. And that is Governor Rockefeller. JL (02:06:12): Yeah. Yeah. Also, I was in graduate school, and what was then known as the Radical Criminology movement was quite powerful, on the West Coast anyway, because of the crim school in Berkeley. And so I started following criminology issues and crime issues quite a lot. My Lei was important because I had been to Vietnam and [inaudible]- SM (02:06:48): Clicking all day long here. This the last. Yeah, that is the last on that one. Okay, good. He has done. I am retiring him. I will not go over any more of these. There is quite a few. You can see I have quite a few here, and I am not going to go over these. The last question is when the best history books and sociology books are written when the Boomer generation has passed on. I say this because I drive to Gettysburg 10 times a year. I go to the battlefield to understand what it was like for that tremendous loss of what war's all about. And they have a statue there of the last man who participated in the Civil War. He died in 1924. I always sit there and I say, "Geez, the last person who was in the Civil War died in 1924." The books are carrying the message on. So the question I am asking, what will be the legacy of this generation that grew up after World War II in the history books, once they are long gone? JL (02:07:59): I think it is going to be a positive legacy. It is going to be positive. I think the legacy will be building on the best of what came out of the Greatest Generation. SM (02:08:19): Yeah, it is interesting because we are the kids of the Greatest Generation. JL (02:08:23): Yeah. Yeah. I think the Boomer generation might be the best and most important product of the Greatest Generation. SM (02:08:32): It is interesting because you told me already how important your parents were, and I know how important my parents were. So when we are critical of the (19)50s for all the things we have discussed about the things behind the scenes that were happening, I do not blame my parents. My parents did everything in their lives to give me the happiness and health, and devoted their lives to their kids. Do you feel the same way? JL (02:09:00): Well, see, I do not think I have said along the way, in fact, I maybe sort of implied that I... In fact, I said the (19)50s for me was a time of hope and promise and optimism. That was my (19)50s. SM (02:09:19): And that was my (19)50s. JL (02:09:23): I think because of my parents, and they were products of the thirties and the forties. So I think that is where I am. That is where I am. I know that my (19)50s was not everybody's (19)50s, right? SM (02:09:43): Yeah. Certainly African-Americans and certainly women, in some respects, although some women did have a happy 1950s because they were expected to be mothers. And very few, they ended up being teachers, but they all were expecting to be married by a certain age and raise kids. They did not think of other things until all these movements happened, and a lot of the people in the (19)50s really did not start thinking about these things until the (19)60s. But I do not think they ever blamed their parents, in most respects. Well, thank you very much. When I go to the Vietnam Memorial, and I have gone now since 1994 in honor of Lewis Puller, the one thing about... Speaker 3 (02:10:24): Hey. SM (02:10:26): Hey, how you doing? Speaker 3 (02:10:26): All right. Hey. Hi, Jerry. JL (02:10:28): Hi. SM (02:10:29): Let me see now. The people they dislike the most are still Jane Fonda, because you see the stickers they sell about Jane Fonda, the decals that they wear on their clothes. They did do not like McNamara, because a couple times I have been to The Wall and they had actually had McNamara's book there with bullet holes through it. And they did not like Bill Clinton. JL (02:10:56): They are not going to do that to my book. SM (02:11:00): No. And they did not like Bill Clinton when he came there. There was some booing, some of them booing because he did not... So there was that kind of thing. There is still that strong animosity toward Jane Fonda, and Lewis Puller and Jan Scruggs, and I think the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund have done a great job in terms of trying to do their best to heal from the divisions in America by bringing Bill Clinton to The Wall and bringing some others. I often ask the vets if they brought Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, what kind of reception they would get, although probably they would not do it, number one. If McNamara was alive, would he ever have had the courage to go there now, just to protect them? But I do not know if you have any other thoughts on anything I was saying or... JL (02:11:57): The only thought is that it is... I thought where you were maybe leading with this, is why do people like this hang on? I think it is a lost war phenomenon. It is what happens after a war is lost. People have a hard time letting go of it. They want it to come out differently. Lifton would be the one to talk about sort of collective trauma. So cultural expressions come from that and the people who then are held responsible for the loss of the war are not let go of in those memories. Those things hang on. They become hang-ups, in a sense, and people cannot get beyond those. And World War I, it is not quite like Vietnam, but the outcome of it is not conclusive like World War II is. First of all, it is not a very popular war in the United States, World War I. A lot of dissent. SM (02:13:15): Very short too. JL (02:13:16): It is short. A lot of dissent. And then 12 years or so after the end of the war, you got the Depression, and World War I veterans are still looking for their bonus pay and so forth. That all gets scuttled by the Hoover administration, so you have veterans marching on... So their sense of themselves as veterans and the controversy surrounding that, the controversy surrounding the war, the nature of the war, then causes them to think about what they did in the war, what happened to them in the war. And then, 10 years after the war, they are still living their lives as veterans yet, because they are looking for the bonus payments and so forth. So there is a messy post-war period after World War I, not after World War II, but it is pretty cut and dried. SM (02:14:24): GI Bill. JL (02:14:24): War is over, people come home, the GI Bill. The country moves on. America into its glory days. Vietnam, again, the post-war legacy of Vietnam, very much more like World War I. It is messy. SM (02:14:40): Then you had the blip of the Korean War, some people say the lost war, and they did not get a whole lot either. JL (02:14:49): Well, Korea sort of gets subsumed, I think, in World War II culture. People are still looking at World War II movies and watching Victory at Sea on television. SM (02:15:11): Victory at Sea. That is another thing that you grew up in as Boomers. JL (02:15:14): Boy, we sure did. SM (02:15:15): [inaudible] television, and that guy with a voice and... JL (02:15:20): All right, I got [inaudible]- SM (02:15:21): I am going to take four more pictures and you are out of here. I know you probably do not like taking a picture of your book, but I am going to... And then I have a mannequin of Jane Fonda. I am going to bring it out here. Sorry. There we go. Get that closer in there. You going to talk to Jane at all? Do you talk to her at all? JL (02:15:45): No. No, I do not. SM (02:15:47): There you go. Ready. JL (02:15:51): Have emailed a little bit. SM (02:15:54): Here we go. I am going to take a picture right here. Right at one. Two. And the last one but not least. Ready? Three. JL (02:16:06): This is for the before and after? SM (02:16:08): Yeah. You look a little more tired. Ready. That is it. Very good. JL (02:16:15): All right. SM (02:16:19): Well, thank you very much. Pleasure meeting you. JL (02:16:21): My pleasure. SM (02:16:23): I hope you do another myth book. Are you thinking of doing another myth book? JL (02:16:29): I am not. No. I am thinking of doing whatever I can to make this book successful still and get out of it everything that can be gotten out of it. One idea that some theaters are interested in, I have got one planned now and two others, the Fonda films that I use in this book, the idea would be a mini-series, maybe done over one long weekend or over a few weekends, and then me talk about why I think those films work the way they do in the culture, the way I write about them in the book here. There is two or three theaters, small community independent theaters, that are interested in doing that. So it is things like that that I want to do before I move on to something else. SM (02:17:27): Ever thought of going out with Jane? I mean, maybe do two or three... She probably charges an arm and a leg, but she is so rich she does not need the money. But going to a place like the Ritz Theater in Philadelphia. The Ritz Theater is the one, The Most Dangerous Man In America, which was the film on Daniel Ellsberg. JL (02:17:46): Great film. SM (02:17:46): The William Kunstler movie that the daughter came and spoke at the Ritz Theater in Philly. I know there is also a really good theater at Kent State, which is the Kent State Theater, which is really... This kind of stuff would go over well there, because they have a big following from the remembrance and everything. JL (02:18:06): I would love to. Any chance that I could have to do something programmatically with Fonda and the book and films I think is just a terrific idea. I think what it needs is a venue. SM (02:18:21): I know Dr. Greene. I only got to know him because of my dad before he died, was an athlete there. And Dr. Greene is the main historian at Cazenovia College. Got a book coming out on the (19)60s. Now he is kind of a conservative guy. But I am trying to talk to them about where I am going to donate all my stuff, my archives and stuff. And in my parents' honor. Everything is for my parents, because I love them desperately. He is bringing in James Kunen, who wrote The Strawberry Statement. So I could talk to him, because he does the interviews. So you might be a good person to come in and talk about Hanoi Jane. If I was still working at the universities, I would probably be bringing you in in a minute, but I am not there anymore. So I might mention your name to Dr. Greene in August. I am going to be up there just before Labor Day. And I am interviewing Minnie Bruce Pratt. I do not know if you know her. She is at Syracuse University, a distinguished professor. I am interviewing her and then I am going to go over there. But there is a lot about this, and I think the way you write this, it really can appeal to young people. And movies, doing it through the movies is how a lot of young people... Today we did a movie series and we discussed what the movie meant. And we get people there. We link to the academic classroom. So I think there is a lot here. And she reinvents herself many times in her life, and she also has an unbelievable sense of humor. I have seen her on TV. She is a very serious person when it gets to politics, but I am telling you, she also has a great sense of humor. JL (02:20:10): Yeah. I saw the serious side of her, the time that I spent with her. A real no bullshit kind of person. SM (02:20:20): What is amazing is that relationship with Tom Hayden. I can understand the Ted Turner one. I can understand the vet, Roger Vadim. I do not understand the Tom Hayden one. Tom Hayden, historically, everybody respects him as an activist and a great writer, assertive and everything, but he has not good with women. I have had several people say that they admire him as an activist and what he has done with his life, but in terms of how he treats women, it is not good. JL (02:20:51): Turns out his, I think, still current wife, Barbara is her name... I met Barbara when Barbara was in high school in Vancouver, British Columbia, when I was up there, mini tour with my first book, One Union In Wood, on the wood products industry. I had interviewed a then older guy up there. It is kind of serendipitous now, but she was there in this bar where I was with these other folks. A couple years ago, I was back in Vancouver for a memorial service for this older guy, and Hayden came to that with Barbara. And she said to me, she said, "I bet you do not remember me, do you?" And I said, "No." And then she told me where we had met. SM (02:21:55): Oh, my God. JL (02:21:56): And I had a great time with Hayden. SM (02:21:58): Oh, he is great, and he is great to talk to. JL (02:22:01): He is so [inaudible]. SM (02:22:03): He sits down like this and... That is the Hayden that I like to remember. That is the one I always want to remember. JL (02:22:10): I just love the guy. SM (02:22:12): Yeah. I guess he is just struck some of the women the wrong way. And I am not saying that Fonda criticism, but some of the feminists have known some of the things he has done. So they do not consider him a, what is that word, a big supporter of women, I guess, in the long run. JL (02:22:37): All right, my friend. SM (02:22:39): All right. JL (02:22:39): Got to go. SM (02:22:39): All right. Thank you. JL (02:22:40): Do you get a break before your next interview? SM (02:22:42): Yeah, I think it is at two o'clock, with Dr. [inaudible]. I have his... What time is it? JL (02:22:46): [inaudible]. SM (02:22:48): Oh yeah, half hour. Okay, great talking. JL (02:22:50): All right, good talking to you. SM (02:22:51): Yep. Have a safe trip back. JL (02:22:53): Thank you. Thank you. SM (02:22:54): And I will be emailing you, and maybe we can have a three-way conversation with Jane Fonda. JL (02:23:02): I am going to be... Well, I am not sure actually. I may be in Philadelphia [inaudible]. SM (02:23:12): If you are, let me know, because I am working on the book. I will be hibernating then, doing transcribing and... JL (02:23:16): Maybe get together. SM (02:23:16): Yeah. JL (02:23:16): Okay. All right. Bye. SM (02:23:16): Bye. Have a good day. (End of Interview) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Jerry Lembcke Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Lembcke, Jerry, 1943- ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource College teachers; Sociologists; Lembcke, Jerry, 1943--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Jerry Lembcke is an associate professor emeritus of Sociology at Holy Cross University. He has a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Oregon. He is the author of <em>The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam</em>&nbsp;and <em>Hanoi Jane: War, Sex, and Fantasies of Betrayal</em>. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-07-30 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.77a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.77b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 144:35 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/f5b12b2193da3fdb68f6419062813d38.jpg be259606999cd012aebcb8930e097d65 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/fd4af6a03cc2f675ba22f6b027f5adf5.mp3 2e013455ee4873327adc67123e91c546 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2003-07-30 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Jim Hilty Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text <span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}"><span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}"><span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}">Dr. James Hilty is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. His early career centered on four years in the U.S. Marines (1958-1963) and several years as a history teacher in the Columbus, Ohio school district. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. Dr. Hilty is author of&nbsp;<em>Robert Kennedy: Brother Protector</em>, <em>John F. Kennedy: An Idealist Without Illusion</em>, and <em>Temple University: 125 Years of Service to Philadelphia, the Nation, and the World</em><span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}"><span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}">. </span></span><span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}">He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri-Columbia.</span></span></span></span><span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}"><br /></span> Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;The nineteen sixties; Baby boom generation; Civil Rights Movement; Pentagon Papers; Richard Nixon; Jane Fonda; Vietnam War; War draft; pacifists; Anti-War Movement; Marijuana.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:513,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;12&quot;:0}">The nineteen sixties; Baby boom generation; Civil Rights Movement; Pentagon Papers; Richard Nixon; Jane Fonda; Vietnam War; War draft; pacifists; Anti-War Movement; Marijuana.</span> Subject LCSH College teachers; Temple University; Historians—United States; Hilty, Jim--Interviews Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 124:13 Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource interview with Dr. Jim Hilty Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Hilty, Jim ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource College teachers; Temple University; Historians—United States; Hilty, Jim--Interviews Description An account of the resource <span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}">Dr. James Hilty is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. His early career centered on four years in the U.S. Marines (1958-1963) and several years as a history teacher in the Columbus, Ohio school district. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. Dr. Hilty is author of&nbsp;<em>Robert Kennedy: Brother Protector</em>, <em>John F. Kennedy: An Idealist Without Illusion</em>, and <em>Temple University: 125 Years of Service to Philadelphia, the Nation, and the World</em>. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri-Columbia.</span><span data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}" data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. James Hilty is is a Professor Emeritus in History and the former Dean of Ambler College at Temple University. Dr. Hilty is a well-known presidential historian with particular expertise on the Kennedy family and he also serves as a consultant on American politics for national and local media. He received his Bachelor's degree and his Master's degree in Social Studies and History from Ohio State University. Dr. Hilty received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.&quot;}"><br /></span> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003-07-30 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.199a: McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.199b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 124:13 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/dc1ebb7be68e7b9a389d2f3415171a16.jpg f835e42634b348075aba1aea8f014b5d https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/30eb73dbef0da20a42a8ace0a6a8906c.mp3 7f8c1a18fe3ebfc74e4518673e2d8944 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2009-11-02 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Jonah Raskin, 1942- Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Jonah Raskin is a scholar and author. Dr. Raskin gave up his teaching position at a university in order to participate in the 1970's radical counterculture movement as a freelance journalist. Raskin returned to academics in 1981 and taught media law, history of communications, film noir, and writing for newspapers, magazines, radio, and movies. He received his Bachelor's degree and Master's degree in American Literature from Columbia University. Raskin received his Ph.D. from the University of Manchester with a dissertation on the mythology of imperialism. &quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:7051,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,5099745],&quot;6&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;}">Dr. Jonah Raskin is a scholar and author. Dr. Raskin gave up his teaching position at a university in order to participate in the 1970s radical counterculture movement as a freelance journalist. Raskin returned to academics in 1981 and taught media law, history of communications, film noir, and writing for newspapers, magazines, radio, and movies. He received his Bachelor's degree and Master's degree in American Literature from Columbia University. Raskin received his Ph.D. from the University of Manchester with a dissertation on the mythology of imperialism. </span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 83:49 Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Music; Motown; Rock and Roll; Folk Newport Folk Festival; Jazz; Vietnam War; Thelonious Monk; John Coltrane; Bob Dylan; Beatles; Soul on Ice; Feminine Mystique; Counterculture; Berlin wall; Vietnam memorial&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:515,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:16370588},&quot;12&quot;:0}">Music; Motown; Rock and Roll; Folk Newport Folk Festival; Jazz; Vietnam War; Thelonious Monk; John Coltrane; Bob Dylan; Beatles; Soul on Ice; Feminine Mystique; Counterculture; Berlin wall; Vietnam memorial</span> Subject LCSH Authors; Scholars;Journalists; College teachers; Counterculture;Raskin, Jonah, 1942--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Jonah Raskin Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Raskin, Jonah, 1942- ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Authors; Scholars;Journalists; College teachers; Counterculture;Raskin, Jonah, 1942--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Jonah Raskin is a scholar and author. Dr. Raskin gave up his teaching position at a university in order to participate in the 1970s radical counterculture movement as a freelance journalist. Raskin returned to academics in 1981 and taught media law, history of communications, film noir, and writing for newspapers, magazines, radio, and movies. He received his Bachelor's degree and Master's degree in American Literature from Columbia University. Raskin received his Ph.D. from the University of Manchester with a dissertation on the mythology of imperialism. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-11-02 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.96 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 83:49 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/3b91fb2ecf3f3e25b2f67097ddfb8e39.jpg 7ee80168ea72382994af99a9a0fc8d33 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/73e62013f7973248eaf08f6339ca5d03.mp3 12b65d907f5dfb040b48788033df4dd2 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2009-11-09 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Joseph T. Cox, 1946- Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Joseph T. Cox is a retired army officer, educator, author and the former headmaster of Haverford School. Cox was also an English professor at West Point. He earned a Bachelor’s degree from Lafayette College and a Master’s degree and Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:15105,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Dr. Joseph T. Cox is a retired army officer, educator, author and the former headmaster of Haverford School. Cox was also an English professor at West Point. He earned a Bachelor’s degree from Lafayette College and a Master’s degree and Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 109:05 Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;The nineteen sixties; Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; Vietnam War; Colin Powell; Baby boom generation; Cold War; Nineteen fifties; Assassination of John F. Kennedy.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:3,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:13228792}}">The nineteen sixties; Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; Vietnam War; Colin Powell; Baby boom generation; Cold War; Nineteen fifties; Assassination of John F. Kennedy.</span> Subject LCSH Soldiers; College teachers; Cox, Joseph T., 1946--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Joseph Fox Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 23 July 1987 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:12): Testing, one, two, testing. Okay. So again, some of these are specific questions, and some are general. And I will keep looking at this, because the one time, the thing stopped. When you think of the (19)60s and the early (19)70s, or that period of the (19)60s, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? JC (00:00:33): Well, I graduated from college in 1968, so I think of the things that happened, the first thing probably is Martin Luther King's assassination. I was a senior in high school when Kennedy was assassinated, and then I had graduated from college when RFK was assassinated. But the real turning point in my head was when Martin Luther King was assassinated. It was just a kick in the gut, and just, "What is going on," kind of sense of things. I felt like we had started to slide with JFK's assassination, and you did not think it could get too much worse. And then the next two assassinations just really, I think, affected me. SM (00:01:31): Now, when you went to Vietnam and you came back home, what was the kind of America that you saw upon your return? Now, was it a welcoming America, or were you disappointed in the country that you came back to as opposed to the country when you left? JC (00:01:50): Well, I graduated in (19)68 and went off to Airborne and Ranger School, and then went to Fort Carson Fifth Infantry Division, assuming I was going to go right to Vietnam. And I remember the battalion commander called me in and said, "What do you want to do next?" And I said, "Oh, command B Company if you let me." I said, "I expect to go to Vietnam." And he said, "Well, we have got other plans." And they sent me to Germany to be a General's Aide. So I went to Germany for almost two years before, when I went to Vietnam from Germany. So, I had been out of the country, living in the country for three years. And when I came back it was totally different. I mean, I went to Germany in 1969, early (19)69, and I got back three years later. What is that? (19)71? It was just a- SM (00:02:47): (19)70s? JC (00:02:49): Late (19)71. It was just different... It seemed very, very different. And I felt alienated from that country that I came back to. I was told on the... I left Vietnam in my tan uniform, and we were told, "Going into Travis, do not wear your uniform," which made me a little bit stubborn. I just made.... I was going to wear my uniform. Nobody is going to tell me I could not wear my uniform. And I felt like people were staring at me. I felt ostracized. I thought the price of beer in the San Francisco airport was outrageous. It was probably a buck 75 or something like that. And I just felt kind of alienated to some things. And I remember that the 4th of July after I got home, I actually went down on a Gettysburg tour, and the buses that were touring Gettysburg, while Vietnam was still going on, were practically empty. But it was something I did just to kind of reconnect with soldiers and organize my thoughts about whatever. And I just felt a bit like an outsider. And as a funny piece to this, because I ended up staying in the Army for 30 years, and I am not sure why I stayed in the Army for 30 years. I could give you a lot of reasons. Probably the main reason was I enjoyed the people I worked with, and every job you have in the Army, the next job is kind of a challenge. You do not think you are really ready for it, and I liked that. But I stayed in for 30 years. And right before I was going to get out, I really had this anxiety over getting out. I could not understand it. And I reread Tobias Wolff's In Pharaoh's Army and that section where he is thinking about riding the bus and thinking about getting out of the army after he got back from Vietnam. All of a sudden, I identified with it, and I honestly thought, "Okay, this is what you were afraid of all the time. It is one reason you probably stayed in the army." And it really kind of put my mind at ease. And I retired after 30 years and a day and never looked back and felt very good about it. But it all was still connected with Vietnam, and it was all still connected with coming back to a country that had changed, seemed like that was different. And another thing that happened in coming back, all of a sudden, I had this huge passion for baseball. I could not play enough softball, I could not watch enough baseball. And I never had this passion prior to that. I liked baseball, but I did not play in high school, played little league and stuff. But I, all of a sudden, had this passion for baseball, and it was unexplainable except that I had been away from the United States. And that is when I came back, I identified baseball at the United States. It was strange. SM (00:06:13): When you went in, what college did you go to? JC (00:06:15): I went to Lafayette. SM (00:06:17): When you went to college, did you know you were going to go into the military? JC (00:06:20): No. SM (00:06:20): Or what were your goals when you first started? JC (00:06:23): Well, I grew up in Springfield, Mass. I went to Springfield Technical High School, and I thought I was going to be an engineer. I had a wonderful English teacher in high school, and he prepared me better than I realized. I got to Lafayette, I started, and I realized coming out of probably a pretty good high school, but I realized it was a lot of work in college. It was tough. And the only thing that came easy to me was writing in my English course, thanks to the guy who actually had a PhD and was teaching in a big inner city technical high school. So I ended up an English major, because I got my best grades in English, and I knew I was going to have to concentrate on something eight hours a day. And in addition to going to classes, and it turned out it was what I enjoyed. So I had no idea what I was going to do. I thought I would probably coach and teach English. When I went to Lafayette, they had mandatory ROTC. And I was in the ROTC program, and my father had been a sergeant in the Second World War, and then was a warrant officer, a full-time warrant officer in the National Guard. So, he did not make a lot of money, and the bills were piling up, college bills. And they offered a two-year ROTC scholarship at Lafayette. I think another guy and I were the first two to get the full scholarship, books, tuition fees, and a hundred dollars a month. So they paid for everything. There probably were not a lot of takers in 1965, (19)66. And I got that scholarship. And then I knew I was going to have to serve in the Army, but I wanted to serve in the Army. I wanted to go to Vietnam. I had read too much Hemingway, probably. So I had kind of a perverted sense, a perverted desire to go to war. And as I said, I graduated in 1968. I was a regular army officer and was sure I was headed to Vietnam. When I was in Vietnam, my boss was a man named Bill Reno, retired as a Lieutenant General. And in Vietnam, I was planning to get out of the Army, and General, or Major Reno, then I was a captain, asked me what I was going to do, and it was back to the same plan. "I am going to teach. I am going to go somewhere, get a Master's degree in English, teach and coach." I did not really know the prep school path, but I probably would have ended up at a prep school as an English teacher/coach. And that was always my plan. He said, "You can do that in the Army." I said, "Oh, I doubt that." And he said, "No, you can." And he paved the way, and I ended up going up to West Point, getting an interview. And the Army sent me to University of North Carolina for my Master's degree. And when I got up to West Point, I think those of us who were not West Point graduates were in a minority. And I ended up teaching four years at West Point before I went back into the regular Army. SM (00:10:12): [inaudible]. When you went to Lafayette College, what was the environment like? Obviously, there was a lot of anti-war people going on at that time on most college campuses. Did you feel the pressure that was going on in America regarding the anti-war movement? And how did you feel about your fellow peers that were your age who were against the war? And how did they treat people like you, who were in ROTC? Because I can remember when I was in college at Binghamton, we banned, they banned ROTC from the campus. JC (00:10:47): Lafayette was all male. And it is a fairly conservative school. Out of about 400, I guess in my class, I think 52 of us were commissioned in one service or another. It was small. People knew each other. I was in student government, I was elected to the student council. Also, I washed pots for my meals in a social dorm. There were 19 fraternities, and there was this social dorm. And I ate all my meals in the social dorm, and the social dorm had the radicals. So I would sit at supper time, and we would read Jim Reston's editorials in the New York Times and discussing, or breakfast and then discussing. So some of the guys who were the biggest "protestors" were the people I broke bread with, so they were friends. I was in student government with them. Actually, at that time, and again, this is (19)66, (19)67, things were falling apart, (19)67, (19)68, my senior year in Vietnam. But I did not have a sense, it was not Berkeley. It was much, much more conservative and much more civil. And it was funny, I was one of the two battalion commanders in the ROTC unit, and we would march through our drill and go back, put our weapons away, and guys would bomb us with water balloons. They were the same guys I would have supper with a half an hour later. And it was not as confrontational and as bitter as it might have been in other places. I think it probably got more difficult, but at least I came into Lafayette in kind of an innocent period in (19)64. They still had us wearing beanies and singing. We could still sing the alma mater, because they made us memorize it. And it was a big fraternity dominated school. So it just was a little bit different, because it was a smaller school. And you had formed friendships, and there were differences of political opinion. But it was all actually pretty healthy. One of my best friends is a man named Lowell Lifschultz, who is a lawyer now. Not as often as I would like, but we still talk to each other. But Lowell was a very, very bright guy, and intellectually would give me a hard time over it. But I was destined. I had signed the paperwork, and I was getting the scholarship. And I knew where I was going, and I had no illusions about that. SM (00:13:58): Did you feel that when you were over in Vietnam that a lot of the things that were happening in America were divisions between Black and white, drug culture, the different styles, different political viewpoints forward against the war was actually also taking place within the Army and the Marines? Someone said to separate the Marines, Army. Someone told me separate the Marines, because they were gung ho. I am not sure if that is true. Because the hip people would say that the Military went really down during that (19)67 to (19)71 period, and then around (19)71, (19)72, it started changing. So just your thoughts that some of the issues that were actually happening in America were happening in the armed forces in Vietnam. JC (00:14:45): Well, I think units that... I think every experience was different depending on where you were, and especially when you were there. And I think things were a lot different in 1968 than they were in 1971. And I think by 1971, there were deeper racial divides. There were drugs... There were real lines between the people who used alcohol and the people who used marijuana. And then I know I was with a combat engineer unit. There was hardcore heroin use, where the heroin was so pure and so plentiful, the guys would melt it and put it on a cigarette. And the efficiency of that is fairly low, but it was so plentiful they could do it. So, you were dealing with those things. And I think people had no illusions about winning the war. My role as an Army captain with essentially seven platoons that were spread out in MR2, building roads, was to make sure that I did not do anything stupid to get somebody hurt. And my year started, what? My countdown started the day I got there, and everybody else had a different countdown. So, there was not a real cohesion, which did not help things either. But all the tensions that were there, I thought, as I said, from Germany to Vietnam, it was probably racial tensions were higher in Germany. And there were few by the Germans too than they were in Vietnam where people were more isolated and had a common mission. But they were there, and I am not... It was still a draftee army. So that created interesting combinations of people. I also had McNamara Project 100,000 soldiers in my unit. SM (00:17:05): Oh, wow. JC (00:17:06): I had a young man, and I wrote about him in one of the poems, who was just an incredibly hardworking young man. And he was very efficient, and I wanted to promote him. And I sat him down, and I said, "Larry read this." And he said, "Sir, I cannot read." And I said, "Quit kidding around. Read this. I want you to go before the board, and I want to promote you to sergeant." He said, "I cannot read." He started talking about his life. He had had a child when he was 14. He was from Fort Wayne, Indiana, and he had dropped out of school. And there was a project, 100,000 soldiers who were not mentally up to it, but I do not know if it was 100,000, but they brought some soldiers in. I looked at his records and realized that he was one of these soldiers. And it was just a very interesting social experiment. In the same unit, I had a guy who had a Master's in classics from Columbia, and then I had Larry, and another kid who... Larry was very, very productive. The other kid was like a little kid, and we had him take care of the dogs and paint the walls, and he was like everybody's little 12-year-old brother, who was kind of sad. But it was an interesting microcosm. SM (00:18:29): Did most of the people you served with feel that they could have won this war if the government had given you more support? And it depends on who you talked to again, but how many people really were against the war that was in this service over there? And how many were upset that they were not given the [inaudible] necessary to win the war? So, there is two different questions there. JC (00:18:57): Yeah. I think again, it is what time you were serving. And I was serving late in the war, and I do not think anybody had those... Honestly, I do not think anybody really felt... And again, we were building roads, we were trying to... We were turning the war over to the Vietnamese. So, I do not think anybody had a sense of not having permission to bomb here, or do this, or do that. I never really got into those kinds of conversations with folks. It was, again, taking care of ourselves, doing what we had to do. I did not have a sense of that kind of frustration, and I did not sense that even among my peers subsequent to the war. That was never really a big part of the conversation. And again, it was because we were so late in the war. SM (00:20:12): And you were there from what time to what time? JC (00:20:15): I am trying to think now. It was 1971 till, I may have come home in February of (19)72, so it was a year. SM (00:20:27): Before the last people really came out in (19)73. JC (00:20:30): Yeah. SM (00:20:30): The helicopter. JC (00:20:31): Yeah. Yeah. So it was later in the war. And all those kinds of thoughts were kind of... I think those had gone away. The being for against the war, that too was shaped by the inevitability of our withdrawal, which we were there to withdraw. And I remember going into Vietnam, and I had a choice. I could have gone to the 101st, or to, I think, the 25th. And I deliberately asked to go to an engineer unit, because I did not want to... We knew the combat units were getting pulled out, and I did not want to go to a combat unit and then go and get pulled out. I was there, I wanted to experience it. And I deliberately remember not making that choice. And they were pulled out while I was there. A lot of our security was turned over to the Vietnamese, which was an interesting experience, because we did not feel as secure. And it really created a whole different feel about it. It made it a little bit more wild west. It was just different, because we were coordinating with the Vietnamese for security. And in the Koreans, the White Horse Division, it was very much, I think, a different experience than some other people had, because the fighting actually was being done by the Vietnamese than the South Korean units. SM (00:22:25): When do you feel, individually, that the (19)60s, the genre, the (19)60s actually begin? Was there a specific event? Was there a series of specific events? Was there a specific year that separated, say, the boomers when they were in the (19)50s, when they were elementary school kids, basically? And I have had a lot of different responses to this. Just your thoughts of, was there anything, do you feel- JC (00:22:58): November 23rd, 1961. That begins the (19)60s. And I think that is the assassination of JFK, isn't it? SM (00:23:03): It was (19)63. JC (00:23:03): (19)63. Okay. SM (00:23:03): Yeah. November 20- JC (00:23:03): Yeah, (19)63. SM (00:23:03): November 22nd. JC (00:23:11): November 22nd, (19)63. Here I am, so sure my date. (19)63. That, to me, was the beginning of the (19)60s, because that was a loss of innocence, and that was a turning point. And for me, it was the beginning of the (19)60s, because I was a senior in high school. So, I am just starting to come into my consciousness of the world around me. I remember the Bay of Pigs. I remember the tension. I remember thinking... This tells you more about maybe what a weird kid I was, but I remember getting off the bus and walking to high school, thinking, "Should I go down, lie about my age, and enlist in the Marines?" Because something is going to happen, which is- SM (00:23:59): Yeah. JC (00:23:59): ...pretty dumb on my part. But that was a period I remember. But I honestly see the turning point is, and I do not know why I keep saying (19)61, because maybe that is the Bay of Pigs. SM (00:24:14): Yeah. JC (00:24:14): (19)63- SM (00:24:14): Or (19)62 was the Cuban Crisis. JC (00:24:17): Yeah. SM (00:24:19): Do you remember the exact moment when you first heard the Kennedy was shot? JC (00:24:24): Yeah. SM (00:24:25): A lot of people that were boomers were in school, and they heard it in a class, or a teacher said it. How did you first find out about it? JC (00:24:29): I was a teacher's writer for our high school newspaper, and it was the newspaper period. So those of us who worked on the newspaper, we were fairly close, and it was informal. And Mrs. Shea was crying and told us, and we just could not believe it. It was an afternoon, I guess, near the end of the day in school. SM (00:25:02): Yeah. JC (00:25:03): And it was interesting, because I just had my 45th reunion, and we were talking about- SM (00:25:08): Oh, wow. JC (00:25:11): ... about that. And there were about three of us, or four of us at the 45th year of reunion, who actually had first heard it together. So we were sharing that memory, and Mrs. Shea. It was- SM (00:25:28): And you lived on the East Coast at that time? JC (00:25:29): I lived in Massachusetts. SM (00:25:30): Yeah. So if you were in class, it was probably close to the end of the school. JC (00:25:33): It was the end of the school day. SM (00:25:35): One period left. Probably one period left. JC (00:25:35): Yeah. That was our last period. SM (00:25:36): Yeah. JC (00:25:37): And my father, being a Boston Irishman, non-practicing Catholic, but he had the Boston Irish stubbornness. And I remember one time in Holyoke, Massachusetts, they used to paint the center stripe green. And one time, John Kennedy was leading the parade, and they went by, my father got right in my face and said, "Someday, he's going to be president." I did not say this to my father, because I did not talk to my father this way, but I am thinking, "Do not get mad at me, dad. I am not sure... Why are you..." And it was that stubborn Irish pride. And my neighborhood was very... It was Italian and Irish. So I grew up in a very ethnic Catholic part of Springfield. So, it was a big deal. SM (00:26:38): But you just said it was a magic moment. See, that reason why I am titling my book A Magic Moment is that in every interview I have had, there has been magic moments that I did not expect. And I only picked that when I think I was on my 30th interview, and I had not gone up for the title yet. And someone said, "We have already talked about the magic moments that you have had in some of these interviews. That would be a great title for your book." JC (00:27:03): Somebody else has had said the same, Kennedy assassination, have not they? SM (00:27:03): Yes, they have. JC (00:27:03): Oh, yeah. SM (00:27:03): Yeah. And other- JC (00:27:03): Not that magic. SM (00:27:10): Some said Kent State. JC (00:27:11): See, I was out of the country. SM (00:27:13): Yeah. Kent State. Well, that was the one that... No, when you look at the boomer generation, which is those born between (19)46 and (19)64, and of course, a lot of the people that were in the anti-war movement were born in (19)43 and (19)44. And a lot of the people I have interviewed, over half are not in boomers. They lived during the time that boomers were young. So all their opinions count. What is your thoughts on the boomer generation, this generation of 70 to 74 million, depending on... The millennials now, the young people that are here in this school, now are part of the largest generation in American history. They are 80 million strong. And I think boomers would be a little sensitive to know that they are no longer the biggest group. But just your thoughts on the boomer generation, what you- SM (00:28:03): But just your thoughts on the boomer generation, what you think are some of their strengths or their weaknesses? JC (00:28:08): Well, I think boomers were idealistic, obviously idealistic in both left and right causes. I saw Vietnam as part of the Kennedy's column. I was idealistic. I do not think I had any illusions about it, but I still saw it in those terms. And so I think very, very idealistic. Very, I think selfish in many ways. I think for whatever reasons, I think boomers think of themselves as a chosen people. Special time in history, unique time in history, deserving more than perhaps we think we should. In contrast to my father's depression era attitudes, we always just thought that things should be ours, material things should be ours in ways that I do not think too many generations before us felt that way. And I think we are selfish in... Although there is an awful lot of rhetoric about one world. I think Americans are, I think, we are uniquely ethnic centric about our experiences. I do not think we are very open-minded, even those who... I just do not think we are that open-minded. I think the kids today have a much more real sense of how flat the world is. I do not think we still even have that sensed the way we should. Let us see. It is hard to characterize a group of people. I think we... I do not know. I have a sense that something has owed us and it is an unrealistic sense that something he has owed us. And it is going to be interesting as we become the non-productive age, the non-productive part of our society, how that is going to work itself out. Because I do not think other generations have that sense of entitlement as much as our generation does. SM (00:31:21): That was one of the questions, and you already answered it, that there was a feeling of uniqueness. That we are the most unique generation of history. And not only when they were young, there was this feeling, I remember being around it, that we can really make a difference in this world by ending war, by bringing the races together, by showing equality toward all groups, stealing the... Like a panacea, a cure-all. We are going to be the group that is going to be able to do it. And even talking to some people today that are our age who still feel... Some have gone on and made a lot of money but some still feel it. JC (00:31:59): That is good. I am encouraged. I just felt... I do not know. I understood all that and felt that a lot of people feel that way. And there is a lot of generosity. Part of it too is the Vietnam experience. Paul Fussell said, "Once a pissed off infantry man, always a pissed off infantry man." And I could always tell when I met somebody in the army, a career soldier in the army, I could always tell a fellow officer who had served in Vietnam or one who had not, there's an element of cynicism in the person who had served in Vietnam and there is a skepticism there. Part of my more pessimistic take on the idealism of our generation is probably a result of that Vietnam skepticism because so much was promised there and so much in the delivery was so short. SM (00:33:12): How do you feel when... George will does this all the time. He will write an article, and he has done it for years in all his books. He loves to take shots at the older generation, the (19)60s generation and prove that he was against the war and then supported McGovern (19)68 and (19)72 and the whole history there. And certainly in (19)94 when Newt Gingrich came to power, he loved it too. He has made a lot of comments about it. I tried to get him to be in this project, he has rejected twice and I know people close to him. But what are your thoughts when you hear people like that who will just condemn the generation as all the reasons we have problems in America today. That all of our problems will go back to that time when things were loose, the sexual revolution, they just had a television show on that the other night and we saw it. It was unbelievable, there were things I never saw before. And division between black and white, those who supported the war, those who were against it. Just your thoughts. The blame game. JC (00:34:18): I think that is too easy. I just think there is certain tensions in society that exist, have always existed. Lots of good people trying to do good things to relieve those tensions, and the tensions are still there. I think a lot of it is a function of just society. And I think trying to blame a period or trying to blame a generation, that is a cop out. That is just too easy. I never really had that sense. Here is an interesting moment for me. Going back to graduate school, coming back from Vietnam, playing softball for the English department softball team, graduate team at University of North Carolina. One of my teammates was a man named Gordon Ball. Gordon Ball wrote Ginsberg Verbatim. Gordon Ball was my fellow graduate student at Carolina and he gets nominated for one of the best... He gets a Pulitzer nomination for a critical book, Ginsberg Verbatim. Gordon was a North Carolina farm boy. When Ginsberg started a farm, a co-op or whatever, Gordon's there and he actually knows how to run a farm. He is part of it and he takes the notes and writes Ginsberg Verbatim, which is a pretty good book. Well, he likes to play softball, I like to play softball. We are teammates, we are friends and both of us from probably different directions are completely outraged by Watergate, completely outraged by the abuse of the presidency. And so Gordon and I at University of North Carolina manned a petition booth together. And we are about as far away from each other politically and in every other way that you can imagine. And we are both just upset about what happened and just outraged by the abuse of power and the abuse of fundamentals and the constitution and so on. That is a bookend event for my generation. SM (00:37:01): It is a very interesting thing that, Max, because when I interviewed Chic Canfora, who is the sister of Allen who was a Kent State, she is a professor, she is a dynamic professor there. But she was one of the students that was at Kent State. And when I was listing the names as I would do at the very end of the interview and I mentioned the name John Dean, some people just revile and maybe just a lot of negative stuff. But for this anti-war activist who was there the day the four students were shot, she looked upon him as a hero. And she went on and said, "I wish he had run for president because he was a Republican who has been very critical of Republicans and Democrats and his recent writings he is on the conservative movement, liberals. He is just fair in every way." It is interesting how...That is what the whole Free Speech Movement was all about at Berkeley. It was not about being a liberal or conservative, it was about that Dr. Kerr tried to shut down a booth on campus and the students that were against that group, they did not like him politically, did not like him personally, but when the president tried to shut them down to hand out literature, they all came together, Liberals, Conservatives, because it was students, It was students uniting on a cause, so you made a very important point here. One of the things too is just your thoughts on the movement. Before I get to that, what kind of parents have boomers been? When you define the boomer generation you also oftentimes think of the term activism, it was an activist generation, both Liberals and Conservatives. Young Americans for Freedom, which is a very conservative group, was very anti-war and were involved in the movement. And just like Harry talked about, let us get the military point of view on war, we need to get the conservative anti-war movement war, which has been excluded from the books. But just your thought on how they have raised their kids and their grandkids. Have they shared their ideas with them? Have they created another generation of activists? Because it does not seem like they are. How have they been as parents and grandparents? You're dealing with probably parents of these kids now who are in that generation and there seems to be a tremendous link. There does not seem to be a generation gap between the parents and their kids like there was between our generations. JC (00:39:29): I do not know. I put myself in this category, I think the parent... Probably my generation, boomer generation parents are much more tolerant. I would hope. Maybe because I did not have kids until I was a little older, a little bit more open to all the crazy stuff that goes on. I think there is another generation of parents who are the younger parents now who are very anxious. And I am not sure, I think parents are getting even more anxious as we go on. I am not sure what the reason for that is, but I think... And it is funny, I have met kids who parents have really grown up as loose as possible who were in the army. We have got a friend who is the head of the school in San Francisco and he called me and I could tell by his voice something was really bad and he is a dear friend and I said, "What is it?" He said, "My son wants to fly a helicopter and he's enlisting in the army." It was like the end of the world for him. I am exaggerating a bit, but you could tell he was concerned. And I calmed him down. I just said, "Well, he will do this and this and this." And he calls me and he said, "I was just out at the basic training," or whatever, maybe it was a helicopter school, and he said, "They are just like us, they are teachers," talking about the sergeants in the army. But it was such a foreign experience to him. And his son obviously had these desires to do that. And maybe he did it partly in rebellion, I do not know. But thank God his son is safe. And this guy who did not have any experience with the military has I think a very favorable experience. It is just difficult to generalize. SM (00:41:53): Do you sense that just from young people you deal with, not only here but the other schools that you are aware of, that there just does not seem to be activism anymore? There are activists, students are involved in a lot of different things that we may not be aware of just the media just is not covering them. JC (00:42:10): I think there is a real strong service ethic among our kids. Kids here, actually, because I belong to that social dorm and my friends had organized... I actually poled for McCarthy when I was ROTC. SM (00:42:32): Oh, wow. JC (00:42:33): But I went out and I did it because I was living with these guys. SM (00:42:37): Clean for Gene. JC (00:42:38): Neat and clean for Gene. SM (00:42:39): Yes. JC (00:42:44): You about the motivation, I was doing it just to help a friend, and my motivation was not that strong. I think kids today... I will tell you the kids I am around, they really want to make a difference. And I think they are much more generous and honest in their desire to help other people. At least the kids that I have seen in the past 10 years around here. SM (00:43:18): Do you think that, this is important, volunteerism is activism. On university campuses 95 percent of students are on volunteer duty. Some that is mandatory like in fraternities and sororities, so many hours, some groups are required to do it. The key question here is, I am not saying it is not activism is, when they leave school, is it more of, I am going to do this every two weeks for two hours- JC (00:43:45): No. SM (00:43:45): ... or is it a mentality of 24 to seven and it is part of who I am as a person? JC (00:43:49): I think it is part of who they are. We do not have mandatory community service and we do not even call it community service. We call it service learning, it is integrated into the curriculum. It is part of what you do as a frame of mind. It is a state of mind and it is a piece to the larger global state of mind that I think our kids have too. It is a sense of, we are all in this together. It is a real strong sense of what is right and wrong. Fairness issues. I think I could go out and grab a kid out in the hallway and we start asking him those questions. I think you would be very, very positively impressed with... It is part of their ethical makeup. I am very optimistic about that. And the kids will make fun of a lot of things, but they do not make fun of that. SM (00:44:50): Your views are very important because I had many that are very negative, not about young people because they all believe in young people. You would not be in higher ed if you did not believe in people. Some people may develop at a different time. You may not see them activists when they are a junior or senior in college, but you can darn tooting they will be doing something in their 20s or 30s. It is just they involve at different times and we have to have respect that amongst younger people. But some of the people I have interviewed have been very negative about today's generation with respect to the lack of activism but the sense of volunteerism is there, but whether it is really part of them as a human being. This gets right into the issue of movements. One of the things that defines often times the boomer generation are the movements. Obviously the Civil Rights Movement was already happening when boomers were in their teenage years. You have got the Women's Movement, the Gay and Lesbian Movement, the Chicano, the Native American movement, the Environmental Movement, all these movements that came about, anti-war movement around the late (19)60s and they just abound through today. Your thoughts on how important they are in America, but if you really can link them to define part of what the boomer generation is? JC (00:46:07): Obviously, I think they are historical, really significant. I think they were focused on in ways that raised everybody's attention to certain issues. And they are unique for the boomer generation and obviously the boomer generation were people then and... I am not sure I am answering this question fully. I think, again, this is probably the post- Vietnam skepticism. I am a little skeptical of movements, whether they be the kind that were bigger and more boisterous in my younger days. But even in terms of I am a registered Independent and proud of it. I am just skeptical of things being... Just skeptical of movements in general and I think that is probably left over from my experience. I am not sure I was ever fully invested in a movement. SM (00:47:48): I am going to read this one because this is a very important part of the project. There is two big issues that I have shut in on. One of them is this issue of healing and the second one is an issue of trust. The question I am asking right now, and I want to read because I feel I have missed something. Do you feel that the boomer generation is still having problems from healing from the divisions that tore this nation apart in your youth? The division between black and white, the divisions between those who supported authority and those who criticized it, the division between those who supported the troops and those who did not. Of course, I will throw in here too. What role did the Vietnam Memorial play in healing divisions, not only within the Vietnam veteran community and their families, but also the nation as a whole, or do you feel that the boomer generation will go to their graves like the Civil War generation, not truly healing? Am I wrong in thinking this or has 40 years made the statement, time heals all wounds the truth? And I prefaced this question by something. I took a group of students from Westchester University to meet Senator Muskie before he passed away, he was not well. I got to know [inaudible] quite well and he set up some meetings with us on our Leadership on the Road program to talk about his leadership. And I asked the same question to him and I have it on tape. And he did not respond right away to this question. He gave a melodramatic pause and actually had to show tears coming up. The tears that we saw that when he was attacked because he'd showed he was more feminine because he cried. And his response was that, "I just got out of the hospital. I just had an opportunity to see the Ken Burns series that was on public television about the Civil War." He went on and talked about the 400,000 men who had died in the war. And then he said, "I am not going to answer your question because I know you're asking the question regarding 1968 and all the things that happened in that convention. And I am not going to answer it that way because I cannot. The way I am going to answer it is that we have not healed since the Civil War. I just ask you to go to Gettysburg and just drive on each side you will see." Your thoughts on whether this is really even an issue. Some people will say, "Steve, people do not walk around Washington with lack of healing on their sleeves." But then others have said, "This is a very serious question because if we have not healed as a nation is what we are seeing today, not what you just explained to us about people from different points of view coming together, but this constant, you are the problem, you are the enemy, you are the..." This division of not coming together and no healing and the effect that it might be having on the boomer generation, and then that is having on their kids and their grandkids by witnessing these feelings. Is healing an issue in your viewpoint? JC (00:50:59): Absolutely. I think the issues that were at the root of the Civil War were never fully resolved, that is why the Civil War looms so large in our imaginations. To a certain extent those issues were revisited in the Vietnam War and they are still unresolved so intellectually it is still part of our... SM (00:51:25): Please speak up too. JC (00:51:28): It is still part of what's going on. However, I do not know if Bill Ehrhart explained how we met. We met at Vietnam Reconciliation Conference in 1992 at Notre Dame and Father Hesburgh brought people together for this Vietnam Reconciliation Conference. I think it was one of the first times they included Vietnamese voices and the Vietnam War took place in Vietnam, but it was all about the American experience, but the (19)92 conference made us a little bit more honest about it. And I may be naive, but I think a lot of the sharp edges are smooth. Bill Ehrhart and I are best of friends. We still have our probably fundamental political differences and I think most people are like that. And I may be naive because the past couple of presidential elections, not the last one, but the ones before it were so evenly split down the middle. You worry about that and it seems like we could go back to that 49/51 split and everything that you see in politics, in the way people position politics, it does seem to be a zero-sum game and it does seem to be a 50/50 split down the middle. I may be completely, absolutely wrong in my gut feeling that time does heal wounds, but maybe I am being naive in that. But I honestly believe that. I would not blame the boomer generation for what we see today. I do not think the roots of that 50/50 split is in the boomer generation, I think it is in the issues that are around us today. I am not going to take the blame for that one. SM (00:53:52): To me, the wall moves an awful lot. It is just one person. I lived in California in 1980 through (19)83 in the Bay Area for a while. And first thing I had to get to the wall as soon as I moved to Philadelphia to work at Thomas Jefferson University. And within a week I was on the train and got done to DC because I had not gotten a car yet. It means an awful lot, and I am not a Vietnam veteran. How important has the wall been? I know already it has been important for vets and their families. As Jan Scruggs says in the title of his book, To Heal a Nation... JC (00:54:30): Saving electricity. SM (00:54:37): Okay. To Heal a Nation, "We really heal the nation from the wall beyond just the mess." JC (00:54:44): My personal experience with the wall is interesting. I was in the Army, I did not really get involved in it. I knew the controversy. There was a part of me that wanted some kind of recognition, there was a part of me that heard, obviously, an abstract representation of it. I did not have a problem with that as much as some other people did, wanting a more literal representation. I think for me it works the way it is supposed to work in an abstract sense. I had not visited the wall and I was at the Army War College in Carlisle and we were on a trip to Washington and I got up in the morning and I ran to the wall at Sunrise and I looked up the names of the four or five people I knew that were on the wall. And it was an incredibly moving experience, primarily because it was an individual experience. I do not think there was anybody else around... For me it was a very, very good experience. If I'd gone there when people were... JC (00:56:03): ... if I had gone there when people were walking around and it was a busy mall, I do not think it would have been the same. It worked for me. There is an interesting guy named John Wolf, who is an artist and he is a good artist. I hope he is still going strong. He actually got hit by two RPGs and it blew off one of his legs and he died on the operating time two or three times. He actually writes about dying on the operating table, and I was doing a Vietnam summer workshop at West Point, and I think we had Bill come up but we had lots of Vietnam veterans come, and John came down from New Rochelle ... I am sorry. Not New Rochelle. [inaudible]. He has a studio in [inaudible]. He is a successful artist but he is the kind of guy who would not park in a handicap spot. He is on crutches. He is an exclamation point and very interesting guy. One of the female cadets asked him what he thought of the wall, and he looked at her and he said it is a fucking abomination, and I am speaking both as an artist and a Vietnam veteran. It represents nothing of what my service in Vietnam or the army was, and then he went on to really get vulgar about the [inaudible] in the earth. It was interesting. When the younger officers met Bill Ehrhart and they met John Wolf, they said, "We got to bring them together" but they would have fought ... Back then, Bill ... They both would have fought like cats and dogs and it was really a surprise, to me, to somebody who is an artist, who was so badly wounded, had such strong feelings about the wall, and I tried to explain to him my experience and that I really felt like I was honoring the people that I knew, who were on that wall. He did not get that. He just thought it was a political statement, so to say that it ... Does it bring people together? It brings some people together I guess but ... SM (00:58:38): It is interesting. When I came to Jefferson, [inaudible] posttraumatic stress disorder with Dr. Schwartz up at Jefferson, I am not sure if he's still there, the [inaudible] going to be about PTSD and it ended up being [inaudible] all the Vietnam vets that I guess [inaudible] Dwight Edwards, the whole group that was involved with the wall in Philly, and they had this politician from Pittsburgh. He had a Purple Heart. I cannot remember his name. He was a Congressman, and he came, but he refused to shake the hands of any of the other vets, because they supported the wall in Washington and he did not. He would not even talk to them and they were all... I did not quite understand that. JC (00:59:27): I do not get that. SM (00:59:28): And they never did and then he kind of blasted Dr. Zuckerman, for being an anti-war person [inaudible] were still there but... JC (00:59:36): I do not know. SM (00:59:37): You know, Lewis Puller, who wrote Fortunate Son, which I think is the best book ever written, I just reread the book in the last month and hoping to interview his wife Toddy, if I can get her to be interviewed, that would be a coup, but he loved the wall, and they tried to make it as non-political as it is, a non-political statement but even I, as an observer, who sits there, has a sense that some of the comments being made, not by Jan Scruggs but by others, are very political and so he might ... Jan might have to rethink some of the things some of these people are saying and the wall. Some of the other questions here... The issue of trust is one I want to bring up. This is very important, because I can remember in the psychology 101 class when I was in college, I think, and a professor talking about do you trust your neighbor? Do you trust your friends? Do you trust your parents? He would go around the room. He also, the next class, [inaudible] and we were all stuck with this guy. We wanted to get him fired but he was [inaudible] distinguished professor of philosophy, his father was well-known at Johns Hopkins and all the other stuff. He was new then. He really struck something that was very important to me. He said that if you cannot trust someone in your life, then you will not be a success. You have to trust people. That has always stuck with me, not as a college student but as I have gone on into my life, because I am wondering... I have a sense that many of the boomers... I know boomers were distrustful of the leaders. It is very obvious. They did not trust presidents, they did not trust college presidents, they did not trust religious leaders. They did not really accept corporations. They did not trust anybody in a position of responsibility, including all the college administrators I was around, because they had been lied to. The lies came from Watergate, they came from the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. They came from Eisenhower, who lied to the national public about U2. They lied on [inaudible] 1959. Then the continuation of here in the Reagan administration, of course, the... It is a long story here but boomers have seen it. But in their youth, they did not trust leaders and that is why they went out [inaudible] so many times. Do you think this quality of lack of trust in many a generation, and I preface this by stating that only 15 percent were truly active, so we are talking about 85 percent who were not, but subconsciously, that 85 percent had to be affected also by what was going on in their youth. Do you think they have passed this lack of trust onto their kids and their grandkids? Again, it's a long question but it has a lot of meaning. The fact is if you are a study of history and political science, which I am, a lack of trust in your government is healthy. It is the first thing you learn in political science. That is how you learn and then that makes government better. But just your thought on the issue of trust, whether we really have a problem here in the nation, not only today, but throughout the boomer’s lives, because of experiences they had when they were younger. JC (01:03:10): Well, it is interesting and I will bring it back to my experiences. I was a company grade officer in Vietnam and there was a sense and, of course, I was a military region too ... Actually my corps commander was John [inaudible]. SM (01:03:27): Oh, wow. JC (01:03:28): He was in charge while I was [inaudible] there. Yeah. You talk about trust and so on, but I, obviously, did not know him or work closely with him. However, there was this sense, at least ... I do not think I am speaking entirely for myself. Part of it is those bastards at platoon headquarters mentality that is in the army. You know, the higher the headquarters, the more screwed up, but there was another dimension to it and it was I had ... You will read in the piece I gave you, there is a perspective on somebody who is trying to get a star, and a distrust of that next level of leadership in the army, and as I stayed in the army, I worried about the generation of leaders, the next generation of leaders, and I was unbelievably pleasantly surprised with the Colin Powell or the commanders, the ... My direct boss in 101st, when I was a battalion commander, was a man named Herb Watson, who got killed with the president of Pakistan when the president of Pakistan's plane got blown out of the sky. The commanding general of the 101st and the 82nd airborne, two units, I would ... Just incredibly trustworthy, wonderful leaders. It was like they saw what was happening in Vietnam and they were not going to repeat it. Colin Powell, I think stands out, because [inaudible]. He stands out as that kind of exemplar. I ended up with the healthy skepticism and the natural, "Those bastards at platoon quarters" mentality that is always in organizations, I came out with a lot of confidence and trust in that next level of commanders. It really sustained me through 30 years in the army, because I would not want to be in an organization where I did not have that trust. That said, maybe one reason I stayed in the army, because I was working for people I trusted, and maybe I had a fear of going out into another world where you did not have that trust. The other side to that or the larger piece to that I guess is the whole notion of politicians and there is a deep distrust of politicizing things, drawing up lines, making arguments based on political motivation rather than what is the best decision, and, again, I agree, that is healthy skepticism. Maybe there is more of that when it comes to politics among boomers, and now are you infecting your kids or your grandkids? I do not know. I think there ... I just got an email from a friend and he could verify these numbers for me, like out of the two million whatever Vietnam veterans who served in Vietnam... SM (01:07:00): Three million. Three million served and I believe 450,000 and 500,000 were on the front lines. JC (01:07:08): Okay, but of the 380,000 or whatever it was, only 270,000 left. It was mind-boggling. I could pull up the email. I remember having a colleague, a guy I actually taught at West Point, his name is Elliott Gruner, who wrote a book about POWs, it is pretty controversial, and he would always... We had discussions, he was a colonel, and he was a major I guess at the time, but he would ... He would always just cut the conversation with, "You're still my favorite burnt out Vietnam vet." Actually the person who sent me those statistics I think is kind of a dig that you are a dinosaur, assigned it your favorite burned out Vietnam vet, so there is that I think stigma and there is probably some truth to it but I do not think... I think most of us look at it with some fabrication and some sense of humor. I do not think we're really trying to make everybody else that skeptical. SM (01:08:26): What do you feel is the number one reason the Vietnam War ended? How important were college students on the campuses in ending the war? JC (01:08:36): I think it is what is going to end Afghanistan and Iraq, just exhaustion, just our attention span is not that long. I do not think college students were a huge factor. Although, it was a strong voice that contributed to the overall exhaustion, but I do not think it was a primary cause. I think we are going to declare victory and get the hell out of Iraq, and we probably have a right to declare victory. SM (01:09:19): Do you worry that when you read articles, Afghanistan is another Vietnam? How do you feel when you hear that people get upset by every comparison of conflict around the world? Or they always bring up Vietnam. I sense in the university, they get very uptight. It's just a bunch of boomers, again, trying to be nostalgic or remember but that is not the purpose. Vietnam had so many meanings. Just to bring the word of Vietnam in a conversation with fellow boomers who may be in leadership roles in the universities, like, "There he goes again." JC (01:09:59): Well, it is a useful metaphor but it is ... I think it is an oversimplification. You worry about ... I worry about Pakistan. I mean, I worry ... That is the nexus of what you really have to worry about I think. I think we have probably exhausted ourselves in many ways in this. That is another story. SM (01:10:31): When did the (19)60s end? Just the (19)60s itself. Was there a period that you knew it was over? JC (01:10:36): Maybe Watergate. SM (01:10:36): Okay. JC (01:10:40): The Kennedy assassination, Watergate, that is a good 10 years... SM (01:10:44): How important was the music? Because when you think of the music, it had so many social messages in it. JC (01:10:48): It was great music. SM (01:10:49): It was great music and it is still being played today [inaudible 01:10:53] showed you the article he has on the wall in there, about one of the (19)60s ... A member of the Who refuses to sell his music for TV commercials. I think that is a lesson for students, he is not selling out. JC (01:11:10): Yeah. SM (01:11:12): He wrote the music for that generation to not be selling out. How important was music within this boomer generation in terms of not only their anti-war and their involvement but just your thoughts on the music? Who were your favorite musicians? JC (01:11:31): I remember my first wife, our first date, we went to a movie, the Cardinal, and then we went and saw the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show at my friend Jacques [inaudible]'s house. SM (01:11:45): Right. JC (01:11:47): There was a ... The Beatles were ... I remember waking up and hearing on the radio and just, "Wow. This is ..." But there is the ... You go from the Beatles to more of a Stones fan now, so that is the loss of innocence. I became a Stones fan pretty quickly. SM (01:12:15): I think I would ... Well, I like rock music but my mom used to watch As The World Turns, which is a TV show in the afternoon. I can remember coming home once and I had a day off or a two day break or whatever. She was watching it and on the background music on As The World Turns, they were playing I Cannot Get No Satisfaction. I said if it gets on TV like that, it is certainly getting into the mainstream and that was around 1967. Yeah. The folk music of that period, all the messages and, certainly, the Motown sound. JC (01:12:47): Yeah. Very-very important. SM (01:12:49): It was important. JC (01:12:50): You know, it brings you back in the best ways I guess but... SM (01:13:01): Before I get into the names here, just were there any books that were an influence to you that you read when you were young? Novelists or non-fiction books. JC (01:13:14): Yeah. SM (01:13:14): That you can think of in the (19)60s or (19)70s. JC (01:13:17): Well, they are not... I was a 19th century American guy, so I read a lot of Walden and Emerson, Moby Dick is my favorite... If I had a favorite book, Moby Dick and Absalom Absalom, but I remember I was reading Herman Hesse in Vietnam and I can actually remember sitting on an air strip reading... SM (01:13:48): Herman Hesse? JC (01:13:49): Yeah. SM (01:13:49): Wow. JC (01:13:51): You know, just... You got free books in Vietnam. I still have books probably on that shelf that I got from the Red Cross. SM (01:13:57): Hard backs? JC (01:13:58): No, paperbacks. SM (01:13:58): Oh, paperbacks. JC (01:14:00): Nobody in the unit was getting them, so I... English major. I brought lots of books back from the Red Cross book boxes. SM (01:14:11): They might be valuable if they are first editions. Even paperbacks. JC (01:14:15): I do not know. They were pretty beat up. I had them in a rucksack. There was a lot of time... A lot of time to read. I did have a reading experience, which isn't directly related to your question but when did Going After Cacciato get published? About (19)76 or so. (19)77. SM (01:14:38): I do not know. JC (01:14:39): I remember being in a bookstore and picking up Going After Cacciato and looking and reading, reading, reading and looking at my watch and it is about two hours, two and a half hours later. It was the first time anybody had written about and processed and written about, for me, the Vietnam War. SM (01:15:01): Wow. JC (01:15:04): In a way. I had become good friends with Tim O'Brien. SM (01:15:08): Oh, yeah. Book one [inaudible]. JC (01:15:10): Yeah. I remember the first time I met Tim O'Brien, I met him in a ... He was doing a reading at University of North Carolina Wilmington, and I was actually camping on the beach in Wilmington and was in the men's room and Tim came in and we were standing there. I explained how important his Going After Cacciato was for my processing. I said, "Did you ever read J. Glenn Gray, The Warriors?" Tim stopped and he goes, "Not too many people know about that book. You appreciate it because [inaudible]." J. Glenn Gray... SM (01:15:46): Is that G-L-E-N? JC (01:15:48): J G-L-E-N-N Gray. SM (01:15:54): J. Glenn... JC (01:15:56): J, just the letter J. SM (01:15:58): J. Glenn. JC (01:15:58): Gray, The Warriors. He got his draft notice for the Second World War the same day he got his PHD of philosophy from Columbia, and he went and was a military intelligence officer, and saw action all through Italy and all the way up. Then he had a Fulbright and went back to Germany, and then his Fulbright, he took topics in war and analyzed them as a philosopher would analyze them, so attitudes toward the enemy, all the different attitudes toward the enemy, love in war, he analyzed that like a philosopher would, [inaudible] experiences. It is a fascinating book and it is exactly I think what incredibly influenced Tim O'Brien, like you cannot believe and I think he... It is one of those books. SM (01:16:53): Yeah. Well, I am at the part of the interview now where I just mention some names or terms of the period and you just give short responses to them. Some may have a greater effect than others. We already talked about the wall. What does Kent State and Jackson State mean to you? JC (01:17:12): Again, I was out of the country, so the full impact did not affect me. I am sure if I were in college or in the States, it would have been a different impact. SM (01:17:24): What did you think when you heard that four college students were killed on a university campus? JC (01:17:32): Well, it was... This sounds small but it was an undisciplined National Guardsman versus a disciplined regular army. It said something about the National Guard was a way to avoid the draft, and like Lieutenant Calley, there were people in positions they should not have been in. It was an insult to the profession of arms, and to the profession period. I, obviously, have a regular army officer view of it. It was a breakdown. SM (01:18:07): Watergate. You already mentioned a little bit. What did Watergate mean to you? How do you think it affected the younger generation? JC (01:18:18): Well, I think it was something I did not want to believe and when all the facts came out, it was really disheartening. It reinforced skepticism and cynicism but it also, at the same time, gave me great confidence in the system, the justice system. SM (01:18:41): Woodstock? JC (01:18:43): Again, I missed it. It just was not part of my life, because I was in the army with my head shaved. SM (01:18:58): [inaudible] this year. It has had a lot of different meaning. Everybody seems to [inaudible]. JC (01:19:01): You know, if I could live my life over again, I might want to be there but I probably would not want to not do what I did in the army. SM (01:19:14): All the cars going down the 81 heading toward that area, and I can remember ... I never thought once about it. I was a student [inaudible] and I never thought about it. JC (01:19:24): I am surprised you were not there. SM (01:19:25): I did not have a car and that did not stop anybody, though. 1968? JC (01:19:34): Year I graduated. Some great movies, Cool Hand Luke, Bonnie and Clyde. Martin Luther King's assassination. SM (01:19:55): The conventions. JC (01:19:56): Yeah. The conventions... I was in ranger school during that stuff, so I was in a gulag. SM (01:20:07): How about counter-culture? Just the term counter-culture? JC (01:20:11): Useful term. Does not give me any feelings. SM (01:20:16): How about hippies and yippies? There was a difference. JC (01:20:21): I guess the yippies were more political. I do not know. The hippies were just laissez faire. I liked San Francisco. SM (01:20:30): Yeah. SDS, Students for a Democratic Society. JC (01:20:34): I think a bit of... I think I am not sure of the best motivated. SM (01:20:49): Of course, the Weatherman were [inaudible]. JC (01:20:49): A hard line. SM (01:20:49): The Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which was real big in (19)71. They kind of took over the anti-war movement through their throwing their awards away. Your thought on that? John Kerry has always identified he is the man who spoke but the biggest names in that group were not John Kerry. JC (01:21:09): Bill Ehrhart. SM (01:21:10): Yeah. He is very proud of it. [inaudible] was in the group. JC (01:21:15): You know, I was out of the country. I may have been in Vietnam during a lot of that. I do not have real strong feelings one way or another. I did not see it. I was not here to witness it. SM (01:21:31): What about... These are names now. Jane Fonda? JC (01:21:38): I watched Jane Fonda movies. Barbarella. I have got friends who... I mean, that is the trigger name. I just think somebody is not the brightest. SM (01:21:52): How about Tom Hayden? Her husband at that time. JC (01:22:03): Well, he was a politician, and became a politician. I do not have feelings one way or another. SM (01:22:03): How about Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin? They were the yippies. JC (01:22:09): Kind of comic characters. There is a certain very prankster part to that that I may not have the full story but that is my impression. SM (01:22:21): Timothy Leary? JC (01:22:23): Yeah. [inaudible] LSD. Seemed like an interesting guy. SM (01:22:29): Dr. Benjamin Spock? JC (01:22:31): Obviously, I am part of the boomer generation and he supposedly influenced... I think he probably gets more credit than he deserves. SM (01:22:41): How about Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew? JC (01:22:47): I think petty politicians. SM (01:22:52): Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. JC (01:22:55): I really respected Eugene McCarthy. I do not know why I liked him as much as I did, but I think it was partly because he was kind of above it all. George McGovern, consistent, basically very good man. I liked McCarthy better. I would have voted for McCarthy. I did not vote for McGovern. SM (01:23:29): The ultimate mystery that I asked him is why he did not... Why he just dropped out. He said, "Read my book." He is a nice guy. I am Irish, he is Irish. I had met him twice before I interviewed him, but he... The one question where he really got upset is when I mentioned the name Bobby Kennedy. He said, "Read my book." I mean, he was dead serious. He did not want to talk about it. I go right into it now, John... SM (01:24:03): That meeting was dead serious. You do not want to talk about it. And I go right into it. Now, John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. JC (01:24:13): Well, again, I shared some of that. I was very idealistic, and obviously Western Massachusetts and really worshiped Kennedy. Actually, here is a boomer echo. I honestly feel that Obama is the first president we have had since Kennedy, who has that kind of ability to synthesize things, makes sense, and talk public policy. I just live in fear that somebody is going to kill him. SM (01:24:47): I worry that, too, and I know the students at Westchester worry about that. The fact is he is a boomer, you know. He's a very late boom. He was born in (19)62 or something like that. (19)61. He is 48 now, but he is the real youngest boomer. But I had the same kind of fears and let us pray to God that does not happen. JC (01:25:07): But I have got the idealization of JFK. RFK I think was probably a shit, but he was a good shit. He was good at the- SM (01:25:16): The last two years of his life. JC (01:25:20): He was a pragmatist. I thought it was a real loss. I got a little bit of my father in me, I guess. My father used to scream and holler at Teddy on the TV and then go out and vote for him. It is that kind of whatever. Whatever gene it is that happens to Boston Irishmen. SM (01:25:50): How about Lyndon Johnson now? JC (01:25:51): Oh, I think he became such a cartoon of himself, and I think that was just sad. SM (01:26:05): Robert McNamara? JC (01:26:05): I am not a McNamara fan. I think he knew he was sending people to die. I blame him more than probably a lot of other people. SM (01:26:09): George Wallace? JC (01:26:28): I think he was kind of a caricature of a lot of different projected hoops. I was in Georgia when he was running. SM (01:26:30): Oh, when he was shot? JC (01:26:30): Well, no, when he was running. SM (01:26:30): Oh. JC (01:26:31): I was at Fort Benning, Georgia. I will tell you what, for a northern boy had never been south from the Mason-Dixon line to drive down there and to see that and to live that, where the majority of people really thought he was going to be president. Then I was an aid to a general from Mississippi. One time I said something about how stupid I thought all this was and he said, "Well, I completely disagree." SM (01:27:07): Yeah. I forget how he took a lot. Well, he got a lot of votes. JC (01:27:09): Yeah. Yeah. SM (01:27:10): Eight or 9 percent. It was a lot of votes. JC (01:27:13): And it was just such, for somebody like me, it was just... I cannot believe it. SM (01:27:20): How about Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford? JC (01:27:25): I think Gerald Ford was a good man and did the right things to heal the nation. I actually think, I know, I think I know because a friend of mine was a military aid to Reagan, that he was not the buffoon everybody portrayed him to be. He was a pretty sharp guy and he played that role pretty well. SM (01:27:46): I want to mention Jimmy Carter, too, because he is the guy that created the amnesty for those that went to Canada. JC (01:27:53): Even at the time, I think I was there at West Point at the time, that was fine. It was part of the healing process. Jimmy Carter, I think was just too smart for his own good. SM (01:28:09): Your thoughts, you always talk about the Vietnam syndrome. We got to get rid of it. Well, during the Reagan administration, we're back. It was basically a statement saying love America again. Love the American flag again. And certainly bringing the military back to stature. But also with George Bush Senior, you talked about the Vietnam syndrome is over, and he talked about it when he was president. Your thoughts on, looks like they were also making a criticism of that particular era, both Reagan and Bush. What are your thoughts on...? JC (01:28:45): Well, it is interesting because I was in the Command General Staff College. I think all of us felt that Carter was going to get us in a shooting war. I think the weaker your position, the more vulnerable you are. One reason I went to the 82nd was I wanted to be in the best unit I could be in, because I honestly thought I was going to war. Then when Reagan came in, it was all of a sudden it is an era of triple volunteers. Volunteer for the Army, volunteer for the Airborne, volunteer for the 82nd. All of a sudden you have got equipment that you can use, so it really was a turnaround. I put it in professional terms. I do not think I thought in terms of Vietnam or not Vietnam. I remember being in the, maybe it was, I think it was Battalion Commander on 101st when Platoon came out. I remember coming out of a theater and my younger soldiers were there, and it was an eye-opener for them. I remember saying to them, I said, "It is not pretty, is it?" And I had Oliver Stone come to West Point. SM (01:30:06): Oh, wow. JC (01:30:06): I taught his trilogy. It was in the sense of the use of Vietnam from a professional point of view was, I think Platoon was a very, very accurate movie. It is not pretty and there's a lot of... It is obviously a drama. All that did not happen, but all that did happen and Oliver Stone has put it together properly. But I think first President Bush is sitting on a hill, too. I actually have a theory about, we have been using the same myths to talk ourselves into war since the periods. There is the John Smith myth that one European can take on 200 Indians or any other non- Europeans. And we're using that I think in our thinking even today. And then there is the God [inaudible] city upon the hill and chosen people and war is a purifier. To a certain extent, we use that, too. SM (01:31:19): When we think of Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush, they are boomers. JC (01:31:27): Yeah. Interesting. SM (01:31:29): So, what is it about those two that really... They have the characteristics of boomers. A lot of people do not like to answer that. A lot of them say they are typical booms. JC (01:31:38): Yes. Yes. SM (01:31:43): How would you define them as typical boomers? JC (01:31:54): I do not know if I want put this on tape. So full of shit. No. SM (01:31:54): [inaudible]. Hey, I have only got to come up 10 more. Well, I might go- JC (01:31:54): I do not know if I want to be directed that way, but there was that element to both of them, I think, that more of a common denominator than a difference. We go back, you were talking about the characteristics, the sense of entitlement, the sense of uniqueness, self-serving part of it. I am not sure they are the best representatives of the boomer generation, but they did seem to... I do not know; the mental laziness of Bush and the self-indulgence of Clinton are two things that... SM (01:32:38): Yeah, enough said. Your thoughts on Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X? Because they were the predominant figures there. JC (01:32:47): I have got a funny story. I also was a dorm counselor for my room. I was trying to make money any way I could. AI got a call right before my senior year and they said, "We got a guy," and he was the founder of the Black Student Organization at Lafayette. He was from New Rochelle. His name was Jerry Gill. He died a couple of years ago. Got a picture of him. We became very good friends because we ended up rooming together. They said, "Can we put him on his floor?" Because they were worried about him. They wanted somebody to watch him because he is this Black radical. SM (01:33:34): Want this on tape? JC (01:33:34): Sure. SM (01:33:34): Yeah? JC (01:33:37): I just hired a woman, English teacher, who graduated from Tufts. She's sitting here and I am interviewing and I said, "Do you remember Professor Gill?" She burst into tears. He had made that much of a difference in her life. SM (01:33:51): Wow. JC (01:33:52): But Jerry, then they called me and said, "Cannot find a roommate." I said, "I will room with him." So, we are in a room and it is not very big, and over Jerry's bed is big picture of Malcolm X. About a month after we have been rooming together, I walk in and Malcolm's gone and there's a big picture of The Supremes. He goes, "I did that for you." SM (01:34:17): Oh, wow. That is nice. JC (01:34:19): So, we became very-very-very good friends. Obviously, he got honored by Lafayette College and when he came back, I went up there and he gave the talk. He said the best thing about rooming with Joe Cox was I realized there were white people that were poorer than I was, which is- SM (01:34:41): Economics. Economics. Dr. King talked about that. JC (01:34:41): Which is on the record. I knew Dr. King from my lenses, and obviously he was such an elegant person and such an articulate person that even as a dumb kid, that made a big difference. Malcolm X, I probably did not know him through my own lenses. What I learned, I probably learned from a young Black radical. And I saw the movie, so I think I know Malcolm X. But I thoroughly understand it. I understand the Black Muslim movement and thoroughly understand, I think, where he was. SM (01:35:32): What is really interesting when you talk about Malcolm X, "By any means necessary," which is that there is an indication that use guns if you have to. Of course, he changed the last two years after he came back to Mecca. That is what is amazing when you compare, I worked at a piece once on Malcolm and Bobby Kennedy, because Bobby Kennedy was always known as a ruthless guy. But the last two to three years, he had done great things with his brother. All you have to do was read 13 Days to understand that. But something about his personality changed. He was more likable. He was more empathetic, more passionate and caring. So, I have always compared the two of them and the fact that people can change in their lives. But when you look at three quotes by any means necessary by Malcolm X, then the Peter Max, who I always thought had the best quotes on his paintings to define the generation, which is, "You do your thing, I will do mine. If by chance we should come together, that will be beautiful." Of course, the third one was the quote that Bobby Kennedy used when he was in Indianapolis, and it was actually a quote from I think Henry David Thoreau. Is something about a time, "Some men see things they are and ask why I see things that never were and ask why not." When you look at those three statements, which one best defines the boomers? "By any means necessary," "You do your thing, I will do mine. By chance we should come together, it will be beautiful," and then Bobby Kennedy's, "Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were going to ask why not." Are they all part of the generation? JC (01:37:04): Well, I think they are all part of it. I think the cynic would say, you do yours and I will do mine. I think most would pop for the Bobby Kennedy. SM (01:37:14): Is that the quote? JC (01:37:16): No, it is the one from South Africa, but it is a good one. SM (01:37:23): I will read this to the tape here if you do not mind. "Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope in the crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current, which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance," Robert Kennedy. Wow. Very nice. Just a couple more names here and then we're done. The Black Panthers, which is Huey Newton and Bobby Seal and Eldridge Cleaver and Angela Davis and Kathleen Cleaver and that group. Just your thoughts on Black power. JC (01:38:08): Well, in Vietnam, one of the books I got out of the Red Cross was Eldridge Cleaver's book. SM (01:38:16): Soul On Ice? JC (01:38:17): Yeah, Soul On Ice. I think they were criminals, but they were fashionable criminals. They are accepted-accepted. SM (01:38:27): How about Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers? JC (01:38:32): Well, I think what he did ultimately was, I mean shedding light on things is good. I wonder about his motivation. I do not know him at all, but it is people with towering egos, boomer egos, who are going to shine a light on themselves no matter how they do it. So, there's a piece of that you kind of resent, but at the same time, the product is... I try to operate; do not do anything I would not want to see on the front page of the New York Times. You hope a lot of people work that way. SM (01:39:11): Yeah. How about the women, the Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug and Betty Friedan? They were three names that really come to the forefront. Shirley Chisholm's in that group. The Women's Movement. JC (01:39:23): They were pioneers and good spokesman. It is funny, though, I had a situation of someone I knew at North Carolina that was a student and worked with Bella Abzug, and Bella Abzug stood her up and kept the money. So, she did not come across as a nice person from that one experience. Of all of them, I have got this sense of Bella Abzug is not being a person of character. SM (01:39:55): How about the Daniel and Phillip Berrigan, because- JC (01:39:58): Yeah, good judges. Good judges. SM (01:40:03): Yeah. I actually had both of them on our campus, and we actually had Phillip on our campus. He gave his last public speech there at Westchester University before he died. A couple other quick things here. Barry Goldwater? JC (01:40:22): I understand why he lost, but there is almost a, I do not know, there is a nostalgia for... He seems from a different time, not even the (19)60s. He seems from even an earlier time. There is a certain elegance to what he said. I remember the campaign and I remember given my- I could not vote, but it was a bit shocking to me where he was coming from. But it did not... SM (01:41:00): I think there is a lot. Bill Buckley admired him, and Bill Buckley has been standing a lot of today's conservatives. He has passed away. But I can remember that when you think of the irony of a man who was destroyed by Lyndon Johnson, voting wise, numbers wise of the (19)64 election. And the fact that in 1974 it was himself and Hughes Scott, the senator from Tennessee, that were asked to go to the White House to ask Nixon to resign. His stature as a senator is very honest. JC (01:41:34): Well, there is an elegance and an integrity to him that at least looking back now, I appreciate much more. SM (01:41:41): He was a Korean War vet, too, I believe. A fighter pilot. JC (01:41:44): He was a general in the Air Force. My father looked a lot like him, too, so there is that part playing on it. SM (01:41:53): Two or three more here and then we are done. Tech. Tech was obviously very big in the military, big in Vietnam, big in the United States. There may have been lies on this in terms of the American public, too, about the impact. It really, really changed things. JC (01:42:09): Yeah-yeah. Walter Cronkite saying we have lost. Again, that is where Larry Summers, I think, gets it right. And that is why when I went to the Army War College, we were studying Clausewitz. There is a larger impact than just what happens on the battlefield or in one place. So, it was a victory because it impacted so many different areas. It was not a military victory, but it was a victory. It was a turning point. SM (01:42:43): The last person I was going to say was John Dean again, because he is the guy that went before the hearings there. Just your thoughts on John Dean. He was Nixon's lawyer. JC (01:42:54): Yeah. I think obviously there is a, in retrospect, you got to respect what he did. I probably should not end on this, but I remember thinking he had a very nice-looking wife. SM (01:43:08): And she came. They are still together. They live in California. Although, there are rumors that she had been a call-girl at one time. That really got him upset. Remember the bombshell that was... I forgot the congressman. Wanda. JC (01:43:20): Oh, yeah. Dancing in the fountain there. SM (01:43:23): Yes, there is that. The last question I want to ask you, because we have been talking about the time that boomers were basically teenagers and the rest of their lives. How important were the (19)50s? The (19)50s themselves in shaping the boomer generation. I am always fascinated because when I think of the (19)50s, I think of my parents giving me all they could give. Great Christmases, great Thanksgivings, great birthdays, just always being there kind of good times. But we knew there was racism, we knew what was going on in the South, but it was kind of hidden. It seemed like a time of peace, but the Cold War was on. We came so close to nuclear bomb. But as children, though, maybe they do not have a sense of understanding. We'd watch Mickey Mouse Club every week and we would watch the TV westerns. We did not really see the difference between good and bad. The bad was always the Native American Indian. Hop Along Cassidy, all the shows seem like a time of peace. And all of a sudden you start getting into the (19)60s and everything is kind of rebelling against the parents. What was it about the (19)50s that shaped the boomers? JC (01:44:41): You watch Mad Men? SM (01:44:42): Yes, I do. Yes, I did. JC (01:44:47): I think all those hidden tensions. I just think that is one of the best shows I think I have ever seen. There is so much of maybe what I want to remember, the tensions and the unspoken frustrations. In the (19)50s, I think that lack of confrontation led to more of an over confrontation. My parents were products of the depression and products of the Second World War. SM (01:45:34): So were mine. JC (01:45:34): My father never really got over at the Second World War. He was a pretty hard man until he moved back to the Catholic Church later in life. Claire used to say, "Your father is wonderful. Why cannot you talk to him?" I said, "Claire, that is not the man I grew up with. You have changed him." I grew up obviously wanting to please my father in so many ways, but not ever going to acknowledge him in an open way. I think that probably creates a certain schizophrenia that showed itself in the boomer generation. SM (01:46:17): Yeah, those times. I had nothing but good memories of those times, but then I am always deeply reflecting on things. I remember, my dad used to win trips. He worked for Prudential and he won trips to Florida for sales and (19)57, (19)58, (19)59. We took trips for two weeks, got out of school and we drove. You had to drive by the poor homes in the South. It was just eye-opening. One time we were at a restaurant and it was like Aunt Jemima was doing all the serving there. I started to, as a little boy, started to put things together. If you saw them, I met John Kennedy when I was... We were coming back from a vacation during the summer that he was campaigning, and he had been trying to get on a Roosevelt support. I have only read about this in later years. But my mom was tired. She said, "On the way back from vacation, let us stop at Hyde Park." So, we got there. My mom was tired, she crossed the street. They had a place where you could buy pictures back then, it's now gone. But my dad and my little sister and I, we walked in. We did not know what all the promotion was all about. Well, John Kennedy was in the library with Eleanor Roosevelt. So, we got in there and we were all waiting for him to come out the side door. I have been there many times since, and they got rid of the drive there where he was. But came out the side door, or someone was yelling, "He is coming out the side door," and so I ran over there and only one person shook his hand. Well, I got to be honest. I did not catch the grant, but I catched the top as a little boy. And he looked at me with his pin striped suit with that million dollar smile. My sister was on my dad's shoulder and she touched his suit and whatever. Little did I know that he would end up beating Nixon and then becoming president of the United States. When I went to college, that was my first one-minute speech, the most memorable moment in my life up until that point. So anyways, are there any, last question I always ask, is there a question that you thought I might ask that I did not ask that you'd like to make a final comment about the boomer generation and the generation that you grew up with? Or just some final thoughts on them as a whole? Because do not forget, they are approaching 62 now and they have still got their old age, the impact with their old age. So, any other final thoughts? JC (01:48:50): No, I think you covered an awful lot of ground. Pity you having to make sense out of it. SM (01:48:58): Well, I love doing it because... Thank you very much. Now, to turn this off. (End of Interview) Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Joseph Cox Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Cox, Joseph T., 1946- ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Soldiers; College teachers; Cox, Joseph T., 1946--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Joseph T. Cox is a retired army officer, educator, author and the former headmaster of Haverford School. Cox was also an English professor at West Point. He earned a Bachelor’s degree from Lafayette College and a Master’s degree and Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-11-09 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.65a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.65b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 109:05 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/ebddffac9afb99461896b96783ff2866.jpg 8388161e4a4458220fbfee637ec4926f https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/3505ce9c5a42177700bc76507d96a1d3.mp3 079234b4b2891bcbdd2315b31b7b2b56 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-04-13 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Judith Clavir Albert, 1943- Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Judy Gumbo Albert is a Canadian-born activist who was associated with many organizations such as the Yippies, Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell, and The Women's Liberation Movement. She married Stew Albert, a political activist, who was a founder of the Yippies. Dr. Gumbo Albert has a Ph.D. in Sociology. &quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:15107,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,11791078],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Dr. Judy Gumbo Albert is a Canadian-born activist who was associated with many organizations such as the Yippies, Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell, and The Women's Liberation Movement. She married Stew Albert, a political activist, who was a founder of the Yippies. Dr. Gumbo Albert has a Ph.D. in Sociology. </span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data MicroCassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Yippies; Women's Rights Movement; Vietnam War; Protests; Social activism; Black Panthers; Children; Environmentalism; Counterculture; SDS; Weathermen; Baby boom generation; Surveillance.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:3,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:13689059}}">Yippies; Women's Rights Movement; Vietnam War; Protests; Social activism; Black Panthers; Children; Environmentalism; Counterculture; SDS; Weathermen; Baby boom generation; Surveillance.</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 125:57 Subject LCSH Political activists--United States; Albert, Judith Clavir, 1943--Interviews Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Dr. Judy Gumbo Albert Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Kimberly F Mourao Date of interview: 13 April 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) 00:04 SM: Okay. Again, this is going to be a combination of general questions. And I started out basically with some of the direct questions that were not in the general question. Your parents were communists living in Canada, a life with serious thoughts that you became a yippie. Years later, where serious, serious thinking theater and fun were united. How does your upbringing shape your future social networks? And i.e., the yippies, the women's movement? Things like that? 00:37 JA: How does my upbringing shape my social network? 00:41 SM: Yeah, how did it? How did? How did you go from being, living in Canada and being very serious to moving to the United States and being linked up with a group like the yippies? 00:53 JA: Well, it was called rebellion. I had, when I was living in Canada, I was leading the leading a very traditional life, I had an early marriage. And one day, I came home to find my husband in bed with another woman. And basically, that was, it was a fight or flight response. So, I left Canada, I was, I have a, I was working on my PhD in Sociology. I left Canada to come down to the United States to a sociology convention, and you know, I walked outside, and the sun was shining, and it was warm, and it was cold and windy in Canada, because I guess it was the fall. And there were people, professors and students demonstrating against the war. And it was just a completely opposite experience to that sort of the pain of this early first marriage breakup. And so, I left. I would say that, in terms of social networks, when I first arrived, the people that I gravitated to were people who were familiar to me, which meant some of the more sectarian group on the University of California campus, but for various reasons that lasted maybe about fifteen minutes. And I was lucky enough at a, or the stars were aligned in the right way. That at a meeting, a Stop the Draft week meeting for the Oakland Seven who are a group of young men who had been indicted for trying to stop trip trains, that I happen to meet Stew, and that, that story is very simple. I was living in Berkeley by then I was by myself, and I was interested in meeting other people. So, I went to this stuff, the draft week meeting, and I walked in and it was like I was in, it was like a match.com in the 1968 because the room at Macau's campus was just filled with very interesting looking people, the men were wearing the army jackets, and they had long hair and the women were wearing, you know, long flowy robes. And there were these tall California girls, I am short, I am from Toronto, and I am Jewish and have these tall, beautiful, blonde California girls. And so, it was like a completely different environment for me. I went and I saw across the room two blonde men, I have always been attracted to blonde. So, I saw I saw across the room to blonde men, I went up and I introduced myself and of course, I have been prepared for this event by wearing, putting on my best, you know, miniskirt and black fishnet stockings, and I went up to these two guys. And I said, “Hi, I want to introduce myself. My name is Judy. And I just arrived from Canada.” And they both said hello. But then one of them was Stew put out his hand and touch me on the nose with this little finger. And that was sort of, that was how we met. 04:18 SM: That is like you will not be back up in Canada. Just before we get back to the United States again: What does it mean to be a red diaper baby because you are the third person, I have interviewed that said they were red diaper babies. 04:31 JA: Well, there is your social network. See what it meant, it meant that a lot of things, it meant that one of my earliest memories is the getting up on a chair in my parent’s kitchen. And I am sure at their urging or directions, calling the White House to ask them not to kill the Rosenberg’s. What is meant was growing up with a set of extraordinarily progressive values that the, that understanding the phrase “from each according to their ability to each according to their need,” was the way you look at the world that each person puts in what the society what they can and takes out what they need. There was an extraordinary emphasis on equality, there was this extraordinary identification with the oppressed of the world, whether it was the dustbowl refugees, or black people in the south, it did not matter, you, you, you had instilled in you from the earliest possible age, a progressive activist set of values, which then really, sort of defined your entire life. 05:43 SM: You mentioned that one of the things that if remember right, when I was reading some background information on you is that in your early years, when you were talking about those qualities of being a red diaper baby, also the comic books were banned. And that was, that was kind of a part of it as well, because everything was serious that but, that you became a yippie and that comedy was very important with along with the serious. 06:14 JA: Well, the yippies were not really that serious, what, you know, we let us get that up front. That was one of the reasons that I was attracted to them was, was that they, they were not that serious. And it allowed me to both be political, but not have to always look at things with the serious points of view. No, it is absolutely true that that in, in, in my household, comic books were banned. And everything sort of, there was a lot of, for the revolution you did things out of moral values, you did things in your home moral universe, was, is not good for the revolution? Are you doing things that will help other people? And for that, you have to be serious. Yes. But I think also comic books were banned, because they were strange, they were different. And in my household, it did not last that for a while, you know, they were they were ways to subvert the dominant paradigm. And that is when, you know, if you could not have comic book in your house, your friends had him, and it was not a big deal. 07:18 SM: And I asked Paul, this very same question that I am going to ask you, and that is what was in your own words, define what it means to be a yippy. 07:27 What it means to be a yippy, is to create a myth, an ironic myth about society about activity, and to act on that myth. For example, when we went to Chicago in (19)68, you know, we said we were going to do all kinds of things with none of which were even possible. And yet, we were able to, we were able to, I am not, I am not doing this very well. You know, I wrote something recently, about what it means to be a yippy. And actually, maybe what I should do is read it if I can find it. 08:06 SM: Oh, that is fine. Yep. 08:08 JA: Just go on pause for a minute, because- 08:12 SM: That is all right. Who were, the people at your wedding? Was, were those, was that your son and your family there holding the cover? 08:27 JA: No, that was, it was, it was, the answer to that is partly. Hold on for just a second. 08:34 SM: Yep. Was Paul at your wedding? 08:59 JA: No, he was not they could not come. 09:00 SM: Okay. 09:03 JA: But Bobby Steele, I will tell you who was at the wedding. Bobby Steele was at the wedding; Steve Bingham was at the wedding. 09:16 SM: Bobby was in Philadelphia, was not he? I thought- 09:19 JA: Oh no, no, he was here. 09:20 SM: Oh, he must have, all right. He did live in Philly. Okay. All right. 09:35 JA: I think I will not be able to define exactly I mean, I am sure Paul did a much better, within sort of quarter round on it. But when I prided myself as a yippy, I like to think of myself as Alice Waters, okay. And if I said if I was going to get a recipe for yippie, this is what it would be. All right. Ready? Mix together equal parts of hippie counterculture, with new left anti-war politics. Anything that smacks of seriousness and a large portion of ironic theatrical Jewish humor, together with a dash of anarchism and a dollop of Eros, sprinkled liberally with high grade marijuana both in LastPass and real estate and the pure audacity of weatherman, manipulate the media to expose the steps with hypocrisy. Garnish with my generation’s fervent, all-consuming fitments to end this disastrous illegal war in Vietnam. Serve hot. 10:42 SM: That is beautiful. Yeah, I think even Poland loves that. 10:51 JM: It is, you know, it is hard. It was hard to figure it out. But it is kind of easier, to it is easy at this moment anyway for me to read it rather than to say it, but that that is what yippy is. 11:02 SM: Yeah, I, again, I asked this, another question to Paul. And it is a regarding the yippies. And that is, how did how did you meet Abby, Jerry, Anita, Phil Oaks, Paul and Jonah Raskin, because I know Jonah too. I interviewed Fiona, very early on. And those you know, your name and your husband's name. And these names that I just mentioned are the ones that people know about. But how did you meet them? How did you become a group? 11:33 JA: Well, I had as I told you, I met him to in Berkeley, and when I have moved, in around May of 1968, I went up to Canada to get divorced from the, the husband who you know, the first husband. In the meantime, Sue, who had been living on a couch in Jerry's apartment, realized that he needed to do something. Find a place for the, for two of us. So, what he managed to do was, I guess, probably talk to Abby. But he ended up converting the cellar of Liberty house into a rent free, cold water flat. And if you had been in the cellar, it was there was no toilet, for example, there was just this sort of pipe that water drips down into a barrel and we would pee in the barrel. And every morning Sue would go up the metal stairs that lead up Bleecker Street and dump the barrel of piss water into the gutter. The cellar was, I, he had a bed, he managed to get a bed. He got a hot plate, an electric frying pan. And that was where we lived and because the cellar, because it was the cellar, and the summer was hot. All these people Jerry, Abby, Nancy, Anita, Krasner everybody, they would come down to our cellar to visit. And so that was what I would say I probably first met them in our cellar. I may have met Abby for the first, and Paul and Anita for the first time at Abby's place on St. Mark's. But um, no, I have met Jerry and Nancy for the first time in the cellar. But we would also spend time up in their apartments. You know, they live right down the street, right down the street and across the street from at the end. And these are all on St. Mark's place. And Liberty house, which was by the way, a co-op that sold goods made by poor black women in Mississippi to benefit the Civil Rights Movement. Abby has been a, actually a manager of Liberty house and had done the publicity for them and had also organized a program called Food for Newark during the Newark disturbances out of Liberty house. And so, and Liberty house was on Bleecker Street, which is not that far from where Abby and Anita and Jerry and Nancy were living. So that was where I first met them. 14:00 SM: Yeah, I have a question too, is at its core, at it was height, how many yippies were there? I mean, corps yippies that were, I know there were chapters all over the country at a certain point, not only the New York chapter, but there were other chapters. But did, did the main leaders keep track of the corps? 14:20 JA: No. 14:21 SM: Okay. So, there is no way of knowing how many. 14:24 JA: We were, there were work groups, there were, they were, they were, they were more expensive circles and groups with a car. Right? So, you know, you could, people came people went, but the people who were close friends and stuck together or were in conflict with each other, as Abby and Sherry were off and on during the summer of (19)68. That, that was the, the corps group was not that much bureaucratic, we talk about the yippies as organizations and chapters and that, that was not our, our way of thinking. 14:58 SM: Yeah, because I was often wondering, you know, because they were involved in so many different protests and so many different events is how did they survive financially? How do they support themselves? So that was, how did like, before Jerry and Abby went off and did lectures, lecture survey, they, how are they surviving? 15:18 JA: Well, you know, the FBI would ask the same question, and nobody ever really knew the answer. 15:25 SM: Well, I am not the FBI. 15:26 JA: Oh, no, I am not saying that you are. But it is, it is one of the questions. I, you know, I do not know, there was there was no, liberals would give people money. Abby had the free stuff and everything that generated any money. I do not know, you know, I know, I had money from my father, my father, when I left Canada after that, he gave me $500 for the revolution, he said, so that was cool. You know, people, parents gave him money. I do not know, I you know, I literally, how did the rent get paid. Who knows? Who knows? 16:02 SM: Essentially, Mark wrote in his book “Underground,” if you make reference to which I have read, which I think is a fantastic book and should be required reading in any course, in the (19)60s, I interviewed Mark. He talks about, you know, that very same thing about where the money came from, he said he never had a problem with it. And he said it was because people were always there to donate when there was a need, and, and no name need to be mentioned, there was money. And that was- 16:29 JA: That is my recollection, too. It is not, I mean, people were not, we were, we were not at that point, selling marijuana or anything like that. It was, there was, the money was there. Remember also, it was the (19)60s and there was a lot of money around? Like, for example, Sue, and I would both write for the Berkeley Barb. And Max Scherr paid twenty-five cents a column inch. Now you cannot live on that. But there was money around it. I do not know. I do not know. 16:59 SM: Yeah, one of the things your, your husband's do is, I have got, by the way, I want since I have you on the phone today is, I want to buy one of those books from you. If you have any left. 17:10 JA: I do, I have a few. I sell them for $45 because they are signed. And now the only signed one, you know, there is not going to be any more signed ones. 17:17 SM: Well, I will mail a check to you for $45 but we will figure that out at the end of the interview. But I, because the people who are going to be reading this may not have, will ever read the book. Uh, who is Stew Albert, and I know he was a young ̶ came from Brooklyn. He was a kid whose father was a salesclerk. And I know he was one of the people that you, you talk about reinventing yourself. So, I would like to talk who is Stew. And number one this quote that you have, which I think is a beautiful, I can explain this. When you were talking about the people in the (19)60s, it must have been the (19)60s, that brief period of time when everything seemed possible, and the future was up for grabs. Just who was Stew? 18:02 JA: Okay. Well, first of all, his father actually works in the city record. He was not a salesclerk. But he came from a lower middle-class background in Brooklyn. And at a certain point, he worked for the, he always had for some reason very contrary to parent’s progressive politics, his first demonstration was demonstrated, was against capital punishment against the execution of Caryl Chessman. He went to Cuba, to visit Cuba with a friend at an early age and always had an attraction to radical politics. At a certain point, he came out to Berkeley and fell in just by happenstance with Allen Ginsberg and then went to, came over to Berkeley, crashed for one evening on the floor of the, what was called at that time the Vietnam big committee office, the VBC office where Jerry Rubin, unceremoniously tried to kick him out because he was like, almost like a homeless person, he was a homeless person sleeping on the floor. But instead, they became the best of friends and Jerry and Stew were really best friends all the way through the 1960 series versus being a one with Abby, the leader of the yippies, leader in quotation marks, and then Stew's other best friend in Berkeley was the Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver. So that is, you know, that was ̶ what was the summary of who Stew was. He was a journalist, he was an extremely good writer, he wrote as I said, for the perfect barb, the perfect bribe and an organizer for Chicago. And then, you know, within that, which is when we got together then we had various adventures together and Stew was, he was, it was, he was someone who people like to confide in. So, for example, if Jerry and Abby were having one of their many, you know, the older brother younger brother type ego conflict, who would always mediate. And he and people listened to him he was very smart. He had the kind of memory where he could call up a factoid about anything from anywhere at any time. And so, after the (19)60s, we, he essentially, we worked on, he worked on a few books, and he continued to, his career in writing. And he also sorts of when we moved to Portland, became an organizer for progressive Jewish causes. 20:37 SM: What is interesting, I can see how Abby and Jerry may have not hit it off at times, because I do not know if you ever saw the YouTube when Jerry was on the Phil Donahue show. 20:48 JA: I asked if somebody just emailed me about that. 20:51 SM: Oh, my God, he put Phil Donahue in his place. It was just unbelievable it is like and of course, people were calling in upset that Donahue who had allowed him on the show, but he was calling Phil everything in the book. And, but it is amazing because Phil's the most liberal guy you could ever see on television. But he, in a way, if he was talking that way to Abby, I do not know that Abby could ever get a word in edgewise. 21:16 JA: Believe me, Abby, Abby, could. That was one of the things about observing, they are really, really interesting. During Chicago, there was a lot of Jerry/Abby conflict that was echoed by and it would, Stew would mediate on a case and, but we the women would kind of echo the, you know, we would take sides. And one, one example would be, there was a huge conflict over the type of pig, pig assist that we would run for president. Abby wanted a tiny pig. And I think that the Hog Farm was supposed to show up with one and did not, Jerry, in the meantime, wanted one of the big fat ugly pig, so Jerry, and I, and Stew and Phil Ochs and Wolfie Lowenthal and we all went out to a farm. And we got you know, we picked up, we picked up this big giant pig and then Jerry's took it to the civic center. The Chicago Civic Center in front of the Picasso statue and got arrested with the pig. And then they were in jail. The, all of them. And one of the cops came up to them and said, “I hate to tell you this boys but the pig squeals.” Even arrested Stew. And then, then we heard the rumors that they had barbecued, the cops had barbecued the pig. And oh well you know it is expected, right? But, but what was, so Jerry and Abbie in that time period, were having, were really having all kinds of pretty unpleasant disagreements with each other. But a year later, as the conspiracy trial, they actually made a point of making up, forgiving each other and presenting a united front to both the other defendants and certainly Judge Hoffman and show, I believe they even had a, may, may have been the first ungay-gay marriage where they exchanged rings. But, but so there was a qualitative difference between the way they treated each other in Chicago during the during the riot, riots, the police riots and a year later with the conspiracy trial. And then afterwards, they, they sort of, after well, it is evolved back into the old competition where it was, they did the “yippy-yappy” debate, and Jerry would argue one thing and happy with it another Sunday. So, it was a love hate, you know, competitive brother relationship with the way I was looked at it. 23:52 SM: You are very strong woman and I know that some of your peers were as well. I would like for you to describe your thoughts on the roles that women played in the yippies. I know if Dr. King were alive today and on the Civil Rights Movement, sexism was a major issue and, and I know it was in the anti-war movement. And I have had people that have talked to me, a couple females, professors who said they left the movement because it was so sexist that they went into the Women's Movement and the rest is history. Describe again, describe your thoughts on the roles that women played in the yippies and whether you felt you were equal within the organization to the men and in the anti-war movement overall. And then I also see that you were very involved in the growth of the Women's Movement back in (19)69. Over there in the, at the People's Park, and that was very important for you. So, in respect, with respect to your husband, Abbie, Jerry, Paul, Phil, Jonah, were, you know, how do they treat women? 25:01 JA: Well, I did not meet Jonah until the mid (19)70s. Jonah was actually in what I always called “Stew’s large men’s group,” which formed with Jonah and a number of other people on the East Coast after we broke up. And the reason we broke up at my initiation was because of sexism in the movement. And in the yippies. So, we were, been, was, was Nancy equal to Jerry? No, with Anita equal to Abbie? No, was I equal to Stew? No, but it depends how you, how do you define equal? Right? Were we the ones who held the press conferences? No. Did the media come to us and look us up? No. We are we serving coffee? No. Were we organizing? Were we doing what women traditionally do, which is keeping this thing going, organizing, making sure that things are where they need to be making sure these things happen? That was our job. That was our role. So, but remember, the, the women's movement came around for a reason, they were in (19)68, (19)69, (19)70. So, and most of the couples that I knew, broke up in that period that included me and Stew, we were one of the few however, who got back together, the only other couple in that, from that group who were together before the women's movement, who got back together, were Dave Dellinger and his wife, Betty. But, but Nancy broke up with Jerry, in that, in the early (19)70s. Abbie, of course, went underground. And Anita did not go with them for various reasons. And they never did manage to get back together. So, the answer is yes, there was sexism, yes, there was unequal distribution of power. Yes, the men got way of more the goodies than the women. But I will tell you something. I know this for a fact for Anita, for me, and for Nancy, it was in a period of enormous growth, you could not be, personal growth, you could not be in that environment, you could not be around these guys, without learning from them, without observing them without trying to do the things that they also want, that they have seemed able to do very, very easily. And, and we also had adventures on our own at a certain point, like, for example, Nancy and I and this woman Jeannie Plamondon, who was the White, one of the members of the White Panthers in Detroit, we went to Vietnam together. So, it was not “Oh, yeah, everything were oppressed. It is all bad. Let us leave.” Not at all. It was, it was, “yes, we are not treated equally. But we also, if this is also an opportunity, and we did, we absorb to our core, what it meant to be a yippie to act on your own and to be courageous and to act without fear and to run from the pigs and all that stuff?” 28:07 SM: You said you went to Vietnam; you went as part of a group? 28:09 JA: Yeah. A yippie group 28:11 SM: Oh, I did not know that. Could you tell us about that? 28:14 JA: Well, alright, now Nancy, and I, and Jeannie, were invited by a man in the group, the Vietnamese had a group called the Committee for Solidarity with the American People. And at the time, many people were going to visit Vietnam and coming back essentially, to talk about the devastation of the war. And we, the three of us were invited to, to do that. And so we went, we went, we traveled around the country. We saw the, I remember, there was this one mountain that has been half blown away by bombs. And yet still inside, the Vietnamese people were making the shells and armaments to defend themselves. We, it, it was one of those experiences, that you meet people who are so totally different from you, but yet are able to convey to you their love of their country, and also their ̶ they did not hate us, you know, you would think we would go out in the streets and we would be surrounded by children. And you would think that “oh my god, here is America, raining bombs down on these people, you know, killing them with napalm shooting them in the streets.” You would think that there would be a lot of hatred. We never found that. They said we all, we understand that there is a distinction between the American people and the American government. And so, we you know, I do not remember specifics now, but we, I know that we learned an awful lot about the war about the causes of the war. I remember, for example, that we went to a museum in Hanoi, which is a museum of the war. They, and they gave us, because they had so many, they gave us as a souvenir, a half exploded, anti-personnel bomb, it was like about four inches round, it was metal, no, no, no explosives left, but and you could see all these little ball bearings that were dead. And there is all these little ball bearings that were still embedded in the middle. And so, they would drop these by the hundreds of thousands on people, they would compete anti-personnel weapons against a peasant country, who was basically fighting to resist foreign invasion as this country Vietnam had for thousands of years. And so, these people, Nancy and I, and Jeannie and you know, Jane Fonda and many, many people who went, came back, and were able to talk about our experiences to audiences here in the United States. 31:12 SM: Yeah, I know that Daniel Barragan went because I interviewed him and, and I know of another female, and her name is Charlotte Bunch. 31:19 JA: I know, Charlotte. 31:20 SM: Yep, she went. And- 31:23 JA: There were lots, I think the thing that was really unique about our group was that it was the yippie group. And I guess, that possibly one of the unique experiences that we had, when we were all sitting around one evening out in the country, you know, there are seven or eight of Vietnamese, who would come with us from the committee and, and whoever the local peasants were there, and we smoked this stuff called Tokelau, which was how, you would you smoked in a long pipe with a little bowl on the end of it. And, you know, we would tease them about whether, you know, what was stronger marijuana or Tokelau, and they would say Tokelau, we would say, would say marijuana. And so that was sort of the yippie, that was the yippie aspect of it. 32:11 SM: That I want to make sure you get the other two women's names their full names again? 32:16 JA: Nancy Kurshan, and she see, it was very, Ruben’s girlfriend, we called girlfriend for a number of years, certainly during this period that we are talking about. And the, the other person was Jeannie Plamondon, if you google Pun Plamondon, I know that he wrote a book A while back. So, there is information about- 32:42 SM: This is ̶ this leads me right into my next question, in your own words, who are the key yippy personalities? And I know we have already mentioned them, but the ones I am asking here is: describe in your own words maybe some of the people that are not known? Some of- 32:58 JA: Tall cocky and Super Joel. 33:02 SM: No. 33:03 Well alright, here is, here is a, Super Joel was well known at the time his he was known because if you have ever seen a picture of a hippie putting a flower in the gun of the National Guard, that was Super Joel. Okay, so Super Joel claimed that he was the scion of a mafia, Chicago mafia family. And he said that, that when he decided to join the movement, his grandmother kicked him out, said “do not darken my door again.” After the, you know, the (19)60s were over Super Joel, became a heroin dealer. And grandma says, “oh, welcome back.” Wonderful. I just, this, this story this super Joel tells, he gets very wealthy, or, you know, at least when we visited him at one point, he certainly had all the trappings of wealth, including a motorcycle, a full, full Harley Davidson is in the middle of his living room. And, and, and it turns out, he is gay and he gets AIDS and he dies. Well, a while ago, a few years ago, someone was investigating Super Joel just to find out who he was and found out that Super Joel was not the scion of a mafia family at all, but rather just an ordinary alienates middle class kids from a Chicago suburb. So, he created this entire alternate identity for himself. And everybody believed it. And he was the one, Super Joel was the one who drove the truck into Lincoln Park that the bands were supposed to play on except of course, none of the bands showed up so that, that would be an example of someone who is not known but was certainly an interesting character. And just everybody knew at the time. 34:53 SM: What was his full name? 34:55 JA: Super Joel Tornabene, who knows if that is his real last name? 35:04 SM: You talk about reinventing? Well, he obviously reinvented himself. 35:09 JA: Exactly. Yeah. And you know, there were no boundaries about that in those days. So, it was pretty easy to do. 35:15 SM: Now, were they, were the yippies close to any of these groups. I know there was tension between the Students for Democratic Society, because then pure pow, pow political and my most, I have interviewed quite a few different people. And when I, at the very end when I am giving terms of the period and I say yippies or hippies, or especially the yippies: “no comment,” or “they were frivolous,” or whatever. And this is even some people on the left. So how do you how close were the yippies to, and I will just read these, and you can just comment on it, the Black Panthers, Students for Democratic Society the then the quarter when ̶ 35:55 JA: You do want to do it one at a time? 35:57 SM: Yeah, maybe. So how close were you to the Black Panthers? 36:00 JA: Because of Stew's relationship with Eldridge, we were very close to the Panthers. And in fact, after Chicago, Eldridge, Stew and Jerry and I put out something called the Yippie Panther Pack. So I was, and you know, I am still friends with Bobby today. And, and so I, and actually the reason that Bobby got indicted in Chicago as a conspiracy Brown was because Stew and I had gone and called Eldridge because we thought it was important for them to be a Panther present in Chicago. So, Stew and I, during the summer of (19)68, had called Eldridge, told us because he was on parole could not come out. So, Bobby came instead. And as a result, you know, Bobby was one of the conspiracy aids and then you know, that story. So, the Panthers, yes. Students for a Democratic Society. Not really, although there were, the boundaries were fluid so people could consider themselves to be yippies, but also members of SDS. I know that, I know for a fact there, there were a number of members of SDS, SDS and subsequently the Weather Underground, who consider themselves yippies, very close to the yippies. And maybe they did not say that in, you know, whether I am in town meetings or SDS meetings, but I know for a fact that they did. 37:27 SM: Yeah, I am just going to go into the Weathermen. And you mentioned that of course Mark never, I heard Mark never considered himself a yippy. I do not think. 37:35 JA: Mark is not one of the Weathermen who consider himself to be a yippy. 37:38 SM: How about the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which basically took over the anti-war movement in, after the Weathermen took over SDS? 37:48 JA: Well, I would not say VVAW, who took over the anti-war movement, but I do have someone who has been interviewed who knows a lot about the GI movement. [inadible] but no, I do not think that I think there were many, many aspects to the, it was very diverse the anti-war movement. And I remember in 1972, in Miami at the Democratic and Republican convention demonstrations, that VVAW had a campment at Flamingo Park. But then there were a whole bunch of yippies who were there. Abbie was there. I was there. Who was there? There were a whole bunch of the ̶ I do not remember whether Jerry was or not. There were a whole bunch of people who were organizing that demonstration. I know for a fact some of the vets also considered themselves yippies. The people who, who, you know, here is the thing. They may, people may say that the yippies were frivolous, but ask yourself whose name has come down in history? Right? Whose name do people remember from that time. They remember the Black Panthers. And they remember the Weathermen and they remember the yippies, that are, whose remember though, you know, I say we have the historic staying power. 39:06 SM: Yeah, actually, Ron Kovac, I think was there at (19)72, the guy wrote “Born on the Fourth of July.” 39:14 JA: I know I ̶ Ron is a sweetheart, I love him. 39:17 SM: Yeah. And then Bobby Moeller too, I think, was there. 39:19 JA: Bobby I do not know, do you by any chance have contact information for Ron? 39:23 SM: No, I do not. See I know he is in LA. But yeah, and I thought Bobby Moeller would, but Bobby says he has lost touch with him. So, I do not know. The other group, groups would be the Mobe group. 39:37 JA: But the moment you know, the both of them and Dave and the Mobe works very closely together. I mean, they also just had disagreements in that summer, but, but, you know, Dave was organizing marches that we would go on the Grant Park one, we all got beat up during the day by, by the Chicago cops. That was a Mobe organized event that Rennie was, Ren-, that for, Rennie was hit over the head Stew had been hit over the head three days earlier before everything started or four days early before everything started. So put it this way we both knew of each other's presence. I am wondering, I tended to use the word respect, but there was also a fair bit of dissonance. 40:27 SM: The, the other movements, again, are just the movements, the American Indian Movement, the Women's Movement, the Environmental Movement. And- 40:36 JA: You take AIM right? Now, Bill Kunstler spent an awful lot, after you know, the Chicago Trial. The AIM people were some of his main clients. Bill always considered himself a yippie, always. Well not always, but ever since, ever since he met Abbie and Jerry. That is what he identified with. So, you know, so it really is, I do not think it is appropriate to talk about it as sort of this group and this group it is much more personalities, it is much more people, and people there was much more interpenetration. And both the dissent and support between these different, all these different groups. 41:23 SM: Yeah, I have, just to ̶ do the hippies want to be taken seriously? I had just had that as a question did the- 41:32 JA: Seriously? What does that mean? 41:35 SM: Yeah, that is what I am asking. Did the hippies want to be taken seriously? Because I know from talking to Paul, I asked him that same question. And it, because he, because his whole spiel is about linking serious issues with humor. 41:53 JA: Right. And he is right. 41:54 SM: And that is almost like the yippies is not it? It is almost kind of the same. They were dead serious about being involved. I am I cannot speak for you. But from perception that I see. The yippies were dead serious about being anti-war, but they want to be able to reach people through theatrics. And sometimes it was, may seem frivolous, but there was a message. 42:19 Exactly. No, that is exactly right. That is exactly right. The causes in which we believe that would end, was overwhelmingly ending the war. With a little bit of, you know, marijuana legalization coming along later. The causes in which we believed were deadly serious causes, but we felt that the best way to affect people through those was through dramatic theatrical fun. 42:45 SM: Let me turn my tape. 42:51 SM: Alright, here we go. This is something [inaudible] was when Abbie died. Just as a person who has always studied and read and cared about the people involved in the (19)60s, because I am part of it, too, in my own small way. Abbie's death touched me in some way. Because when I happened on the news, I heard about it that he, he lived over in Bucks County not far from where I live, and that he was alone in an apartment. And he committed suicide or OD-ed on drugs. And then there was a report that he had a note. Now Paul says he does not know of any note ever, he says that that is not true, that no one was listening to me anymore. But that that was in the news, and I am trying to find the article where it was written. But what, this is, my serious part of my interview is because there is some key people here that passed on way before their time. Abbie, Phil Ochs, and then Jerry got hit by a car in Los Angeles and your husband. He luckily Stew was able to live longer. But could, do you know any more of the circumstances surrounding Abbie? Were you at his funeral? 44:06 JA: Yeah, at least the West Coast was. My understanding of Abbie's death is that there may be some questions surrounding it. But that he did not leave a note. That I know for a fact he did not leave a note. He is, I noticed his eldest son, Andrew, and Andrew was, came out and his sister came down. As soon as they heard about the death and was not an apartment by the way. It was more like a there was a bunch of little houses on some land that this person owns. And they came down and the coroner, there was some issue with the coroner, back and forth; was it heart failure, was it this, was it, was it barbiturates, was it that? And so, there was a little bit of question as to exactly what the cause of death was. But there is no question he committed suicide. And there is no question that he did not leave a note. 45:13 SM: Were people shocked? Or would people say he was down? 45:18 JA: Well, you know, everyone, by then everyone knew about his manic depression. And certainly, everyone knew that the period underground had exacerbated the manic depressiveness. So, Stew, and I had left, saw him alive at this event to cover (19)68 plus twenty. He has been, Abbie had been in a car accident, so he was in pain in his foot. And he had essentially gone off lithium, because of, which was the drugs that were controlling this manic depression, because he hated being on lithium, and had been given Prozac by his doctor and his doctor, you know, everyone knows now the Prozac can cause or has a causal relationship with suicidal tendencies. So, you know, no one was there with him in those last days. But the, what was the actual progression of events was ̶ is not clear. But like I say, so there was some fuzziness about the cause of death. But there is no fuzziness about the fact that he actually did commit suicide and it was undoubtedly a result of manic-depressive disease. 46:30 SM: Now Phil died very young. And I remember there was a book that came out on him and I have it, a biography, but I did not know if his close links with the, I read a long time ago, I did not know his close links with the, the yippies, now the- 46:46 JA: Yeah, I remember in Chicago and in that, in (19)68, we were going, Phil and I would walk up and down the lines of National Guard. And I remember one National Guardsmen saying, I once paid like $10 or some, you know, some huge sum in those days to go to one of your concerts, I will never do that again. And Phil actually stops and talks with the guy and the guy, relax and changed his face from acid. And just in that conversation. 47:16 SM: I heard he committed suicide too. Is that true? 47:19 JA: That is true. Phil had actually come and visit Stew and I at that time, were living in the Catskills. Phil comes to visit us and stay for a few days, for a few days, he was not even able to go out of the cabin. And then he basically spent most of his time in a bar, but he had been in South Africa, and had been in some kind of, before that has been some kind of accident that had damaged his voice and his vocal cords, and he did not think he could ever sing again. Very depressed about that. And then also he put up this album of Elvis Presley songs that did not do very well. And he has gotten a lot of criticism. And so he was, you know, there were a lot of things going on in his life that made him unhappy in those days, you know, we did not know about counseling, know about pharmaceutical assistance, aid in manic depressive disease or depression. And so, you know, Phil, when he went to his sister’s house and hung himself in the bathroom with the shower curtains. 48:23 SM: Were you at his funeral too? 48:26 JA: I was certainly at a concert. I was, there was a memorial concert for him in New York that I went to. And I do not know if there was another funeral. He, I think, I do know he was still with us at Chile, you know, he and Stew and Jerry went to Chile together during the Allende period. And then they came back. And then they met up with Mr. Jara, the folk singer there who was later shot by the Pinochet regime. And then when they came back, they did a benefit concert for Chile. And I was at that and I, and I was also at another benefit concert around his death. I do not know if that was, you know? 49:07 SM: Where is Abbie buried? Is he buried? 49:12 Where is Abbie, I do not know if he has buried that is a good question. I do not know the answer. 49:15 SM: How about Phil? 49:17 JA: Now that I know. 49:18 SM: Now Jerry, I remember when he was killed while he was jaywalking. 49:23 JA: Well, he, he was, I would say he was for some reasons that I prefer not to disclose the practice. He walked across the street. And then someone apparently called out, Jerry walked back. So, he turned and at that point, was, was hit by the car. 49:46 SM: And, of course, I remember the newspapers saying, “the guy that broke the law was killed breaking the law.” 49:55 JA: Yeah, well, you know yippies always pretty myths even in death, sometimes they are bad, sometimes they are not. 50:04 SM: Well, and I guess Paul was the moderator of some of those debates if I am not correct. Corrected here, Jerry, and- 50:11 JA: The Yippie Yuppie. That could easily be, you know, I never saw one, I just heard about them. But- 50:17 SM: Now when Stew passed away, did you have a funeral there in Berkeley for him and did a lot of people come to it? 50:28 And that is where he is buried, if you go on his website www.stewalbert.com there is a photo of his funeral and we had a, we actually had a what we called Stew, what did we call it? Stew (20)06 tour, because we had a funeral for him in Portland, a memorial service in Berkeley, a memorial service in New York and the memorial service and in Boston. 51:04 SM: He had a lot of friends, 51:05 JA: He had a lot of friends. A lot of friends. 51:08 SM: Yeah, I have seen that website. That is a nice website. 51:14 JA: If you want to read what people said about him, not, it is all there on the website. 51:17 SM: Right. People's Park in (19)69. We all know that anybody who knows their history about the (19)60s and certainly what was happening in Berkeley, in your opinion, just a few words, what was it all about? And you are right on here, when you say that it gave Ronald Reagan, you know, something to build his career on? Because I had a chance to interview Ed Meese at his office. Yeah, I interviewed him. And you know, he was the man in charge of following, well he was in charge of the battle against the students on the Berkeley campus even back in (19)64. Yeah, because he was the, he was the district attorney, or the assistant district attorney for Alameda County back in (19)64, before Reagan ever knew him. And then when he heard that, about this young lawyer, then that is why he kind of linked them up with his administration later on in (19)69. What was that all about? 52:14 JA: Which People’s Park? 52:16 SM: Yeah, People’s Park, how important is it? 52:18 JA: Well, in some ways, it is very important. And that is because it shows that you can stand up, in this case, to the power of the university to create something beautiful for the people and what it, was it was a big community event, where people just decided, alright, this land that is essentially lying fallow should be turned into a park. I mean, what, what more benign thing can you then you think of that? But it was essentially a battle over private property. Because at that point, then the university said: No, you cannot do that. Whatever happens to this piece of land is something that we want to do, rather than what you want. And but the community would not let that happen until, of course, the University fenced it in, sent troops, gas, the gas, the entire city of Berkeley, and we fought that, but ultimately, the University took the land back. 53:18 SM: Yeah. But it is interesting, because when you study, the Ronald Reagan, who was governor of California, and I asked this to Ed Meese, that the two main issues that he built his career on in California was his battle against the students, which he said he was going to take on if he became governor, he was going to bring peace back to the universities, and then a battle against the welfare state. Those were the two issues that he wanted to, you know, to work on as governor. And- 53:50 JA: If you think about it, it is ultimately a battle over capitalism and private property. Both the welfare state and the People's Park battle. 54:01 SM: What were the feelings of the boomers, the students that you saw at Berkeley? Of course, a lot of the yippies were boomers. What were their thoughts on governor, Governor Reagan? 54:14 JA: Well, we hated him. He was the epitome of everything that we despise. I would have to, you know I have not thought about Reagan for years, you know, because mostly what happened when he became president and the terrible things that he did as president kind of eclipsed the terrible things that he did when he was governor. But Stew, I remember saying, Stew said that Reagan knew him by name. And so, it is a very specific anti-people, anti-student strategy that he was doing. I mean, it was right. That is exactly what they were trying to do. Talk about people with control issues, huh. 54:55 SM: Yeah. One of the, something that I did not know and reading on your website too. And we are going to get into some of the general questions here in a minute. But I found that Bernadine Dohrn’s son, Zayd Dohrn’s, play “Magic,” I guess, “Magic Form Farm” or something like that, “Form Farm?” I just want to read these quotes and then you respond to them. You say this in, this is what he was trying to do with this play: “How do kids raised in the shadow of the (19)60s keep the parts of the experiment that were healthy, which is idealism, the hope, the courage, while getting rid of the narcissism and the silliness that had the potential to undermine it.” And then the other quote here is some of the qualities that he talked about, that is Zayd Dohrn: “Counter-cultural values, do your own thing, dope, nudity, sexual experimentation had negative dysfunctional consequences for some, not all the kids that live there.” And then you had mentioned, what an inconvenient truth, this play was all about. Reaction? What is your overall reaction to the play? And did he get it right? 56:18 JA: Oh, he got his experience right. You know, here is the thing. This is what Stew and I both used to say often is that everyone has their own (19)60s. So, for a kid growing up and having a lot of experiences with the nudity, and drugs and so forth, that he, I gathered, he must have had or heard about from his friends, I cannot help but think that the way he portrayed it in the play, it was not a pleasant thing for him. And both, you know, that was his experiences does not mean that everything that every new experience that everyone ever had in the (19)60s was wrong. But but you know, kids have their boundaries. And I guess we did not, in those days, we did not recognize that because we were a little bit more than kids ourselves. So, we did not recognize that, I think that when you are bringing people, when you are bringing up young children, at least for some, it may not be the best thing to expose them to the overt sexuality that some people in the (19)60s were into, it is not a universal experience, it was Zayd’s experience. 57:25 SM: You know, one of the general questions I had for everyone has been the question of the boomer generation now, which is 74 to 78 million people of which 15 percent, or 5 to 15 percent, depending on who you are reading, were activists, and the activist part of the movement. So, most people of the group have responded based on the friends, of the boomer friends that they knew whether they were activists or non-activists, and that is, you know, how, have they been good parents? Have they been good grandparents now, in terms of raising their kids, number one, by sharing what it was like to be young then and trying to let them understand, try to understand what we were doing and why we were doing it? And, and, you know, just basically, the values that they, whether a lot of people criticize the following two generation as not being very activist oriented. And they did not follow in their parents’ footsteps in that area. Just your thoughts on, based on the people you have known who are boomers, and as they have gotten older now they are up to sixty-three years of age, the frontline boomers, and the frontline boomers are sixty-three, and the youngest ones are now forty-six. 58:46 JA: Let me answer in a couple of ways. First, in terms of childbearing, this is what I can tell you. Jessica, my daughter, my daughter, one of them wants to have kids. One of the reasons that she wants to have kids is because she considers her upbringing so idyllic and so supportive and so loving that she wants to recreate it for her own family. Now, we could not hide from her who we were, and we did not. We talked to her. You are, how do you talk to your kids about drugs. Well, excuse me, we had to talk to her specifically, because it is very clear that Stew and I had both smoked marijuana a lot and had advocated for it at certain point in our lives. You cannot be yippy and not. And we had a conversation with her, and we basically said to Jessica, we do not want you to smoke marijuana until you graduate from high school and guess what she did not do that. She now is a, an attorney, she is, in some ways. pretty mainstream. She has worked within the Democratic Party. She has worked in New York City and politics, but she also now works as an attorney, an employment discrimination attorney helping women basketball coaches and firefighters win multi-million-dollar verdicts against being wrongfully terminated by sexist institutions. So that, you know, it is, and all the kids, the (19)60s kids that I know, and there is a whole bunch of them, you can tell if they are (19)60s kids if they are born in the, in between the 1970s to the 1980s. These are a lot of children of (19)60s activists, they turned out really, really well. And I think that the reason for that is that all of us put our values into child rearing, the naked nude stuff aside, we all believe very much in you know, this is an old SDS club, and that people should not be involved in the decisions that affect their life. Not all of us felt that way about our children. And when we were in, as part of our child rearing, we would treat them with appropriate boundaries, not letting them do something that they would that would hurt themselves but letting them be a decision maker in what they wanted to do. Not, not controlling and not being neglectful. We let them, but we let them be decision makers in their lives as a specifically is a result of our (19)60s values. And I think we have produced a generation of absolutely fabulous and wonderful kids. 1:01:25 SM: Yeah, very good point. You know, it is interesting that we have a president now, President Obama's in the second year. And he is often criticized both ways. One, he shies away from the links to the (19)60s, he makes an effort to make sure he is not part of it. And yet his critics will say he is the reincarnation of it. Because he is as left as you can get. 1:01:51 JA: They do not know anything if you think Obama's a leftist. 1:01:55 SM: Yeah. Well, your thoughts on that? It is, this is a two part question your thoughts on Obama and then the criticism of him and then he shies away from it? And secondly, the criticism that is often leveled by the Newt Gingrich’s, the George Wills’, the John McCain’s, the Governor Huckabee’s of the world, that that period, the boomer generation, the (19)60s and (19)70s, I think they are referring to, is the reason why we have so many problems in this nation, with divorce, with the lack of respect for authority, with the rise of the what they call the -isms, the welfare state, which they put blame directly on the LBJ in many respects. And- 1:02:44 JA: Let me start with that one. But what, how could all the McCains, Gingriches, Glenn Becks, and all the right-wing attack dogs fail to remember, are the gains that were made from the (19)60s, it is, you know, they can ̶ they could not come up with their list of terrible things. But what about the things that we can take credit for, for example, the fact that there is a black middle class now comes directly out of the (19)60s, the fact that there is an environmental movement, and that pollution is being lowered. And those issues are really central around the world is a result of the (19)60s, the fact that corporations are being pressured to divest practices that are not socially responsible, is a result of the (19)60s. The fact that women have access, and are equally, an, are in law school in more numbers than men are in business, although not as much, are doctors. That is all the results of the (19)60s, the fact that people are thinking about eating local food and eating responsibly, it is a result of the 60s there. The other aspects of the environmental movement that are all a result of the (19)60s. It is amazing how the right wing tends to forget the advances that came out of my generation while focusing on the, what they consider to be the negative. 1:04:07 SM: Well, it is interesting in this is kind of sad, when they start talking about the environmental movement, they say well, that they use that as a negative, because the environmental movement is all negative because it takes jobs away from people. As someone said to me, “you are more interested in saving an owl than you are saving jobs.” I mean, those kinds of things. And then they will say that, that Al Gore Look at him. He writes his book and now they are all being questioned whether, there has been some questioning whether they are, they have their facts straight, and he is making all these millions flying in an airplane and he is ̶ so there is they find ways to still be critical, even of the environmental movement ̶ 1:04:48 JA: Right. Well, if it is not in the service of the naked pursuit of greed, they do not like it. Reason and individualism. Individualism, that is, is only for fun not for myself. It is only for oneself. It is selfishness and greed. If it is not selfish, if it is not greedy then they do not like it. 1:05:10 SM: In your view, when did the (19)60s begin? And when did it end? 1:05:14 JA: I think it began with the civil rights movement, the early days of the civil rights movement, although you could even get earlier than that was a nuclear disarmament movement. So, I would say the late (19)50s and early (19)60s were we when, when the (19)60s began, and they ended? I do not know maybe the end of the (19)70s. Middle, mid to end of the (19)70s. 1:05:38 SM: Was there a watershed moment, in your view? 1:05:41 JA: In the (19)60s? 1:05:42 SM: Yes. 1:05:44 JA: Well, there were a number, it was like a, like a cascade. You know, starting with the gulf. I mean, to me, the, the watershed of the (19)60s was the Vietnam War. And so, whether you can point to what particular moment in the Vietnam War, the escalation to Gulf, the Gulf of Tonkin, the escalations, the, the switch, the switch from ground troops to bombings, all the various phases of that war. Those were all in some ways, watersheds and they built on each other, in my opinion. 1:06:18 SM: I have a question on healing, one of the two questions that they are going to be healing and trust. The first one is on healing. I took a group of students in the mid (19)90s, to Washington to meet Senator Muskie. Students, none of them were born in the 60s and this was all new to them. They were studying this period. They feared that we were close to a second American Revolution or a second Civil War with all the divisions that they had been seeing it was epitomized, but what they saw in Chicago in (19)68, the question they want to ask Senator Muskie, because he was there as the vice presidential Democratic candidate, is: due to the divisions that were tearing the nation apart, at that time, the divisions between, between black and white, male and female, gay and straight, those who are for the war, those who are against the war, those who supported the troops, those who did not. Do you feel that, that this generation, the boomer generation born between 1946 and 1964, as they age and start passing away, will go to their graves, not feeling like they have healed from all the divisions from that era, comparable to what happened in the Civil War when they went to their grave, mostly with a lack of healing. I will tell you what he said, what Senator Muskie said, but how would you respond to that? 1:07:43 JA: Well, see, for me, the concept of healing, personally, does not apply. I never, it was never a wound, the (19)60s were never, oh, the late (19)60s were never a wound, but they were the best time of my life. I do not want to heal from the best time of my life, I do not feel that there is a need. Now, you heal from a wound, you heal from death, I have not yet fully healed from Stew's death, and certainly any people who lost their lives and their families, the lives of the people whose families, the families whose children lost their lives in the war. They, that, that is a feeling that may have been helped by the wall or may not. But remember, you have a situation there were the people who got, the young men and women who went to Vietnam were drafted. It was not voluntary. It was not choice. And, you know, and, and the things that caused the war, the fact that, you know, government is, imperial governments going in invading other countries, that still goes on, say, obviously, in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I do not I do not accept that paradigm that this country was broken in needed healing. What, what I, what I do feel is that there were terrible, terrible things going on in the country, which the only way to have them stop was to take action, which is what we did, which is what soldiers in Vietnam did. And the healing that needs to happen is the healing from those who died. beyond that. I do not see the need. And you know, I look at the Tea Party today. They are certainly not promoting anything like healing they are still, you know, fighting back culture war. 1:09:42 SM: Yeah. When Senator Muskie when he, we waited for his response. He waited about a minute and he finally said, he did not even respond to 1968. He said, we have not healed since the Civil War. We were fighting for the issue of race and, and he said, talking about the 430,000 men who had died in that war, almost the entire South lost all their men. And so, he, that is what he said was the issue was, we have not healed since then he did not even refer to (19)68. 1:10:13 JA: Well, you know, this is a country that goes to war. And in some way slides on what, what you may recall, does an Eisenhower warning us about the military industrial complex. That is what, if anything needs to be healed, it is the contradictions of capitalism, and that have produced this kind of society. So healing, like I said, the healing metaphor does not work for me in terms of the whole country, I think people need to be healed from their ̶ from the individual traumas that what they went through, caused by, you know, being forced to fight in a war that they did not support, or did not believe in, the deaths that happened, that is where healing needs to- 1:11:03 SM: Yeah in fact one person said to me: Steve, if you, you specified and this question better by saying that, why do not you just simply say those who were for the war and those who went to war, then you get into what Jan Scruggs did in his book “To Heal a Nation” that the wall was built to not only heal the families and of those who died in the war, but then to heal the nation from those who were against the war and for the war. So, the people said they might be able to answer that question better if it was just those two groups. And I think what I was really getting at was, I wonder how many, it could be yippies, it could be SDS-ers, or it can be Mobe people, it could be anybody who was against the war. I wonder how many of them have gone to that wall, as they have gotten older with their kids. And they look at that wall, and they reflect what they did. And whether any of them are saying, maybe I should have served or, you know, I just do not know how they are feeling. That is what I think I was really getting at. 1:12:05 JA: Well, I, you know, Stew and I went to the wall, and he actually helped Sandy, whatever her last name was, Boreal, I think in her, I think she was a fundraiser for it or something like that. I do not think that, that was not our experience, was not my sort of service. If anything, the experience was, we served well, we serve too. We served in opposing the war. My recollection is that we, we, we often identified very much with the vets, because we both felt that we served our country. We served our country in the way we best knew how, by trying to bring in and to an immoral, illegal war that was killing, that killed 54,000 young Americans. 1:13:02 SM: The, the other issue is trust. A quality that I perceive is a very well, it is a quality within the boomer generation. And of course, how can you say, Steve that 70 million people know of trust? Well, I am not saying that everybody does not trust but the question is, the young people of that era saw so many leaders lie to them, throughout their lifetime. Whether it be President Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin, McNamara and those figures that he used to use of people killed in Vietnam, you have the Watergate with Richard Nixon. There is there is some questions with everyone from Eisenhower all the way up to even President Reagan, there was, whether you could trust any of them. And correct me if I am wrong, and I have lived in this era too, most people at that time, did not trust anybody in positions of leaders or responsibility, whether they be a university president, a Congressman, a senator, a President of United States, a rabbi, a minister, a corporate leader, they do not trust any of them because they were leaders. Am I correct in that? 1:14:10 JA: Well, you know, Free Speech has a slogan, “do not trust anyone over thirty.” 1:14:15 SM: Right. That was Jeff Weinberg. 1:14:20 Ja: I do not think they did not trust because they were leaders. They did not, people did not trust because people lied. Like that, like, like that guy yelled out, Obama, “You lie.” Well, that is what we were yelling. We were yelling, “you lied.” “You lied.” And I think that the trust still does not exist today. Because guess what, people continue to lie. But at same time, we have a right-wing attack machine that creates its own level of lies. And for some reason, they are considered, those, the right-wing lies are considered truth and believable, whereas someone like Obama, who in fact is going pretty much the way it is, is not lying. So, I think that trust, yeah, sure, trust is a huge issue. But I do not think it is simply not trusting leaders. I think it is, it is, goes in some ways deeper than that. 1:15:15 SM: Yeah, because it was Jack Weinberg who's, if I am not mistaken, said, ”do not trust anyone over 30.” 1:15:22 JA: Exactly. As we got older we kept changing it to “do not trust anyone over-“ 1:15:26 SM: Yeah, I hear you. Ruben changed it to forty I think, something like that. 1:15:30 JA: That is the one problem with that slogan. 1:15:32 SM: Yeah. And then he said, kill your parents too. And, and this is something you mentioned this, which I think is great. And I think I want to make sure I got this correct, too. And I will, Jack and Jerry, were right, in your opinion, to change the system is, is completely reinvent, was a goal to completely reinvent ourselves. We had to break from the repressive warmongering, right-wing dysfunctional values of our parent’s generation, which was the group that came back from forty-six to sixty. So, is that basically say it all there? 1:16:07 JA: Yeah. Yeah, we did. We had to break, we had to break with that. And create something that was, we believe was new and alternative. And we did. 1:16:17 SM: In your view, you lived in Canada, but what was it about the 1950’s, or the post war era that (19)46 when President Kennedy came in, what was it about that era then made the (19)60s? 1:16:31 JA: Well, remember every ̶ the dominant American culture in the (19)60s was sort of like the TV show Mad Men, was very repressive in almost every way, and anything that was, that was in any way dissonant, whether it was being gay, or being, wanting to do something, a woman wanted to do something with their life, anything that did not fit into the dominant mold of a father goes to work, you know, Father Knows Best, mother does this. Anything that did not fit has to be, had to be hidden. And so, then people, when, that was really, there was the breaking out of that. Those strictures, the breaking out from those repressive molds that actually really started the (19)60s, whether it was the beats, or jazz music, or whatever, all the various ways of creating an alternate counter-culture that were there in the society in the (19)50s, but were hidden, gradually, for whatever reasons, and I am not a historian broke out, broke their way through and then and then people once empowered, made an entire alternate environment. That is the second model. And growing up in Canada, it was like, that is exactly what it was, in Toronto in those days was repressive, 1950s model. 1:17:55 SM: Do you feel the 1980s was a, an effort to return to the 1950’s? Yeah, when Reagan came in, do you think that eight-year period and then George Bush that followed that twelve-year period was an effort to bring, to say goodbye to that the (19)60s and the (19)70s? And go back to the (19)50s? 1:18:15 SM: Well, you know, it interests me enormously, that in that period that the right-wing Think Tanks got themselves together and decided that they had to have, I am not saying conspiratorially, but culturally decided that they had to have a strategy to combat what they call the excesses of the (19)60s. One of the reasons I think that we are in such doo doo today and the right is able to exert the power that it is, that it has, is because well, we were sort of figuring out: Well, what do we do next? The right path strategy, raised money, always was backed by money, had think tanks, recruited people and was able to develop itself into a dominant cultural force, with a, you know, national broadcast network, that is very hard for the more diverse Democrats to counter. 1:19:13 SM: Do you feel that is what is happening now with respect to when George Bush the second came in, and then of course, this first year and a half of President Obama, he is having a very hard time. Is this again, like the 1980s again? I mean, with these groups, kind of attacking that whole era, and the progress made and trying to bring that back to a conservative America? 1:19:38 JA: Well, I think they are, but I do not necessarily think that they are going to succeed. I mean, remember, Obama was, was elected on a gigantic majority vote. The vision that he put forward for America was a pretty progressive, liberal vision. Now for whatever reasons, he has not been able to implement that a lot of that has to do I think with the, with the power that the right-wing has amassed over these last thirty years. So, I do not look at this the (19)80s as a defining decade, I look at what happened in that, in the period after the (19)60s of the social forces that really helps define where we are at the present more than just the simple, simple decades. I mean, what do I remember the (19)80s? Disco? I mean ̶ 1:20:25 SM: Well actually disco started in (19)76. So, some people think it might have just been going downhill ever since. 1:20:30 JA: Oh, yeah. Well, I was not impressed by the (19)80s at all. 1:20:36 SM: Couple, a quote here, “despite all the,” this is from you, “despite all the humane positive progressive values we passed on to our children. Our 1960s activism also gave them difficult stuff to work through and resent, rebel against.” And then you say this maybe, this is maybe the moment when our (19)60s gen. or generation chickens are coming home to roost in their own right. explain that a little further. 1:21:08 JA: You know I, is that in the Zayd Dohrn piece? 1:21:12 SM: I think so. 1:21:13 JA: Yeah, I, I guess this was just what I was doing there. I am in it, because I do not remember it very well, as you know, because I wrote it a while a while ago. But I think what I was what Zayd was reacting to were some of the excesses that he either witnessed or heard about. And it is certainly true, that Weatherman was one of the more extreme, if not the most extreme organization in my generation. And so that is probably what I meant about coming home, coming home to roost is the ultra-extremists, who raised children, then the children really in their own right to have to look at their parents and their parent’s activities with their own critical eye. And I think that ̶ that is what Zayd was reacting to, but you have got to understand, overall, someone like Zayd is very supportive of, and the play that I was writing about, is very supportive of things, things that happened in the (19)60s and the reasons the (19)60s people, like, his parents did what they did. It is just also that that, you know, people can go before, and I think that that is one of the one of the issues with Zayd. You know, if you, there is a book that was written by Thai Jones, and it is called a “Radical Line,” and his parents also were in the Weather Underground and it is interesting the way he approaches it. But the, how do you, how do children of the extreme (19)60s parents make, come to terms with what their parents did. And, again, it is one of those things where, overall, the reasons that people were fighting the experiments, fighting against the war, the experimentalism of LSD, and the counterculture, that was something that made it really the best time of our lives. And, and our children, I think they may be critical of us for, you know, going as far as we did, but they also appreciate and honor the reasons that we did it. 1:23:32 SM: Let me change my tape. Philadelphia, just outside about 35 miles from downtown Philly. When you look at the, do you like the term, the boomer generation? I have had different responses to that. And ̶ 1:23:51 JA: No, I do not like it. I never actually identified ̶ 1:23:54 SM: Would you call the generation born between (19)46, there might be a better term, whether we call the Vietnam generation, the Woodstock generation, the protest generation, how would you? What would be the perfect term for it? If it is not the boomers? 1:24:09 JA: I like, I like to protest generation. That is cool. 1:24:13 SM: So that is good, because that is, that is one of the one I was mentioning. Could you give me I do not expect you to tell me everything about Chicago, but just in your own words, what it was like as a person to be there. 1:24:27 JA: It was empowering. 1:24:28 SM: Yeah, just for me. Yes. Tell me for just a couple minutes here, what it was like to be in Chicago in 1968. 1:24:37 JA: It was an enormously empowering experience. And it is what I remember running and I am talking now, but in the, being in the middle of the riots, because there was a lot of other things going on as well. But I remember being in the park after permits had been denied and we have we had come up with a strategy. If we are going to leave, we will leave the mark. But we will leave slowly turning around. And looking behind me and seeing giant light. In front of which were, you can see swirls of tear gas and a line of cops marching toward us with, it looks like bayonets or guns. And it turned out and just looking at that and saying to myself, wow, what are they doing to us, and just, you know, running through the park running through the tear gas. Yet, I do not remember feeling afraid I as I say, I remember feeling enormous power that somehow, we had just to exercise our, you know, we wanted to sleep in the park and protests just to do that the, that the powers that be and the daily machine felt it necessary to call out these enormous forces. And I remember running by seeing Alan Ginsberg. In the park he was sitting in, in the circle with his acolytes and his friends and they were coming. And I could start to smell the tear gas coming behind me. And I said to myself, he is not going to stay there very long. And lo and behold, very soon, Allen also was running through the park, so the police totally, and Mayor Daley, totally, absolutely overreacted to us. And really a cause the police riot that interfered that did not allow us to simply peacefully protest our opposition to the war and to the conventions. I think in some ways that sets the standard for police brutalizing protesters from then on. And so, so and then you know, what, what would happen is we would run through the park we get, we inhaled the tear gas, and then Stew and I would go home and watch yourself on TV and make love. It was a wonderful time. 1:27:01 SM: He, one of the, one of the things that I think people do not realize that it was the Festival of Light, which was the term that was used by the yippies. That really, the, the hippies were more responsible for getting the people there than SDS because was not ̶ there was something about SDS did not want to be there in the beginning or so- 1:27:20 JA: Oh yeah, a lot of the major organizations did not want to be there. SDS was one, the Motherfuckers, who were the street fighting group from New York City was another because they, they felt you know, and perhaps rightly, that, there would be a bloodbath. But we felt that it was important enough to demonstrate to the delegates, that the war has to stop, and that they should not elect a pro-war, a pro-war candidate that we would go no matter what. And also, you know, there was, I always felt, and I guess, what Stew would call a naive optimist, but I always felt that they would give in that they would see the rightness of our way, of our ways. So- 1:28:07 SM: How many people were there? Were students ̶ 1:28:10 JA: Between five and 15,000 at the most ̶ 1:28:13 SM: Because I have read reports there were like 50,000 people there. 1:28:18 JA: No, fifteen, we were predicting, you know, 500 to half a million. 1:28:28 SM: And then once you, once everybody was there, that is where the organization leaders met for planning like Tom Hayden and Randy Davis and Dave Dellinger and that group ̶ 1:28:39 JA: In the park? Well, there were all kinds of places people met in the park, they met in church basements, they met in the, the yippies would meet in the offices of the BB the underground newspaper, but most of the most of our time was actually spent in the park. 1:28:53 SM: And how did Stew get not, he was the unindicted What do you call it? 1:28:59 JA: Herder? Yeah. 1:28:59 SM: How come? How did he luck out? 1:29:03 JA: He was a journalist. They did not want to indict him because he always would say he was there reporting for the Barb which indeed he was. He always said by the way that I should have been indicted. 1:29:18 SM: Oh, really? Yeah. Actually, that might have been a sexist indictment because there were no females. 1:29:24 JA: If you look and see the other side, there are some women among the unindicted co-conspirators, but there is no women as either. 1:29:31 SM: Wow. Can you talk about your feelings when certain movement groups went violent? I know you have made some reference already to the SDS and the Weathermen and so forth. And you know, Gary Rubin in his book, “Do It,” which I read in during my graduate school summer. I always, I always liked that term, “do it,” because in my graduate test, we were always taught that people who stand up for their beliefs they have integrity because they know who they are. And they can take criticism. I remember I put Jerry Rubin in my master's thesis, because actually, you know, he could take it. He could stand up and he did it he could take it too. But how do you go from “do it,” which is basically making it happen to Malcolm's “by any means necessary,” which imply guns and violence. And I use these examples. We already talked about SDS to the weathermen. But the American Indian Movement was started out at Alcatraz ended up at Wounded Knee with violence, you get the Black Panthers with their guns. You have got some protesters on university campuses at Cornell with guns at (19)69, you had the Young Lords looked up to the Black Panthers in the Chicano movement, and they did the very same thing. And even in years later, and this has been critical within the gay and lesbian movement, the violence that took place in San Francisco in the 1970s after, or when, when Dan White got out of jail, I mean, there was massive violence. And some people are still paying the price from that. Just your thoughts on movements, and violence. 1:31:12 JA: You know, you have lumped together a lot of things that I do not need, think to be lumped together. For example, the case of the Panthers, the Panthers have been brutalized, folks in communities, other black communities have been brutalized by police for years, and years and years. And so, after a while, and I think Malcolm X, says this, and Frantz Fanon certainly is that they began to see themselves as a colonized people within the United States, and the only way to respond to being colonized is to adopt the violence of the oppressor. But you cannot take it out of the context of being oppressed. In the case of a Weatherman, you know, there have been marches and marches and demonstrations and marches and marches and demonstrations. And the war, the Vietnam War still went on there, let us be absolutely clear Weatherman, in its so-called violence, or what today might be called domestic terrorism never killed or targeted individual. Right, they blew up bathrooms, they blew up police stations, but they did not kill or target individuals. So, you have to when you talk about violence, you really ̶ I think have to define your terms and what you mean. And you also have to look at the context in which the reactive violence in terms of self-defense, which is the way it came, which is the way people were thinking, you have to look at the context and violence and, and, and resisting through self-defense as being very different than violence as a general overall category. I mean, here is an example. Right? The, the Tea Partiers are saying, Well, you know, we are going to resist, we are going to violently resist if we have to, the healthcare. Well excuse me, any violence that say Weathermen property damage, let us be clear, that Weathermen did was in response to children being napalmed and burned alive in Vietnam, the Tea Parties, the Tea Partiers are, are worried about children's getting with pre-existing conditions getting access to health care. I mean, you know, that is bizarre, that kind of violence is bizarre, I can understand people being driven to defend themselves in response to violence perpetrated against them. 1:33:50 SM: And so, this connection that we have been seeing, since President Obama ran for president, his friend, Bill Ayers, you know that he is a friend of a terrorist, that kind of, yeah. And I want, we all know, he is a great educator, anybody who is, who is aware of higher education, which I am and the ̶ Bill Ayer, I know how good he is and what he has written and, and how he was changed and a whole lot of other things. But, but still the, you see those generalizations out there? 1:34:21 JA: Right, well that is what I am talking about what I was talking about earlier about the power of the right to define the message, that is thirty years defining and refining their message and broadcasting it through talk radio and Fox News. So, they have an advantage and that is why people believe it. And even you know you, even if you read it filters, it filters into the mainstream, it filters into the New York Times. It filters into liberals and it sort of defines and rules the entire discourse for the right. 1:34:53 SM: When you look at the boomer generation as a whole and of course, 85 percent were probably not involved in any kind of activism, but I have always been on the belief that they were subconsciously affected by everything that happened. You could not be if you were alive and could not you have to be living in a cave someplace if you were not affected by someone, but it, could you give them strengths and weaknesses of the personalities that you knew of the people that were the boomer generation. Even if it means just those that were involved because someone was that told me I cannot define 78 million people. But ̶ 1:35:31 JA: Well exactly, you know, I absolutely agree with that comment. I think I noticed that one of your questions was “please with the quality admire least in boomers.” And I go back to something I said earlier was that the naked pursuit of greed, the ultra-individualism? I think that those that is the qualities that I think are part of the boomer generation, I do not however, attribute that to the (19)60s. Yeah, you know, I am just wondering, it is almost quarter to five and much longer we are going to be. 1:36:10 SM: Oh, that is right, I did not even look at the clock. fifteen more minutes. Is that okay? 1:36:14 JA: All right. You are wearing me out here. But okay. 1:36:17 SM: I am almost, I am not going to ask you those names of all those personalities. I am not going to ask that. So, I have been cutting that off quite a bit lately, because I like the other answers. What were you responding to, again? 1:36:33 JA: The negative qualities of ̶ 1:36:34 SM: Oh, yeah, there any ̶ 1:36:38 JA: And also, in the (19)70s, you know, you had a bunch of these self-help movements and the extremes there, there was an enormous amount of self-involvement. movements like EST and things like, Well, I think it is very good for people to discover things about themselves, and what motivates them, if you can get to be extraordinarily self-involved and lose a sense of altruism that I think is an important part of life and being a good person. 1:37:06 SM: You co-wrote the Sixties Papers, which I think it is a great book. And I had, I have had this for a long time I got a really, I have had it for over twenty years. But what was your goal with this book project? And what were the final conclusions? 1:37:25 JA: Yeah, I as I told you, I have a PhD in sociology. And at the time, I was in school, I was teaching I think it was at Mills College, I was taking courses on the (19)60s, there was no textbook, I wanted people to be able to read the original sources to, so they could get a sense of what things were like, were over. And that book did not exist. And so, we, Stew and I, we filled a niche by writing it. 1:37:53 SM: The other thing you wrote a book on the conspiracy trial, which I do not have was that about the Chicago Eight? 1:37:59 JA: what it was, what it was, I was, for a while the office manager at the conspiracy trial. And what it was is an edited version of the trial transcripts. So, it was actually almost it is almost the entire file transcript, probably is the entire trial transcript. And that is what it is. I mean, there were a number of books that came out that portions of it later, but this was this was this one was the entire trial transcript. 1:38:23 SM: What year did that come out? 1:38:26 JA: Okay, hold on. I will go take a look. I am sure it is out of print now. 1:38:32 SM: Right. Was this a big book that had a black cover on it with? Well then, I do have it. 1:38:50 JA: Well, there you go it was 1970. 1:38:52 SM: Yeah, I do have it then. Because I have so many books. Oh, what was the Open Seven? 1:38:58 JA: The Open Seven were, seven young men here in the Bay Area who were involved. I believe in this in this demonstration stuff, the draft week. And I you know; I have written about it. And I do not have it at the top of my brain at the moment. But I think that General Hershey was, they were sort of facing off against General Hershey. And they were trying to get they were trying to organize the national demonstration, national stuff, the draft week, but then it there was this more, it was just a very big demonstration here in Berkeley. And I believe that they were trying to stop group training from the demonstration was attacked by the Hells Angels. And there is a lot of fighting ̶ 1:39:44 SM: Yeah, because you have a view of a page on Steve Hamilton. 1:39:48 JA: Right. And so that and that would be where the Open Seven stuff would because he was one of them. 1:39:52 SM: Right. And he just recently passed away. What, I have three slogans here and I have asked this question to everybody. slogans that I think really symbolize the (19)60s and (19)70s, or the ̶ when boomers were young. Some people have mentioned one or two other ones and I mentioned those as well. The first one is, obviously Malcolm X’s “by any means necessary,” symbolizing a more radical approach may be a more violent approach depending on who you are talking to. The second one is the quote that from Bobby Kennedy, that was the Henry David Thoreau quote, “some men see things as they are an ask why I see things that never were and ask, why not,” which is really symbolizing the activist believing in justice, the against the war in Vietnam, that kind of an attitude. And the third one was more of a hippie kind of a mentality, which was the mentality of the Peter Max posters that came out in the early (19)70s. The slogan, “you do your thing, I will do mine. If by chance we should come together, it will be beautiful,” which was kind of a hippie mentality. And the fourth one that people have mentioned to me was the civil rights one, “we shall overcome.” Are there any quotes that you feel really are symbolic of the (19)60s and (19)70s that really are symbolic of the boomers when they were young? 1:41:17 JA: According to Eldridge, “you were either part of the solution or part of the problem.” There was, “hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” “Peace Now” was a very big deal. I think the famous hippie slogan was “rise up and abandon the creeping meatball.” Never really caught on. You know, the women's movement. I think “freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose” was very key, you know, from that from the Janis Joplin song was very key to our mentality. 1:41:59 SM: Yeah, and of course, the those are all great, though. None of those have come up before it all my interviews. And the other one was John Kennedy, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” which was another important one, and then the “tune in, turn on, drop out” by Leary? When you think of ̶ 1:42:18 JA: Turn on, it is actually “turn on tune in, drop out.” 1:42:21 SM: Right. When you look, when you think of the pictures of that era, because pictures are supposed to say 1000, more than 1000 words. What are the pictures that come to your mind? If someone had not read any textbooks, and they are looking at books, if you were looking at, I would say the (19)50s, (19)60s, (19)70s, and (19)80s, the pictures that may have been on front covers of magazines or in books, newspapers. 1:42:46 JA: Well, I think you know, the one that is the most is the guy pointing a gun at the head of the Vietnamese and shooting him. And then, and the napalm young naked Vietnamese. Girl running? Those are two that really stick in my mind. Certainly, the pictures of Chicago, or you know, the, the police beating people in the dark. 1:43:21 SM: There is the picture of the three athletes to the (19)68 Olympics too which was a big one. 1:43:27 JA: Now that yeah, that exact, that was certainly the whole bunch of the panda ̶ the picture of the Huey Newton poster with the bullet hole in the wall and the glass. 1:43:41 SM: There was the poster of him that said, “Free Huey,” I remember that one. 1:43:45 JA: He was sitting in the, actually Huey was suppose sitting in a chair. One of those wicker chairs. 1:43:55 SM: The other one was ̶ 1:43:56 JA: There is a great picture of Stew and Jerry with the pig in front of the Chicago statue in in Chicago that you know, I do not it is probably not that well known but pretty iconic to me ̶ 1:44:07 SM: Is that on a magazine? 1:44:10 JA: It is an Avedon. It is a Richard Avedon picture. 1:44:12 SM: Oh, wow. I did not see the ̶ 1:44:14 JA: There is a Richard Avedon book, there is book called The Sixties, a big art book and you should look at that. And also, there is all the Emory, Emory Douglass’ cartoon from the Panther paper and Emory has a book out of cartoons or you know, another art book size books and there is a ton in there, you know, his cartoons of pigs with flies flying around them. 1:44:42 SM: Yeah, the other the other picture was the girl over the body at Kent State which is Mary Becky over Jeff Miller. Real quick question on the music. You know, Phil Ochs was very important. Paul mentioned something to me when I asked him what happened to Phil, he said he was in some sort of pain. He did not go in any detail. But he did say that Phil was a little sensitive that he did not become as big as Bob Dylan or, he did not become, you know, Was there some sort of sensitivity there? 1:45:15 JA: Yeah, Phil always felt that, you know if Dylan had not been around, Phil would have been at the top of the top. 1:45:22 SM: Of all the musicians that the yippies really, I am talking about the yippies now, you and Stew and and your peers, what were the musicians that you most admired. Music that you like the best that especially the ones that had the greatest words to their music. 1:45:39 JA: I would say Dylan, Dylan and Phil were definitely there. There, Cohen was there. Joan Baez was there. Carole King was there, Janis of course. The Stones, The Beatles, Creedence Clearwater, 1:45:58 SM: Right. When you think when the, the best books are written on the boomer generation, (19)60s, they got to talk about the (19)60s and (19)70s. What do you think historians and sociologists will say? Well, what are they going to write about this period when the last Boomer has passed away? 1:46:21 JA: Well, you know, you have that question on, you know, the big questions that you sent me and I looked at and I thought about it, and I said, you know, I am not a prophet. I cannot predict the future. I do not really know. I know what I would like them to say, but I, who knows what they actually will say so I think I am going to decline to answer that question. 1:46:42 SM: Alright. Can you in your own words, because you have to see, have had met a lot of people in your life, a lot of major people, first impressions are usually lasting. Now I think when you first met Stew that was lasting was not it? I am just, you do not have to go into any length here. But what was your first feeling when you met these people for the first time? Allen Ginsburg? 1:47:13 JA: He ignored me because I was a woman. He was not interested. You cannot blame them. 1:47:20 SM: Yeah, Tom Hayden. 1:47:26 JA: Tom was a very warm, warm hearted Irishman who just did not get the yippies. 1:47:34 SM: Timothy Leary. 1:47:38 JA: He stank. 1:47:42 SM: How about Jack Weinberg and Mario Savio? 1:47:46 JA: Mario I did not meet until later he always seemed like a very sweet guy. And Jack is the same, both of them, you know, Mario is gone. But Jack is here. So, I you know, my first impression is they are sweet guys. But I did not meet them till the (19)80s or so. 1:47:59 SM: How about Jerry Rubin? 1:48:02 JA: Interesting, exciting. Terrible dresser. 1:48:06 SM: Abbie Hoffman. 1:48:07 JA: [inaudible] clothes. Performance, intense performance. Handsome, attractive, charismatic, Jerry was charismatic too. But Abbie had a certain kind of charisma about him. 1:48:22 SM: How about Paul Krasner? 1:48:29 JA: Sweet baby face. Smart ̶ 1:48:31 SM: Phil Ochs ̶ 1:48:33 JA: Kind of sad. Kind of sad. 1:48:37 SM: William Kunstler. 1:48:40 JA: Bill was, Bill was terrific. Very flamboyant, very smart. The first time I met him he came down to the cellar at Liberty house and tried to evict us but then he changed his mind and we all smoked dope together. I got to know Bill really well. Also, handsome. Very handsome, man. 1:48:57 SM: Rennie Davis? 1:49:00 JA: Intense and intense, dedicated. And having that kind of old American, what is the word? I am, very old American. I will leave it as that. 1:49:23 SM: How about Bobby Seale? 1:49:25 JA: Funny. Charismatic, warm and with the ability to talk. I mean, if he is, if it been today, he would be a rapper. 1:49:39 SM: Eldridge and Kathleen Cleaver. 1:49:41 JA: Eldridge was smart. Very intense. I am writing stuff about Eldridge and it will be on my website in a while. But he was smart, very intense, very persuasive. And with a very kooky kind of sense of humor. Kathleen was absolutely gorgeous like, looked like a model also extremely smart. And very also with a really kooky sense of humor and a nice belly laugh. 1:50:15 SM: I am actually interviewing her in the summer. She is finished. She is writing her book. She said the end of, mid-summer, she has done with her book. But so did you meet John Lennon because I know Stew did. 1:50:26 JA: No, I never did. I was doing something else at the time. 1:50:29 SM: Benjamin Spock. 1:50:32 JA: Never met him. 1:50:33 SM: Bergen brothers. 1:50:34 JA: Never met them. 1:50:35 SM: Howard Zinn. 1:50:36 JA: Never met him. 1:50:37 SM: Dave Dowager. 1:50:39 JA: Dave was a much beloved, kindly person who was very committed to his passive nonviolent civil disobedience. 1:50:50 SM: How about Malcolm Boyd? 1:50:52 JA: Never met him. 1:50:53 SM: Harvey Milk. 1:50:55 JA: Never met him. 1:50:56 SM: Jane Fonda. 1:50:57 JA: I like Jane, Jane was, you know, she was not your usual Hollywood type of person. She really was committed to the things that she believed in was willing to move ahead on them. 1:51:11 SM: I think it is Peter Coyote. 1:51:14 JA: Ah, I do not know. I mean, he was more, by the time I met him, he was more into the Hollywood superstar thing. 1:51:26 SM: Angela Davis. 1:51:30 JA: I do not know that I ever met her. She at one point. Kathleen was visiting my house in Toronto, Canada and FBI being racist, confused Angela with Kathleen. Kathleen with Angela. But I do not think I actually ever met her. 1:51:52 SM: And I only got two more questions, and I am done here. What does the Vietnam Memorial mean to you? And what kind of impact did Kent State and Jackson State have on you? 1:52:05 JA: Well, the Vietnam Memorial, I think was, I believe now I did not at the time when I visited. But now that Stew’s dead I have a much better and more heartfelt understanding of why it is important to have a living memorial that we can go and actually commune with the dead person. I did not understand that, you know, I had not had experience with death. I did not understand that at the time it was still, and at the time that I visited, but I certainly do now. So, what it means to me is that it is a place where you can go and visit your ghost, you know, and the ghosts are always with you. And you need to have a place to be able to go and, and visit with them. And what was the second? 1:52:52 SM: Kent State, what did the Kent State and Jackson State killings in 1970. What ̶ 1:53:00 JA: I remember being on television, being interviewed on TV show shortly after Kent State. And it was that was occurred shortly after I had come back from Vietnam. And I remember saying to the audience, something to the effect of the Vietnamese people are very sorry for your loss and extend their sympathies to you. And that was kind of a shock. I say to everyone, but it is true. The Vietnamese people, the people that I met anyway, were very sad. When anyone got killed as a result of the war 1:53:45 SM: Where were you when John Kennedy was killed? You remember? 1:53:49 JA: I was married to my first husband living on the top floor of a house in Toronto. 1:53:57 SM: Were you watching TV or ̶ 1:53:59 JA: We did not have a TV. I heard it on the radio. 1:54:02 SM: And how about where were you when you heard Martin Luther King was killed. 1:54:07 JA: Well, I do not know. I do not remember where I was when I heard he was killed. But I do remember that that evening Eldridge and Stew and I spent that evening together. 1:54:20 SM: Oh, you were with Eldridge. Oh, wow. 1:54:23 JA: I think Eldridge needed to hide out because there were all kinds of everything was going up in flames. And he did not know he was on parole, and he did not want to be in a position where he was caught, of course like six days later, or he was caught with Bobby so it was irrelevant but- 1:54:39 SM: Yeah, Bobby Kennedy gave that unbelievable speech in Indianapolis that night. Of course, then he died two months later. So, I am going to end like, I, I was talking to you about the people when you met them for the first-time people that you liked, I just like your thoughts on the personalities that I think you dislike. This is just my feeling. Just your thoughts on these few people here. Ronald does not have to be any length at all here, just real gut level reaction. Ronald Reagan 1:55:11 JA: Hated him. 1:55:12 SM: Ed Meese. 1:55:14 JA: Was not really, you know, until, until Watergate, until Nixon. He was not really a figure but it I hated him too. When it became obvious as to who he was, I am sure, by the way, they both hated us. Us being the movement. 1:55:34 JA: Richard Nixon. 1:55:36 JA: Please. 1:55:37 SM: That is all I have to ̶ okay. And Spiro Agnew. 1:55:40 JA: Please. 1:55:41 SM: LBJ. 1:55:43 JA: “Hey, how many kids that you kill LBJ,” although, I have to say that LBJ, I am now as a recipient of Medicare, I have to admit to conflicted feelings about LBJ. He did some good stuff. 1:55:57 SM: Hubert Humphrey. 1:56:00 JA: You know, the slogan there was “dump the hump.” I mean he ̶ we knew that he was going to continue the war and so therefore I did not, I dislike him immensely. 1:56:11 SM: George Bush is the first and George Bush the second. 1:56:14 JA: These people are, continue in the tradition of sending Americans to die in unjust and unnecessary wars and for that I believe they are despicable, as a matter of fact all these people go on my despicable list. 1:56:31 SM: Yeah, Dwight Eisenhower, is he on it? 1:56:35 JA: Well, you know, it is funny, I once was visiting somewhere in Denmark and he was there and or maybe he was there and he was sort of visiting the same castle together so I always have had had a slight bit of more of a positive feeling and also for really, for his identification of the military industrial complex as something to be concerned about. 1:56:58 SM: John Mitchell. 1:57:00 JA: Oh, terrible man. terrible man. 1:57:03 SM: J. Edgar Hoover. 1:57:08 JA: J. Edgar Hoover was personally responsible for harassing and surveilling me and Stew, and all of our contemporaries, for setting up potential concentration camps to put us in. And for you know, killing the Rosenberg, for setting up Mayor Daley to believe the yippie exaggerations. So, the man was evil. I would say J. Edgar Hoover was evil. 1:57:39 SM: Did you feel there was a, because I know COINTELPRO was really big back then, of course, they were really going through the American Indian Movement. And certainly, the Black Panthers and SDS and Mobe. And they were, what is it about? Is, do you fear that that is ongoing today? 1:58:00 JA: Well, you know, the FBI, under COINTELPRO put a homing device on my car, burglarized our house and the cabin eight times and then installed a listening device for seventeen days. These were all illegal, the fiscal responsible, the one on the top being L. Patrick Gray, where I would say removed from office and disciplined although they were never jailed or anything like that, everything that the FBI did to us, and I have piles of surveillance files on everything that the FBI did to us. The homing device, the burglaries, the listening device, are now entirely legal under FISA and the Patriot Act. 1:58:44 SM: Well and you can go down and get your files anytime you want to cannot you in Washington or? 1:58:47 JA: We did that actually, when we, when I found the homing device. We sued the FBI and we got tons of files there now on repository at the lab data collection at the University of Michigan. 1:59:01 SM: Wow. Someone said I ought to get my file. I never even looked. Mayor John Daley 1:59:08 JA: You mean Richard Daley? 1:59:09 SM: I mean, Richard Daley, excuse me. 1:59:10 JA: The argument he gave me in the sun. I mean, well, Richard Daley was a racist, an anti-Semite. And he allowed himself to be essentially wired by Hoover, so that he would overreact to us. Daley, I do believe if Daley had granted us permit a lot of violence to sleep in the park. A lot of the violence in Chicago would have been avoided. Instead, he adopted the most aggressive stance that he could and just gave his police force free reign to beat demonstrators. 1:59:51 SM: I will never forget the senator that was calling him a Gestapo head. Well ̶ 1:59:55 JA: And then you know what Daley, you know, and you know what Daley said back? 1:59:59 SM: No, I do not know what he said. 2:00:01 JA: Something like you Jew bastard son of a bitch. 2:00:04 SM: Yeah, I forget the senators name from Connecticut, I think. Robert McNamara. 2:00:10 JA: You know where you can find it in my book the Conspiracy Trial because it was brought out in the trial. 2:00:13 SM: Robert McNamara. 2:00:17 JA: Hated him because of the war. 2:00:19 SM: Henry Kissinger. 2:00:20 JA: That is the same. 2:00:21 SM: Haldeman and Ehrlichman. 2:00:24 JA: They got what they deserved. 2:00:26 SM: Governor Nelson Rockefeller because he oversaw Attica. 2:00:30 JA: Yeah, well, he was the murder of murderer as well. 2:00:33 SM: Barry Goldwater. 2:00:36 JA: Well, you know, Barry Goldwater’s a little interesting because he was pro-choice. And he actually hosted events for Planned Parenthood at his home. So, there is a little ambivalence. 2:00:50 SM: And William Buckley. 2:00:53 JA: William Buckley, you know, was an articulate right wing, son of a bitch. 2:00:59 SM: And I did not ask you your thoughts on the women's movement, which was certainly Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan, your thoughts on those leaders in the early years? 2:01:11 JA: Well, some of that, you know, if you look in the Sixties Papers, we wrote about that in the introduction, the women's movement, segments of the Sixties Papers, but, you know, they came along, they were more the mainstream women's movements. And what I grew up in and my contemporaries was women's liberation, which is more radical. And our view essentially was, if black people can have a liberation movement, and the Vietnamese can have a liberation movement, and Chicanos can have a liberation movement, then we too, as women, we are oppressed, and we also can be liberated. I was glad that the Steinem’s and the Friedan’s of the world, were able to take these concepts and make them more mainstream, so more and more women benefited. At the time, we were critical because we felt that they were the middle of the road. 2:02:02 SM: I just realized that Betty Friedan brings, the people in the gay and lesbian movement just cannot stand her because she was homophobic. So, and that is a real sensitive issue when you bring up her name. I am going to end right now, except I want, I had, I did not ask the final question here, which is what have you been doing all these past years? I know you are involved in Planned Parenthood, what causes have you have been involved in since the yippies. 2:02:29 JA: I would say the Planned Parenthood, I worked for Planned Parenthood for over twenty years as a fundraiser. And so, the causes that I have been primarily involved in has been choice and reproductive rights. And I actually raised have raised millions of dollars for those causes, and I am very proud of that. I consider that a very important life achievement. I also for a number of years, was involved in two states solution in Israel and ending the Israeli occupation, and I am currently living in the cohousing community and I am very much involved in cohousing and people living in community with the intention of building community. It is a very different kind of lifestyles than I have lived before but certainly is way, way better than the way most people live in isolated nuclear families. We do have a community, we support each other, we care for each other. And it is very, cohousing is a very wonderful institution that I have only just in the last few years become aware of. 2:03:39 SM: Is your new husband as active as your former husband? 2:03:44 JA: Well, he was involved in founding this cohousing community. And what he does as a living, he is a financial planner for socially responsible investing. So, what that means is essentially he is part of the movement to look at corporations and make them more responsible to environmental concerns, to women's concern, to the consumer, to, to the concerns that any progressive person would support. 2:04:14 SM: Where did you get your PhD? 2:04:16 JA: University of Toronto. 2:04:20 SM: I am done. Are there any questions? I did not ask that you thought I was going to ask. 2:04:24 JA: No. But you wiped me out. 2:04:29 SM: I tell you, what an honor to, to interview you. And I will keep you abreast of all the, the transcripts when they become available. You will see it. 2:04:38 JA: Well please do. I would appreciate transcripts. I would also actually appreciate a copy of the tape of the interview. 2:04:44 SM: Oh, you want a copy of that too? Very good. Well, okay, well, we will be in touch and as far as getting some pictures of you. I do not need them right now but sometime during the summer I would like a couple pictures. 2:04:59 JA: Well, well. I would like to say and pick anything you want from the website. And there is one of me that is supposed to come on my email. I do not know if it does, but it is on my Facebook page. 2:05:08 SM: Okay, anybody, have anybody, got a whole list of names that Paul gave me to try to interview. So, if you think of any other names, let me know, because ̶ 2:05:18 JA: You know, I mean, I, I too have a whole list of names. So, you know, if you are looking for what I suggest is if you are looking for people of a certain type, you know, you need a person who can do this and you need a person who can do that, shoot me an email and I will ̶ 2:05:31 SM: I would like more female speakers. That is what I like, more women. 2:05:41 JA: Yeah, well, I am not sure I, you know, I like to say my brain is fried by now. But if I think of any I will, I will let you know. 2:05:49 SM: Alright. Well, thank you very much. You have a great day. 2:05:51 JA: Yeah, you too. Take care. 2:05:53 SM: Yep. Bye now. (End of Interview) Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Description 2 Microcassettes Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Judy Gumbo Albert Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Albert, Judith Clavir, 1943- ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Political activists--United States; Albert, Judith Clavir, 1943--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Judy Gumbo Albert is a Canadian-born activist who was associated with many organizations such as the Yippies, Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell, and The Women's Liberation Movement. She married Stew Albert, a political activist, who was a founder of the Yippies. Dr. Gumbo Albert has a Ph.D. in Sociology. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-04-13 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.34a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.34b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 125:57 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/603424bc48167a5be22a64408df683c8.jpg 09c4a0496654acb27ca52a20011d1394 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/2d5ec16551d82678bddcb2274dfcda28.MP3 3dc3ee062adb6503d6b24b67395394be Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 24 June 2022 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Dr. Julian E. Zelizer Biographical Text Dr. Julian E. Zelizer is a Professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University and a CNN Political Analyst and a regular guest on NPR’s "Here and Now." He authored and edited 22 books including, The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for the Great Society (2015), the winner of the D.B. Hardeman Prize for the Best Book on Congress. Dr. Zelizer focuses on the area of the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century of American history. Dr. Zelizer has a Bachelor's degree from Brandeis University and he obtained a Ph.D. in History from Johns Hopkins University. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 1:05:29 Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Digital file Date of Digitization 24 June 2022 Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords Books; Rabbi; Religious leaders; People; World, Religion, Martin Luther King; Anti-war movement, Protest; Activism; Jewish life; Judaism; Cincinnati; War; Jews; Writing. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Julian Zelizer Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Lynn Bijou Date of interview: 24 June 2022 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM: 00:04 Can you hear me? JZ: 00:05 I can hear you just fine. SM: 00:06 Okay, great. Well, Dr. Julian Zelizer. Thank you very much for agreeing to do the interview on your book, "Abraham Joshua Heschel: A Life of Radical Amazement," and that was an amazing book. Could you describe your, your early years, where you grew up, your early influences in your family and peers? Where you went to high school, and college, and-and how did you become interested in history? JZ: 00:31 Sure. Well, thanks for having me. And I grew up in a place called [inaudible] New Jersey, which is a suburb in northern New Jersey. My mother was, still is a professor of sociology. While I was growing up, she taught at Barnard College. And after I went to college, she moved to Princeton. My father, Jerry Zelizer is a conservative rabbi, in [inaudible], that is where his synagogue was at a place called the Bay Shalom, and I was an only child. So, I grew up there. And I would add, since it is relevant, my father's father was also a rabbi in Columbus, Ohio. And his father, my great grandfather was a rabbi in, in eastern Europe. So, I grew up in [inaudible] and I went to, until eighth grade, a place called Solomon Schechter Day School, which was a Jewish Day School in Cranford, New Jersey, which was half Jewish Studies and half secular studies. And then I moved to [inaudible] Public High School, where I graduated in 1987. And in high school, I started to gain an interest in history. But, it was not anything I was planning to do. To be honest, I, it was just classes I enjoyed. But I was not someone who knew exactly where everything was going. And when I grew up, I did grow up going to synagogue, every week, our house was kosher, I was the rabbi son. It was very important to shaping my identity, in retrospect. Then I went to Brandeis University, between 1987 and 1991, where I started to really gain a focus of what interested me. In my junior year, I won a fellowship at Brandeis, through the Ford Foundation, they were providing fellowships to students who might be interested in academia. And they paid you a stipend, which I am sure was not that much, but at the time seemed like more money than I ever made. And over the course of the year, you have engaged in an in-depth research project and whatever your discipline was, and worked closely with a mentor. So, I started working on the history of liberalism in Massachusetts, during the 20th century with a historian named Jim Kloppenburg, an intellectual historian. And it was coming right after Michael Dukakis had locked to George H.W. Bush in 1988, which was the real first election I focused on in-depth. And I was just curious why the label of a Massachusetts liberal had been so damaging to Dukakis and, and I spent a year working on this project using original resources. And I just really started to enjoy that kind of work. And I continued with this my senior year as a senior thesis project that ended up being like 300 pages. SM: 03:43 Wow. JZ: 03:45 And by the end, I knew I was either going to do history as an academic or journalism, one of the two, as a way to study politics. And I decided in my senior year that academia was the way to go for me, and I applied and I got into Johns Hopkins University. And I went straight from college to graduate school where I was there from 1991 to 1996, when I received my PhD in history working with someone named Luca Lamba. SM: 04:19 Wow. What, your history of, of the rabbi background is, I was reading in your book that your grandfather received an award the same day Dr. King received an award at a function. Could you talk about that just briefly before we get into the main part of your book? JZ: 04:36 Yeah, I mean, the fascinating part of working on this biography of Pashto was obviously there was an element of exploring my father and grandfather's world. Both of them went to the Jewish Theological Seminary, where Abraham Joshua Heschel was a professor for most of his career, and to look back at the world of American Judaism in the 1950s and (19)60s, when my grandfather was a working rabbi, my father was studying and then become a rabbi. And I found these points of connection, which were really amazing. I was just looking by chance, at the program, I found all this old material. I think my father, I am not sure, but I think my father had found all these boxes of material when my grandfather passed away. And he asked me if I wanted them, I took them. And in it was the program for when my father graduated and was ordained as a rabbi. And I was just kind of thumbing through it. And it turned out that Heschel, a king was there to receive an honorary degree, and Heschel was obviously there as well. And my grandfather received an honorary degree as well, at that same moment- SM: 04:58 Wow. JZ: 05:00 -in the program. So, there, everyone was in the room. And it is kind of just symbolic of this project and, and kind of how it was different from some of my other work. SM: 06:07 Your father and grandfather so linked to history, and now you are linked to it. And now you are teaching it, and writing about it, which is exciting. When you look at the period, 1960 to 1975, what comes to mind as a historian, and as a scholar, who is written about this era in different ways? JZ: 06:28 A lot of things I mean, certainly political turbulence, and social turbulence is what I instantly think of with a question like that. It was a very contentious 15 years, or however you want to demarcate the period, where some of the most fundamental elements of what America is about were being questioned. And they were being challenged from left and right. And that ranged from the way race relations were part of the history of this nation and racial inequality was so ingrained in the institutions and culture of the country, to what did the US do overseas? And what were these principles that politicians talked about when they deployed military force? And how did they compare with the reality on the ground? And those are just two of the questions. There were many others. How do we handle poverty in this country? What does the government, what is the role of the government in education? And it is just incredibly broad, and it culminates in (19)74, really, with a big question about political power and presidential power with the Watergate scandal and the resignation of Richard Nixon. So, it is just an incredibly tumultuous period, but not all in a bad way. And that is part of what I have learned, while studying, including writing this book, a lot of the questions were important ones that were being asked, and they really press the nation to think about its values, its aspects, its basic moral core, and what it was going to stand for, for the next few decades. SM: 08:13 You know, the life of Abraham Joshua Heschel was, I mean his whole life, you can study a certain section, and just study that for the rest of your life. Because how did this person become who he became? And this is a kind of a general question, there will be other ones later in the interview, but the life of Abraham Joshua Heschel, I think, fits into the decade known as the (19)60s and early (19)70s, as a religious leader, an intellect, an author, a thinker, and one heck of an activist, extraordinaire. Your thoughts on his role as an icon of the (19)60s and his role in Judaism in general? And I will be asking more questions too. JZ: 08:54 Sure, I mean, that is how the book starts, it actually starts with that framework. And I have, early in the book, one of the most iconic pictures of him, but also an iconic picture of the 1960s. It is a picture of March 21, 1965. It is one of the many marches that took place in Selma for voting rights. And this was a march where King called on religious leaders to come and, and march as a show of support from the religious community for the need for legislation to protect black American voting rights. And in that photo, which most American Jews, and many American Jews have seen at some point. King is marching alongside Heschel, Fred Shuttlesworth, John Lewis, some of the iconic civil rights leaders of the period, in both a moment of civic euphoria in some ways, and also, a scary moment. Because a few weeks earlier, the state authorities had beaten protesters simply for the act of protesting. And that picture is so important because it reflected not only activism in the 1960s, in this moment when so many Americans decided to take to the streets to demand social justice, but the role religion plays in that mobilization, something that is often forgotten. Religious leaders were integral to many of the progressive political movements of the period, and Heschel has come to embody that interconnection. So Heschel, as a civil rights activist, as an anti-Vietnam activist, as an activist who fought for the rights of Jews who are living in the Soviet Union, and much more, really does reflect some of the spirit of the 1960s. And, and a forgotten place of religion in that particular world. And simultaneously, and we will talk about it more. He was also a very important figure, which brought him to this place, in kind of being a public, religious intellectual, something we do not necessarily have any more, writing books that received widespread attention about theological questions. How do we think in the post-war period after the Holocaust, after the nuclear bomb about God, and a relationship of individuals to the divine? SM: 11:32 Yeah, you did a great job in every aspect of his life, very beginning when he was young. Wherever you live, there was anti-Semitism, and he had to, he experienced that, he lived in poverty. The economics conditions are not good within his family. Could you talk a little bit about how this great rabbi who became an icon of the (19)60s were how he evolved from those very beginnings when he was in Warsaw, throughout through Europe before he came to the United States in Cincinnati. JZ: 12:09 Yeah, I mean, he has an immigrant story, which is part of what fascinated me also about him to understand that trajectory. He grows up in Warsaw. He was born in 1907. And January 11, 1907, and, and he grows up in a family of very, that comes from very distinguished Hasidic rabbis. Hasidism is a sect of what today we would call Orthodox Judaism. But very traditional, but also very spirited. It was a kind of Jewish community that prayed with exuberance that devoted much of their life to studying the Torah, the Hebrew Bible, and more. And he grows up in Warsaw being trained to be a rabbi, he is a prodigy, his family assumes he will continue with the tradition. And his father died when he is very young, and in 1916, as part of the influenza outbreak of the time and Heschel's just nine years old. But he continues with his training, his uncle trains him as a rabbi. But during these years in Warsaw, where he lives in, in the Jewish community, and is surrounded by Judaism, in terms of synagogues, and publications, he was always interested in the secular world, even as a young boy. He becomes fascinated with a group of kind of radical Yiddish, secular poet who works nearby. And I described a scene where he goes into their offices and asked if he could publish poetry with them. But ultimately, he leaves Warsaw, which is a big move for someone of his background, and he decides he wants to study at a university. So, he goes to Vilna, first, where he goes to, a high school, essentially, that trains him in secular education. And then he moves to Berlin, where he goes to the University of Berlin, and will work on ultimately a PhD in, in Philosophy. And he continues with his Jewish studies but by the 1930s, he is a guy who is still very religious, and religion is integral to how he thinks of the world. But he is also become deeply enmeshed in the highest intellectual circles of the world at that time, in Berlin at this university of philosophers, of other kinds of social scientists. And he writes his dissertation on the Hebrew prophets, and is fascinated with these figures who told the world that they could essentially hear God, and raged about everything that was bad in the country. He teaches at an adult education school in Frankfort, a very distinguished institution. But in 1938, he was kicked out of the country. He has been watching the Nazis rise to power and in 1938 the [inaudible] rounds up Jews who were not from Germany and expelled them, including him from the country. He goes back to Warsaw, he is able to escape. But ultimately in 1940, he receives a fellowship from the Hebrew Union College, which is a seminary in Cincinnati, Ohio training reformed Jews. And the head of it a guy named Julian Morgenstern, has a fellowship program where he is trying to rescue Jewish, Eastern European intellectuals. And he hears about Heschel, and he is one of the people who receives a fellowship, and comes to Cincinnati in 1940. So, his trajectory is one that always from a young age, mixed very intense Judaic study in the Hasidic tradition, combined with a fascination with the world of the secular, intellectual university. SM: 16:11 Yeah, the thing is though, right away, you notice the connection between Dr. King and Rabbi Heschel, in terms of they both had deep desire for interfaith relationship in terms of social activism and the issues of the day, whether it be racism, the war in Vietnam, even Russian Jewry, which he was involved in, as well as dealing with the Catholic Church, and their-their historic treatment of Jews by saying that Jesus was-was, was killed by the Jews, these kinds of things. He was dealing with a lot of particular issues. He has got a lot of supporters, but he has got a lot of people that are challenging him, too. So, he, he is, he is one heck of a person in terms of history books. You have a quote, in the very beginning of the book, which is, you have already made references to several things. But, I am all over here. Your book is so good with respect to quotes. Wherever he lived, you got some quotes about what he said about certain conditions. And, I am trying to memorize them. So, if I ever make a speech, I can always refer to them because they are, they are unbelievable. This is one you have at the very beginning of the book. I just want to read it. And have you comment on it, commenting on it. "There is an evil, which most of us condone, and are even guilty of, indifference to evil." Dr. King was talking all about this too, indifference with something he could not stand. "We remain neutral, impartial, and not easily moved to the wrongs done unto other people. Indifference, indifference to evil is more insidious than evil itself. It is more universal, more contagious, more dangerous, a silent justification it makes possible, and evil ripping us and expansion becoming the rule and being in turn accepted." Could you comment on that? JZ: 18:16 Yeah, that is really, it is a, it is a very important quote in my mind to understanding some of what was driving Heschel. And it is a quote, it also resonated with King who spoke about indifference all the time, in the letter from Birmingham jail, King, famously lashed out, not against the open racists of the south. But he said, the preachers who were because they said they were being pragmatic, were not doing anything. They were the real danger, was the moderate who was more dangerous than the extremists because they allowed the extremists to continue And Heschel agreed with that. I mean, part of where this came from, was Heschel watching the Nazis rise to power. And ultimately, while he was in Cincinnati from 1940 to (19)45, watching the American political community do very little to save Jewish refugees, and even watching mainstream Jewish organizations be very timid in his mind, about making this a central issue and putting enough pressure on politicians. And it was that indifference, which terrified him and he, during the 1940s saw the cost of that indifference. It allowed Nazi Germany to literally ravage the Jewish community. It allowed, you know, the Nazis to ultimately kill many of his own family members, including his mother and three sisters, and the way in which indifference was so important in the Christian community, the Jewish community, to the heart that unfolded during the war would remain with them. And he would spend a lot of the rest of his career, talking about that, really attacking people who were not doing anything, attacking people who were sitting on the sidelines, even when they knew things were wrong. And not understanding that to not act was in some ways, becoming part of the problem, which is what that quote is about. And he talks a lot about this in the book that he publishes based on his dissertation on the Hebrew prophets. And, the Hebrew prophets were not indifferent. They were the opposite. They were people who were often considered. Often, some said they were drunk, or they were not psychologically stable, because they were walking around, screaming and raging about what everyone was accepting as normal poverty, inequality, violence, injustice. And he admired the prophets because they did not do that. They spent their whole life saying this is not acceptable. And so, I think once he reaches the 1960s, and he sees the different movements taking forth, it is almost inevitable for him, to not be indifferent, and to actually devote the last decade of his life to these political struggles. SM: 21:15 You know, the prophets that you just mentioned, are throughout the book. I mean, in various issues in his life, what would the prophets do? And really, he was constantly thinking about them. And during the 1960s, in the part you talk about Selma and Washington and that era, and at the very end of the book, you know, the prophets are brought up in quotes over, and over, and over again, what would the prophets do? And, you know, I wanted to mention, too, that the books that he wrote, were amazing. I know that some of the people that were involved in the Civil Rights Movement and some of the people that were activists, like Father Barragan, Daniel Barragan, who I knew, looked up to Rabbi Heschel as a mentor. Because of the you know, this, making that religion was very important in dealing with the social issues, you know of our time, whether it be the nuclear bomb, the nuclear war in [inaudible], which is what the Berrigans were going after, and the Vietnam War. So, things like this, but it is the books, you know, these books, I have two of them. But the, the books were "The Sabbath Man is not Alone, God and Man is not Alone," "Man's Quest for God and God in Search of Man." Have you, did you have a chance to read all these books? JZ: 22:36 Oh, yes, I read them several times. Some of them are difficult to really absorb. But I read them carefully. Because what I really started to understand as I wrote the book, was there was a clear connection between what he was writing and thinking about in the 1950s. And he is really writing about, in the Sabbath, he is writing about why religion in the modern world, "God in Search of Man," or "Man is not Alone," two other books that were famous works of his where he is talking about the relationship of the individual to God, and how the individual could open themselves up to ultimately hearing God's path of. I started to see, these are not separate from the world of activism that he ends up in, they are often treated that way. You know, first he was a writer and theologian, then he became an activist. But, when you read the book, and you read these books several times you kind of see the path that would ultimately lead him to find the activism so compelling. So, the Sabbath is an example. It is not obvious. But it is basically a book of why does the Sabbath matter? Why in the modern world of finance and consumption, should people take one day a week, which is Saturday for the Jewish people, and not do any work, not use any electricity, devote themselves basically, to prayer and introspection. And he writes about it, in terms of Jewish tradition, but he also tries to make an argument that this is an antidote to the rampant consumption that Americans were engaged in, it was a way to take control of part of the time that an individual experienced and separate it from, from that modern from that modern world. So, he is thinking about how to make the secular world a better place, through religious commitment. And in these other books, he is writing about how if someone is truly pious, if they devote themselves, to prayer, to committing, to engage in what Jews called the Mitzvoth, the good deeds that are obligated of every Jew. They, they ultimately become more spiritual, they become more pious, and they can hear what God is thinking and trying to communicate to them about the world and what is wrong in the world. And he ultimately thinks about this through the Hebrew prophets. But he thinks of it also in terms of what he has seen, from the activists all around, and including many religious activists, non-Jewish, from seeing Barragan, who are also forging these connections between their own religious slash theological beliefs, and the great issues of the day. SM: 25:36 Throughout the book, when you are talking about those, not the books of Sabbath, but the Sabbath itself, that was a very important day for him. And what- -no matter where he was in his life, whether, whether he was in poverty, or whether he was, you know, in New York City, being a professor. I mean, it is a very important day, something, he would not want to do something on that day that had any effect on the Sabbath. And so that was very important. Could you talk about, you know, Cincinnati becomes an important part here. I was talking to somebody about this book, and they said, why did he come to Cincinnati? But could you talk about his time in Cincinnati, and then finally, his, his moving to New York City? JZ: 25:45 It was. Yeah, so the Cincinnati years are quite important, although they were often overlooked. And they are from 1940 to 1945, again, he has brought here by Julian Morgenstern, who was the head of the Hebrew Union College. And he has brought on as a fellow, although they ultimately make him a faculty member. And it is a very difficult five years for him. First, he is living in a reformed seminary and reformed Judaism, basically was the effect of a branch of Judaism in the United States, and in Europe as well, that did not actually require practicing many of the traditions that more observant Jews thought were essential. So, the Sabbath, for example, a traditional Jew will not use electricity on the Sabbath, Heschel would, they will not drive a car, they won't go to a supermarket or store. But reformed Judaism was not quite as strict and allowed for all that. So, here Heschel spent five years living with these individuals who were being trained to be rabbis. But he saw, they did not keep kosher. None of, many of them could not read Hebrew. They did not have the practices or the knowledge that he thought were essential to being a rabbi. It was also during these years, that the Holocaust unfolds, then as I said, his mother and three sisters would all be killed during these years. So, he is all alone. He is living in this seminary, where kind of an oddity, and he does not really mesh with most of the students and faculty around him. And, he is listening to the events in Europe, and he is mourning as different family members perish. And it is during these years, finally, in Cincinnati, that he starts, just starts to engage in a little activism. He goes, for example, to Washington in 1943. Together with an orthodox rabbi in Cincinnati, and he participates in something called the "Rabbis March," which is a group of 400, traditional and observant rabbis again, what we call orthodox today, who marched through the streets of Washington, meet with members of Congress, they try to meet with the president unsuccessfully, to demand that the American political community does something about eastern European Jews. So, these are important years, and he is also gaining a sense of some of the differences of American Judaism as it was taking form, and what was still strong in different parts of Europe like Warsaw. And, he leaves in 1945, the Jewish Theological Seminary, which is in New York, it is a seminary, and it is also where conservative rabbis were being trained. They, a guy named Louis Finkelstein, who is the chancellor offers Heschel a full-time faculty position, in part because he thinks Heschel will be inspirational to conservative rabbis who are being trained because he has that knowledge. He has that background in Eastern European Judaism that was becoming more distant for younger generation of rabbinical students like my father. SM: 26:40 It is really, I have a couple of quotes again from several parts of your book and I, it just reiterates what you have been saying about what he believed in, but the quotes are just wonderfully written, and wonderfully put together. "We affirm the principle of the separation of church and state, and we reject the separation of religion, and the human situation. And, and second one I want to quote here is "To be pious, to be a pious person meant creating a connection between spirituality and progressive politics, leading to battles against social injustice, and the militarism in the lived world." And the third one, final one, here, "He would, he wanted to repair the world by ending injustice, and injustice he saw in Europe, in his youth, and in his battles." This is, you are wording this basically, in America during the Civil Rights era, his desire to end the Vietnam War, that, this, his last years of his life when he, when he is in New York, it is amazing what he did. And, he is everywhere, he is going, he is giving a speech, or he is going to a protest, or he is, you know, going to try to get groups to interface together to work against an injustice someplace in the world. Can you talk about this, the importance at this particular time in the (19)60s of the interfaith connection that he was so involved in? And so Was Dr. King, and I, and I am a firm believer after reading this book, that if Dr. Heschel had not been here, in America, there would not have been a person like him to work with Dr. King. There were a lot of people that want to interfaith within his group, but to get your thoughts on this, on this real close connection between this interfaith effort? JZ: 31:44 Yeah, I mean, there is a lot, of a lot of points there. On the first one, there was an interesting part of the book, and, you know, he is trying to find this balance between what is the role of religion and say, in the political world. And yet, as the first quote you read, says, he is not someone who is saying, you know, religion should guide public life, he is a believer in the separation of church and state. And so, there is always this question of what are the lines, and some of his critics would argue that sometimes they were turned off, by the way, he invoked religion, because it could lead to a kind of fervor, and, and kind of a dogmatic view of issues that isn't always best in politics. It was interesting to think of some of these debates and read them both in real time and retrospectively, but ultimately, he believed that religion just had an important role. And it was not simply that if you are religious, you will see, that you have to join, cause a and cause b, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, he has this other argument which is interwoven through much of his writing after 1945, where, if you have a society where religious questions which are ultimately, questions about ethics and morality, are no longer part of the conversation, no longer part of the lived experience of, of people, then secular society can become extraordinarily dangerous. And, he saw that part of how we ended up in a world where a Holocaust against Jews could happen, or where we could use technology, like the nuclear atomic bomb to just raise two cities was because spirituality had lost its place in modern society, and that these questions that gradually faded from what many people thought about and it led them to be hardened, it led them to be indifferent. And so, he was trying to kind of craft an argument about why religion, as someone who appreciated science, he appreciated modernity, he appreciated the consumer world, but he was trying to argue that even in that if we do not have this religious core, we are in danger, we will end up doing terrible things to, to each other. And he found this interfaith community when he engaged in activism on different issues that was like minded, and the interfaith element was quite important and it was really interesting, he really rejected religious leaders, Jewish or otherwise, who, you know, believed that religions had to stay separate, believed that the basic ritualistic differences between religions rendered any effort to work together as, as impossible. One example, a concrete example was between 1962 and 1965, the Vatican in Vatican two is revisiting a lot of its most controversial doctrines in the wake of WWII and the anti-colonialism. The church is trying to look at parts of the doctrine that had been used by forces of hatred, and anti-Semitism is one of it and, doctrine related to the idea that Jews need to be converted, or that all Jews are responsible for the death of Christ become what the Vatican is discussing, and Heschel is recruited as a secret liaison to the Vatican, to talk with Vatican officials, including the Pope, about these questions, and to lobby the Vatican to change its ways. Well many Orthodox Jews when they learn that this happened, it is ultimately revealed by the press that he was part of these discussions. They are furious with Heschel, they say, this kind of interfaith dialogue is not right, that you should not be discussing with Catholics or vice versa doctrine. There are two different religions, but Heschel railed against that way of thinking. And when he has involved in the anti-Vietnam war movement, it is the interfaith connections, which really drives what he does. And then finally, yes, by the end of his career, and by the time of his death in 1972, he was everywhere, it is kind of like a [inaudible] of American history at that point. And given where he started, just as a, in the Jewish community of Warsaw that this is a guy by the end of his life, presidents are aware of, Popes are aware of, the media will cover all the time, is really a mark of the kind of impact he was able to have. SM: 36:55 Well, he had an influence on Dr. King, for sure. And, I learned something in your book about the fact that the group that Rabbi Heschel was involved with, the clergy concerned about the Vietnam War, or clergy and laity concerned about Vietnam were the ones that invited him to speak at Riverside Church in 1960. No, yeah, (19)67 against the Vietnam War. That is so historic, I never saw the connection. I thought Dr. King just came. JZ: 37:29 Right. And I did not either, actually, I mean, I knew about that speech, it is one of the most important pieces, if you study the history of the Vietnam War, and the politics. King had been very reluctant to speak out against the war, in part because many civil rights leaders did not want him too, many supported the war. In (19)67, the Vietnam War is still popular. Many were scared that if they angered Lyndon Johnson on the war, he would, you know, essentially get back at them by withdrawing his support for civil rights. And King himself was really conflicted over what to do, he famously makes a speech at the Riverside Church where finally decides to, he cannot stand it any longer. And he makes a blistering speech about the war, about the cost of the war, about what it is doing, both to the Vietnamese and here in American society. And it is a turning point, because after that King is forever part of the anti-war movement. It gives the antiwar movement broader support in many ways, because they get connected to the civil rights movement. But the way, [inaudible] was an event organized by this group, that Heschel was part of, it was- SM: 38:46 Yep. JZ: 38:46 -these religious leaders, who King was very comfortable with, he knew all of them, who invited him to speak at this event at the Riverside Church. And if you watch the old videos of it, I believe you can even see it online, Heschel is sitting there right next to him as King delivers this- SM: 39:03 Wow. JZ: 39:03 historic speech. And again, I have seen it, I have heard it, I never like focused in on who organized this thing. So, it is really I think it is an important moment. And you can see the kind of effect Heschel and his cohorts are having by (19)67. SM: 39:19 I wonder if even President Johnson saw that, or maybe he did, maybe he, because he was very upset with Dr. King. But, you did not hear him being upset with anybody else. But, he could have been upset with many of the others as well, who were there from different faiths. And I believe the minister there was Wyatt T. Walker, was not it? I believe that was, he was the minister at that church at that time. And I also want to bring up the fact that, the impact that Rabbi Heschel had on people from other faiths, his mentees, and they both said, they said this and I had all, they all came to my campus over the years. Daniel Barragan, Williamson Coffin, and Richard John Newhouse, and they were all they considered Rabbi Heschel, a mentor. And they were, my golly, they were powerful people themselves. JZ: 40:13 So yeah, they did. You are talking about some of the most important figures of that decade. And, they really admired him. And for Heschel this was important because within his own community, he was pretty controversial. And even at the Jewish Theological Seminary, some would say he had more enemies or opponents than supporters. Some of this was because he was critical of American Judaism, including the way rabbis are being trained. He did not think they were learning enough theology. They were focused more on, on textual analysis and understanding Jewish law. He was an outspoken critic of the modern suburban synagogue, he would make all these speeches, where he would say that the synagogues being built around the country were beautiful, and they offered all kinds of services, but they were devoid of prayer, they were devoid of spirit, there was no reason people would remain attached to it. And this was a direct attack on what his colleagues were trying to do, including the famous guy named Mordecai Kaplan, whose, all his writing was about the centrality of the synagogue. So, he was controversial because of his thinking, because of the way he approached the rabid and, and he was also controversial politically, again, most mainstream religion supported the war in Vietnam as late as (19)67, and (19)68, including the rabbinical assembly, and I have a statement they released in (19)67, where they condemn this group that Heschel is part of. And Heschel is really the focus because he is the Jewish leader in this group, and say they disagree with it. And they do not think what he is doing is right. So, Heschel found a lot of comfort and solace in these connections that he made outside of the Jewish world where you would have people like John Bennett, or Barragan revering him and really admiring what he was doing. And I think psychologically, at that moment in his career, this was extremely important. SM: 42:21 Well, the thing I noticed in the, in the book, you talk about the importance of memory; memory meant an awful lot to him. Here is this man who wrote all these great books, articles, you know, everything, taught students in the classroom. Yet he has this quote, Jewish said, or something that you put in the book, Jewish education to him, should foster Jewish memory. The vital sounds of Jewish education are not books, but the bearers of memories, those who engage with the spirit and bear witness, beware of that, which is, I cannot remember printing I am sorry about that. "Beware of that which has been passed down." Now obviously, throughout his life, he never could forget the Holocaust and every element of actions, even in the civil rights movement, when he saw the poverty and the terrible things happening to African Americans, they could not vote. They were being, they were being hanged. They were being denied their freedoms, treated as second class citizens. That memory of his he does not have to read a book for that, he witnessed it. And I think that is an important thing, too, that your memory is important. Any thoughts on that? JZ: 43:43 No, I think it is, it is true. Ironically, I mean he, he tried to do some of this in his book, I think he was, he was not simply concerned with people won't remember the Holocaust, because in his lifetime, that was almost inconceivable. But he did talk, he talked, for example, when he was trying to garner support for the issue of Soviet Jewry, in the early (19)60s, when it was not really an issue. There was not a movement yet. He, he reminded people to think back to the 1940s, when so much of the American Jewish community established we did not do enough to put pressure on politicians. And he worried that by the (19)60s, a lot of the Jewish community was forgetting that, and forgetting the costs that could be incurred from that kind of, you know, forgetting of the past. But, he was also really worried that American Jews were no longer able to remember that world of eastern Europe that he saw it was so glorious, even with the anti-Semitism and even with what ultimately happened yet, slightly nostalgic look, or memory of the early 20th century in that world in which he was born and raised, and he wrote a book called "The Earth is the Lord's." It is one of his, it is his first book after the war. It is published in English. And it is called "The Inner World of the Jew in Eastern Europe." And it is more, almost like a sermon or a eulogy than a book. It is a poem, all about the magic that he remembered in eastern Europe, where you had a world of Jews, who were focused on studying the Bible, studying the Torah, who devoted themselves to that over material concerns where he argued, every person regardless of wealth was equal, because knowledge was the commodity and everyone was allowed to devote themselves to that knowledge. And he talked about the enthusiasm and fervor of the Jewish community where he was raised. And of course, again, a lot of that was nostalgic, he did not talk about the immense poverty and suffering, he did not talk about some of the problems that led him to leave ultimately. But, the book is about memory. It is a plea that Americans- SM: 46:06 Yep. JZ: 46:06 -use after the war, do not forget that world, which because of the war, was now literally being lost, not just in terms of memory, but physically. SM: 46:15 Yeah, I, just about everything he touches is something you can learn from, you could get a young person, please read this book or please read about the life of Rabbi Heschel, and you will learn something about life. The rest of the interview, I want to concentrate on Rabbi Heschel and the (19)60s. Could you concentrate on, right now on Selma? In the book, you state that he, he was actually watching a program on the Holocaust on T.V. when they broke in and talked about what was going on in the south in Selma, and how they had beaten the protesters. And, John Lewis actually had his head cracked at that one. And, and he said, I got to go south. He could not, it was, just his reaction to what was happening in Selma. And of course, a couple days later, Dr. King organized another March, and he wanted to be part of it. Could you talk about that? JZ: 47:19 Yeah so, so he has, he had been following the civil rights story for, for many years already. He was an avid watcher of the evening news, he would watch it every night, he read the newspapers. And, he said that in the process of revising the Hebrew prophets, his dissertation to be a book, he, then was changing, and he was seeing the connections between what he was writing about, and the protests that he was reading about. He gets involved in civil rights, years before the Selma march. The most important I will highlight is, in 1963, Martin Luther King invites Heschel to speak at a meeting in Chicago, of interfaith leaders on religion and race. And, Heschel gives one of the keynote speeches and I quote a lot of the speech in the book because it is really, it is quite powerful. Cornell West would later say that the speech he delivered in (19)63, is "One of the most, it is one of the best speeches by a white person on race since abolition," and one of the topics. And, he basically said in that speech, which King is watching, that you cannot be a religious person, if you are a racist, that race and religion cannot coexist in the same heart. And, he attacks religious leaders who are being indifferent, who are not seeing that they have to take on this problem in American life, and the speech is covered in the press. And it really puts him on the map in the civil rights community. And before (19)65, he continues to speak in interfaith gatherings about race and religion. He does some protests and activism on the street, in New York City, on issues of education and religion. But ultimately, it is in March (19)65 that this all picks up, and it starts on March 7 1965, that is the first march, Heschel's not there. That is called and remembered as Bloody Sunday because protesters are marching and when they are on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, the authorities violently attack them, beat them, beat many of the protesters, including John Lewis, who is the head of a group called Snick, who has his head cracked open by a police baton. And, it is an important moment because the media covers it. And as you said, ABC News cuts away, they are showing the Sunday night movie, "Judgment at Nuremberg," a movie about the Holocaust, to show exactly what was taking place in the south. And, and Heschel is aware of this. He is watching this and he is following the news. And then, he gets this invitation to come to a subsequent march on March 21 where King's bringing religious leaders because the goal after Bloody Sunday, Lyndon Johnson, the president of the United States, has called on Congress, finally, he called on Congress to pass the Voting Rights bill. And so, the marches in Selma are an effort to build pressure on Congress on the administration to follow through with that promise. And then, Tim gets the invitation to go home on March 21. And he is very scared. He is truly frightened. Because going to Selma is not like a trip, I am got to get through part of a protest, Bloody Sunday shows the stakes were high that violence was a reality. And he and his family, he has a wife and daughter, are terrified. But, he decides that he has to go, he decides at this point, there is no turning back. And so, he ultimately goes, he travels there. He is picked up by Andrew Young, whose one of the important civil rights leaders who carries around a copy of the Prophet, and has read it religiously, and really admires Heschel. And then, Heschel participates in this march. And I recount kind of how the march unfolds, I found this amazing diary, where he jotted down notes about the experience that are in his archives. And it is an incredible experience for him. He feels the religious fervor from, from the event and he understands what activism can be in a new way. He famously said he felt like he "was praying with his leg," on-on that day. And he also meets, one last thing, a lot of younger Jews who were there who said they were not really religious ever, they had no connection to Judaism. But one young man who's a reformed Jew says to him, driving back to the airport, that because of that day, because of the march in Selma, and meeting and seeing Heschel who, at this point, he has changed physically, he literally looks like a prophet, he has a long white beard, his hair is overflowing, that because of that day, he understands the connection to the tradition in a very profound way. And I will add, Heschel's also horrified, he is, he is, he loves what he does, he loves the movement, but he also sees the ferocity of the, the racism as they march, they are surrounded by, you know, Alabamians, who, you know, holding up signs, with horrible racial epithets, and often anti-Semitic ones as well, they are often connected in the minds of the white racist, and he does not ever forget just how deeply rooted racism is in this country. SM: 53:13 Yeah, you state in there often that he said at this time, "That racism is our most serious domestic evil," and he said, "It was easier for the children of Israel to cross the red sea than for a negro to cross certain university campuses," which is amazing. It is true. It is, you know. JZ: 53:35 Something that King, I mean, King and him connect on, as other civil rights leaders do in seeing some of the commonalities behind the Jewish experience, and Jewish oppression and anti-Semitism with the Black American experience. And they did not see those two as separate causes, especially in the mid-1960s. And, you know, King would talk about Moses and Exodus and often use that story in his own, in his own speeches. SM: 54:07 Well, his stature was certainly growing at this time, because you also state in the book that he was invited by President Kennedy to come and speak with him about the issues that were being faced in the area of race in America. And, he sent a note to Kennedy could you say when he said to him? [laughs] JZ: 54:27 Yeah, I mean, this is about, about civil rights and I mean, I do not have the text in front of me. But he is really, if I remember correctly, really urging the president to implore religious leaders to make this an issue front and center. SM: 54:48 He said, please, I got it here, "Please demand religious leaders, personal involvement, not just sound declarations." JZ: 54:56 Yep. Yeah, he, he wants, again, it comes back to that theme of indifference even proposes, cannot remember the details of the proposal to, to Kennedy, you know, some kind of substantive action that leaders can take to commit themselves to these causes. He is frustrated with how many people are basically willing to do nothing, even religious leaders, he respects about questions like racism. SM: 55:25 To show how Dr. King and Rabbi Heschel are on the same wavelength, around this time, you know, he was arrested in Birmingham, and then he wrote the letter to the Birmingham Jail. And you talk about this in your book, where King condemns the pragmatism and, incrementalism of white moderates describing them as, "a greater threat than racists extremists." And basically, what he is saying, people always say, [crosstalk] Well, wait, just wait, just wait. And Dr. King had this all the time, when he first became the new minister, in his first church. He talked about this, and they had just fired the previous minister, and because he was kind of an activist and kind of a radical in their eyes. And they looked at him and said, "What another one?" [laughs] That was early on in his career, but he was always dealing with these things. Could you talk about the, the, his involvement against the Vietnam War? JZ: 56:29 Yes, so, this really becomes a central part of his activist career, even though we talk about civil rights. And it was quite important, it does not even come close to the amount of time and energy that he expended on the fight against Vietnam. And he starts in 1965, which I tried to convey, it is hard to convey to a moderate reader in the book, that the idea of really starting to organize against the war in 1965, was a pretty dramatic thing to do. I mean, there was not an anti-war movement to speak of. Those who were involved in anti-war activism were seen as really fringe and pretty radical. It did not have the kind of support civil rights was starting to garner by that time, but he gets involved with a small group that will ultimately be called clergy and laymen concerned about Vietnam. It starts as a group of religious leaders protesting government efforts to crack down on anti-war protests, but quickly it reforms and becomes a group of religious leaders who are critical of the war in, in Vietnam. And the group tries to position themselves as separate from the most radical parts of the anti-war movement. For example, they do not support avoiding the draft, they do not support burning draft cards. But they use religious language and rhetoric and also religious, organizational power, meaning all the membership lists of churches and synagogues to start to grow this organization and it grows. And one of the things they do, is every year, they go to Washington, they bring members to Washington as part of a mobilization that would take place in late January and early February in (19)67, (19)68, (19)69. They would have protests, they would have rallies, they would do kind of media events that reporters would focus on, they would meet with administration officials and legislators to keep putting pressure on Washington to bring the war to an end. And what they bring to the table, in these years when the anti-war movement still did not have mainstream support, was a kind of moral legitimacy that college students could not bring. They were not the hippies and the beatniks on the college campuses who could quickly be dismissed by some politicians as just radical students. These were respected religious leaders. And the group just keeps growing and, you know, by (19)69 and 1970, they were a very important, and known, and formidable part of the anti-war movement. And King increasingly becomes more radical as the years progressed, gradually more supportive of people who are refusing to be part of the draft and going to jail for doing so. He is very defensive of college students who are engaging in protests and says they have the right to do that. And some of his colleagues said that by the end of his life, he died in (19)72, the war was consuming him. He saw this as just an epic tragedy, that was emblem of what the United States was doing wrong, and its relations with the world, and also a tragedy for the American soldiers for the Vietnamese, who were dying, for something he did not think was necessary. He was not a pacifist. But this anti-war movement defined the last real seven years of his life. SM: 1:00:18 You quoted here that he said Vietnam "is an ecumenical nightmare, for Christians, Jews, Buddhists are killing each other." And this organization he was belong to, and he was involved in it, is, was very upset with president too, in Vietnam and what they were doing to the Buddhists, themselves- JZ: 1:00:37 Right. SM: 1:00:37 -and other religious groups. So, not only are we talking about it, he used to say this, another quote, you put in the book, [inaudible] which was a manifestation of a world without God, well, here we are in Vietnam, the United States is supporting this temporary government, hopefully it would survive. But in reality, they were, you know, killing Buddhists. They were discriminating against Buddhists. Buddhists hated that, too. I mean, the government, and we were supporting them. So, it was, it was everything, you look at Vietnam, there is something wrong here. And it took religious leaders like Rabbi Heschel, and Dr. King and many others from different faiths to really, you know, have an impact on the world against this war. I guess we are near the end of our time here. I want to add one final, there is a quote in the book here, and I want you to just respond to it, you wrote this quote, and it was on page 230. And, and this was your quote, "What was so important about Heschel was not that he heroically risked his life. But then he became an emblem for a kind of moral heroism that inspired, and continued to inspire others long after his moment had passed. He serves as a reminder of the often-forgotten role that deep religious conviction held within progressive movements that bent the arc of the universe toward justice." Now, that is brilliantly written. But, any other thoughts on that? JZ: 1:02:14 Look, it was my thoughts. I mean, the book is my thought, but it is a part of the history of religion in the United States that I think has gotten, it has been somewhat forgotten. I think, I say in the book that when people think of religion in politics, in 2022, or whenever they are reading the book, the major storyline, the major issue has been the religious right, and politics, the growth of- -your moral majority in the (19)70s, in the connection of religion, to the battle against reproductive rights and, and different kinds of schooling and more. But there was this whole world in the (19)60s, which I just found fascinating, where people like Heschel, were at the forefront, at the center of progressive political movements. And they did it not just as religious people who happen to agree with progressive causes, but as people whose religion in their minds, led them inevitably to partake in fight for social justice here in the United States, the connection was impossible to ignore. That is what Heschel reflected. And I think, whatever your politics kind of recovering that world today, is something that is extremely important. And thirdly, if you are someone involved in some of these causes, the way in which religion can be part of that conversation, part of that effort is an incredibly important lesson from his life, and one that we need to examine through him, and through other figures of the time. SM: 1:02:43 Yep. I end all my interviews with a question and it is just a very fast, what word of advice would you give to future generations who are listening to this tape, 50 years from now? What word of advice would you give to them? Because the purpose of The Center for the Study of the (19)60s is not only to, you know, do to create research and scholarship materials and for students, faculty and national scholars, but to reach people who are yet unborn too, so that they never lose their, their history. But they are always thinking about where they are, where they are at right now. What advice would you give them? JZ: 1:04:34 Well, if I am connecting my advice, to Heschel's story, it would be what we talked about earlier that it is important, whatever your religious perspective, to keep asking questions about our ethics, our morality, our basic values in society, and to never be indifferent to those kinds of questions, and to understand that we need to always ask those questions, if we are going to have a better country. We are going to have a better community. This was an insight that I derived from Heschel, which I think is incredibly powerful. And then if we do not ask those questions, we put ourselves down the path of a very bad road. And, and we cannot afford that. SM: 1:05:25 Dr. Zelizer, thank you for a great interview. I am going to turn off the tape. (End of Interview) Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Julian E. Zelizer https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/fc30ee2fd372ebf02c4536163950fbf9.jpeg 5e5141893c5b151f074de2f225227105 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/ab39013ab21ad7a7292913056a47c428.mp3 262a9be4733457fd91d9f14768408b1b Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2022-10-28 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Dr. Kate Clifford Larson Biographical Text Dr. Kate Clifford Larson is a historian, author, and consultant. She is the author of several books including Walk With Me: A Biography of Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosemary: The Hidden Kennedy Daughter; and Bound for the Promised Land: Harriet Tubman, Portrait of an American Hero. Dr. Larson is a specialist in 19th and 20th century U.S. Women’s and African American History and a consultant and interpretive specialist for numerous museums, and community initiatives related to Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad in Maryland, Delaware, and New York. She earned a Bachelor's and Master's degrees from Simmons College in Economics and History, an MBA from Northeastern University, and a Ph.D. in History from the University of New Hampshire. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 1:40:12 Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Digital file Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords Mississippi; Fannie Lou Townsend Hamer; White; Women; Black; Sharecroppers; Community; State; People; Vote; Mississippians; Book; Students Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Kate Clifford Larson Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Lynn Bijou Date of interview: 28 October 2022 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM: 00:00 Great. All right. I am speaking with Kate Clifford Larson, who has written a brand-new book called, "Walk with Me," it is a biography of Fannie Lou Hamer, and thank you, Kate for agreeing to be interviewed. KL: 00:16 Thank you for interviewing me. SM: 00:18 Now, could you please tell me about your growing up years? Your, your when you were in elementary school, high school, college, and how you became interested in writing biographies. KL: 00:33 So, I grew up in Lewiston, Maine, which is a mill town in South Central Maine. And, you know, I just, my dad was a lawyer, and he was a history buff. So, we were brought up very much interested in history. There were books all over the house and, and, you know, we go on vacations or trips, and our dad would take us to this historic site and tell us stories. So, I had that, that love of history growing up. So, when I went to college, at Simmons in Boston, I majored in Economics and History because I just, I loved history so much, but I also enjoyed economics. And I, you know, I followed the, you know, the tracks to, into the business world, and I worked for an investment bank, I got my MBA at Northeastern University. And, you know, I followed that path. But, I was always interested in history. I, you know, I used to love to go to old bookstores and get old books, and I did antiquing with my husband. And sometimes, I would find old diaries that people had written in, you know, people would sell them in their bookstores or antique stores. So, I amassed quite a collection of diaries, and most of them were women. And I just became fascinated by these women's lives that they were writing about in their diaries from the 19th century or early 20th century. So, I, it was just something that I was attracted to. And in the, I guess it was in the late (19)80s, or early (19)90s. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, had come out with a couple of books. One was, " The Midwives Tail," which was an amazing book about a midwife in Maine, which I really loved reading, because I came from Maine and I-I just, I knew those landscapes, and it was fascinating to me. And she also wrote, "Good Wives." And so, I read both of those books. And it just hit me that I loved history so much, and I love stories about women in the past, so I decided to leave the investment banking industry and, and go back to Simmons and get a graduate degree in women's history. So, I, it was like a, it was such a relief to admit that I really loved history. And I was privileged enough. And my, my husband and my, my family were very supportive of me, you know, moving on, and striking out in a new career path. And when I was at Simmons, in, I took an African American History course with a professor that I had back in the (19)70s. I adored him, his name was Mark Solomon. And he was teaching an African American History course. And I had never taken that, African American history as an undergrad. And in two weeks of taking that class, I knew that I wanted to study not only women's history, but African American history. And that set me on the path of learning about Harriet Tubman, who had not had a biography written about her since 1943. This was in the early (19)90s. So that was shocking to my professors, to me, to everybody. And I-I thought, "Well, gee, I will write my master's thesis on her," and my faculty members, my advisors were like, "Whoa, wait a minute, this is a huge project. Why do not you do your master's on something else, and then go on, and get a doctorate, and do your dissertation on Tubman and that way, you will have more training and skills to be able to take on such an iconic figure." And so, I did that, and I went to the University of New Hampshire to get my Ph.D. and that is where I worked on my dissertation of Tubman. And that hooked me on biography. I just love being able to tell history through the lens of one person's life and delving into that person, that woman's life, that person's life in a very deep way. I just love that emotional and intellectual connection that I have with my biographical subjects. And so that really, the Tubman work just changed my life and set me on this track of being a biographer. SM: 03:58 Wow. When you wrote the Tubman book, and now you have written the book on Fannie Lou Hamer, what, do you, did you often compare them in terms of what they did, how, who they became, their experiences they had growing up? What were, what was common about both of them? KL: 05:24 So, you know, I learned about Hamer in graduate school, I did not, was not aware of her as a young adult in well, I was a child during the (19)60s, a young adult in the late (19)70s and into the (19)80s. I did not know anything about her, but I learned about her in graduate school. And I admired her and I just thought there was something interesting, but I did not learn that much about her. I just learned the surface. She, you know, spoke at the Democratic Convention, she talked about being a Mississippi sharecropper, and, and the violence in the south. And that was about it. So, when I learned more about her, you know, over the years, I noticed they were biographies being written about her. So, I started reading more and more about her. And I began to get that feeling that yes, she was very similar to Harriet Tubman, just 100 years later. And, you know, it just took me maturing as a scholar, and, you know, becoming more and more aware of, of the diversity of the twentieth century because I focused very much on the nineteenth century. And I just I, it, Fannie Lou Hamer seemed like, someone that I really needed to pay attention to. And so, when I, after I wrote my book on Rosemary Kennedy, which was a long-long, long, process I came out of that, and I was thinking about the next project and Fannie Lou Hamer was really right there at the top of my head saying, you know, like, almost like knocking on my head saying, "Hello, hello." So, I decided to pay a little bit more attention to her. And it really was stunning to me. The similarities between Hamer and Tubman, how they came out of, basically, nowhere, even though that is somewhere and it was really important to them. They came out of a, it was a very difficult circumstances, deeply rural communities, they had limited access to education, actually, Tubman had- did not have access to formal education at all. Hamer had very little. So, I had to learn to, to look at their lives in a different way than I would at a traditional life of someone that had access to all sorts of privilege like a, Rosemary Kennedy. And how, how do women like Hamer and Tubman rise up out of those circumstances? And how, you know, are they natural born leaders, which I think they are, and I think there are many natural born leaders. But not every natural born leader, every leader actually ends up leading because they do not have the support and the circumstances around them that propel them forward. And in, in Tubman's life, she needed the support and care of her family in the community there that helped raise her and protect her in slavery, and then taught her the skills she needed to be this incredible leader. And the same thing with, with Hamer, she had limited education, she lived in a community that was incredibly oppressive against Black people, and the violence perpetrated against people in Mississippi, people of color in Mississippi and elsewhere, was just horrific. And so, she came out of that because of the fierce strength of her family, to protect her help her grow and learn. And the community that you know, by out of necessity and out of survival, the community had to be strong together to protect each other. And so, that was the similarity between Tubman and Hamer. This really strong community and family, and powerful faith that help them survive their darkest moments. They turn to their God to guide them, to comfort them, to give them a sense of moral certainty, and makes them feel that they were loved and protected at times when that really was not happening. So, the similarities are striking. And it made me think of, of paying attention to other leaders in this world that do not come from Ivy League educations, or privileged background, or all white, and because leaders can come from anywhere and they are here today in our communities, and how do we recognize them, because they need support, they cannot do it on their own. SM: 10:02 One of the things that, after reading your book, in every area of her life from her childhood to early adulthood to adulthood. And finally, when she passes, she believed in one thing and, everything she did it was work, work, work, get the job done. And I was, even she had health issues and everything in her life. But, could you talk about that strong work ethic that she had when she was a child working in share, as a sharecropper. And then later in life when she was involved in certain causes and was snick, and everything, she was just a hard worker. KL: 10:47 Yeah, so I think that was the essence of life in Mississippi at the time period. I mean, work meant food, work meant, you know, being able to have clothing, or a roof over your head. So, it was, I do not know, if it was a work ethic, it was out of necessity. If she had a choice to work at something else, she would have found something else that would have been more satisfying to her. Being a sharecropper is incredibly difficult, back-breaking work. And in that environment, it was abusive. You know, the plantation bosses tried to cheat the sharecroppers constantly. So, it was not, I would not say it was an ethic. I mean, it certainly is an ethic. Yes, it is an ethic. But it is, it is rooted in the need to eat, and have clothing, and a roof over your heads. And, but she, what her, her pride in the ability from a young age from the time she was a teenager to pick 200-300 pounds of cotton a day, is that speaks to that work ethic that you are talking about. But it was one of the few places that she could find tremendous pride, this young girl, being able to pick the same amount of cotton as an adult man and an adult woman. So, that work ethic comes out and is displayed in different ways. And of course, you know, she just was a high energy person, she had this, this incredible, like the-the young civil rights workers that worked with her talked about her kinetic energy and her inspirational movement, she just was on the move constantly. She was always moving forward and thinking what, what is the next thing to do, how to do it, she had passion to make change. And that is what drove her to work so hard. It was not, once she was able to feed herself, and have a roof over her head consistently. Her next drive, that ethic to, to work to make change is what drove her. So, she moved from food and housing insecurity, to, you know, civil rights insecurity and- SM: 13:14 Right. KL: 13:14 Making the world a better place. So that is, those were the drivers of her passionate work ethic, if that is what you want to call it. SM: 13:21 Yeah, there were two things on, early in the book that, that really kind of upset me. And it was, learning about this, Senator Eastland. And who he was, he was such a racist, and he was a very powerful senator. And then, of course, John Stennis, who, you know, we know later in years, he was pretty much similar. Their attitudes toward people of color was so, not shocking, because if you study it, it is part of what you expect during that period. But still, to hear it. And to know that Lyndon Johnson had to deal with him on a daily basis, and some of the other senators in the South who believed in white supremacy and keeping the people of color down. Just your thoughts on Senator Eastland and the senators of her state. KL: 14:08 Oh gosh, they were horrific human beings, and they were in the Senate for a really long time, which was not so long ago. And, you know, we are hearing the echoes of that racism today. People are more clever about how they use that language when they are in public, and they give speeches, but it is the same violent, racist rhetoric, that is just, you know, twenty-first century style. And he was, he was a, he was such a bigot. And so was Stennis, and it is interesting, you bring up Lyndon Johnson, so when I did my work for this book, I spent a lot of time listening to those Oval Office tapes. You know, he set up that system to tape everything in the office. He could not stand those senators, he could not, he just thought, he knew they were wrong. He talks about it on, in some of these tapes, how they are wrong. And you know, Black people deserve to vote, and they should have their, you know, representation and etc. And he was trapped in a world, at that time, that was struggling to move into the twentieth century and overcome these racist strangleholds on the-the beauty of freedom and equality in this country. And he needed those southern votes in order to become the president elected in, for, after Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson becomes president. And then the election is right after that in-in 1964. And Johnson wanted to be the nominee, so that he could move forward Kennedy's agenda and his own agenda for the country, a more progressive agenda, including civil rights, but he could not really come right out and say that to the world, especially to southerners, because Southern Democrats because they would not have voted for him. As it turns out, many of them did not, but he still won. But he-he faced these intractable racists who saw, they, their world was just literally black and white, and any person of color was ignorant and beneath them and had no, no place in the political sphere, in a govern, place of government, to, you know, make laws and make, they you know, that he just believed that white people knew what was best for Black people. And it was just disgusting. It really was disgusting. And this is what Hamer and her community and Mississippians lived with. And there were white Mississippians who did not go with this thing. They were trying, they were very supportive of the civil rights movement. But a great majority of them were definitely in favor of Stennis and Eastland. They were horrible people. SM: 17:00 You had another example of this at the time that Fannie Lou Hamer was going to run for Congress. And she and another citizen of the state went to the Capitol, and they were going to register to run for Congress. KL: 17:17 Right. SM: 17:17 And the-the young white woman, could you describe that, the young white woman who met them and was going to give them a form that goes back to the corner of the room and starts talking about them? She used the n word. KL: 17:30 Right. So, and, I think this is what Hamer heard everywhere she went, the N word, it was not, you know, an African American, or Black person, they, the white people use the n word constantly, just it was everywhere. But, I think it is the-the tone that Hamer heard, when that happened, this, she was trying to file her papers to run for Congress. And, she was there with an associate. And she-she, they were, they-they were, they were missing some papers that need to come from elsewhere in the state. So, the civil rights activists are gathering those papers and trying to race them down there in time. And the white woman there, the counter is, you know, whispering to her coworkers. But of course, not really whispering, they can hear everything that the white woman is saying, and she uses the n word. And there is this tone to it. Like, it is, it is just this, there is evil intent in it. It is just, you know, I cannot say it. I do not, I do not want to repeat the words- SM: 18:37 Yes. KL: 18:37 But you know, the tone, the people know [crosstalk] that tone. So, that is what she lived with. That is what she faced, but it made her more determined, you know, she was getting that reaction in the clerk's office. And she was getting it out on the streets, but she knew that she was hitting a nerve. And it was important that she show everybody that you need to stand up and, and do something, you cannot just keep complaining. And it is funny, because at one point in her life, she was going along and doing what she could to make a difference, you know, for her family, and maybe right there in the community. But at one point, she realized, and we can talk about that point in her life that, that, change had to come, and that she needed to be the change she was looking for. And that was an important moment. I think many people come to that moment. And they-they, there is a crossroads, are they going to be the change? Or are they going to continue to go along the path that you know where nothing is going to, you know, change? SM: 19:03 Like Rosa Parks. KL: 19:06 Yeah, exactly. Making that decision, that moment in time. SM: 19:34 For those of you that are, would be listening to this interview, could you really go into detail about the definition of white supremacy in the south, particularly in Mississippi? Because it is, it is so, it is, even though you know what is happening, the more you read about it, and the more examples you stated in the book, the more upset you become, that this can happen, that human rights as like Fannie talked about, eventually human rights. KL: 20:16 Right-right. SM: 20:16 And, you know, treating people as human beings. Could you talk about how serious it was, even in the justice system, even when people could not, you know, could not vote. KL: 20:29 Right. SM: 20:30 Just talk about that white supremacy. KL: 20:32 So, the white supremacy, it was, and it was a lot of white male supremacy that was the overarching, I do not want to call foundation, but the-the crown of this white supremacy pillar, of white supremacy. And so, it, it permeated everything in Mississippi. Literally, everything was affected by white supremacy. So not only did Black people not have the right to vote, they did not have many rights at all, they could not enjoy the public library because the libraries were segregated, and there was no money to build Black community libraries, restaurants were segregated, bus stations were segregated, everything was segregated. Public buildings were segregated, there was a line in a clerk's office for, you know, Black people and a line for white people. And of course, the water fountains, and the bathrooms, and all of that. So that is just a visual that you could see every single day. It was in hiring, you know, Black people were hired for the menial jobs, paid as little as possible, cheated. You know, white supremacists could get away with, gee, not filing those taxes to pay for Social Security for Black people that they hired to work for them. So, Black people would go and retire and they would find out there was nothing in Social Security for them, because the people they work for, for decades, never put into the Social Security system for them. And, and then those employers never got in trouble. There was never, there were never repercussions. Loans to purchase, homes were denied, schools were segregated and the Black schools in Mississippi, only 12 cents out of every dollar, went to, an education dollar, went to a Black school, the rest all went to white schools. Black teachers were paid less. The transportation to schools was spotty in like, say the Mississippi Delta, you know, where children were scattered, you know, miles and miles apart. And to get to school, it was very difficult. They needed bus service, but that might not be provided by the town. Medical services were segregated, hospitals often would not treat Black patients in the same room, you know, emergency rooms or clinics that they served white people, some doctors would not even treat Black patients. Black women were denied access to hospitals to deliver babies, they relied very much so on midwives. Whereas white women, 80 percent of, of childbirth, white children were born, born in hospitals, delivered by doctors, whereas only 20 percent of Black women had that benefit. So, the child survival rate, the mortality rate for Black children, by the time Hamer was born in 1917, and into the 1920s and (19)30s, 1 out of 5, 1, a quarter of all Black children died before the time they were five years old. That is horrific- SM: 23:53 Wow. KL: 23:53 Because there was no access to health care. Sanitation was poor. You know, of course, they would set up you know, good sanitation systems in white neighborhoods, but they would not do that in Black neighborhoods. And particularly out in the fields, where, like in the Mississippi Delta, the sharecropper cabins were on the low point of the property, the worst soil and that is where they would have the, sharecroppers and their outhouses, and in rains, then everything would flood and disease would spread rapidly. It was, it was a horrific, horrific place. And then just the sheer intimidation, of Black people who try to aspire, to do something more to get ahead in the world. You know, Hamer tells the story of when she was young, her family had started to make a little bit of money being sharecroppers, it was a, during the 1920s, the prices of cotton were high. Their father, her father was able to buy a used truck and some farm animals, like a cow and a steer, etc. And, a white neighbor was jealous and he poisoned the food trough for the animals and within a matter of hours, they all died. And there were no repercussions to that. Mississippi has the highest lynching rate of any state in the country, one of their counties, Hinds County has the highest lynching numbers of any county in the country. It was a very violent, violent place. And, you know, the-the efforts that white people went to, to prevent Black aspiration, Black rights. Just it knew, it knew no bounds, and there were no repercussions to whatever white people wanted to do. SM: 25:43 And we're talking about the justice system as well, because two of the major events you talk about in the book is, the Emmett Till murder. KL: 25:53 Right-right. SM: 25:54 And certainly, the murder of Medgar Evers and you know, the trial and, how they are all let off in short periods of time, the people who committed these terrible crimes. KL: 26:03 Exactly. It is a, it is a blood, a stain on Mississippi. It really is a stain on Mississippi. And, and as we are talking about Emmett Till, there is a film coming out today, I believe it is the day that it is premiering, about the murder of 14 year old Emmett Till, a Chicago boy who was sent by his mother down to Mississippi to spend time with relatives and he was murdered by, these white supremacists who ended up being in law enforcement, believe it or not, just it is stunning. But, they murdered him about six miles from where Fannie Lou Hamer was living at the time in, in, in 1955. And, and the same thing with Medgar Evers. He was assassinated in his driveway, in June of 1963, the same day that Hamer and her colleagues from the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, that had been arrested and put in the Winona County Jail. They were released after being terrorized and beaten for four days. They were released on, the same day that Medgar Evers was assassinated. SM: 27:09 Wow. KL: 27:10 And the, you know the-the white supremacist who killed Medgar Evers, all these people they got off, they did. It was like a joke. And, and the authorities in Mississippi often knew that violence was going to take place and they did not do anything about it. In fact, they had, they had like a secret service group, it was like a KGB, it was the sovereignty commission that had its own investigators and spies, that would spy on the Black community and keep records on people in, in the Black community and their white sympathizers, much like the FBI did. And, and they knew about plots to, you know, kill people, harass people, fire people, chase them out of town, that kind of thing. And they did nothing. It was just, it was state-sponsored violence, terrorism, murder, you name it, the state was complicit. And when people were caught, white people were caught, you know, doing, committing violence, murder, etc. They-they universally, were not convicted. It is just you know, I do not know, I, it is just stunning to me. And it was such a short time ago. That is what is shocking. It is one thing to write about Harriet Tubman and slavery. That was 150-170 years ago. People just really cannot get their head around it. But this happened 50-60 years ago, and it still happens across this country, too. SM: 28:36 I think I, sent, I go back to Senator Eastland. I believe after World War Two, when the African American troops came home, I think it is in your book, you state that, they were coming back and hoping you have equal rights- KL: 28:52 Right. SM: 28:52 -in, back at home after the war, after serving their nation. And his commentary was, that the African American troops had been raping women in France- KL: 29:01 Right, and- SM: 29:02 -trying degrade them as, in any way he could. KL: 29:05 Exactly. And of course, that is the old stereotype, the trope, that enraged white southerners that, that made them want to fight the Civil War to keep slavery. And also, after the Civil War to prevent Black people from getting rights is by, portraying Black men as rapacious beasts who all, the only thing they wanted to do was rape white women, and Eastland fed right into that, he told lies, he should have been sued. He should have been barred from the Senate for that kind of comment. And, and so you know, and it did not happen, but when Black soldiers came home to Mississippi, they were attacked. There was one man that was murdered pretty quickly. And you know, because they came back they have been fighting for freedom around the world for liberating, oppressed peoples, they come home and they have to go to, you know, the segregated, whatever, even if it was available, they had to go to the segregated places, they could not sit at the front of the bus, they had to sit at the back. You know, they were spat on-on the streets. I mean, who does that? It is just, it is just incredibly awful. And we, as a nation have forgotten it. And it was not so long ago, it has been percolating, it is still there. It is not wide out in the open, like Eastland used to talk and behave. But the tones are still there. And some of the words are still-still there. And it is frightening, very frightening. SM: 30:33 Now, this is important because you talk about this, too, that even though Fannie Lou Hamer only went, I think sixth grade education, she was very well informed. And, a question I want to ask you, and please explain, is how informed was she about what was happening around the state of Mississippi with all these things, not just locally, but through the state and through the nation on these terrible things that were happening to people of color? KL: 31:01 Right, so of course, through the grapevine she would hear about what was happening of, to people of color in her community, it would just, you know, the church, out in the field, people would say, "Oh, did you hear what happened to so and so." She, when she became, nationally known, and she would give speeches, she would say she knew nothing about the Civil Rights Movement, until 1962, when Snick came to her church. That isn't true, she was actually extremely well informed. And she was part of a, national, sort of underground civil rights movement that was going on in Mississippi during the 1950s. And, it was very dangerous to be involved in civil rights activities because you could be murdered for it. You could be harassed, you could be evicted, you could lose your job. So, but she was, she-she was, she tried to get memberships in the NAACP, she would go out and canvass and, and there was a big event that happened every year in Mississippi it was called, mine, "Mound Bayou Days," it was like three or four days in May. TM Howard, he was an insurance salesman, and also a doctor who ran this big event in Mound Bayou, and they would invite outside speakers, like Thurgood Marshall came to speak there in, in the 1950s, and Mahalia Jackson would sing there. And, they would have this huge barbecue and people, African Americans would come from all over the state, and Tennessee, and other states, to you know, listen to speeches, and to gather, and sing, and things like that. So, she was part of that, actually, one of her relatives told me about how she would work with, this relative's father, and they would cook up 500 chickens for the barbecue and, and so she was there. And they would have secret meetings, while the mine, Mound Bayou days were going on and everyone was celebrating and listening to speeches. She was attending private meetings about civil rights and how to move them forward in Mississippi. So, she was very well aware. And she did talk about how she was made aware, it is almost like she would tell two different stories out on the campaign trail trying to get people interested in, in civil rights, she would say that she used to clean the house of the plantation owner where she was a sharecropper. And she would see magazines and newspapers discarded in the trash, well she would collect them all, and bring them back home and read them all. So, she did keep up on current events and, and also in the church, you know, someone would have a copy of "The Crisis," or the "Chicago Defender, “newspaper. And so, she would get to read it there, or the barbershop might have some, some things that people could, could read. So, she was informed. But you know, living there on the ground in Ruleville is different than reading what is happening on the, in the, on the national level, and the national level does not know what is happening to her in Mississippi. SM: 34:14 Right. KL: 34:14 So, there was that, that is why she, in part of her compulsion to make a change, like people needed to hear about what was going on in Mississippi. And that was her voice, once she decided to be the change and she got up on stage. She let people know what was happening in Mississippi and they listened. SM: 34:35 One of the things that was taking place if things were not bad enough in Mississippi, and in the south is when the Citizens Councils were formed. KL: 34:44 Yeah, right. SM: 34:44 Could you talk just briefly about that, and what they were and, and why they were formed? They had the KKK already, I just- KL: 34:52 I know [chuckles]. SM: 34:52 Yeah. KL: 34:53 It is, it is insanity when you think about it. So, after the-the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education and the order to desegregate schools came down. The, white southerners flipped out, they freaked out and started coming up with ways to prevent this from happening. And so immediately, there was a man in, in Mississippi and his name is escaping me at this moment, I apologize. He started the Citizens Councils, because they wanted to make sure. And he used language like, "You know, our white daughters were not prey to Black men in the classroom." You know, we did not want, and they used horrific lane, language, about you know, middle school and high school Black boys as "monkeys and apes," and they were going to "attack their white daughters if they were allowed to be in the same classroom." So, they formed the Citizens Councils, and white citizens, you know, vowed to, it was like a, it was like white collar clan, actually, you know, it was, because some people did not want it, some more elite people in Mississippi, white people in the south did not want to join the clan, they see, that looks more like low class to them. So, the Citizens Council gave the elites something they felt looked more respectable, but it was the same evil, it was the same horrific attitudes and racism. It was just, you know, it was painted a prettier color. And, and more powerful people were part of it. But they did work with the Klan. And so, there was a very fine line between the two of them, if, or maybe a dotted line between the two organizations. And, you know, Fannie Lou Hamer said something really interesting about the Klan, and I would love to quote that for you right now. Hold on one second, let me just find it. SM: 36:48 Okay. KL: 36:49 She, you know, she was such an astute observer of human beings and their-their belief systems. And she just, I do not, I just find her to be, because she, it is a lived experience for her, she was able to articulate it in a way that a Martin Luther King could not. He inspired in one way, and she inspired in another because she could talk about something so personal and what was happening on the ground in Mississippi. So, this is what she said about the Klan and, and white supremacy. And because of her deep faith, she always had this as a theme that she did not hate anybody, despite what happened to her in Mississippi and how she was treated by white supremacists. But she, so she said, "I really do not hate any man. There is got to be something wrong psychologically with the person to have me beaten because of the color of my skin. Hate is like to cancer," she said, "It eats away at a human being until they become nothing but a shell. That same hate will make you stay up at night. That is the reason you have the Ku Klux Klan, and all these other hate groups, that a man should stay up all night trying to figure out how he can fix a sheet to make a point in it, to go out and terrorize another human being is really stupid. The point is not in the sheet. It is in his head." It is such a powerful, powerful statement, and it is true. So, this is, this is what she lived with. And so, while the Citizens Council was, you know, legitimized by the state in a sense because it, you know, it had officers and it was, you know, they had an office and they hired people to coordinate the different councils, but it started in Mississippi, it spread throughout the South. And so, while they had contact with Klan members, and sometimes Klan members were members of the council and vice versa, they also became tightly interwoven with the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, which was like that KGB organization I-I mentioned before. So, the Citizens Council was privy to the-the spying that these, the sovereignty commission investigators did on Black people and then civil rights workers. And so then, they would let you know, white employers know, "Hey, your guy was at this civil rights meeting," and so that white employer would fire that employee the next day. Wow. So, it was just a vicious, vicious circle of hate and, and terror, and manipulation that was going on there in Mississippi and other southern states. SM: 39:39 One of the things is that Fannie Lou was a really good organizer. And with that work-work, work, mentality. Could you talk about before she made links with Snick and worked with them? Could you talk about any other organizing she did when she was younger? Whether it be as a sharecropper or, during, people that were having problems with poverty, with food, with clothing, and she always seemed to be doing something, even though she did not have hardly anything, she was always thinking about helping others. KL: 40:13 Right-right. So, there was an interesting part of her life. I mean, there were so many things she did, whether it was through her church, you know, the church women doing fundraising to raise money to buy food for starving families in the community. You know, those are the basic things that she would do, but in the field. So, this was a common thing where the bosses, the field bosses, or the plantation boss would try to cheat the sharecroppers and weigh their cotton and underweight it. And they had these contractions, they would bring up these scales, they would bring out in the fields, and they had weights that they would attach to a counterweight, and they were called peas. And so, Hamer noticed that some of these peas had been altered so that they miss, read the weight on the cotton that the sharecroppers would pick each day. And so, they were being cheated, so they would get paid less. So, Hamer noticed this, so she got a hold of her own pea. And when the plantation boss was not looking, she would switch out the altered one for the actual, real one. And so that she would be able to make sure that people were paid accurately. And her fellow sharecroppers thought she was crazy to do that, because if she gets caught they figured she would get not only fired, but she could have been killed. So, she was very brave that way. And, you know, she was, she would negotiate in the morning. So, they would travel around once they were, one plantation, if they picked all the cotton, one place, then they would hire themselves out to pick in other plantations. And so, sometimes they would arrive in the morning, and so they would bicker with the plantation boss, or the field boss about how much they were going to get paid per pound. And Hamer, what, it was said, would bicker the best deal for those pickers, and so, she was admired. She was already a leader, in a sense, in the community for-for justice. And so that, that carried her forward so that when Snick did arrive in Ruleville, Mississippi in 1962, they recognize pretty quickly that she was an emerging leader in that community. SM: 42:31 Yes, she is unbelievable. I-I wrote something down that I just want to share. I put down here that her astounding ability to deal with life and death issues while never losing her focus to achieve very positive deeds for others. She was always seemed to be doing things for others, which is, she was a selfless person from the get go. And, and I want to talk about this too, because I want to get into the areas where, really divided into sections in the book, "The Mississippi Appendectomy," the Winona, whenever she was beaten, and certainly there was even the time when her house was shot at, she was not there, but she could have been killed. Just, her mental health. When you think about what African Americans were going through, not just, not just Fannie Lou, but everybody there that, you know, their mental health, how they could even survive that. Could you talk a little bit about her mental health throughout her life and how she was able to recuperate, and I know she had a lot of faith, her faith in God was strong. But still, she had a makeup, to refocus after- KL: 43:46 Right. SM: 43:47 -tragedy and continued serve others. KL: 43:49 Right. So, she did, she continued to weather storms and to face down violence, experienced violence and, and grief, and all of that, and rise up afterwards. And, and a big part of it is, her faith that, you know, her, her psyche, her mental health took many punches. But she found her way out of darkness, through her faith. But also, I credit her mother and her father. She, and the tight family and community she lived in, you know, they-they, she had a very strong mother that was a model for her. And-and there were other women in the community that were models for her. And so, she-she had that sense of security in, in the community, that there were people there that loved her not only just her family, but other people in the community, and that they were survivors and she could survive too. And of course, she was raised to protect herself. You know to, to pay attention to the landscape of white people because you never knew when a white person was going to attack you or do something awful to you. So, she had that radar so, she was insulated in a sense, because she was so prepared. And that is awful that you have to grow up being acculturated, and prepared, for anything that might, violence or whatever comes your way, perpetrated by a white person that hates the color of your skin and what you represent. SM: 45:20 Wow. KL: 45:21 So that was, that is how she survived. Of course, not every person of color did survive, the things that she survived. And that is why, what I write in the book is, "The Mississippi Appendectomy," in 1961. She went to the hospital and Dr. Charles Durrell there, in Ruleville, was supposed to do surgery on her, to get, to take out some uterine tumors. Benign ones, but he gave her a hysterectomy, and never told her. And this was a, it was so common that white doctors did this to Black women that it was called, "A Mississippi Appendectomy." And you know, a woman would, could go into the hospital, this was reported at the time, went into the hospital for, a, an appendicitis attack and came out without her uterus. This happened to Black women and poor white women at the time. So, Hamer comes out of the surgery, thinking the tumors are gone, and maybe she possibly could get pregnant because she and her husband, Pap Hamer, had been trying for years to have children of their own, and she would have several miscarriages, stillbirth, and it was having difficulty getting pregnant. And so, they wanted to their family to grow beyond the two girls that they had adopted. So, she gets home to recuperate, and it is a long recuperation from a hysterectomy. And, the cook of the plantation, in the plantation bosses house comes to her and says she overheard the plantation boss's wife, Mrs. Marlow, speaking to her friend telling her that Dr. Daro had sterilized Fannie Lou Hamer. Fannie was crushed, she was angry, she was filled with hate and, and, and just went to a very dark place, her mother died the same year. So, she was filled with this pain, and grief, and loss of her mother, the loss of her ability to have babies. It was all taken from her. And she just, she really hit the depths of depression. And, she worked her way out of it. She had two little girls at home, she had the beef, therefore her husband, Pap, the community. And when, that, shortly thereafter, in 1962, that is when Snick arrived in August of 1962, in Ruleville, and she decided to go because it was that moment that I mentioned earlier, when she decided that she either, you know, had to just exit and not participate in anything anymore. Just be at home and do her sharecropping, and that was it for the rest of her life. Or, she had to look for a way to make change in her life. And when she went to the meeting of those young snick people, she realized that not only did she need to be the change that she needed to see, those young people were the change that she was looking for. And so, that was a moment in her life. And it, it sent her brain into this recovery mode, and it, she became energized and passionate because she had seen the darkness. And she did not want to live there. She wanted to move towards the light and, and find a path to freedom and equality. And that is what happened. SM: 48:53 Another tragic moment was, that time when she was at the Staley cafe, bus depot- KL: 49:01 Right. SM: 49:01 -and Nona, could you talk about that? And I think, there is, the one, you mentioned in the, describing the situation that she did not want her husband to know about what happened. KL: 49:13 Right. SM: 49:13 She kept that kind of a secret because she feared that he would go out and shoot somebody- KL: 49:18 Again, right, yes. SM: 49:18 -and then he gets killed- -just your thoughts. Right. KL: 49:20 So-so after Snick came and she tried to register to vote, and of course she could not because those literacy tests in, in Mississippi were unpassable and only 5 percent of eligible Black voters were registered to vote because they-they had so many barriers to voting. So, Hamer tried to register to vote, went home, the Marlowe's evicted her, and so, she had to find another home. And Snick immediately hired her because they recognized her leadership and oh, from the fall of 1962, into the spring of 1963, they sent her to various classes to learn different techniques on how to be a civil rights worker, to encourage people to register to vote, how to pass the test, all that kind of thing, and to practice nonviolent protest techniques. And so, in June of 1963, she and some Snick colleagues, young people that were half her age, were coming back from a training session in South Carolina. And they were on a continental Trailways bus. They, the buses and the terminals across the South were now integrated by law, they had to be integrated. So, these young people were testing the integration. They sat wherever they wanted to on the bus, despite the anger of the bus driver who wanted them to sit at the back of the bus. And then at each bus terminal, they tested the new laws that said each interstate bus terminal had to be integrated, no more separate lunch counters, no more separate bathrooms, or drinking fountains, and separate waiting rooms. So, they had no problems going out there and then coming back until they hit Winona, Mississippi, and they hit the bus terminal there. And the young people went in to sit at the lunch counter and then to use the bathrooms, which they were denied. And so, someone at the-the Cast Dailies Cafe, the bus terminal restaurant, called the police who arrived and arrested all of them, including Hamer, who was not even trying to test any of that, she was on the bus and she came off the bus to see what was happening and they arrested her. And the local police and the state police took them to the Winona County Jail. And for four days, the young people and Hamer were terrorized, and assaulted, and violently so, and Hamer was also sexually assaulted. And, they nearly killed her with the beatings that they gave her. She suffered permanent kidney damage as a result of the beating, her eye became permanently damaged too, because of the way they hit her head. And the, bruises on her were horrific. And she, she really almost died. And in the, in the jail cell that she shared with a young Snick worker, Sylvester Simpson, she was laying on her stomach on the cot because she was so badly beaten. And she asked Sylvester to sing the gospel song, the spiritual "Walk with Me, Jesus Walk with Me." And that is, by, why I called the cover of my, I put that as the title of my book is, "Walk with Me," because she needed her faith to help her survive and not lose consciousness. She was so afraid. But she came out of that, she, they were released from-from jail on the same day. As I mentioned before, Medgar Evers was assassinated in June of 1963. And I think the sexual assault and the beating was so brutal. She did not want Pap to see- SM: 53:01 Right. KL: 53:01 What happened to her, or to know the extent of what happened to her because, as you said, he would have gone out and shot somebody. He was, he was a man, that was his wife. And he was at great danger and she knew that. So, she did not go home for a couple of weeks, she traveled to Atlanta, to New York City and to Washington, D.C., where she gave testimony about what happened to her. And I pieced together the details of her beating through the FBI files, through her interviews with civil rights workers, NAACP folks, and then the trial of the men in the jail that beat her so badly. Of course, they were acquitted of any- -assault charges. But the testimony during that trial was horrific. And the details that emerged are just horrifying. So eventually, I am sure Pap learned, maybe he did not learn about the rape. I do not know. She confided that, into, with friends of hers, you know, civil rights workers. But I do not think, I do not know if she told Pap or not. I do not know about that. SM: 53:50 Right. Yeah, her life was in danger many times throughout, throughout this period. And, I can remember two items you state in the book, one of them was, one, she was not at home one day and someone came by and shatter, shattered her house. And, and where she normally sits, I think was only like a foot above where she would normally would have been sitting if, if she- KL: 54:39 Right. SM: 54:39 -was at home. And then, there was another scene where she came home one day and the entire street was dark, all the lights are off. And, and she did not know, if like there was a power outage and no, it was not a power outage. They all turned the lights off because they were, they had been threatened. KL: 54:56 Right. And there was one instance where white supremacists drove down the street, shooting at any and all houses, they would do this in the Black community, particularly during the (19)50s and (19)60s, when the civil rights movement started, you know, gaining traction, and every civil rights gain was met with tremendous violence by white southerners. You know, every time there was, like the March on Washington in August of 1963, a couple of months after Hamer was brutally assaulted in Mississippi, the response was the bombing of the-the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, and four little girls were murdered. So, you know, every celebration, every movement forward was met by some massive resistance. Well in Ruleville, Mississippi, tiny little, Ruleville, the resistance was white yahoo racists, going around in their cars and blasting their shotguns into Black homes. SM: 55:55 Right. KL: 55:55 And there was never any police presence to stop it. Never. So, it this is what she lived with, you know, people were killed, hurt maimed. It was, it was horrific. It was really horrific. SM: 56:07 I am going to get into this section, very important part of your book and important part of her life was her work was Snick, which was the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the people she worked with. She worked with some unbelievable people, and, and they had faith in her as well. So, it was a two-way street. Could you talk a little bit about time that she linked up with Snick? Bob Moses, was the, I remember, I think you said, someplace in the book, somebody had made a comment that, it was right to have a man named Moses. [laughter] KL: 56:42 Yeah, right-right, right. SM: 56:43 And that, was that, was a great to put that in there. KL: 56:45 [laughs] SM: 56:45 Because it is so true, because he was an unbelievable person, he had been a teacher, up in New York. And, and you know, Ella Baker and, and certainly John Lewis, and Julian Bond, and of that unbelievable group of people from Snick. That begin, could you talk about the beginning where they met? KL: 57:03 Yes-yes. SM: 57:04 And then we will go into some of them, what they did. KL: 57:06 So, I am glad you brought up Ella Baker, because Snick, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee with her, her vision, and she was an older Black woman that worked for Martin Luther King, brilliant woman. And during the, sit-ins in, you know, 19- in the 1959, 1960, where students would go into these segregated lunch counters, like Woolworths, and they sit down and try to integrate it and they would be attacked. And then, they started the Freedom Rides. You know, John Lewis is famous for the freedom line ride, rides, where they would take buses from northern states into the south and test the interstate laws that said these buses had to be integrated, and so are the stations, but the southern response was bombing these buses, attacking them. When they came to the terminals, people were killed, and Louis was badly beaten. So, she is watching these young people willing to put their lives on the line and do all this stuff. And so, she decided she should organize them. So, Bob Moses was noticing the same stuff as he was teaching math in, in New York City. And he goes down to Atlanta, he meets Ella Baker, and with John Lewis, and as you said, Julian Bond and all these amazing young people, she organizes them into the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, or Snick. And they decide they are going to go to the worst of the worst, and that is Mississippi. And they are going to, she tells them, you know, you are all these young, bright, energetic people go into these communities, and do not tell them what to do, or tell them what you are going to do for them. You find out what they need, and how you can help them get what they need. And try to identify local leaders, because you have to nurture local people, you cannot insert yourself and tell everybody what to do. So, that was brilliant on her part. So, Bob Moses goes to Mississippi, and he starts, you know, building a community there with other organizations like the NAACP, and the Council of Federated Organizations and, you know, other civil rights organizations, they are in Mississippi, and then other civil rights workers follow him there. And so, that is how he ends up meeting Fannie Lou Hamer, when they decide to have a meeting in Ruleville, to talk to local residents, as they had been doing throughout Mississippi a great rest of their lives about registering to vote. And that is when she went there. And she saw these young people and she could not believe what they were saying. And you know, one of, they taught, they used biblical language, and they are in Hamer's church, William Chapel in Ruleville, and they are using biblical language to say, "You know, God meant for everybody to be free and, and equal." And, and then there were young people talking about the law, the Constitution, the law is "You have these rights, you need to fight for it. It is, these things that they are doing to you are illegal, it is wrong, we need to fight, because it is in the Constitution that we should be equal." So, she was like, "Wow." And I would love to tell you what she said about Snick. Once she became involved with them, she said, "Snick is the type of people that regardless to what they say, call them far left, because a lot of people call them, like hippies. And you know, they were way too far left," quote, and radical and she said, "Call them far left and radical and beatniks, and all kinds of things, but they are still willing to go into areas with the people that is never had a chance to be treated as a human being. And some have given their lives for the cause of human justice." She said that Snick volunteers showed, quote, "More Christianity than I have ever seen in a church." That is powerful. SM: 1:00:54 Wow. Yep. The, one of the things. Another one of these examples when she worked with Snick, was what happened in Hattiesburg, where it was the whole issue of voting. Could you talk about the issue of voting? And here we are talking about it again, in 2022. I just cannot believe we are talking about it again. And, you know, what was the issue in Mississippi with respect to voting, and if you could give some of the statistics and numbers of those who, how many citizens are were of color in that state at that time? And how many were actually voting and what they were doing to try to prevent people from voting because that was one of the reasons why Freedom Summer evolved? Still there? [silence] All right, we are back. KL: 1:01:57 Okay. So, I think we were talking about Hattiesburg and the rallies there. And so, I, you know, she, the- the rallies that started so she, you know, becomes part of Snick and, and night, the winter of 1963. They start with these rallies. And they have one in Hattiesburg, where they try to get people to register to vote. And so, the resistance in Mississippi is that so there, there were, half the population was Black and Mississippi at the time, but only between 5 and 6 percent had been able to register to vote because Mississippi had all these barriers, which included the literacy test. Poll taxes, you had to pay poll taxes, if you pass the test, then you have to pay poll tax for two years before you are eligible to vote. That is only really for Black people, because they did not, they did not require white people to do that. There were illiterate white people that were registered to vote. And but, when it came to Black people, they used every excuse, and they would have to answer questions about the Mississippi State Constitution, interpret these arcane laws, and rules, and things. It was just, it was ridiculous. And then if by chance you were able to pass it, then if you went to try to vote, sometimes the-the, the towns would give misinformation to the Black communities about where you could go vote. So, people would go there and there would be no polling station, or they would go to a polling station and there would be armed white people outside to intimidate you from going to vote. And some people they watched who went to vote and if they voted, they would get fired from their job the next day. SM: 1:02:05 Yes. Wow. KL: 1:02:27 So, there were all these ways that white Mississippians found to, to prevent Black people from exercising the franchise and it was just disgusting. So, the Snick was there they heard loud and clear, that Mississippians, Black Mississippians wanted to be able to vote and they needed to vote. And but, the white Mississippians were not going to let them, so they would have these rallies and then they would encourage people to go down to the courthouse and register to vote. And so, in Hattiesburg this happened and you know, this was one of the earlier moments that Hamer was part of this movement and, and people flew in from around the country to help the people in Hattiesburg register to vote but they were threatened by white supremacists. And, there was the state police there and National Guard that was brought out and, and it was, it was just, it was, it was so intimidating. And there is Hamer just marching with everybody else and facing down the intimidators and trying to help people exercise their right to register and make a difference. SM: 1:04:52 I think there was a man there too in that building in this, in the courthouse that was well known for not registering African Americans. I think that you have told me. KL: 1:05:04 That is right. SM: 1:05:05 Yeah. KL: 1:05:05 Yeah. Sarah and Lind were this notorious court clerk in Hinds County, Forest County, excuse me, and he refused to register any Black people. And he had for a very long time. And, and so he was, you know, a focus of, of efforts to get Mississippi to start letting Black people vote and get rid of these ridiculous tests. And even after, asked and the federal government stepped in and said, "You got to stop doing this you have to register Black people to vote." Theron Lind continued to defy court order, after court order, after court order to register Black voters, he was so defiant. He was sued, he was hot, you know, he was brought into court time and time again. And he continued to refuse, he became the poster child for you know, these. It was almost a carrot. SM: 1:06:09 Oops. Still there. Oops. Okay we are back. KL: 1:06:15 Okay, so we were talking about Hattiesburg, which was actually, the winter of 1964. And so, the interesting thing is, by 1964, she was really beginning to take a more pivotal role in what was going on in the civil rights movement in Mississippi. And with the help of the Snick workers, activists, she is having access to stages. And it is, it, her voice on the stage inspires so many people. And if you listen to these recordings, there are recordings in the moon collection at the Smithsonian, for instance. And they have some of these, like the Hattiesburg rally and other rallies. And you can hear some of the speakers usually middle class, men are up on the stage talking. And the crowds get very restless. And then all of a sudden, you know, they will call Fannie Lou Hamer up to sing, they always had her singing. And the crowd would always "Hush," and they would be so excited when Hamer came up. And she watched how they reacted to her versus how they reacted to all these men. And eventually, she started talking on stage and she spoke the language of people who were experiencing the same thing that she was. And so, it she had a tremendous impact on the movement there in Mississippi. And Snick, really, they just were in awe of her, these young students were in complete awe of her. And so, you know, she helped found with local people. And with the support of Snick, they founded a new Democratic Party in Mississippi called the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. And she became their vice chair and that set her off on this incredible path to changing the world. SM: 1:08:15 Yeah, the whole thing about Freedom Summer was the idea that Mr. Moses had and others was to bring in college students from around the country, but black and white students from you know, prestigious schools, Ivy League schools, some of the prestigious state universities and-and African American colleges, and it kind of worked. There are a lot of people that, that came could you talk about that, because I know Fannie Lou was in, in Ohio, which is where they did their training. I think- KL: 1:08:45 Right. SM: 1:08:46 James Forman was in charge of the training. And, and she, they did a lot of speaking there. And- KL: 1:08:52 Right-right. SM: 1:08:53 And, yep. KL: 1:08:53 So-so the-the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, and in conjunction with Snick, and other organizations in Mississippi decided on this concept of Freedom Summer, and they would bring in young people from around the country to help people to register to vote, because this was the big thing and white Mississippians had been telling. And actually, white southerners had been telling the rest of the nation that Black people were not interested in vote, they could register to vote, but they were not interested in voting. So, the MFDP, and Snick, and all these groups got together and held mock auction, elections so that they could prove to the world that Black people, yes, wanted to vote. And so, but they really needed to try to register the people to vote, to really be able to vote in, in elections. So, they had a training session for 800 students. More than 800 students signed up to be part of this Mississippi Freedom Summer, and they were trained at Western Reserve University or Western College for Women in Ohio. And Hamer went up there to do the training sessions along with people like Bob Moses, and John Lewis, and James Forman ran the-the whole thing. Some of the students, so they were taught nonviolent techniques, protest techniques, etc. And three of the civil rights workers, young Snick workers that were part of this group, some of them had already been working in Mississippi. Another one was part of this new wave of students, Andrew Goodman coming out of New York, and they were down in Mississippi while the training sessions were going on in June. And these three civil rights workers, Mickey Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney, were abducted and murdered by the Klan in outside of Philadelphia, Mississippi, and they went missing and they were missing. And of course, everybody knew in their gut what had happened to them, even though their bodies were not found for two months. And so, the young people in, in Ohio, some of them decided not to go to Mississippi, they were frightened. They realized, well, this is real, this is really serious. The violence that is down there. But more than 800 ended up going down there and spreading across the state. And they went into communities. They lived in the communities, they were harassed by white supremacists, but they stood strong, because they had leaders like Fannie Lou Hamer, who endured far more than they were enduring. And, she motivated them and excited them. And they helped people try to register to vote. They also built freedom schools, because education, as I said, so little was spent in Mississippi on education for Black students. They opened up freedom libraries, they opened up libraries so that Black residents could go and, and experience a library. And they held classes so that adults and children could take English, and math, and science, and things like that. So, it was an amazing summer and they built community centers. These young people were incredible, and they stared down danger every single day. But the disappearance of Schwerner, Goodman, and Cheney was a reminder of how dangerous that place was. And, they really changed the landscape in Mississippi. And in the meantime, Hamer became more and more dedicated to moving the needle forward and challenging the all-white Mississippi Democratic Party that had no Black people in it and did not represent half the population of Mississippi. And that is what propelled her to the-the, the national stage is when she and her colleagues from the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, elected delegates, and they went to Atlantic City where the Democratic National Convention was being held that August. President Lyndon Johnson was hoping to be the nominee for the right, for the presidential election in November. And so, Fannie Lou Hamer and the MFDP wanted to challenge the delegates that were being sent by the all-white Mississippi party. So, they met in the Credentials Committee meeting in August, and they challenged those white Mississippians and NBC News was filming the whole thing, live coverage of the national convention. And they taped this challenge to the Mississippi delegates. And Fannie Lou Hamer got on stage and gave a speech that was about eight minutes long. She had no notes. She spoke from the heart about what was happening in Mississippi, what it was like to be a Black Mississippian, and the violence that was perpetrated on her, and what the white supremacists were doing, and what democracy was not like in Mississippi. And, Lyndon Johnson heard her speaking on the television that he was watching in the White House at the time. And he got very nervous. He knew her voice had power. That her story would resonate. And he needed those white southerners to vote for him. And so, he had NBC pull away from her coverage. And they went to the White House where he was standing at a podium. And he made like a three-minute little speech about John F. Kennedy dying, nine months before, it was something he just made up on the, on the fly. And then they go back to the convention room and Hamer had just finished speaking. And Lyndon Johnson thought he had dodged a bullet, that it would be okay. You know, they were challenging, but they would not win the challenge and then he could keep the southern white Democrats in the party long enough to get through the election. What he did not expect was that NBC News would replay her testimony that night to a national audience. And people were stunned, and they were moved, and they were activated. And he realized, uh oh, and you know, to make a long story short, the white delegation was seated, but they refused to take their seats. They were so ticked off that anybody paid attention to Fannie Lou Hamer and her colleagues. They are from Mississippi. And so, they left and most of them I believe ended up voting for the racist candidate, Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater. So, that is when she really hit the national stage and everyone took notice. And she had a voice, and she had learned to use it. And she continued to use it for years and years in pursuit of civil rights, and equality, and justice. SM: 1:15:50 Well, because of that, I think in 1968 at the next convention, which was in Chicago, that historic convention where all the protests were against the war. She spoke again. KL: 1:16:02 That is right. So, four years later, those white Mississippians were not giving up. And they sent an all-white delegation to Chicago, and Fannie Lou Hamer is reconstituted, Freedom Democratic Party. Challenged them again, only this time the Democratic Party rejected the white southern Democratic Party candidate delegates and accepted Hamer's group, it was diverse, and in gender, and in race. And so, they were seated. And Famer received a standing ovation at the convention that year. And it was a powerful step forward, and her voice, she stayed an active part of the National Democratic Organization Committee, because she insisted that there be not only race parity, in delegations from every state coming, moving forward, but gender parity, and she insisted that they start conversations about food insecurity, and housing insecurity, and access to medical care, and, and so on, and so forth. She really was, preschool education, etc., she just was a powerhouse, she just did not stop. And, you know, the civil rights movement was waning in a way that the anti-war movement was becoming front and center. A lot of those young activists were going back to college, graduate school onto professional physicians. So, she started focusing a lot on the local community back in Mississippi, while still maintaining a presence on the national level and becoming involved in the women's movement, etc. But her heart and soul was really back in the fields, and in the towns, and villages, and communities of Mississippi. And, she was continuing to try to make a difference there. SM: 1:17:49 Her voice was always very important, even for the Snick, when they had the issues between white students and the Black students, certain members of the Snick, who are African American had concerns about having white students involved in this, because they should be in the leadership roles, not them. But she said, if, I am correct me if I am wrong or right, that, you know, we were fighting to integrate, and not segregate. And we are trying to end segregation and what we do not want to do that to the people, the white students who want to work with us. Let us work together. KL: 1:18:25 Right-right. It is exactly what she said. And that started causing a rift between her and some members of Snick. As they moved in through the (19)60s. 19(60), by (19)65, (19)66, some of the young Black males Snick workers were becoming more attracted to the like, the Black Power movement and the Black Panthers. And, they felt they had no patience for Fannie Lou Hamer. And when I was doing the research, I was looking at the Snick meeting minutes, it was, that she would might not be there. Sometimes she was there. And sometimes they would complain that she was too old. She was not, she did not represent them anymore. They did not want to deal with her. They wanted to go and be you know, it was Black power. Only Black people could be in the movement, no white people. And so, they cast her out basically. And, and she, you know, she understood their point of view, but she thought it was wrong. And so, she moved away from them, and they moved away from her, and went on their trajectory. So, but there were other civil rights activists that still stuck by her and she worked with them. And then, as the movement really grew and embraced, you know, women's rights too. There were young Black women who wanted to be part of this second wave feminism and, and so, she was part, she was friends with Gloria Steinem, and Betty Friedan, and Bella Abzug, and Shirley Chisholm, and, and Dorothy Height, and all these you know, rising Black female, and white female activists that were fighting for feminine, for female rights as well. And so, she, she wanted to be part of that because she knew that women were discriminated against even though she was very defensive about Black men, she felt that they were targeted more than Black women were, so she had a more traditional view of you know, the men should be able to be protected more than the women kind of thing, they needed their rights too. And so, she clashed with young Black women activists like, Medgar Evers's wife, Myrlie, she-she clashed with her. She clashed with Eleanor Holmes Norton, even though they were very-very close, and very good friends, and other young Black women activists because Hamer became very-very, a very-very conservative feminist. She was anti-abortion and anti-birth control. And so, we can understand the anti-abortion point of view, but the anti-birth control issue, just, no one could understand that, and especially the young women, they just had no patience for her and they grew very intolerant of her voice, they thought she was irrational and, and not considerate of their point of view as young women in their reproductive years. So, part of her, the way she looked at it, as, as a direct result of her own hysterectomy, without her permission, and her denial of her ability to have babies. And so, the anti-abortion thing, I think, was a more of an older person point of view. Because I know as a young woman, she helped facilitate X women getting access to illegal abortion services there in Mississippi. She was the go-to person that young women would go-to, and then she would help them access those services. But after her, her hysterectomy, her sterilization, she did not do that anymore. So, you know, she just she, she still was a powerful voice. But, there were other voices that were contrary to her voice, and they were all struggling to be heard. SM: 1:22:09 I know Eleanor Holmes Norton stated that she thought that, Fannie Lou Hamer was the second-best speaker she had ever heard behind Dr. King. KL: 1:22:20 Yeah, I actually, other-other, yeah. Others said that too. Even some of the people that I spoke to interviews with some of the Snick workers and young activists, they said, yeah, she was just an amazing speaker. And you know, I-I point to her Baptist minister father, and her own innate abilities, her sensibility about an audience, and her own passion. She knew how to deliver that she knew how to speak softly, and then raise her voice. And had, she had a tempo, to the way she spoke. And there was a pattern to her lectures and her speeches. And people really were very, very motivated and attracted to her, through her voice. And she would always add music too, and get people singing and energize that way. So, she-she was incredibly gifted. SM: 1:23:12 Talking about her stand down, those students who are white, who came down to the south to work with Snick. One of those students was Mario Savio. And of course, he went back to Berkeley, you talk connecting the dots, you know, here you got Fannie Lou Hamer, very vocally supporting the, you know, working together, not just Blacks-Black, Black Americans. And what happened is, Mario goes back to Berkeley, and then he is where the other students there at Berkeley. And, of course, we know the whole history there, but the free speech movement, because they tried to take literature away that was being handed out in Sproul Plaza. And because they thought, we are not supposed to hand out political literature, and the students went against this. And a lot of the literature was about Freedom Summer, about going back, and helping with the voting in the, in the south, and other issues- KL: 1:23:17 Right. SM: 1:24:01 -around the country. So, in a sense, her presence, fighting for those white students, directly linked to the free speech movement that took place in Berkeley in the fall of 1964. So, there is- KL: 1:24:23 Right-right, exactly. And I met people who were young students, and she would go, she did a college circuit, she would go around to different colleges and give speeches. And I met a couple of people who said that they heard her speak, they quit school and went to Mississippi, because they were so influenced by her, they just were wowed by her. And, she really had that power. You know, so there was a, one of the young people who was a high school student getting-getting ready to go into college. He met her in Mississippi, he was from Mississippi, it was Dr. Lesley Burr Macklemore. He was a civil rights worker. And he met her in (19)63. And he said, she was the star that they all as young Snick workers, she was the star, the person that all of them were wowed by, no one equaled her storytelling, he told me. He said that she testified, she preached, she led them in rousing freedom songs, she was always the center of attraction for them. And another civil rights veteran wrote that she was a power, that Hamer was a powerhouse. And they quote, "She would shine her light and people caught the spirit." And that is, I think it is a beautiful way to express that. She just, was this incredible inspiration for people and she inspired them to risk their lives to bring civil rights, and equality, and freedom. SM: 1:24:24 -a connection. Another one, another one of those white students I believe was Tom Haden. So- KL: 1:25:58 Oh, right-right. SM: 1:25:59 Yeah. KL: 1:25:59 Oh, yeah. SM: 1:26:00 And also, you know, the-the other powerful people that were with Snick. James Forman is historic, he was one of the leaders of the training and everything and, and I got to know James Bevel, because we have rounded- KL: 1:26:12 Oh, yeah. SM: 1:26:12 -Westchester University twice, and he was a fiery person. But, I think- KL: 1:26:18 He inspired, he inspired Hamer that day in William Shapel in August 1962, when she heard him speaking from the pulpit, and talking about God and, you know, equal rights, and freedom, and quoting from the Bible, she was like I am in. He, he really moved her and influenced her. SM: 1:26:38 -Yeah, he, James Bevel used to say, he, when people talked about him, he was often times punished more than anybody else and beaten more than anybody else, because he would never give in. KL: 1:26:51 Tragic-tragic. SM: 1:26:52 You know, so, I got a question here just about you in terms of, of all qualities that Fannie Lou, Fannie had, what skills or what, what would you like to emulate from her in your life? KL: 1:27:14 Her persistence, her perseverance, even when, you know, the road was really hard and dark, she, she, she kept moving, much like Tubman too, and so I, you know, with all my privilege, I would like to be able to do that, and, and keep moving, and keep fighting, and keep trying to make the world a better place. And not stop. There is no reason for me to stop. And, I think that is the inspiration that I get from Hamer and from Harriet Tubman. SM: 1:27:50 Would you say the same thing, those same things for future students, current, and future students? [crosstalk] Young people, what can they learn from her so they can emulate it in their lives to make the world a better place. KL: 1:28:08 So, you know, young people, particularly really young children are deeply inspired by Harriet Tubman. There is something accessible about her, Fannie Lou Hamer, we need the world to know about her, and make her accessible because she was accessible. And we need to, to bring that forward and talk about it a lot. Because if she could inspire people, young people who became activists and who were activists back in the (19)60s, we can do that today. And these were young, you know, we complain in politics today that young people are not really interested. Well, we need to, it makes them interested and get them inspired. And learning about Fannie Lou Hamer, what she fought for, and struggle for, and we are still struggling, and fighting for some of those same things. Let us use her as the vehicle to get kids motivated. And, and also identify the Fannie Lou Hamer is in our communities today, who can-can go out, and inspire more people to make change, and to make a difference, and to make sure that everybody has access to the ballot. SM: 1:29:14 Could you talk about her life, after her time with Snick? And after she actually ran for Congress, and, and her speech in (19)68 at the Democratic Convention, what were the causes she was involved in the rest of her life? KL: 1:29:28 So, I already talked about like the, National Organization of Women, the National Women's Political Caucus, and those kinds of organizations. But, she really started focusing a lot on Mississippi, and her own community, and she established a cooperative farm so that sharecroppers could grow food because some plantation bosses would not allow sharecroppers to plant their own gardens for food. They wanted that cotton growing right up to the cabins. So, she provided that farm, so that people could grow food. They had a pig bag where people could get piglets in the spring and then in the fall, they could slaughter the pigs for food. And then, so she did those kinds of things. She helped bring in, you know, head start, and, you know, children's preschool, education, and housing, and things like that. So, she was very oriented locally. She tried to stay relevant on the national stage. And, she continued to give speeches and things. But her relevancy was supplanted by the war movement, the anti-war movement, which she was against the Vietnam War. And also, you know, the Civil Rights Movement changed and altered. And so, she struggled in her health, her health, just deteriorated, from you know, (19)63 until the day she died in 1977. So, in the early to mid (19)70s, she had many health problems, she was in and out of the hospital, she was exhausted. And she, you know, she struggled financially. And eventually, she developed breast cancer, and died from complications of that, and her kidney disease, and hypertension. And she had basically been abandoned by the Civil Rights Movement, and all those workers. Pat was very angry about that, that he felt that she had been abandoned, considering everything that she had done for the movement, and for all of them. And so, it was a, it was bittersweet. It was really sad when she died at the age of 59. And almost alone, just her family around her and a couple of friends, so. [crosstalk] SM: 1:31:33 [crosstalk] You know, another part of the-the story of Fannie Lou Hamer is-is her health. Because one of my heroes is FDR, and we all know what he went through and in 1920s, with Polio, and then he became president, he was in a wheelchair, and he had a lot of issues, but he still did-did a lot for humanity. And, he was a leader. And I look at Fannie Lou Hamer, in the same way, she had diabetes, she had all these issues, but it goes to show that just because someone has health problems- KL: 1:32:09 Right. SM: 1:32:09 That does not mean you cannot go out and change the world for the better. KL: 1:32:14 Right-right. People with disabilities deserve the respect and, and, and honor that everyone else does. And the disability does not define them. It is just part of who they are. But if they are a leader, they are a leader. And we should follow them and support them. And, you know, this is, this is, you know, really relevant right now with the election that is going on in Pennsylvania- SM: 1:32:39 Oh yes. KL: 1:32:40 With John Fetterman, who has suffered a stroke, and he has some auditory delays, etc. And that is a disability right now, and he is being mocked for it. Just like the-the newspaper man back in, in 2016, during the election, when Donald Trump mocked the disabled newspaper reporter. You know, we have to just, we have to stop that there should be no limitations on anybody. SM: 1:33:06 I agree. KL: 1:33:07 If they have the energy and the desire and the, you know, the-the want to do things and work and change, make change, then they should be allowed to do that. And we should support them. And we should all be part of that movement forward. SM: 1:33:23 Yeah, the- I guess one of the last questions, well I got two more questions. But what, the next to last question is about if you could list for those people that are really into leadership. And we, and I have worked with a lot of students who the first thing they want to know, what were the leadership qualities of a person that made them be a leader, could you just list some of the qualities? KL: 1:33:45 So, that is a fascinating question. And I think there are some, there are some qualities, but I think that we need to really look at leaders and where they come from. And we have this image of the leader as someone who is polished, and who has elite education, often has a privileged background, etc. And, they have access to resources. But many leaders actually do not come from that background. And like a Hamer, sixth grade education sharecropper, no financial resources whatsoever, but she had something about her and it comes out of her childhood and her young adulthood. On those landscapes in Mississippi, she learned while she did not have perfect diction, and she did not have perfect penmanship and, and literacy, you know, traditional literacy skills like that. She had other literacies, like many other leaders who do not have the benefit of those elite educations, they have literacies. They have literacies, they develop on, out in the fields, in the forest, on the water, in a community, in the church, in segregated bathrooms, you know, in difficult environments, they have literacies they learn from those places, and those experiences that not everybody has. And so, Hamer with her tremendous people literacy, she could read people, she could read an audience, she could, she could, you know, read the landscape of a room, and of the-the pulse of people. And, that is her gift. And she brought that to the stage. And she knew how to, to enunciate, and, and talk about the things that were important to other people. Whereas a Martin Luther King, who had tremendous, you know, great education, a beautiful voice, he, he spoke and inspired people, but he did not speak to them on, this, in the same way that Hamer could speak to people at their own intimate, interpersonal, very personal level. And, that was her gift. So, leaders are not all the best educated with the most, you know, access to resources. SM: 1:36:11 You mentioned that- KL: 1:36:11 And so- SM: 1:36:12 You mentioned that in the book about some of the civil rights leaders said she did not look the park. KL: 1:36:17 Right, that is right. Especially some of Martin Luther King's colleagues, Ralph Abernathy and others. They were disgusted by Hamer. She, first of all, you know, there was lots of misogyny going on anyway, and women had second class status regardless, but you know, they-they criticized her. Ralph told her, you know, he was embarrassed by her because, you know her, she was, her clothes which were borrowed. And when he met her, she was wearing clothes that she borrowed for the Democratic convention. And that her diction, her speech embarrassed him. And he wanted her to go home, and go away, to leave the business to him and other men. Basically, that is what he said to her. And, and other civil rights activists, elite civil rights activists, felt that way about her. And she did not identify with them at all, either. And she just told them to, you know, you know, no man is going to tell me what to do. Only my husband is going to tell me what to do. So, she just fired right back. But there was class prejudice against people like Fannie Lou Hamer. SM: 1:37:17 Yeah, she was, she is something. I am glad you wrote the book. It is a tremendous book. And I hope more and more people read it. And I hope this brings her, up the pedestal, I know, you are described, the very end of the book, her death, when she died, and she was kind of alone. And, people taking care of her. But, when the funeral happened, there were a lot of people there. Yeah, there were [crosstalk] some big names were there. So, they cared about her. KL: 1:37:51 Yeah-yeah. SM: 1:37:52 But they should have cared about her when she was near the end as well. KL: 1:37:55 Exactly-exactly. SM: 1:37:57 Are there any other thoughts, you, that I did not raise that you might want to state about Fannie Lou Hamer? KL: 1:38:03 Just know that she is just one of my heroes, and I hope she becomes heroes to the readers of my book because she is incredible. And we need to celebrate her. We need a national park in her honor, by the way. SM: 1:38:17 Wow. Count me in if you are going to get a group. KL: 1:38:20 All right, great. [laughs] SM: 1:38:22 Yeah, and let us see. You are probably going to write another book soon. Have you chosen who that might be? KL: 1:38:31 I have, but I am not ready to talk about it yet. SM: 1:38:34 Is it Ella? [laughter] KL: 1:38:36 No. Oh, my God, I would love to do that. But no, no, there is a great book about Ella Baker already out there. SM: 1:38:41 Right. KL: 1:38:42 Yeah. SM: 1:38:44 My last, my last question is what, I, the question I ask to everybody, and that is, since people are going to hear this 50 year from now, long after we are both gone, and many in this, in their lives, they are gone. What words of advice would you like to give to students, faculty, national scholars, people who listen to this interview? What words of advice would you like to give them? KL: 1:39:10 So, to keep the records, preserve the records, tell the stories and, and do not erase anything. Just preserve it all and carry it forward and honor the people that are carrying, you know, freedom and democracy forward because this is a perilous time. And I hope 50 years from now, people will listen to this and go back another 50 years to when Hamer was battling the same issues, and find the heroes in our past and celebrate them. SM: 1:39:44 Okay, well, I have been speaking with Kate Clifford Larson, author of "Walk with Me," a biography of Fannie Lou Hamer. Thank you very much. And, you have a great day. KL: 1:39:56 Thank you very much, Steven. Bye-bye. SM: 1:40:00 You still there? Thank you. (End of Interview) Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Kate Clifford Larson