157 10 1775 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/b409047bd25e39ebfee668a60d4bd2cc.jpg 15fa0a9bcb8248c08db4ac888fee643a https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/c2beb946c436e4810a4bf3d4d3fbda76.mp3 f5adf7042a340e92cd35fcad79d644c6 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 2010-06-17 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Susan Brownmiller Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Susan Brownmiller is a feminist activist and author. During the Feminist Movement, she was a writer at ABC-TV. When she saw how much power women have, she began to write about abortion rights. She has written and published books that highlight the hardships women face and how they came to be. She attended Cornell University and studied Acting in New York City.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:6531,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,5099745],&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;}">Susan Brownmiller is a feminist activist and author. During the Feminist Movement, she was a writer at ABC-TV. When she saw how much power women have, she began to write about abortion rights. She has written and published books that highlight the hardships women face and how they came to be. She attended Cornell University and studied Acting in New York City.</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;Voter registration; Black Panthers; Black Power; Gay rights; Environmental movement; Sexual revolution; Hugh Hefner; Women's issues; Abortion; Feminists; Women's studies; Antifeminists; Newt Gingrich; Equal Rights Amendment; Civil Rights Movement; Communist Party; Montgomery Boy Boycott; Tallahassee Bus Boycott; Drug culture&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;:14281427}}">Voter registration; Black Panthers; Black Power; Gay rights; Environmental movement; Sexual revolution; Hugh Hefner; Women's issues; Abortion; Feminists; Women's studies; Antifeminists; Newt Gingrich; Equal Rights Amendment; Civil Rights Movement; Communist Party; Montgomery Boy Boycott; Tallahassee Bus Boycott; Drug culture</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 94:01 Subject LCSH Feminists; Authors; Brownmiller, Susan--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: Susan Brownmiller Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 17 June 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:02): Ready? [inaudible] somebody recorded too. SB (00:00:07): Here we go. I keep checking this because... SM (00:00:10): I know. I know that anxiety very well. SB (00:00:15): Yeah. Well, I had experience with Charles. Okay. Second wave feminism. SM (00:00:23): I am just checking to see it is on. SB (00:00:25): Yeah, it is on. SM (00:00:27): Okay. SB (00:00:28): It has been pretty good. I interviewed Noam Chomsky this past week. SM (00:00:31): Oh. SB (00:00:34): I have to... That is going. Second wave feminism. When did it start and how is it different from the first wave? What are the... SM (00:00:45): Well, the first wave was the suffragette, the Suffragists. SB (00:00:48): Right. SM (00:00:48): That was first wave feminism starting in 1848. SB (00:00:54): Right. SM (00:00:54): Yes. So, second wave feminism started about a hundred years later. Probably a really important kickoff was Friedan's book, "The Feminine Mystique", which came out in (19)63, paperback (19)64. That is when I read it. But there were things happening in the left that were making women angry, quite apart from Betty Friedan's book, which was really directed towards middle class white women. The women in the left, in the civil rights movement had gone south to work for equality. They thought they understood that Blacks and whites were equal, but they also thought that males and females were equal, and to their shock in the southern civil rights movement, they discovered that nobody was thinking that women were equal. This wonderful organization, SNCC, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, was really set up in the image of the-the young black guy in denim coveralls. On the individual projects in the famous Freedom Summer of 1964, several women discovered that in a sense, they were being pushed to the back of the bus. So the other movement that was happening a few years later was the anti-war movement. There again, the women who went into the anti-war movement discovered that they were relegated to running the mimeograph. That is what we had, the mimeograph machines and getting the coffee for the meetings. If they spoke aloud at a meeting, the guys just like would not hear it. Then a few minutes later, a guy would make the same point, and every would say, "oh, yeah, that is it. That is, it." So they were burning too. These were young SDS women, you know that, Students for a Democratic Society. They were anti-war women. So, there were two groups of women in the (19)60s, the civil rights women and the anti-war women who began to think, what about us? Which was exactly what had happened in 1848. This was closer to 1968, (19)65-6. A hundred years later. In 1848, there were all these movements around abolition, new socialist movements, the year of the Communist Manifesto, things like that, and the women in the abolition movement discovered that they were not equal to men in the abolition movement. There was a very famous, I do write this in "Our Time," my history of the women's movement. So that is why I am being so articulate now. I know it well, and I teach it too. There was a very famous anti-slavery convention in London, and couples of abolitionist, because they were mostly married, went to the World Anti-Slavery Conference from America. When they got there, the women were told that they did not have voting rights and that they would sit in the balcony. That is when Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and I think it was. SB (00:05:19): [inaudible] home. SM (00:05:22): [inaudible] They were in such a state, and they were determined to start a women's rights movement, and they did in Seneca Falls, 1948. So women's movements happen infrequently in history, and they always seem to tag along in a period of great militance in the country. People are organizing for these rights, those rights, and suddenly the women who are active in all those movements say, "whoa, what about us? What about us?" Then a women's movement starts. So that is really how it happened in the late (19)60s. SB (00:06:00): That is why Frederick Douglass was so ahead of his time, was not he? SM (00:06:03): Yes. SB (00:06:04): Because he was sensitive to both issues. SM (00:06:06): He sure was. SB (00:06:07): I can remember taking my dad before he passed away a couple years ago to Seneca Falls and going through the tour there, the room where the sofa was located, and the fact that Frederick Douglass had come there and spent some time with Elizabeth Cady Stanton. SM (00:06:21): Yes. SB (00:06:23): When you think of the times and how they traveled, that had been so difficult. But he was really ahead of his time. SM (00:06:27): He was definitely ahead of his time. SB (00:06:30): Sure. This is going. Okay, great. SM (00:06:33): Yeah. SB (00:06:36): I am going to read these to make sure that I get these too. Before you were an activist, something that I read that you went to Hebrew school and that had a very important effect on you. I will mention what it was. SM (00:06:48): Tell me what it was. SB (00:06:50): Then you were an actress for a short time. SM (00:06:52): I do not think it was Hebrew school that had a great effect on me. SB (00:06:57): You were a writer. You had been a writer in many years, and you were a student at Cornell? SM (00:06:59): Yeah. SB (00:07:00): How did a combination, this is before... SM (00:07:02): What was the Hebrew thing? Indeed, I went to Hebrew school. SB (00:07:05): The Hebrew School said that it was in... SM (00:07:07): East Midwood Jewish Center. SB (00:07:09): Yes, I think it was, and I have it here. I could show you what the... SM (00:07:13): What was it? SB (00:07:14): It said that because of the experience of the Holocaust and what had happened to many... SM (00:07:19): Oh, I became very Zionist. Is that it? SB (00:07:21): Yeah, that, but you became... Man's inhumanity to a man and that kind of thing, the treatment of people. So, you saw, well, how women were treated, and you said, well, when I was younger, I saw how Jewish people were treated. SM (00:07:38): I got... That must be from the Jewish archives or something, because that is an exaggeration. SB (00:07:44): In fact, I might even find it here. SM (00:07:46): Yeah, please do find the source for that. Because I do not recall the going to the East Midwood Jewish Center had much effect on my development as a feminist. SB (00:07:57): I will find it here. SM (00:08:01): Do not worry about it. I do not think it is true. I mean, I was a rebel. In 1948, Wallace and Taylor ran. I was 13. Roosevelt had just died. Wallace and Taylor were running on a third party ticket for president. At that age, I kind of knew I was for Wallace. I mean... SB (00:08:26): He was much more liberal. SM (00:08:28): Yes. So that became my political awakening. SB (00:08:33): Were there any, in all these experiences, I have a question later on, but I might bring it up now, because in all the years that you worked, now this... SM (00:08:43): I am still working. SB (00:08:45): You are still working. SM (00:08:45): In all the years I have worked. SB (00:08:48): When you were in your early years, when you worked for the Village Voice, ABC. SM (00:08:53): Yeah. SB (00:08:54): You did NBC TV, ABC TV, and then also Newsweek. SM (00:08:58): That was earlier. SB (00:09:00): ... and national affairs. How were you treated as a female? The question is, I was curious as if those experiences in those earlier years, your work experience, not the experience, you are going down south in the summer of (19)64, but those work experiences as a woman in America in the (19)50s, in the early (19)60s. SM (00:09:23): Terrible. SB (00:09:24): How were you treated in these jobs? SM (00:09:25): I was treated like a second class citizen. See, you asked how the movement started you then you said, but you want to ask the personal questions. Again, I suggest you read "In Our Time" because I do describe how, when I worked at Newsweek in (19)63, (19)64 as a researcher, I wanted to be a writer. I was told women do not write it at Newsweek. Men write at Newsweek. You girls as opposed to do research here for two years and then go off and get married. That is what I was told. It was that job that I quit to go down south and work in Mississippi. SB (00:10:10): Right. SM (00:10:10): Yeah. I wanted to write, and Newsweek, later the women sued at Newsweek. It was one of the first cases with the EEOC against a corporation. I had gone by then, but a lot of the women [inaudible]. Nora Ephron was working there as a researcher. She left, she made an early and very good getaway, the New York Post, but the ones who remained behind as researchers who did not get married. It was an aging firm of researchers, and they saw that those of us who left had gotten somewhere. They got angrier and angrier, and eventually they hired Eleanor Holmes Norton as their lawyer and sued. Yeah. So at ABC, this was after I came back from Mississippi. At ABC, they had one woman reporter network, and I wanted to be a reporter. They had me...I was a news writer, and they said, "we have our woman." That was it. They had their one woman and they're one blackest. We have one Black. We have one woman. I tried every local TV station in the city. We have our woman. SB (00:11:37): Now, what year was that? SM (00:11:39): I worked at ABC from (19)65 to (19)68. Yeah. We have our woman, and as they say in my book, they said to me, "you are lucky. You have got a man's job to see you're working at the same job that men can work. What are you complaining about?" SB (00:12:07): Was there a quote at any time in your earlier years, what they call a magic moment, where it is like any person, this is the first time I feel I have to stand up and say something and become vulnerable. Because standing up and speaking or writing or saying something in public... SM (00:12:28): As a feminist? SB (00:12:28): Or... SM (00:12:31): As a feminist? No, it was easy for me to talk about it when it came to civil rights. I had no trouble . SB (00:12:38): Do you remember the very first experience that really upset you when you said, and you spoke up, whether it be you could been in high school or the first thing that. This is wrong. This is wrong. Was it going to down freedom summer? Was that it? SM (00:12:54): No, I think... SB (00:12:54): Your experience in New York City? SM (00:12:55): I came from a very good public school and high school in Brooklyn, and I had no trouble expressing myself, but having an opinion is quite different from doing something. When the civil rights movement started, which I date from, I date it from Feb 2, 1960 with the sit-ins in Greensboro, North Carolina. But of course, I had already been aware of the Montgomery bus boycotts of (19)55. Oh, did I welcome that movement. Did I welcome it? It was not just Montgomery. It spread in (19)55 to a few other cities, but there was no way I could participate really. But in 1960, when the southern sit-ins started, there were picket lines suddenly in front of every Woolworth in New York, or in front of a lot of Woolworths. So, I joined the picket line on 42nd Street, and I met people in CORE, Congress of Racial Equality. SB (00:14:08): James Farmer was the leader of that group at the time. SM (00:14:13): They said, come to the CORE office, in New York CORE and work with us. So I did for a year, and then I did other things. But I welcomed this, the civil rights movement. I welcomed my chance to participate, is what I am saying. Yes. Right. SB (00:14:35): Yeah. I have here talk about your experience in New York City and the effort to integrate the lunch counters because you... SM (00:14:41): Yes. Well, that was it. Somebody, a friend of mine said, "Let us go over to 42nd Street. You will see a picket line. I bet you have never seen a picket line in your life." He was [inaudible] and I had never seen a picket line in my life. There were all these people in front of Woolworth on 42nd Street. I was astonished. SB (00:14:59): Were there people that were actually on the other side though, screaming at you, or... SM (00:15:03): Not at that moment. SB (00:15:03): No. So not that moment. SM (00:15:05): Oh. But there were always [inaudible]. They were cra- You know, do anything publicly in New York, you attract crazies. There were people who made their own signs... I remember they would march up and down the outside of the line saying, "Futility. Futility." Then I started my own picket line in front of Old Woolworth near Bloomingdale's. Yeah, it was great. SB (00:15:35): When you made that decision to go south, because I have spoken to several people that went in the summer of (19)64. Yes. David Hawk, I do not know if you know David. David was on the core organizers of the Moratorium in 1969, and a couple other people that, of course we know Tom Hayden was in that group, Casey Hayden. SM (00:15:55): Yes. She is a Facebook friend now. SB (00:15:57): ...and a couple people that were either in the first training group or the second training group. SM (00:16:02): They were there before Casey. Casey, not Tom, Casey was there before. SB (00:16:06): I am interviewing her sometime in July. SM (00:16:09): Oh, good for you. Give her my regards. SB (00:16:10): She has had some issues, I guess. And she has had to put off interviewing or something. SM (00:16:14): Health issues? SB (00:16:15): No. Not health issues. Just... First of all, she does not do many interviews. SM (00:16:20): She does not. SB (00:16:23): Mr. Gor- I think Tom Gorman was a friend of hers, and I interviewed Tom and Casey. Anyways, she has agreed to do an interview in July sometime. SM (00:16:34): Great. SB (00:16:36): But the question I am really getting at here, SM (00:16:38): Well, you should read her contribution to that book of- SB (00:16:41): I have. SM (00:16:41): Women in the- SB (00:16:43): I have. That is the one with the kind of a light brownish cover. SM (00:16:46): I do not know. I have it over there. SB (00:16:46): Yeah. SM (00:16:47): It is like eight women, eight white women in the southern... Yeah, something like that. SB (00:16:52): What amazes me, because it was a thousand people in that first wave. I know... SM (00:16:56): Yes. But she was there before. She was not among those first wave of students. SB (00:17:00): Right. SM (00:17:00): She started a few years earlier, she got radicalized at Texas where she met Tom Hayden because he was on some committee of a national whatever. She was a white Texas girl who found her way to that southern movement early. SB (00:17:19): As one of the individuals who came from the north to go down south. That had to be for anyone in their, whether you be in their twenties, an experience that could be exciting but then you get down there and then you face the reality of what it's really like. Did you fear for your life? SM (00:17:39): Yes. SB (00:17:40): Because some people that I have talked to did. SM (00:17:41): Of course. SB (00:17:42): ...and particularly those that followed the first after Chaney... SM (00:17:46): Yes. SB (00:17:46): ...Goodman, and Schwerner were murdered. SM (00:17:48): Right. Well, I went down with my friend Jan Goodman, who lives in this apartment building. We were in our twenties. We were in our late twenties actually. By then, we were older than the age of the student volunteer. But hey, a movement was starting, but we had the philosophy that everyone had, which was that this was a cause that was worth giving your life to. Now looking back and looking at those pathetic, crazed suicide bombers, wherever they are. I think that this concept of giving your life to a cause is something that you can think about when you are very young, but when you are older, you are what is important enough to end your life for? So, I remember that Jan and I, we volunteered to go to Meridian and Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney had just been declared missing. At our orientation session, which was not at Oxford, it was later, it was in another city, they said, "We need volunteers in Meridian." And they said, "Meridian is really the safest place in Mississippi," And this happened, but it happened outside Meridian in Neshoba County in Philadelphia. So Jan and I, because we were slightly older than, so nobody wanted to go to Meridian. Meridian was a CORE project, and the other projects were basically SNCC projects. Jan and I volunteered for Meridian. Now this is interesting because I quit, Jan quit her job at the Girl Scouts to go, or took her summer leave from the Girl Scouts. She was working as an organizer for the Girl Scouts. I took my leave from Newsweek. Newsweek was not happy that I was going south. Newsweek had two southern reporters who were certain that I was going to mess things up for them, Karl Fleming and Joe Cumming. We had a Newsweek reunion a few years ago, and Joe and Fleming came over to me. We remember the moment and because he objected a lot. He said, "You are sending a young researcher?" No, it is her summer vacation. She is going. He said, "Well, she is going to get arrested, and she is going to be identified with Newsweek, and I have to work both sides of the aisle here." So Newsweek, in its questionable wisdom, took my name off the masthead for the time that I was in Mississippi. Yes. Peter Goldman, who was the Star National reporter. I was his researcher. Peter Goldman, said, she is going to get herself killed. I mean, he was very hostile. Very hostile. But he was writing all the civil rights stories for [inaudible]. SB (00:21:07): Yes. SM (00:21:07): I am sure he told you. SB (00:21:08): Yes. SM (00:21:09): I was checking the facts. So yeah, Peter was not wonderful at that moment. Yeah. So anyway, Jan and I are driving. She was the driver. She had rented a car. We're driving into Mississippi, and they had told us at the orientation session, I could see her in Nashville, in Memphis, I do not remember. They had told us, when you crossed the border into Mississippi, roll up the windows of your car, and she rolls up the windows of her car. I remember this so well. I said, Jan, what's the difference between where we were two minutes ago and where we are? Why are you rolling up the windows of your car? We were two white women in a car. But she was nervous. Jan stayed in the movement far longer than I could. SB (00:22:05): Now You were there just the summer, or... SM (00:22:07): Then I went back and yeah, I came back to Newsweek after my summer vacation. It was very hard to resume a bourgeois life. SB (00:22:19): I understand that. SM (00:22:20): After being in Mississippi. SB (00:22:21): What was a typical day like? I know that people were down there, but what was a typical day like when you are trained and when you go off? SM (00:22:30): Yeah. Well, it was easy in Meridian. I mean, because everybody was really scared because of Woodman, Schwerner and Chaney. What we did... We were housed with a black family, Jan and I, the Falconers, F-A-L-C-O-N-E-R-S, Falconers. The wife was Johnny May Falconer. She had a daughter named Sandy, and I forget the son's name, and her husband worked for the railroad. In the month that we lived with them, he could never get to sit at the same table with us for a meal. He still could not get him to sit down with the white women. We would take a bus, a city bus to the COFO office, Congress of Federated Organizations. That was the name of the umbrella group that was mostly SNCC, a little bit of CORE. We were doing voter registration, symbolic voter registration for what turned out to be the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. We were canvassing Blacks, asking them if they could vote, would they register to vote? Would they? Then they would fill out the forms, and we would pair off in interracial couples to do this. We would also... There were other activities. It was a freedom school, which I think was probably more fun, but... SM (00:24:03): ... activities. It was a freedom school, which I think was probably more fun, but we did not do that. Then we got a message one day, James Bevel came to town, and he said that Martin Luther King was swinging through on the speech tour, and Jan and I said, "Oh, we could organize that." I mean, yeah, we have done a lot of that sort of stuff. So we helped to organize the turnout for the Martin Luther King rallies in Meridian. So, then we went back to our lives after, when the summer was over, they said, go back to your life. But Jan and I both felt that our lives were too bourgeois. I mean, how could I return? Newsweek was on Madison and 50th, and it was a block away from Saks Fifth Avenue. So, on my lunch share, I would go to Saks Fifth Avenue and shop. How can I do that after Mississippi? So Jan and I, no, I think she had made an earlier arrangement. She hooked up with the MFDP, Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. I think Lawrence Guyot was still around and had asked her. So I went back down and worked in the Jackson office, 1017 Lynn Street. I lived on the Tougaloo Campus in a house that was famous for having Casey Hayden having lived in it before. I had come back, it felt very important to vote for LBJ in November. So when I went back to Mississippi, by then the movement ... I was in Casey's house, and Casey's clothes were there, but she had already gone to New Orleans. She was burned out. Also, the movement was questioning whites, because as I am sure you know, not all the blacks in SNCC had welcomed these white students who were not all white and were not all students. They were ministers. They were all sorts of people. Then of course, when all the publicity that summer was because two white guys and one black guy had gotten killed, there was a lot of resentment over that too, because there had been other murders in Mississippi, civil rights connected, but they had not gotten the attention of Goodman Schwerner and Cheney. So, this anti-white feeling was seething. After that summer, the movement really did lose its direction a bit. People said to me, "Listen, you have to make your own project, do your own thing, because there's nobody here to assign you to anything." So I did a little of that. I actually wrote my first story for the Village Voice from Mississippi. They were holding a cotton board election. It's complicated, but there was such a thing called a cotton board. Of course, it only whites would get on the cotton board, but they established the cotton allotments, how much you could plant, and how much you could not plant. So COFO thought it would be very important to monitor the elections, and also to try to get blacks to run for the cotton board. So, I and a guy got sent to, I think it was Edina, to monitor the cotton board elections. Now, I thought it was extraordinary the COFO was doing this, and I tried to get the New York press in the Jackson office, alerted to the fact that the movement was still alive and well and we were monitoring the cotton of board elections. I could not get anybody interested in it. Sometime how after that summer of (19)64, the press lost interest in the Civil Rights movement, and the Civil Rights movement was losing its steam and getting very self-involved in who are we? SB (00:28:51): Was that when Black Power really came about? SM (00:28:54): Ah, yeah. SB (00:28:55): Because Malcolm X died in (19)65, but he was "all white men are devils." But then he changed his attitude when he went to Mecca. SM (00:29:04): Right. SB (00:29:05): But he did not live very long. SM (00:29:06): No, but that is what was happening. Stokely was beginning to speak up about Black Power. So I tried to get the white press. I tried to get Life interested, others interested. Nobody was interested in the cotton election. So, I said, "God damn, I am going to write a story myself." I always wanted to write. So I wrote it and sent it to the Village Voice, and it was the first thing they ever print of mine. Wow. SB (00:29:32): Yeah. Black Power. It is interesting. We had Tommy Smith in our campus, the guy from (19)68 Olympics who put his fist up. We had him at our school a year and a half ago, and he was really upset when people said that he was a Black Panther. "I had nothing to do with being a Black Panther." And he had to correct them all the time. This is Black Power. It is about injustice against African-American. Nothing to do with Black Panthers. But I was on college campuses, and I know the split that was also happening there. The intimidation in the late (19)60s. The Afros and the encounter classes that were happening. SM (00:30:11): Yeah. SB (00:30:14): I have asked a lot of our guests, when we talk about the era that Boomers have been alive. Now, Boomers were born between (19)46 and (19)64. SM (00:30:21): Yes. I was quite a bit older. SB (00:30:24): Again, the difference between the Boomers from the first 10 years and the second 10 years is a difference in night and day. I have learned that through the interview process. But what was it like being a woman in ... what I am trying to describe about the Boomers themselves, the era that Boomers have lived, the 63 years they have been on this planet, because the oldest Boomers are 63 years old and the youngest are 47. So, I am looking at that period of time since right after the war ended. What was it like being a female in the late (19)40s and the (19)50s, and then in the (19)60s and the (19)70s, the (19)80s, the (19)90s, and the 2010s? I break it down by decades. I know it might even be different to some of the people, but what was it like in- SM (00:31:16): It was stifling in the (19)50s. You could not be anything. In the (19)60s at first did not change for women. But there were other forms of activism available that I and a lot of other women joined. Civil Rights, Anti-War. But it was not until the start of the women's movement that I found a movement that was directly concerned with me. Never thought it would happen. SB (00:31:53): And that is really the (19)70s then, really. SM (00:31:55): Well, (19)69. SB (00:31:59): (19)69, (19)70 and the (19)70s are when a lot of the movements really came in. SM (00:32:03): [inaudible] That was the women's decade. SB (00:32:08): And the (19)80s. What happened in the (19)80s besides Ronald Reagan being one? SM (00:32:12): Well, I wish you had read "In Our Time," because I talked about that too, that in the (19)80s, women continued to make strides in terms of employment, things like that. But suddenly you needed two incomes in a family to survive under the Reagan Era. Things had been cheap before then, things were cheap in New York. You could get a cheap apartment and have a part-time job and still have time for your political activism. But that disappeared in the Reagan Era. That was, I think, one of the primary reasons why activism fell off in the (19)80s. It was it the pressure to earn a living with the rising rents and double-digit inflation. It became very difficult. SB (00:33:09): Before we go in the (19)90s, the (19)70s was the heyday of the second wave of the women's movement. And obviously that was also the environmental movement because of Earth Day. You might even say because of Stonewall, that was the gay and lesbian- SM (00:33:24): Oh, absolutely. All happening. SB (00:33:26): Certainly, even the Native American movement, that was (19)69 to (19)73. But why is it that that decade, and I just interviewed Dr. Schulman up in Boston, who just wrote a book on the (19)70s. There is something that happens. People seem to remember the first half of the (19)70s, but they do not remember the second half and I said, "Is it because of disco?" So, what happened as how some people look at the (19)60s as the decade. SM (00:34:00): That is right. SB (00:34:01): And they kind of knock the (19)70s knowing that when you define the (19)60s, that goes up to (19)73 in most cases, because even people say the (19)60s was from (19)63 to (19)73 or something like that. So, what I am saying- SM (00:34:15): Well, I know I have heard that, but I date it a little differently. Hold on. Let get a cough drop. SB (00:34:19): Yep. SM (00:34:25): People have tried to write the women's movement out of history, that is one thing. I have read accounts of the (19)70s, Rolling Stone asked me to contribute to an account of the (19)70s. And I said, "Well, for your purposes, we got Roe v. Wade." SB (00:34:51): I got that later on. SM (00:34:52): The editor said, "What? That happened in the (19)70s." I said, "Yes, women won abortion rights in the 1970s." "No kidding." There have been many intellectuals who have tried to bury the women's movement. Tom Wolf, most famously, he is referring to it as "The Me Generation." Todd Gitlin famously refers to as the "Identity generation" me, my identity. He does not consider the issues that emerged to be on the level of his great involvement. SB (00:35:41): I interviewed him too. SM (00:35:41): Yeah. Well, incredibly important movements arose in the (19)70s. At this point, I would say that the gay rights movement is stronger than the women's movement. The environmental movement has certainly gotten a push from the Gulf spill. SB (00:36:09): Oh, yes. SM (00:36:13): But by the end of the decade, before the election of Ronald Reagan, there were many of us who felt that somehow we were running out of steam in the women's movement, and the great divisions had arose among us. I was part of a group that formed Women Against Pornography in (19)78, and that became a very divisive issue in the movement. Earlier than that some people, like Phyllis Schlafly, had decided to take a very strong stand on surrogacy. She argued, and I guess would still argue, that a woman who offers her body as a surrogate has a right to change her mind. And others of us thought, well, well, a contract's a contract. If you have volunteered your womb, and perhaps your egg to incubate a baby for somebody else, well, you signed a contract. What is this, a woman has the right to change her mind all of a sudden. So, I was surprised when Phyllis Schlafly turned surrogacy into a woman's right thing. And a lot of people were surprised when I turned anti-pornography into a feminist thing, not I alone. I mean, Schlafly alone seemed to be spearheading the surrogate thing in the case of Mary Beth Whitehead. But pornography split the movement a bit or earlier than that, prostitution split the movement a bit because some leftists in our movement, they named it sex work. They named prostitution sex work and said it was as honorable as any other kind of work, and that all work is basically exploited anyway. I said, "Excuse me, what I do is not exploited as a writer. I do not get exploited except maybe by my publisher." I never have royalty statements. But I thought that the effort to redefine prostitution as sex work was really bad and they keep it up, because this is an international dispute now. Those of us who considered ourselves the ones with the real feminist analysis said, "No one should be allowed to buy a woman's body the way no one should be allowed to buy any person's body. I mean, we eliminated slavery. We have to eliminate prostitution." But that battle still goes on. SB (00:39:25): Now, when you look at certainly the (19)50s and the (19)60s, you got to think of Hugh Hefner. I have not brought him up very much. SM (00:39:34): An enemy. SB (00:39:35): Okay, but I have not brought him up hardly in any of the interviews. Well, you are talking about the sexual revolution. You bring up Hugh Hefner, and some people say that his work was more art, but when you compare a Larry Flint that is more pornography. So, they're in the same boat, but Hugh Hefner was the front runner of all this. SM (00:40:00): Well, he has a whole team of publicists who are still promoting his role as a great sexual liberator. SB (00:40:13): His kids are going to take over, too. His sons who are like 20, 18, when they do. I had a question here on the organizing of the Women Against Pornography. How effective had that been? SM (00:40:37): We lost. SB (00:40:39): Obviously, they even had a TV show recently on CNN going into that, in-depth on the business and so forth. So that is- SM (00:40:52): The industry, it was a very funny thing at the time, even. SB (00:40:58): Make sure this is still going. Yep, we are doing fine. SM (00:41:07): We had a slideshow on a carousel, and we would invite audiences to see it. Pictures really, atrocious pictures from Hustler, from Penthouse, from Playboy. That was our technology moving the crank on a carousel on a slideshow. Meanwhile, the industry is moving with VCRs. The porn stores are opening all over the place. You can now buy a VCR, take it home in the privacy of your home seat, you do not have to go to a booth in Times Square and masturbate in a booth. You can take it home. So it was hilarious. It was like the technology changes that we were talking about. But we also had a problem, in addition to the fact that the industry was growing by leaps and bounds, and all kinds of people got the idea into their heads, was that, "Ooh, I want to be a Hollywood director, so the first thing I do is make a porn film, make money on that, and then I can direct a real film." I mean, it permeated everybody in the (19)70s. It was disgusting. SB (00:42:29): Well, I do remember Hugh Hefner being interviewed, even recently saying, I do not know what it was, he was on television, and he said, "Well, Playboy was very important to change the attitudes in America that bodies are beautiful, that a women's body is art." SM (00:42:59): I know his lines, and I have seen the most recent documentary, which unfortunately, I mean, this Canadian woman fooled me, Pat Boone and I represent the opposition. And everyone, including Jesse Jackson and Mike Wallace is saying, "Oh, Hugh Hefner was such a pioneer." It was horrible. I crept out of the screening. I was mortified that she fooled me. She really hood winked me. Anyway, what were we talking about? We were talking about the changes. SB (00:43:36): Yeah, we were talking about changes. Yeah, we were talking about changes. SM (00:43:37): Well, the other thing that happened in our anti-pornography movement was little did we know that there were ... we saw pornography as something created by men, that men watched and masturbated over it. That is how we saw pornography. And as for gay-on-gay pornography, it did not bother us. Men want to, that is their thing. We were thinking of heterosexual pornography as being a lie about women. It was always showing rapes, gang rapes that women love. But within the women's movement, it turned out we had people and some identify themselves as lesbian feminists, some identify themselves as straight feminists, who said that they found their sexuality in pornography, and that our images that we thought were so horrible about bondage and things like that they enjoyed and that we were censoring their minds. That is a very serious charge. SB (00:44:47): You talk about that- SM (00:44:48): We did not mean to censor their minds. We did not think those images were very healthy. SB (00:44:54): When you wrote "Against Our ..." I am going to get back to the [inaudible], maybe I will finish this question here on the decades. You talk about how about the (19)90s? Where were the women's movement in the (19)90s and 2000s? SM (00:45:05): Well, the movement goes on. There are people working in every aspect of it. It was through our movement that we established the battered women's shelters, the rape crisis centers, the laws against sexual harassment. These were women's movement accomplishments of the (19)70s. In the (19)80s, those forms of organizing, having a battered women's shelter, having a rape crisis center, having a hotline, they got taken over by the establishment, as well they should have. They moved into the mainstream of community service. A town with good people funded a battered women's shelter so you did not need feminist activists to be involved in it any more. In fact, they were pushed out because they did not have social work degrees. SB (00:46:09): It is interesting, I cannot remember who I interviewed that said, when I brought up the name Gloria Steinem, they said she is the epitome of a person who is now mainstream. She's the most mainstream of all the feminists. SM (00:46:24): Well, I do not know. I think she keeps trying to be relevant. She tries very hard. It is her life. It is her life to be a public speaker and to travel to colleges. So, I do not need to criticize her. SB (00:46:36): The (19)90s though itself? SM (00:46:39): So, getting to the (19)90s. SB (00:46:43): Bill Clinton. Stop. Here we go. SM (00:46:52): Yep, it is fine. Okay. It is on? SB (00:46:54): Yep, it is on. SM (00:46:55): I can say from personal experience, because in the (19)90s I was writing my book called "In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution," I would say that my editor, who had signed it earlier in the decade with great hopes and a big advance, was telling me several years later that the salesmen were reporting to her that no one was interested in a history of the feminist movement, and that there was no chance for this book in the public marketplace. So, something happened out there, in the culture at large, where even though individual women were making strides in their individual lives, the movement was dead as an issue that engaged the public. SB (00:47:55): See, that was the same criticism that when people praised the (19)60s, they criticized the (19)70s because ... SB (00:48:03): When people praised the (19)60s, they criticized the (19)70s because what happened to all those movements? What happened to all of them? SM (00:48:08): They were there. SB (00:48:09): They were there in the (19)70s. SM (00:48:10): They were not their movements. The civil rights movement split off into black power, which I think was very destructive. SB (00:48:17): Right. SM (00:48:18): Right? SB (00:48:18): Mm-hmm. SM (00:48:22): The anti-war people, what happened to them? Most of them went into academia and became professors, which a lot of them did. A lot of them quickly jumped into academia. SB (00:48:37): And I know the gay and lesbian movement was in its heyday in the (19)70s, SM (00:48:40): Yes, and it was a fantastic improvement in civilization, but some people were so angry at it because they were not gay. SB (00:48:49): And then AIDS hit in the (19)80s. SM (00:48:50): And then it became a really serious movement, and that is when I saw a split off in the women's movement where the lesbian feminist in our movement discovered they identified more with gay men than they did with heterosexual women. It was profound to see that happen at the time of AIDS. It was such a crisis that lesbians felt, Hey, I have been working in this women's movement and we are always talking about abortion rights, and now suddenly a movement closer to my own identity is talking about we need a vaccine, we need something, we have got to stop this epidemic. And they move, they move right over. SB (00:49:35): What is interesting too is that when you see, and I have seen it in the universities over the years, is that the split between the African American community and the gay community, even though they are united in many respects, only through crises do groups like this seem to come together. We had a student who now works in Washington who had the gay and lesbian office right across from the BSU office. He said, I was afraid of even walking in there for fear of what someone might say. SM (00:50:07): Yeah. SB (00:50:07): And the fact that many in the African American community have been raised in the church that this is wrong by their ministers. SM (00:50:13): Yeah. SB (00:50:14): And so, you have got that split automatically. SM (00:50:16): Yeah, but it also did not fit their idea of machismo black men. What? We're not gay. Oh. It is very complicated, it is very complicated. SB (00:50:27): Where did Clinton fall on any of this? And he's- SM (00:50:30): Well, he started off pretty good, but the Monica Lewinsky case really did him in, as I keep reminding us. On television, I was watching Colbert last night. I think he wanted to have a much more liberal presidency than he could have. One of his very first acts was he wanted to close some military bases in the United States, and people had forgotten this. People jumped on him. You want to make America- SB (00:51:07): One of them was right in Philadelphia, Philadelphia [inaudible] I remember. SM (00:51:07): Is that one that he wanted to close? SB (00:51:08): Yes. SM (00:51:08): Yeah. SB (00:51:09): Ireland inspector came right after. SM (00:51:11): Yeah. Right. Well, see, I am glad you remember it because very few people remember that it was one of the first acts that Clinton was attempting, and he had not thought that through very carefully in terms of the reaction. SB (00:51:23): Do not ask, do not tell was the other- SM (00:51:24): The other thing was do not ask, do not tell, which he thought was a progressive move at the time, and everyone's hit him on it. SB (00:51:31): Oh, yes. SM (00:51:32): Yeah. SB (00:51:33): David Mixer was the one that really hit him, and I think resigned over it or something like that or he left the White House. SM (00:51:39): Yeah. SB (00:51:40): And how about this last 10 years, George Bush and of course, and now President Obama. Any changes there, have you seen? SM (00:51:53): I know because I am on the mailing list that the Pro-Choice abortion action groups are still with Obama, but worried a bit about him. SB (00:52:08): Yeah. SM (00:52:10): But cannot fault his Supreme Court nominations. I do not know. He got hit with more stuff as president than anybody else. And of course, there has been this strange sudden rise or coalescing of a nutty far right, a religious, nutty far right. I work really hard as a volunteer in the Obama campaign, which is interesting because many of my old feminist friends were horrified that I was not for Hillary, and that was another division in those of us who identify ourselves primarily as feminists. SB (00:52:53): Yeah. I think we are going to see her run again. And of course, he is going to run again. I see her running in, let us see, 2012, (20)16. But there has been some scenario, I am going into it here, some scenarios where she could run in two years. SM (00:53:15): I have heard that too. I have heard that, that they have a deal. SB (00:53:19): If there is a chance that there is no way he is going to win or ... There is some things going on right now. SM (00:53:24): I have heard it. I have heard the same thing. SB (00:53:26): Yeah. SM (00:53:29): I do not know. I am not in the in group. I just get a hell of a lot of fundraising requests on my email to help the Democrat, because I gave money for the Obama campaign. And I did a lot of telephone work, so I am on their list, but I am not a fat cat, and I really resent saying, do you believe what Obama said today contribute to the Democratic Party? SB (00:53:55): I do not like those emails that are sent in. There was an email where after they took the vote on healthcare- SM (00:54:03): Yeah, they wanted us to pay for it. SB (00:54:06): Yeah, but give a thank you to Nancy Pelosi. Well, I sent a thank you to Nancy Pelosi for doing that, and now all I have been getting now is from the Democratic Committee, all these, send 25, 59. SM (00:54:18): Yeah. SB (00:54:19): I did not do that to thank Nancy Pelosi. SM (00:54:21): Right. They get your name on the list. I mean, I am furious. I mean, I identify the names now. They all- SB (00:54:30): Vogel or whatever his name is. They are always coming from a guy named Vogel. And again, when I look at the boomer generation, I always look at the presidents. Harry Truman was president [inaudible] right through Obama. Now, when you look at that, all those different presidents, do any of them stand out as presidents who ... If you had a conference tomorrow on women's issues, I do not think Obama has been in long enough, evaluating the president since World War II, would any of them get passing grades? SM (00:55:06): No. No. It was not a primary issue for any president, and I remember Roosevelt too. I was a child. No. Well, because of the abortion issue in particular, it is a tough one to run on. Yeah. And Obama has made statements that can be interpreted several ways, when he says, we want abortion to be legal, but rare. Well, rare? How rare? Inaccessible or everybody is on birth control, using protective measures? What does he mean by that? But it is a very tough issue. And the biggest change I have seen in the national psyche is that we talked about abortion as a woman's right to control her own destiny. And now it has gummed up with all sorts of other things because of the influence of the religious right. My students think that a first trimester abortion hurts. They go, Ooh. Not that they are not having them, ooh, it hurts. And this whole business of killing a baby. We have not killed a baby, we're just killing a tiny little fetus that we are unprepared to raise. So, I have seen a tremendous setback in young women's attitudes toward abortion. And even my heroes on TV like John Stewart, he has said things, I am not altogether comfortable with the idea of abortion. But I mean, he is bending it, but he is backtracking. Okay, you are taking a life. The point was women's life. Before it is born, it is not a life, so we have lost that. SB (00:57:13): I wanted to say too, that I think your work and your book, Against Our Will, as a person who has worked in higher education for over 30 years, you have had impact on higher education and the issue of rape. SM (00:57:25): I hope so. SB (00:57:25): Oh, yes. It is one of the major issues in universities today. Every university I have worked at, it has been a major ... well, they hired a person. The women's center person is normally linked to it, but it is much, much more than that with a health center. So, you got to realize that your book, Against Our Will, and what you did back in (19)75 by writing about this issue has had direct effect on universities today. SM (00:57:50): Yeah, that is what I published at (19)75. I started writing it a few years earlier. SB (00:57:55): Again, we do not pinpoint it on fraternities anymore, but still a lot of college men have to still hear this story over and over again. And I know it is like a record to some people. They probably heard it in high school, but it is important because it is a very important orientation wherever I have been. And that women, I think in universities today, at least the universities I have worked at, I have worked at four different ones, feel much more empowered. They know their voice counts. And in this particular issue of rape, I am hoping that the stigma and the fear of going to the public safety ... and that is the one thing we have been trying to do, is the stigma and fear that some of them have. And of course, the worry what the parents might think of them for getting drunk and not knowing what was happening. SM (00:58:56): Yeah. Yeah. SB (00:58:56): But I just praise you for that. I just praise your work. SM (00:59:00): Well, thank you, but it was part of a movement. I did not make this all up by myself. Yeah. It was a movement. SB (00:59:08): But you had to know that this is ongoing and will forever have a direct effect on male-female relationships, at least within the universities and colleges and community colleges. SM (00:59:18): Oh, sure. SB (00:59:18): It is part of the daily life, and even in fraternities now. I worked with fraternities. There was a period of time, oh, I got to go through this. No, not anymore. Most of the fraternity guys now work with some of those other people on the other side to educate their fellow brothers or sisters to be sensitive to this issue. SM (00:59:40): Yeah. SB (00:59:40): And hopefully the biggest stigma is going to public safety. And that seems to be still the hardest thing for some of the females to go in [inaudible] that they have been raped. SM (00:59:53): Yeah. Well, because they are still, I think, afraid of a viral internet smear on their reputation, which has happened to several rape victims. SB (01:00:04): Right. I have here that Roe v. Wade was the most important legal decision in 1973 since the end of World War II. SM (01:00:13): Yes. SB (01:00:13): Do you feel that is the most important legal decision? SM (01:00:13): Well, I say since Brown versus Board of Education of (19)54. Yeah. That is how I teach it. SB (01:00:22): Are you fearful as a person that one day they will try to change that? SM (01:00:27): They are trying. SB (01:00:28): They will not succeed though. Today they will not succeed. SM (01:00:31): They better not, but they are cutting it back and back and back and back. I was reading about the Miranda Rights from Warren Court era. SB (01:00:41): Right. SM (01:00:41): They are cutting back on Miranda rights. They are cutting back on a woman's right to have an abortion. In many states you cannot get an abortion now. There are so many qualifications. Now you have to watch an ultra ... it is offered to you. You do not have to watch it. You can close your eyes, but before you get an abortion, in many states, you have to look at an ultrasound of this itty-bitty thing that is inside you. But of course, it's blown up big on a screen, and it looks like something is sucking its thumb. That is just one example. It is the latest tactic is the ultrasound. But the parental notifications, the waiting period, all the picketing that they have done, the shooting of abortion providers, so at least four shootings of abortion providers. So, you cannot say it is one nut somewhere. It is part of their movement, they kill. And what else has happened? Well, the hounding of abortion providers in some of the smaller states. New York, I am sure it is pretty easy to get an abortion, but- SB (01:02:04): Yeah, on university campuses, there will be groups that cannot actually be on campus, but they have the right to stand on the streets surrounding campuses because it is a public sidewalk. And they have the okay to hand out literature, the body parts and the ugliest pictures you're can ever see, but not a lot on the campus. SM (01:02:25): Well, that is good, but there was something else that they are doing. It just went out of my mind. I have to think about it because it is important. Oh, yeah. I just had gotten an email about it. One of the antis strategies now is to have abortion crisis centers and get them in the yellow pages. And women think this is a place where you can go and get an abortion, and it turns out it is not. It is a place that will tell you about the evils of abortion. And once they grab these young women for whom it was a big step to say, yes, I want an abortion, then they get in the hands of these abortion crisis centers, and they are fed a different line altogether and are under an enormous pressure to bring the child to term and give it up for adoption. SB (01:03:39): I just had a question here regarding just some of the other classic figures or writers in the second wave. Whether you want to comment on any of these individuals, I will just read their names and some of them are politicians too, of course. Kate Millet and Sherry Hite, Jill Johnson, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abs, Betty Friedan, Jermaine Greer, Susan Sontag, Alice Walker, Rebecca Walker, who I really like. SM (01:04:05): Well, I would not put Susan Sontag in a list of feminists if I did not- SB (01:04:10): Well, I might put her in the writer area, Alice Walker and Rebecca Walker, who I really think are unbelievable. We have had her on campus. Winona LaDuke, who I think is a fantastic Native American, and Andrea Dorkin, who passed away, and Robin Morgan. I think I have Geraldine Ferrara over here, too, but these are just people when I think of the (19)60s and the (19)70s and some of the books that have been written, and I have some of the books. Oh, I had books of all these people. But what do you think of these people? SM (01:04:38): Well, everyone had an important role to play, wish we had more of them, because you are describing ... I mean, your list is made up of the ones who got famous and had extraordinary skills of being articulate, having an ability to write. Not everybody in a movement, although most wish they could, but they do not write, they do not publish, and they cannot speak before a crowd. And yet they are the heart of the movement. SB (01:05:15): Yeah. I remember we had a speaker that ... we tried to get Gloria Steinem to come to Westchester. We ended up getting Mary Tom. SM (01:05:22): Oh, yeah. SB (01:05:23): Now she was very good, but she was very good if you had her on stage interviewing her, but she was not good as a public speaker. SM (01:05:30): Well, there you go. SB (01:05:30): Yeah. But we wish we had interviewed her because she was great at dinner. What are your thoughts on these conservative women who came to the forefront since World War II? SM (01:05:41): Yes. SB (01:05:43): These are people that are really against probably women's studies and a lot of the women's issues. And I start right out with Phyllis Schlafly, who I have interviewed, who has been very friendly. We brought her to our campus and our conservative students like her. But her quote is that the troublemakers of the (19)60s are now running today's universities, including all the studies departments, so they are- SM (01:06:09): Pardon? SB (01:06:10): Women's studies, black studies, gay studies and [inaudible]. SM (01:06:13): I did say that a lot of former radicals went into academia. SB (01:06:20): Right. SM (01:06:20): They looked around and said, well, I think I need a steady job for life and a pension. SB (01:06:28): So that is truth from- SM (01:06:30): I would say it is true. A lot of so-called Marxist, feminist academics, [inaudible] I mean, they just ran into academia. SB (01:06:39): And that is been a critic of the university in the (19)80s and (19)90s, that the people of the (19)60s are the liberals who controlled the humanities department. So, they control the liberal arts department, arts and sciences. SM (01:06:52): That is probably true. SB (01:06:53): What are your thoughts on other ones that stood out during this period, whether they be a Margaret Thatcher, who was during the Reagan era? Anne Coulter, Michelle Malkin. SM (01:07:05): Well, I mean, I would not put- SB (01:07:07): They are different eras. SM (01:07:08): Yeah. No, but they are different kinds of people. Michelle Balkan and Ann Coulter are right wing screamers on television, are not they? Margaret Thatcher was a complicated person, she was conservative. So on one level, I think way, Hey, she got to be Prime Minister. On the other hand, I mean, she destroyed the labor movement in England. But on the other hand, maybe it saved England. I do not know. I am not enough of a student of English history. SB (01:07:43): And, well, actually, Colter and Malkin are very popular now because they write books and they go out and speak on college campuses. SM (01:07:51): Yeah, very articulate. SB (01:07:55): And one of the older ones is Gertrude Himmelfarb, which is I think Bill Crystal's mother, and she is [inaudible] for criticisms of the left. SM (01:08:03): Oh, well, yeah. She has been around forever. SB (01:08:05): And the other one I have here is, I think it was ... What is her name? Oh, golly. Forget her name now, cannot read my writing here. Oh, Sarah Palin. I have Sarah Palin here. SM (01:08:19): Yes. Well, she is quite a phenomenon, isn't she? SB (01:08:19): Anita Bryant is the other one. SM (01:08:24): Yes. Yeah. Well, just because they are women does not mean that you have to ask me to apologize for them. I mean, what the women's movement did was open up doors for women of all kinds to express themselves, and I guess many of us have been shocked at what has come out of these women's mouths. They are certainly not hewing to a feminist line. In fact, it is very funny. I tangled with one of them on a television show. I do not think it was any of the ones you mentioned. I think she came and went. I think she was with the Heritage Foundation, but it was a Charlie Rose show, and she had been trained to interrupt whatever I said and just go, [inaudible] I could not get a word in and I was so unused to that, and he could not control it either. It was the first time I saw that new women were coming up who ... they did get training in how to speak loudly, forcefully, and not give the opposition a chance. I mean, maybe today they do not need those kinds of training sessions, but at the rise of these right-wing spokespeople, they had training sessions. I just could not believe it. Every time I asked, she said, you believe this, you believe that, duh, duh, duh. And I thought Charlie Rose was supposed to be the moderator here. Tell her to shut up. I do not want to scream too. SB (01:10:12): Yeah, we have had- SM (01:10:12): But they became fantastic screamers, so many of them with long blonde hair. That is, it. Suddenly we have a generation of long, beautifully thin, blonde-haired screamers on the right, except Sarah Palin- SB (01:10:26): Are they on Fox? SM (01:10:27): Yeah, they are all on Fox, aren't they? Oh. What have we wrought? SB (01:10:34): One of the things the questions I do ask everyone is something that [inaudible] Gingrich talked about when he came into power in (19)94 when the Republicans took over for power. And then I have read some of his writings, and he has a PhD in history too, and he actually is a boomer. And George Will has also made comments in some of his writings, and I know Huckabee has done it on his TV show. And I know when Hillary Clinton was running for President, McCain had made accidentally a reference to her as one of the hippies or whatever from that period. But the question is this, that the reason why we have a breakdown in our society today goes right back to the (19)60s, goes right back to the (19)60s generation and that era, because the increase in the divorce rate, the drug culture, the lack of respect for authority- SM (01:11:30): And abortion. SB (01:11:30): Yeah, and special interest groups. SM (01:11:31): Because Gingrich, he is so virulent against abortion. SB (01:11:36): But they claim that that is the era when all of the things started going wrong with America, and it is during that timeframe. And they make references to the (19)60s, and they know it is not all boomers, but they make references to the reason why we have these problems, and the isms culture, whatever it might be. And in the end, what they are thinking of is they would like to see a return to the (19)50s. SB (01:12:03): In the end, what they are thinking of is, they would like to see a return to the (19)50s, I think, or a period Reagan of what was trying to do in the (19)80s. SM (01:12:12): Of course, they are nostalgic for the (19)50s. Women did not have a chance at anything, Blacks did not have a chance at anything. That is what Gingrich really is yearning for. You could not be a public gay, except maybe if you were on Broadway. The changes have been amazing in culture, and who would have predicted the forms they would have taken? It has all been a march forward, except now for this sudden strange rise of the fundamentalist right in this country, and I would add, the strange rebirth of Islamic fundamentalism in the Mid-East. SB (01:12:57): What are your thoughts on when Mondale picked Ferraro? In your opinion, was there a seriousness in picking her? SM (01:13:06): I thought it was terrific at the moment? SB (01:13:08): It was not tokenism? SM (01:13:10): Who cares? She was the first candidate of a major party for vice president who was a woman. He should have done more of a background search on her, because John's Zaccaro, her husband... that is the problem. When you have a woman. She comes with a husband who helped her get to where she got. What is his background? That was unfortunate, and she tried to weasel out of it, which made it worse. SB (01:13:43): I worked for a woman, Dr. Betty Menson, in my first job at Ohio University. She was very strong in working for the Equal Rights Amendment in Ohio. She worked at Ohio University, and I think she has passed on since I left the university. She worked very hard, and I remember the day as if it was yesterday, when I heard the, "Oh no" in the next room, because it had been defeated at the State House, in Columbus. SM (01:14:11): Yeah. SB (01:14:12): Why did the ERA fail? I know it passed in some states, but why is it that it will never happen? SM (01:14:21): Because the opposition to it was very clever in scaring people about its implications. They kept talking about unisex toilets. They said, "You will not have a separate men's or ladies’ room anymore." Somebody else would say, "Wait a second. First of all, have you ever flown an airplane? You have a unisex toilet. You have adjusted to it on an airplane." That is not a big issue. They were saying that you would have no distinctions between the sexes whatsoever, and that is nuts. People were afraid of it, and I think that now made a mistake in putting so much of its energy into the passage of it, but they did not know they were going to hit these. SB (01:15:08): I think Phyllis Schlafly was very strong on the other side, and she organized a lot of people to defeat it. Many people believe she was one of the reasons why it was defeated. SM (01:15:16): Well, she has had an interesting career. For somebody who was always championing the role of the stay-at-home wife, she did not stay at home. SB (01:15:23): That is right. When you look at the movement itself, the second wave as it stands right now, with the successes in the (19)70s, maybe some of the setbacks in the (19)80s or (19)90s, what have been the major accomplishments of the second wave of feminism? SM (01:15:43): That women can work, and have ambitions for career. That women can choose not to be mothers, or to postpone motherhood because of abortion rights. That women have been able to go into what is still called non-traditional work, which is, I think, one of the most important areas of work for women. I care less about a couple of CEOs who are women than I do about seeing women in and police departments, fire departments, bus drivers, train drivers. Those are the jobs that, so much more work has to be done there. The whole opening up of the sexual violence issues was our contribution. That was feminism in the (19)70s, we did that. We made it possible for women to speak up, and for men to understand that sexual assault was a crime. A lot of them still do not get it. The understanding that in war, rape is a very common crime, and that guys who commit rape in war are not psychopaths. They're ordinary young men who, under the cover of war, are acting out of some kind of machismo, because they can get away with it. The courage of a woman to leave a husband that batters her, that is a woman's movement accomplishment. I was called for jury duty last week, and there was a case that none of us wanted to catch, it was very interesting. Nobody wanted to catch it. New York State has a new rule that after a sexual offender, a predator of children, after a child predator has served his term, the state can now put him in a mental facility, obviously to keep him away from children, but also because the state has decided that he is a compulsive molester of children. There was a case, and I think it was the ACLU that was arguing against this continuation of his sentence. It is really a continuation of the sentence. Nobody wanted to serve on this case. We did not want to hear the details, because everyone said, "Lock him up, and keep him locked up," that was the feeling of most everybody. When everybody was being voir dire'd, one after another said, "My girlfriend was raped when she was very young. My sister had an experience. My uncle turned out to be a child molester." People were pouring out this stuff. Nobody would have said this years before. SB (01:19:19): Thank God. SM (01:19:19): It was amazing. Nobody wanted to sit impartially on a jury that was to determine whether the state had a right to put this guy in another lockup facility. We all did. SB (01:19:36): We talked about the sexism that took place within... I know that the Civil Rights movement was rampant, and probably if Dr. King were alive today in his (19)80s, he would be embarrassed by it, but he would have talked a lot earlier on this subject. When we were talking about the movements that took place in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s, all of them, I can remember in 1970, when Earth Day was organized, Gaylord Nelson met with members of the moratorium in (19)69, to make sure we were not stepping on their toes, that we were linked, and we were in unity. We both care about ending the war, and we both care about the environment. It seemed like in those days, and again, maybe through the early (19)70s, when you had an anti-war rally, when you had a women's movement rally, when you had a gay and lesbian rally, an environmental rally, you saw signs from all these organizations there in unity, caring for each other's cause. One of the criticisms today is that all these movements have become special interest. They are on their own, they are independent. I know I have talked to some of the gay and lesbian leaders, and they have agreed, this is one of their problems. It is an issue in that community, and they cannot even get people to have a song to sing, which was so important in the movement, "We Shall Overcome" in the Civil Rights Movement. David Mixner, when I talked to him, he said, "It is frustrating, because we proposed that we need to have some songs that we all sing, and no one wants to do it. It is like we are talking to the wind." What I am getting at is, do you think that is part of the problem of all the movements today, just not the women's movement? They have become single issue, special interest, and they do not work with the other movements. SM (01:21:29): I have two things to say. One is that the labor movement of (19)30s had folk singers who made up songs to them. The Civil Rights Movement had a spiritual base of songs to rely on, and just change a few words. The women's movement never had songs, and as you said, the gay and lesbian movement never had songs. Songs do not always accompany a movement, that would be the one thing to say. What was the other thing? Oh, the special interest. The amazing thing about the Civil rights movement, and the women's movement, was that our issues were not issues that these larger umbrella groups could successfully address. When we had so-called vanguard parties, talking about the Socialist Party, Communist Party, Socialist Workers party, they claimed to speak for everybody. "We cover all the issues," but they did not. They basically covered the issues that White males felt were important. In terms of civil rights, I would not knock the Communist Party in its effort on civil rights, but their strategies failed. It was an indigenous Civil Rights movement that came out of the South that made the difference. A movement not beholden to these embracive, inclusive, grand vanguard parties of the left. Since then, it has worked that you take your individual issue and you make that your focus, because those other groups never did. They never did. SB (01:23:23): One of the heroes, really, of (19)64 was Fannie Lou Hamer. SM (01:23:26): Yeah. SB (01:23:27): Here is a woman who was really- SM (01:23:29): Very religious. SB (01:23:30): She was not known, and then, she went to that convention, and Johnson was checking up on her and everything she was saying back in (19)64. SM (01:23:40): Sure. She was a sharecropper in Ruleville, Mississippi, and tremendously religious. SB (01:23:47): I know it is hard to do this, but when you look at the Boomers now, you are older than the Boomers, but almost 40 percent of the people I have interviewed were born before (19)46, but they have lived during the times of the Boomers. SM (01:24:03): We are very grateful to the times that allowed us to make a contribution. SB (01:24:08): Do you have any thoughts on the Boomer women in particular, as opposed to say some of the more recent women, the younger women that have come on college campuses or in society? SM (01:24:18): No, I am not the person to ask that question of. SB (01:24:20): Any strengths or weaknesses that you think the generation has, both male or females? SM (01:24:26): Women today, and I feel it is another defeat for feminism... my students, let us just talk about the young people that I am in contact with, and the young people I see in the street. They seem to have fallen for some of the traps that we, (19)60s and (19)70s feminists thought we had settled. You do not wear six-inch heels. What is this with pushing your boobs up and forward? You are looking like a tart. This whole business that fashion contributed to, of women looking like babes, "You have to look like a babe," is a big step back, I feel. A big step back. SB (01:25:21): The Boomers were not really into that. SM (01:25:23): Not at all. People began to dress casually for the first time. SB (01:25:30): Do you have any overall thoughts on the generation itself, those people born between (19)46 and (19)63? SM (01:25:38): No, that is what you are going to do. SB (01:25:42): When did the (19)60s begin, in your opinion, and when did it end? SM (01:25:46): I think it began on February 2, 1960, when those four black students who were quite religious sat in at a local Woolworth in Greensboro. Was not it Greensboro, North Carolina? But, now that I have been doing some reading lately, and I have been thinking about the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and the Tallahassee Bus Boycott, Tallahassee was student initiated, unlike Montgomery, which was Rosa Parks initiated. Maybe it should start in (19)55, which would be a year after Brown versus Board of Education, which was the first time- SB (01:26:39): In (19)54. SM (01:26:39): Yeah. It takes a while. SB (01:26:47): A lot of the people of my era, and my college years, felt they were the most unique generation in American history. There was this feeling they were going to be the change agents for the betterment of society. SM (01:26:57): Yes. SB (01:26:58): We were going to end racism, sexism, homophobia, bring peace to the world, change it like it has never been before. Be more different than anybody that preceded us, and anybody that will follow us. SM (01:27:11): What happened? What do they say now? SB (01:27:13): Well, that is my question. SM (01:27:15): It is your question to raise and your question to answer. SB (01:27:21): The majority of people that I have been interviewing think that is a ridiculous, arrogant statement to make. A lot of people have said, either the generation is arrogant for thinking it, or that some people just do not believe in generations like Boomers, which is happening all the time. They just do not believe in what they call the Greatest Generation, Boomer generation, Generation X. They do not believe in that stuff. It is about a period of time, in decades or even years. There is a lot of people saying that as well. Those that do say unique are those, in many respects, that were very involved, and they have just never been as involved as they were then. It was just great memories. It's a combination of a lot of different things. SM (01:28:10): You are asking, what happened to it as a generation? Why did not it continue? I can speak to that. SB (01:28:17): Yes. SM (01:28:18): But, not as a member of it. SB (01:28:18): Yes. SM (01:28:19): Because of something we have not discussed at all, is that there were so many casualties of the Boomer generation, and it did have to do with drugs and rock and roll. A Hell of a lot of icons were dead before they were 30, and I am sure Charlie talked about that. SB (01:28:42): Yes. SM (01:28:43): That is his subject. It is not mine, but I am aware of it. I cannot believe the number of people who just died from an overdose. SB (01:28:58): I think what is happening, it is a book that needs... forget about the big names, like Jimmy Hendricks and Janice Joplin, how many young people just died? I know two in particular from my community who, because of drugs, they did not live very long. SM (01:29:13): Really? SB (01:29:17): That is back in the Ithaca, New York area. I was born in Cortland. SM (01:29:23): Oh really? Apple country. SB (01:29:25): My dad was transferred down to Binghamton, because he was a Prudential salesman. We lived in a community called Lisle, New York. I do not know if you have ever heard of Lisle, it was on the way between Cortland and Ithaca. I only mentioned that because I know you moved to Cornell there. SM (01:29:43): Yeah. SB (01:29:44): I have relatives there. Everybody has a different answer to this question, so far. SM (01:29:52): I think that many people experimented with freedoms in the (19)60s that they were not prepared to cope with. One was a lot of sexual experimentation, and they were not prepared for it. I have interviewed people who have talked about how, on the college campuses, the head of their department suggested that they all have a group sex thing to get to know each other better, and a lot of people could not take that sort of stuff. A lot of people tried drugs, and then went too far with them. The first thing that I noticed in the press, because they're very quick to sound in-depth now, was that they started to talk about themselves and say, "Boy, I remember my days in the (19)60s, when all I did was smoke dope and stare up at the ceiling, and say, "Wow-wow, wow." Suddenly, that became a popular portrait of the (19)60s. Now, I did not know anybody who smoked that much dope that they looked up at the ceiling and said, "Wow-wow, wow." The (19)60s began to be tarnished very early after, by the Reagan era. People were dis-remembering it. They were remembering it as a time when everybody was just flaked out on drugs, and I do not know why they did that. I just do not know why they did that. Probably they were just doing some colorful writing, but certainly it was in the news magazines, that I would start to read these reminisce. Those who were enemies of the changes of the (19)60s quickly grabbed onto it, and there's a time when very few voices were raised in supportive of the (19)60s. That documentary that Charlie and I are in together, done by Oregon PBS, that is rare. SB (01:32:21): Which one is that? SM (01:32:23): It is called "The (19)60s." He did not tell you? SB (01:32:27): Well, I interviewed him four or five months ago. I bet I have had about 70 interviews. SM (01:32:32): That is why he mentioned me, because we are stars of it. They chose him because of his book on the (19)60s, and also because he is a gay man, and he talks eloquently. They chose me as the feminist for that documentary, and I remember, after we both saw it on PBS, we called each other, because we used to be friends. We are not friends, we just do not know each other anymore, but we called each other and said, "You were good." "You were good." It has been shown a lot on PBS lately, because these blessed people in Oregon actually got a documentary done called "The (19)60s" that is pro-(19)60s, and that includes the women's movement. SB (01:33:18): I think I own that. SM (01:33:20): Look at it again. SB (01:33:21): I have to look at it. SM (01:33:22): It will give you heart. That is why Charlie thought of me, because we are linked in this wonderful documentary that is now as staple on PBS. (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 Susan Brownmiller Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Brownmiller, Susan ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Feminists; Authors; Brownmiller, Susan--Interviews Description An account of the resource Susan Brownmiller is a feminist activist and author. During the Feminist Movement, she was a writer at ABC-TV. When she saw how much power women have, she began to write about abortion rights. She has written and published books that highlight the hardships women face and how they came to be. She attended Cornell University and studied Acting in New York City. 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 ND 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.10.2016.30 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. 94:01 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/43d6dc9f440acc5d028d2d276035812c.jpg 2670b998c95e460221958c1a586fef35 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/6b4e839e55d34c75684f9609150751df.mp3 38b4ee5e931a29f987bfcba13a68e830 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 2010-03-02 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Sam Brown, 1943- Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Sam Brown is a politician and political activist. Brown was the head of ACTION under President Jimmy Carter, and ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. He has a Bachelor's degree from the University of Redlands, and a Master's degree from Rutgers University. He also completed his graduate studies at Harvard University Divinity School.&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;}">Sam Brown is a politician and political activist. Brown was the head of ACTION under President Jimmy Carter and ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. He has a Bachelor's degree from the University of Redlands and a Master's degree from Rutgers University. He also completed his graduate studies at Harvard University Divinity School.</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;The Army-McCarthy hearing; Generational Gap; National Student Association; C.I.A.; Communist Propaganda; Young Americans for Freedom; Leadership; Non-violence; Lafayette Square; Kent State; Student for a Democratic Society; Black Panthers; Peace Corps.&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;:14281427}}">The Army-McCarthy hearing; Generational Gap; National Student Association; C.I.A.; Communist Propaganda; Young Americans for Freedom; Leadership; Non-violence; Lafayette Square; Kent State; Student for a Democratic Society; Black Panthers; Peace Corps</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 119:03 Subject LCSH Politicians--United States--20th century; Political activists--United States; Brown, Sam, 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>. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Sam Brown Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 2 March 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:04:39): Testing, one, two. This will carry very well. Done pretty good. I noticed something when I was reading your background. It was a quote. And I would like you to explain it a little further. "It never occurred to me that America could be wrong." You are quoted as saying that when you were younger. SB (00:05:01): Well, I grew up in Council Bluffs, Iowa in an egalitarian, Republican, religious family. And part of the religion of America is that America's always right. We are the good guys, we saved Europe from itself twice. We ... You know. So as a young man, I thought that almost quasi-religious sense of America's role and mission. And it never occurred to me until, oh probably like a lot of other people I guess, probably about freshman year in college, that maybe all that history that I thought I knew, I did not know as well as I thought I knew it. And that there was another side to America that was ... That we were, in fact, just human. I should have thought ... I should have known that actually from just religious teachings. I mean if we were all fallen, then how would we create a perfect state? SM (00:06:18): Right. SB (00:06:19): So ... But in any case, you know I was a kid. I believed that that is where a simple vision of America, always right, always on the side of the underdog. SM (00:06:38): You think this was ... Because I think a lot of Boomers ... A lot of people do not like the term Boomer so I am going to say those born after 19, about (19)46 and beyond. Certainly, the first 10 years, the frontline Boomers, who lived in the (19)50s and experienced everything from the get-go. I think a lot of Boomers had that feeling, what you are talking about because the parents were home, they had defeated two of the really worst dictatorships in the world. And things looked pretty good at home despite the Cold War and McCarthy telling people they were Communists. And- SB (00:07:17): Well, and there was an enormous growth in the economy. There was all this surge in education. People who had never thought they would get a college education, knew that their kids would. I was born in (19)43 so I was very much in that ... One of my very earliest memories actually is the Army-McCarthy hearings in, which would have been I guess, (19)50, (19)51. SM (00:07:47): (19)51, yeah. SB (00:07:48): Yeah. I remember coming home from school for lunch and seeing it on our- SM (00:07:52): Black and white- SB (00:07:53): ... black and white television set, yeah. SM (00:07:56): It is amazing. See, I had a little boy. I was born at the end of 1946 and I can remember before going to the school ... Actually, I am a first-grader or kindergarten. But we had half days in kindergarten. I remember being home and being on the floor and hearing this man yell. He did not ... I did not like him. I did not like that. Did you have a generation gap with your parents? SB (00:08:24): Well, sure. I mean they really were on that World War I ... I mean, my parents were both born at the end of World War I and so their formative years were the depression and World War II. And America's enormous achievements during those years were really quite remarkable. And so, they saw in a different ... They saw the world through different eyes than somebody born in the grow and prosperity and opportunity that we were born into. So, in that sense, I did not always get along with my parents. I mean we had political differences that drove us apart for a number of years. But we were never apart as parent and child. We grew apart politically. Some things were just off the table, and I thought they were old fogies. SM (00:09:26): Yeah. You were a Republican when you were young. What changed you? Was there a specific event that changed you to become a Democrat? SB (00:09:34): Well, what changed me was not Republican to Democrat so much as the Civil Rights Movement. Remember this was the days when there was actually a reasonable Republican Party. And it was the era of Rockefeller. And the idea that the Republican Party could actually, particularly on civil rights early on, there were probably more Republicans willing to vote for bills than there were Democrats because the demographic of the Senate being so Southern, the Democrats being so Southern. So, I mean what changed me was not anything in the parties. It was that it was seeing a little more of the world and what actually happened in that world. Seeing, particularly, foreign workers in California. I was involved very early on with some efforts to ... In the unionization efforts of- SM (00:10:39): [inaudible]. SB (00:10:41): ... all of the farm workers. Not at any leadership. Just- SM (00:10:43): Right. SB (00:10:44): But you know, helping out, setting up tables, volunteering for things, that sort of stuff. In fact, that is what I was doing the day that Kennedy was ... John Kennedy was shot. SM (00:10:58): Mm-hmm. SB (00:10:59): And you saw that the world was not all this ... The same as this sort of white, red world in which I had grown up in Council Bluffs. And even Council Bluffs probably was not that way if I had had my eyes open all the time. But I had grown up in a middle class, relatively privileged family. And then you see what is happening to other people and you say, "Well, wait a minute. This is not working very well." And so that, I think, that and the Civil Rights Movement probably, were the things that eventually ... SM (00:11:38): When you were young, were you ... I know you were involved in a college but were you an involved student in high school? Did you just study and did well in classes and when was that first point where you said to yourself, "I want to make a difference in this world? I think I have it within me to"- SB (00:11:56): Freshman year in college, probably. High school, high school was high school in the late (19)50s. I was a whole lot more interested in cars and girls than I was in politics. And freshman year in college, Allard Lowenstein came to the campus. He was at Stanford then. He was Dean of Men at Stanford and came to give a speech. And he had just come back from Southwest Africa. And a small group of us, for one reason or another, met with him and got to talking to him. And it was really Allard who gave me the sense [inaudible]. You focus your attention and make an effort, you actually can make a difference in the world. So really, freshman year in college was very important for me. Very important for me. I mean, by the end of that year, I was just on campus stuff. The administration shut down the student newspaper because of an article that ... Either because of an article I had written in the paper or an article. I mean it was never quite clear but they were very angry, in any case. And so, we started an alternative newspaper and I mean ... So, by the end of my freshman year, I was pretty much involved. Then, only on campus and helping out. SM (00:13:42): That is interesting you had that experience. I saw that reference someplace in some of the information on you. And if you look later on in your life, in your young life, there's that time when you were with the National Student Association. And then as you got a more important role within that organization, you saw that the CIA had admitted to infiltrating. The organization of the International Scholars Program over in Europe, I guess. And that really upset you. SB (00:14:16): Yeah, I would not say infiltrating it, so much as that was the CIA had been funding a number of cultural institutions, the Congress for Cultural Freedom and other things in Encounter Magazine. And the National Student Association had turned out from sometime in the early 50s. And it really undermined the claim that we made because there were two sort of competing organizations of students. And the CIA knew what I believed to be true. That in developing countries particularly, the student leaders of today are likely to be the leaders of tomorrow because the very narrow elite. So, the student leaders tend to move into positions of authority. And certainly, the Russians and the Soviets knew that. And they were funding then an organization imported in Prague that was ... Pretended to be an organization of students who was really an organization of part of the Communist Propaganda Apparatus, basically. And the United States started funding an alternative organization of which the NSA was a leading player. And the agency was very smart. They knew that if ... That they probably could not fund it openly because of Congress. Because most of the people who were involved were people of moderate left persuasion because we were going to talk to European and African, Asian students. You could not go there. The right wing did not have much to talk to them about. So, from sometime in the early (19)50s until 1967, they had funded a variety, mostly of international activities for students, without telling many of the people that that is where the money was coming from. It theoretically came from a foundation in Upstate New York, Corning. That is the old Corning Glass money. So, the whole time we were pedaling along, we were saying, "Oh well, they are the bad guy, Communist Propaganda Apparatus. We are just the blossom of America's youth out to ... Because of ..." And many people did not know. I mean Gloria Steinem was on one of the first delegations to go. And there were a number of other people. I mean I have met other people through the years who were on that delegation of which Gloria was probably the most famous. But they did not know that it was CIA money. And it really was ... It just made a lie out of the whole thing because of it. I understand why it happened. I understand how it happened. But I disapproved then, I disapprove now. If it had been done directly through the State Department ... Maybe it could not have been done because of McCarthy and McCarthy [inaudible]. SM (00:17:54): Yeah. SB (00:17:55): But if it had been done straight through the State Department, you just said, "Yeah, we got a grant from the State Department to go to this trip." Well, okay, that is fine. I mean nobody would have had any problem with that. SM (00:18:06): Upon reflection, after all of your experiences even beyond when you were in college and certainly the years you were organizing the Moratorium and the Anti-War Movement, it did not surprise you then that the CIA or the infiltrating organizations to- SB (00:18:28): It did surprise me. SM (00:18:29): Even during the (19)60s and the- SB (00:18:32): Yeah, it did surprise me. That was a great shock to me. It was a great shock to me. But it is now 40 years later. I can reflect back on it and say, "Well, it was this and that, I disapprove of it still." But I was shocked at the time. I mean I was in graduate school and was Chairman of the Board of NSA at the time and I had no idea. And then this allegation was made. There was a discussion at a board meeting about the allegation and everybody said, "No, it is not true. It is not true. It is not true. It is not true. It is not true. It is this crazy left rhetoric." And then three days later, I got the call saying, "Well, it was true." So the people that I had known for many years who were aware of it had been lying to me the whole time. So ... SM (00:19:22): Wow. SB (00:19:23): And they were sort of suborned into it. They signed an oath and they were, I think, basically threatened that they had to keep their mouths shut about it. I do not find that easy to forgive either. But ... You know, you get older, you understand. SM (00:19:53): There has been so many events in your life, so many experiences that really had an impact on you. But can you pinpoint one event, whether it was something you were involved in or something beyond you where you had no control, that really had the greatest impact on you as a human being? We are talking it could be a tragedy, a ... SB (00:20:20): Oh. I mean probably the event that changed me the most was that first meeting with Al Lowenstein because it really changed the direction of my life. Beyond that, I mean I had things that were weird. I started to say, I was on a Thursday night. I was studying and slogging my way through a manuscript in German. And Sunday morning, I was on Meet the Press. I mean that is a fairly rapid change of venue. And that was the CIA stuff. And I came ... I got on the plane right away and I was in Boston at the time. I came down here and held a couple of days of hearings and then went on Meet the Press with Joe Clark and I cannot remember who. There were a couple of other people on that program. Anyway, that had an enormous impact. But so did the early successes of the McCarthy Campaign changed what I could do subsequently because I got known and got known among other things among contributor circles so that when it came time for the Moratorium, I knew where to raise the money. So, it was ... Anyway. SM (00:21:54): You were involved in a lot of anti-war activities way before the Moratorium. SB (00:21:59): Yes. SM (00:22:00): In college years and- SB (00:22:01): Yes. SM (00:22:01): And I remember reading the Vietnam ... I think it was Vietnam Summer which was the (19)67. SB (00:22:08): Yeah. SM (00:22:09): Explain what that is because people are going to be reading this now, most of them are not going to have a whole lot of knowledge of that particular period, some of the specifics. Well, the Vietnam Summer. SB (00:22:22): The Vietnam Summer was an effort, as you say, in 1967, to get some of the people who had been organizing on their college campuses to actually go do it more broadly on a community-based level. And the theory was that you get however many people you could get to spend their summer talking to friends and neighbors and trying to find beyond the campus or beyond their campus at least, a way to talk to people about the war. It was really, as I recall it, sort of a successor to the teach-in movement from before that. That was broader. It was an effort, it was a broad educational effort, an outreach effort, that was before everything went to hell. SM (00:23:14): Yeah. I remember reading that there were 500 paid staffers and 26,000 volunteers in that anti-Vietnam project all over the country. SB (00:23:24): Yeah, that sounds a little inflated, frankly. I mean- SM (00:23:28): Yeah. SB (00:23:28): ... 500 paid staffers. Not likely. SM (00:23:31): That might be misinformation [inaudible]- SB (00:23:33): Yeah. Somebody's inflated notion about how good it was. I mean it was- SM (00:23:38): But those experiences, did they help you in prepping you for McCarthy and being involved in the McCarthy- SB (00:23:44): Oh sure. SM (00:23:44): ... experience? SB (00:23:44): Sure. SM (00:23:45): And how did you ever get that position? Because my golly, people would die to get a position like that at such a young age. SB (00:23:52): Hawk, with David Hawkins, another ... I mean we worked on a bunch of different things. We worked on a series of letters from student body presidents and student newspaper editors that we published in the New York Times because the administration, the Johnson Administration, was trying to say, "Well, it' is just a radical, crazy, lefty fringe that is against the war." And we wanted to say, "No, no, no. This is a mainstream, student leader, student’s newspaper editor. This is not your ... You cannot dismiss this as just a bunch of crazies." And through that, and through NSA itself, I probably knew people on ... I do not know, 3, 400 college campuses around the country. And that was in the days when it was not so easy because without email ... I mean now you can be in touch with 400 people with the touch of a button. Then, you either had to pick up the telephone and call them or you had to send them a letter. I mean there was no real, easy way to communicate. You could do a fax, but it is the same thing. You could not ... We did not have mass blast faxes at the time. So, it was just sort of ... And a lot of students would not have access to a fax machine anyway. The newspaper editors would and probably the student body presidents, too. But in any case, it was a lot of hard work. So, we spent months making phone calls and pulling together those ads. And through NSA, which had a big gathering every summer, you would get together with people from 3 or 400 different campuses. Well that is a big benefit when you are trying to organize something to actually know people face-to-face. SM (00:25:56): See one of the things that I do not think is talked about enough in the literature on the (19)60s is the National Student Association. I think it was formed in the late (19)40s or something like that. Hubert Humphrey was somewhat connected or- SB (00:26:09): Yeah. SM (00:26:09): ... at the very beginning. Why has that organization ... Obviously, it still exists. But why is that organization not being pushed to the forefront when we are talking about the Anti-War Movement and all the groups. I do not ever hear the NSA discuss or even the Young Americans for Freedom which was a Conservative group. You hear about SDS. You hear about Vets Against the War, those kinds of groups. SB (00:26:34): It is all ... NSA also had this broad educational function and education reform function. It was not a single representative it had. And it was composed of a broad range of people. I mean I remember Danny Boggs from the Harvard delegation, every year wrapping the ... Using very clever parliamentary tactics to delay activity. I mean it was a broad-based organization and it represented a lot of different people. I knew a lot of the leadership of Young Americans for Freedom because they were also at NSA. So unlike SDS which had a conscious ideology, NSA was less ideological and certainly more modest in its moderating, I would say. Because it was broadly based. And the membership of it was student governments, not individuals. So, if the student government was headed by somebody conservative, then you get to the convention in the summer and it'd be very hard to get certain things done because you would have a resistance. Now eventually, by the summer of (19)64 as I recall, I think we got a resolution passed supporting Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party that year. And lots of people who then became well-known were there at the time. And that includes everybody from Tom Hayden and some of the people, more ideological people, to people like Rodger Reaper who was the editor of the student newspaper at Illinois or ... I do not know. There's a whole bunch of people that we knew. Rik Hertzberg is now at the New Yorker and then the editor of the Crimson and ... There are probably 50 of those people that I could Google and they'd come up with a long list of stuff. SM (00:28:54): Yeah. It is interesting that I am trying to interview him as well because he's a friend of Charles Kaiser, the writer. So, I just sent an email to him to see if I can interview him. SB (00:29:06): Tom? Oh, Rik Hertzberg, Henrik Hertzberg? SM (00:29:11): Yeah. SB (00:29:11): Yeah. SM (00:29:11): Yep. SB (00:29:11): Yeah. SM (00:29:12): So, I am hoping ... And I did not use a speech writer for Jimmy Carter and ... One of the things- SB (00:29:20): We spent the summer together, Rik and I, in the summer of 19 ... Must have been (19)65, I guess. At what later turned out to be CI Summer Camp. And then he went on to work for the US Student Press Association for a year. SM (00:29:37): The links between McCarthy, you were a very important person in that position because when you think of Chicago (19)68, that is something that comes to everybody's mind, the- SB (00:29:50): Actually- SM (00:29:51): Go ahead. SB (00:29:53): [inaudible]. I have just realized that I sort of filibustered the answer to your question about how I got there. I did not intend to, but I started a ways back. SM (00:30:02): Right. SB (00:30:03): So, the- SB (00:30:03): It started a ways back. SM (00:30:03): Right. SB (00:30:03): So, the end of all of that story is that when it came time for them... Oh, and then there was one other big piece in there, which was the summer of 1967. There was a huge fight at NSA about who was going to be president of NSA for the succeeding year. And I lost by a few votes to a guy, the name of Ed Schwartz, who lives in Philadelphia now, and Ed was really the education reform. He said that is what we should be doing. And I was the candidate of anti-war that said what we should do is that an NSA should essentially devote its resources to ending the war in Vietnam. I did not, of course, know at the time that it was... No, maybe I did. Because by that time, the CIA funding had ended that spring. That was when it blew up. Anyway, I said, what it should be doing was anti-war stuff, and I lost. But we then went on to form an organization called the Alternative Candidate Task Force, which was to be the student effort to find the new candidate, an alternative to Johnson. And I became the head of that. So, in the fall the campaign, when we found the candidate, I had already been working for months on the process of finding that candidate. I knew the people who were involved in campuses all over the country. Allard Lowenstein was the kind of Pied Piper. He would go out and give the speeches, and then Curtis Gans would do the follow-up and actually make an organization out of Allard's enthusiasm. Harold Ickes was working in New York at the time, and I was traveling around to campuses. I was doing the campus side of that. I ran the campaign to the college Young Democrats to elect the slate of officers that was against the war and then looking for an alternative candidate. And we won that to the great chagrin of the White House. And anyway, long story short is I would spent years doing this stuff. So, when it came time for the campaign to do something, there was my smiling face. SM (00:32:37): What amazes is, well, it is obvious. It comes out over and over again. Organizer, organizer, organizer. That is such a skill. Because I know, I have been working with students for 30 some years, and most of them do not know the first thing about how to organize. They have a lot of friends and they can get their friends to come to things, and they go to all these student organization lectures and conferences, but they still do not know. And so, I think it is something that we need to do a better job of, especially with college students today. That is just my personal opinion. Because the question I am tired of hearing about over and over again is, I do not know what to do. And I believe in young people. So, it is just that they need to have confidence that they can do it. But one of the things here is 1968 was such an unbelievable event. You were in Chicago? SB (00:33:32): Yeah. SM (00:33:33): What was it like being there? Tom Gorman, I interviewed too, and he told me the experience he had with Senator McCarthy in Chicago in (19)68. But explain what it was like to be there. Secondly, to be the link between Senator McCarthy and the protestors. SB (00:33:57): Yeah. Well, most of them were friends of mine. I mean, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis particularly. But I knew a lot of the other people around too. Carl Oglesby was there. They were people I knew from the years past. So, it was a natural thing that I should be asked really on behalf of the campaign to go meet with them, talk to them, try and figure out if there was a way to minimize the damage on the campaign by their actions. We had no idea, of course, that the police would turn out, that there would be a riot, a police riot as the Ryan Commission later said. We could not predict that. What we could try to do was to help the demonstrations be peaceful, well-organized, not destroy any chance of getting a resolution through the convention opposing the war. It turned out we probably did not have a chance to get that anyway. It was a kind of symbolic effort to get a peace plank in the platform, which we lost. But anyway, my job was to try to minimize the damage, which was all really, I mean, there was no way it was going to be helpful. So how do you minimize the damage is really the question. And it was natural that I should be the person asked to do that. And I spent some time with them over the summer and then early on at the convention, and then did not spend much time actually with them during the convention itself. But I was outside the Hilton Hotel when the police attacked, I was actually sitting in the street with Carl Oglesby and he said, "Well, the police are going to attack." I said, "Carl, come on. The whole damn world is watching. There is television cameras up on the ledge of the Hilton Hotel. They are not going to do anything stupid." Well, how wrong was I? SM (00:36:26): Oh my gosh. SB (00:36:27): Two minutes later. Tear gas every place and we were trying to get out of Dodge. SM (00:36:35): Yeah, just to be there. I saw it on TV. SB (00:36:41): It scared the bejesus out of you, I will tell you. Because you get in a crowd like that, the crowd is as dangerous. Just the panic. SM (00:36:52): Who was at fault? I have read many books on this. Were the young people at fault or were the police at fault? SB (00:37:02): I think there is no question it was the police. I mean, they just lost it. And they lost it, I mean, I understand most of the people in the street were kids of privilege. They were college students. They were college graduates. They were people who could afford to come, who were not working the second week in August, could afford to be in Chicago. And the cops did not have any of that privilege. Probably not mostly college educated. Their jobs to maintain order. They are pissed off because these are raggedy-looking, yada-yada, yada. I mean, in some ways they were attacking their own kids or their own family, I think part of it, or whatever. I mean, nobody will ever be able to fully explain the psychology of it. But there is no question that they lost it. I mean just completely lost it. Nothing would have happened. Maybe a few windows would have gotten broken, but I am not even sure of that. SM (00:38:07): Well, there was disruption within inside the convention too. And of course, when Ribicoff spoke, they were swearing at him up there. SB (00:38:14): Yeah. SM (00:38:16): Senator Ribicoff. So, it was happening within it, because we all know what happened to Dan Rather. They roughed him up. So, a lot of things were happening. SB (00:38:23): Well, and Daley was the lead. He is the guy standing up saying fuck you. What do you think the police think? SM (00:38:30): What was Senator McCarthy thinking though? SB (00:38:32): I have no idea. SM (00:38:33): He was seeing this too. Two things come out of this. I guess you were a witness, too, at the Chicago Seven trial? SB (00:38:41): I was. SM (00:38:41): And of course, there were eight of them. Then of course Bobby, they took him away. But what was it like to be asked to be in that room? Did you feel a lot of pressure? I mean, a lot of them were your friends, but you had to be objective. SB (00:38:58): Well, yeah, I had to say what I saw and knew, which is pretty much what I just said to you. That they did not have any, I mean, there was no plan on behalf of the leadership of those demonstrations to end up in the circumstances in which they ended up. I was there enough to know that nobody was passing out clubs or wearing helmets. None of the things that would make you think, whoa, wait a minute, what is going on here? Were there 10 rabblerousers, or 50? Maybe. I do not know. But there was no plan. I mean, Dave Dillinger was not planning some revolutionary action in the street. I mean, it was a stupid [inaudible]. SM (00:39:50): They picked those eight people. I mean. SB (00:39:53): Who knows? SM (00:39:54): Some of them were well known. But a couple of them, Lee Weiner was not well-known. SB (00:40:01): No. SM (00:40:01): There is another one that is well known. He is a professor in California. But anyway, so being in that trial, in that room with Judge Julius Hoffman, you experienced him firsthand then. SB (00:40:14): Yeah. It was not exactly an objective courtroom. I mean, the atmosphere was very hostile in the room. But I did not have so much to say. They wanted me because they wanted me as a defense witness to say I had observed the preparations. I knew that there were no plans for riot. I was there that night. I was in the campaign. I certainly was not with the demonstrators. And just they did not do it. SM (00:40:48): Did the prosecuting attorneys try to make you feel like you... SB (00:40:54): Oh yeah. SM (00:40:56): William Kunstler and Leonard Weinglass were on the other side helping. SB (00:41:00): These are your friends. And of course, you are going to say what you say. No, I did not say it that way because they were my friends. I said it that way because that is the way it happened in short. But it was very brief as I recall. They wanted to get that piece on the record, and I got that piece on the record. SM (00:41:22): Yeah, I have read so much about it, and I have read so many different opinions and thoughts of it. And now quite a few of them have, well, several of them have passed on. Abbie and Jerry and have passed on, and Dave Delinger too. SB (00:41:41): Yeah. Well, Abbie and Jerry were always wild cards. I mean, I did not know them so well, unlike Tom and Rennie, Dave. SM (00:41:50): I interviewed Rennie. Rennie is smart as the dickens. SB (00:41:55): Yeah, he is. SM (00:41:56): But he does not like to talk about it anymore. He into a different sphere. Spirituality, that is his life now. And actually, his girlfriend, the person that was with him, it is the first time I have heard any of this. He does not even to talk about it anymore. SB (00:42:07): Is he living in Colorado? SM (00:42:08): He lives in Colorado. I guess he has done real well. Goes all over the country in a big expensive Winnebago with his, I am not sure if it is his girlfriend or his partner or whatever the story is. But she is also very well-educated and they talk about spirituality together. So, she is well-known too. But he is an unbelievable person. He gave me two hours of his time in a restaurant when he was in DC that is way beyond the call of duty, because he had to give two speeches that night. So, he was great. And I have interviewed David Harris, and I have interviewed a lot of good people. SB (00:42:48): Dave was a very good guy. SM (00:42:49): Dave was a great guy. SB (00:42:52): Yeah. SM (00:42:52): One of the things that really struck me when I interviewed Senator McCarthy. He did not really say anything to me. I asked Tom Gorman, I have asked other people, David Hawk, I asked people who worked on his campaign, what happened to him after Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. Because you would have thought, with Humphrey and the other guy, you would have thought. He was sad, obviously, and he had his differences. But it's my understanding that that really did affect him, the assassination, even though he did not like him that well. Why did not he go gung-ho, pick up the reins and try to be the Democratic nominee? SB (00:43:36): Well, at the time, we were all very angry at him. SM (00:43:39): Let me switch. Here we go. Okay. SB (00:43:48): So, McCarthy in the summer of 1968, I think we were all very disappointed. Quite angry, in fact. About that time, there was that Paul Simon song, "Where have you have gone, Joe DiMaggio? The nation Turns its lonely eyes to you." SM (00:44:04): Yeah. SB (00:44:05): Well, that was a kind of theme song around the office, because everybody was saying, where have you gone, Gene? I mean, what the hell's going on? Now, I do not know that we'd ever would have gotten a completely straight answer to that question. But I think it was not so much being devastated by it as it was that he was a realistic guy, and he knew he was not going to get the nomination. Or that his view was that there was nothing he could do that would get him the nomination, and therefore it was just creating false expectations and hopes to be out. Maybe he was devastated by it. Maybe he was. But what happened, of course, is a lot of Kennedy people did not come over to McCarthy, but in fact went to McGovern. And McCarthy regarded that as only one more sign of the duplicitous nature of Kennedy's supporters and whatever. And remember with him, it goes also way back to 1956 in the Democratic convention. SM (00:45:24): Oh, that is right. When John Kennedy was going to run for vice president, and he did not have to. Yes, he had no shot. Stevenson was going to win. SB (00:45:36): But McCarthy nominated Stevenson at that convention. And so, the animus there was very deep and in some way’s kind of inexplicable. I mean, his vote against Teddy for the leadership position two years later. I mean, it was crazy stuff. SM (00:45:59): Yeah, I remember Tom Gorman. You know Tom? SB (00:46:03): Yeah. SM (00:46:04): He said he was up with McCarthy looking over the protest in their room. They had a little balcony. And so, they went out on the balcony and they could smell the tear gas and all the things going on. And he thought Senator McCarthy would get very upset with what was going on. But then he said it was listening to a professor talking about philosophy or something like that, no emotion. And he said he quit on the spot. He quit because he did not see the emotion of young people being beaten in and all the things. And this is America and he is running for president. SB (00:46:43): And he is a hundred feet from it straight above. SM (00:46:45): Yeah, and that is amazing, knowing the man. I have met him three times. That is not the man that I talked to, but maybe he is different personalities, multiples at times. One of the things too, you said something that is very important, I think this is important. I mean, I am trying to interview Brian Lamb at C-SPAN, and I know his philosophy, and this is comparable to what you just said. This is a quote from you: The worst thing that can happen to an organizer is to become identified as a leader. And that is Brian Lamb at C-SPAN. We took students to see him. He said, there is no superstars at C-SPAN. If you want to be a superstar, go to ABC. He does not allow any superstars to see it at C-SPAN. And he is very sensitive when he was thrust to the front. And I know it was at a time when all young people were questioning leaders, did not trust any of the leaders, but is that very important, a little bit about who you are as a human being? SB (00:47:50): Yeah. I mean, partly it was, as you say, at the time, it was do not trust leaders, watch the parking meters. It was partly that. It was partly, too, that if you are trying to organize something, what you want is as broadly as possible for everyone to think they are a leader, for everyone to be a part of it. And if you are either self-proclaimed or proclaimed by others to be the leader, you lose people at that point. I mean, when you become visible in that way, people take shots at you, or think you are gotten too big for your britches, or you are this or you are that or the other thing. So, I mean, it is both a real sentiment about that it is better that it be broadly shared. And it is a tactical thing as well, that the more people you can drag in and make them feel good and important, the broader base of activity. Now, that is not always true, but I think it was true then. At that time, in that circumstance, I think that was true. SM (00:49:21): What is interesting is when you look at the Boomer generation of perception out there is it is a generation that does not trust, and for very obvious reasons, because so many of the leaders lied to them, whether it be Lyndon Johnson or the Gulf of Tonkin. We all know about Watergate. And even as they progressed into older age, or even older, you could say, Iran Contra with Ronald Reagan. Nobody trusted Gerald Ford. SB (00:49:50): When he pardoned Nixon. SM (00:49:53): Pardoned Nixon. Because there has got to be some sort of a deal there. Jimmy Carter at times was attacked for the amnesty for people up in Canada. And then of course, you can even go back to Eisenhower where the U2 incident relayed on public television, on TV. And I remember seeing that as a little boy, him talking about Gary Powers and saying that we are not spying, Ike-like. SB (00:50:18): No kidding. SM (00:50:19): On national television. And then of course, as you read later on, John Kennedy, and he was involved with the coup in Vietnam. I do not think Kennedy wanted him killed, but I think he was upset. But he gave the okay for the overthrow. So here we got leader after leader after leader, after leader, not trusting. And college students at that time did not trust anybody with responsibility, whether they be the president of the university, or a minister, or a rabbi. They did not trust anybody in leadership. And I think you hit something very important here. Do you feel that your feeling was really [inaudible] amongst many of the Boomers? SB (00:51:03): I do not know. I mean, I cannot speak for other people. I just know that it was a sentiment. My sense of the people with whom I worked was that you wanted to be very careful, that claiming leadership is likely to lose you the ability to actually be a leader. SM (00:51:31): Once you were designated a leader though, when you became the head of Action, when you became the head of these other organizations later in life, you were a leader. You were assigned, you were picked just like you were picked by McCarthy. You were the Clean for Gene, which I want you to talk about there, but you were picked to be the leader of this. So, you might feel that, but you are showing a lot of sensitivity here that you are more about collaboration than you are about... SB (00:52:03): Yeah. Even when I was at Action, we brought in a series of consultants to work on something that the Congress then later countered me around for called Workplace Democracy. I thought that it was important to bring people into the governance process. Not always into the policy making process because that is really the Congress and the President set direction and my job was to carry out that direction. But to set the tone of the workplace and the way to get it done, I thought the way to do that was to bring as many people as possible into it. So, we had this sort of ongoing thing, and we hired. SM (00:53:03): I know you hired Dick Celeste. I am a big Dick Celeste person. SB (00:53:06): Yeah. Well, but we hired this consultant to come to do workplace democracy. Anyway. Oh, yeah. I was very fortunate because the president gave me a lot of room to succeed or fail, and I was able to get Dick to come to the Peace Corps and John Lewis to come to run the domestic programs. And John Podesta to be my chief of staff. I mean, I had a good crowd. Betty Curry, then Betty Mitchell, but later, Betty Curry, the president's secretary, Clinton's secretary was my secretary for four years. So, for a little tiny agency, we had a lot of very high-quality people. Tom Glenn, who was later Under Secretary of Labor, worked there. I do not know. We had a good crowd. SM (00:54:09): Good people then. And then the Moratorium is something, when you look at your history, I think me personally, I think of the Moratorium and I think of Action, and certainly all your involvement as a great organizer. These things really stand out. I know I have read about the Moratorium, but how did it come about? Before we go there. Clean for Gene. SB (00:54:36): Oh, Clean for Gene. SM (00:54:37): Clean for Gene, and then we will go right to the Moratorium. SB (00:54:39): Okay. SM (00:54:40): Because those are big decisions, both by you. SB (00:54:44): Clean for Jean was, I mean, I think probably Mary McGrory probably invented the phrase, but the idea was a simple one. We are going to a place that is essentially New England, conservative, small-town America. We are trying to talk to people about voting for our candidate. You want them to listen as open-mindedly as possible to the argument and not be put off by appearance. Therefore, you need to appear in such a way that people, when they see you standing on the doorstep are inclined to open the door and talk to you or offer you a cup of coffee, rather than slamming the door in your face. So, if you are not sorted around, that is if you are not dressed properly, if your hair is too long, if you look like you are not going to be able to have that open conversation with people by and large older, a generation older in many cases, who had expectations that were framed in the forties, not in the (19)60s, then you need to appear appropriately. I mean the rules were pretty clear. If you are going to get on a bus to come to New Hampshire, do not bother if we cannot use you. Now, sometimes when people got there, if their appearance was not appropriate, then we put them to work in the basement of the headquarters filing, keeping track of file cards. But we did not put them out on the street unless we thought they had a chance to actually influence people in a positive way. SM (00:56:44): That is the New York Yankee way too. The Yankees have this thing about appearances, remember? Because Johnny Damon had the... And that is what Bobby Cox does for the Atlantic Braves. You got to look at your part, look like a pro. SB (00:56:56): Yeah. SM (00:56:57): And they can still have a mustache. SB (00:57:01): Right-right. SM (00:57:01): Yeah. SB (00:57:03): So anyway, that then the press picked up on it and sort of loved it. So, there you go. But that was really, I was in charge of that organizing effort in New Hampshire, and so I made the rules. SM (00:57:27): How were you appointed to this very important role, again in McCarthy? McCarthy had to make the final decision. He picked you. SB (00:57:37): Well, they were not initially focused on New Hampshire. In fact, there was some discussion of not even contesting New Hampshire because it's a conservative state. We did not have that good an organization on the ground. Maybe we should focus first on Wisconsin, a more congenial place. But some of us in the campaign felt that we had a shot at New Hampshire in an important way. And one way to say that was to say, okay, well, I believe it so strongly, I am want to go there. And then it turned out I ended up. I mean, they were not going to make a 60-year-old in charge of the student volunteers coming in. So, I was at the right place at the right time. Just lucky. SM (00:58:37): Now, the Moratorium, that idea came from... Oh, I remember some name came out of nowhere. I never heard of the person, but you were one of the leaders of starting the Moratorium. But originally the idea of a strike, and I have done a lot of reading about- SB (00:58:54): That is Jerry Grossman. SM (00:58:56): Yeah. Now who is he? SB (00:58:57): Jerry was the president of Mass Envelope Company. He is an older business guy who was the head of Massachusetts Peace Action Council. He is actually still alive. His son is running for Congress, the Senate, I do not know. SM (00:59:13): Oh, wow. SB (00:59:15): And used to be the Democratic National Committee, the chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, his son. Jerry is now probably in his (19)80s, writes a blog. And he had this idea, Mass PAC actually had the idea. I mean, Jerry was the president, but the idea, I think grew up sort of organically through the organization, through Mass PAC to call a national strike. And Jerry went to see, I do not know, probably Marty [inaudible] to talk to him about money to do this thing. And Marty said, "No, go talk to Sam Brown." And I was teaching a course at the Kennedy School at the time. SB (01:00:02): ... I was teaching a course at the Kennedy School at the time, and because I was not very good, I was young, I was kind of intimidated, most of the students were more or less my age. I was 25 and I had only graduate students and juniors and seniors, so it was ... Everybody in there was more or less my age. And I was fairly intimidated by that and not really very good at what I was doing. So, I threw out the standard way of doing it and said, "Look, since it is a seminar in contemporary American politics, what we are going to do here is we are going to talk about what you would do. We are going to learn about how politics works and what might work or might not work by taking a real issue, ending the war in Vietnam, and whether you agree with that or not, it does not matter. What we are going to talk about in this seminar is what might work." And at some point, in that seminar, we were talking about everything, demonstrations, letter writing campaigns, congressional campaigns, cutting off the budget, da-da, da-da. At some point, the idea of a strike came up, and Jerry had come to talk to me about it as I recall. And I said, "Nah, that can never work. It is too militant. It is too labor oriented. It does not sound like something that you can talk to people in the Midwest about. It sounds like the 1930s. It sounds like some lefty idea from the (19)30s. We cannot do that. But maybe we can find a way to think about that idea and not say we are going to have a strike and shut down American business, but to say instead, we are going to put aside a day to think about, to focus on this national issue and that they will put aside business as usual. Not shut down the factories, but put aside business as usual to contemplate what we are doing." And anyway, that grew over a period of time through that spring, in that seminar we refined that idea, and we needed ... Refined it to the place where we thought it was a pretty good idea. And then I raised some money to start the organization. And I had friends who I'd worked with in other things, David Hawk, David Mixner, Marge Sklencar, and a couple of students from my seminar, two or three students, in fact, from my seminar, who came to work in the office. And so, we started with a core staff of six or eight people, 10 or something like that. The core probably being the four of us, David and David and Marge and me as co-coordinators, term of art appropriate to the 1960s. Not leader and followers, but co-coordinators [inaudible]. SM (01:03:20): Yeah, that was what SDS was supposed to be about, everybody's ... SB (01:03:25): Yeah, right. SM (01:03:25): Yeah. No leader, just... SB (01:03:32): Yeah. So, we just came down here in June after school was out and opened an office and announced we were going to end the war. Fairly audacious undertaking, but there you go. And because of the McCarthy campaign and the CIA thing, and one thing and another, I knew a lot of press people, so I knew we could get decent coverage for whatever we were going to do. SM (01:04:01): Boy, it was big. Because I can remember students from my college going to it, and it was big. SB (01:04:11): Yes. SM (01:04:11): And I know that we had students going to it from Binghamton, and of course that was ... It was in October, I think? SB (01:04:20): October 15th. SM (01:04:22): Yeah, October 15th was the actual across the country. And then November 15th was the actual event. SB (01:04:25): The [inaudible]". SM (01:04:27): Now, how many people were actually at the Washington Monument, because that is on Thomas Power's book, the front cover of his book? SB (01:04:33): Yeah. SM (01:04:34): That is the picture. SB (01:04:35): Yeah, that picture is actually hanging over there. My wife just gave it to me for Christmas this past year. SM (01:04:41): Oh my gosh. SB (01:04:42): Yeah. That was ... Who knows? I mean, everybody lies and nobody really knows. Estimates vary, but it was probably a half a million people, something like that. But I think you'd ... On any given day, depending on somebody's political instincts, they would say it was a hundred thousand or a million, 500,000. I mean, people ... But I think it was probably around 500,000. SM (01:05:15): It was a tremendous success. But from what I gathered, Nixon, as he always did, "Yeah, it was a big event, but it is not going to affect me at all on how I run things." Is that true? He was ... SB (01:05:29): No. Well, Dan Ellsberg tells me that it is not true, and Dan was still there, and he says that Nixon, that there was serious discussion about the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam, and that the moratorium ended that. Certainly, it forced them to rethink how they were going to conduct the war after that. And their first rethink was in the spring when they actually escalated the war, substantially in April when they ... SM (01:06:07): Oh, yeah. SB (01:06:11): And then that led to its own new round of demonstrations and opposition. But I think, I mean, Dan says he knows this with absolute certainty that from inside ... SM (01:06:33): That movie is out right now, The Most Dangerous Man in America is opening tonight in Philadelphia at the Ritz Theater. I am going tomorrow to see it. SB (01:06:43): Yeah. I saw it a few months ago. SM (01:06:44): I am heading off to the 40th remembrance at Kent State too. I have a question about that, but I have a question about who the speakers were at the moratorium in ... SB (01:06:54): Oh God. SM (01:06:56): ... 1969. I know Benjamin Spock spoke ... SB (01:06:58): There was a struggle all the time because McGovern spoke, but the left did not want him to speak. I do not remember. David Hawk spoke there. I do not know. I just do not remember. I'd gotten arrested with Spock the night before. There was an effort to do something to say this was going to be non-violent. So, we were going to show the way by a demonstration at Lafayette Square, where a bunch of us got arrested. But I do not remember who ... I mean, I remember the fights about who should not speak. SM (01:07:49): Right. You had musicians there too that performed? SB (01:07:53): Yeah, I think Peter, Paul and Mary performed then. I am not sure who else. I just do not know. SM (01:07:57): I think Teddy Kennedy came and spoke too, did not he? I think. SB (01:07:59): I do not ... SM (01:08:01): I have some literature here ... SB (01:08:02): Maybe. SM (01:08:03): ... that says that he came out and said a few things. SB (01:08:04): Okay. SM (01:08:07): Kent State, obviously after the moratorium in (19)69, and the reaction that I thought that Nixon gave to that particular event, then the peace activities were going on, so people looked at him more as the peace candidate, so it kind of died. So, the protest movement kind of ended there until the Kent State killings? SB (01:08:30): Well, it was not clear what he was doing at that point. And what happened really, in my recollection is, in October and November, we spent so much energy that when it came time for December, everybody ... Students were home. They were not on their campuses. It was hard to organize. You could not reach people. We had become sort of sclerotic. We had offices all over the country at that point. We were spending a lot of money to keep alive, not much real activity, so we decided ... I mean, we just sat down with our staff and said, "This is crazy." So, we closed. And then in the spring, of course, with the bombing, the Cambodia bombing over there, yeah, it just sort of blossomed from that. I mean, that was the ... SM (01:09:37): Now that was ... I asked quite a few of my interviewees where they were when two or three of these tragedies happened. Where were you when you heard about Kent State, number one, and where were you when you heard about John Kennedy's assassination? SB (01:09:51): Well, John Kennedy, I remember distinctly, I was at Redlands and I was working on a conference, a farm worker conference that weekend. And we were setting up tables and getting ready to do this conference when I heard about it. And then went to the cafeteria, and we were just sort of all in shock. And Kent State, I was here in Washington, but I do not recall precisely where, but it was so ... I mean, that two or three days around there, it was all kind of mushes together because it was such a blossoming, really, of anti-war activity. I think that spring ... I have this vague recollection that spring was the first Earth Day. SM (01:11:06): Yes. It was April 22. SB (01:11:08): And I had been working on Earth Day with Dennis Hayes and a bunch of people. SM (01:11:12): I have interviewed Dennis. SB (01:11:12): Yeah, he is a good guy. SM (01:11:12): He is. SB (01:11:15): He is a really good guy. So, I was around here because of that, and I had probably traveled someplace on the 22nd to speak, but I was living here and I do not remember exactly where I was. SM (01:11:30): You knew Senator Nelson too, when ... Because he was very involved in Earth Day. SB (01:11:35): Yeah, oh, sure. SM (01:11:36): The organizing of it. SB (01:11:36): Yeah. SM (01:11:36): One of the things that fascinate me about your background too, and I know you are probably very proud of this, was the book that you Wrote, which is called the Storefront Organizing. SB (01:11:50): Oh, Storefront Organizing. SM (01:11:51): And what really got me excited because it was dedicated to Jesse Unruh. I know him real well from living in California, and Senator McCarthy. But I love this quote, and I am not sure ... I get these quotes out of the ... But I think this is beautiful. You got to be proud of this. SB (01:12:11): Whatever. SM (01:12:12): "The bias is against the status quo rather than for it, because the few have always been well organized. The many have never been organized and never had a voice. Grassroots organizing is the way to change this." Now, that to me is beautiful. That is something that is about grassroots organizing. That says it all, but ... SB (01:12:35): Thank you. SM (01:12:35): But no, that is beautiful. But that booklet, you saw the need, just like I mentioned about students today ... I think, I do not know if this book is out of print. I think you ought to get this book back in print, I think, and put it on college campuses, because I think they are lost. SB (01:12:51): Well, it was just, it was largely a technical manual. It is sort of where you get office space and how you do various kinds of things. And of course, the times have changed so much that the techniques would have to have necessarily changed with it. There is actually another thing you may not have seen that I am, in some ways, even prouder of a piece wrote for the Washington Monthly called The Politics of the Peace. SM (01:13:17): When was that? SB (01:13:19): That would have been in late (19)69, early (19)70. SM (01:13:26): Can you get that, or? SB (01:13:29): It is probably archived, or it is certainly in a library, or ... SM (01:13:33): Okay. SB (01:13:37): I do not know. That is what I was looking for over there was to see if I might see a copy of it, but I do not know that I have a copy of it here. Anyway, but that it was a long piece that The New York Times then wrote a very laudatory editorial about, saying that they thought it was real smart, which is always a nice thing to have someone say. SM (01:14:05): Has that ever been put into a book as a ... Like essays of the (19)60s or the (19)70s or? SB (01:14:10): No, no. I think the only place it has been published was in the Washington Monthly. But Random House then came to me and offered me a contractor to write a book, and I went to write the book and discovered when I got to writing it that I really had about 12,000 words to say, and I would said them all. So, I returned the advance to Random House and got on with my life. SM (01:14:39): Wow. That is an interesting story. If I get a copy of that ... I am going to try to find it, but ... Not today, but down the road. SB (01:14:46): Yeah. I do not know whether you can find ... Maybe you can Google or maybe it is ... Or, whatever. Anyway, the Politics of Peace. SM (01:14:56): I have interviewed quite a few people from the Peace Corps in this project. Bill Jacobson ... Bill, he's great. We had a Peace Corps conference that I organized at our camp with Harris Swafford and [inaudible] ... SB (01:15:08): He is a really great guy. SM (01:15:08): Yeah, and we brought in five or six of the original people from the beginning, and ... Of course, Sergeant Shriver could not come because he is not well, and he has got Alzheimers, but they told him that this was happening. We have got it all on tape. But that must have made you feel really good, I mean, to be picked by President Carter to be the head of action and to oversee the Peace Corps and Volunteers in Service to America, which were ... When you were a boomer in the (19)60s, you knew about SDS, you knew about Black Panthers, you knew about certain things. But you knew about the Peace Corps, and you knew about VISTA and they were important. And just any thoughts you have about that experience of working for the Peace Corps, and maybe working with Sergeant Shriver, and knowing the people that were linked to ... And being a part of the continuity of its history? SB (01:16:09): Yeah. Well, again, I was lucky. I mean, I was the state treasurer in Colorado at the time, and I have gotten to know Carter during the course of the campaign. So of course, I was ... When he asked me, I did not hesitate. I probably could have been more gracious to the people who would help me get elected state treasurer by at least having a momentary pause before leaving the job to go to Washington. But, yeah, it was a terrific opportunity. And the Peace Corps is a very interesting institution because it has the theory that people will only be there five years, can only work there for five years, and then have to go out in order to renew. It has a funny opposite effect part of the time, which is that it tends to create the myth that it is ... It clings to its founding myths more strongly, I think, because of that than it might have if the same people had just stayed on. So, I am never sure about how that idea, which seems like a really smart idea, and I thought it was a smart idea, and it seemed like the right idea, but I am not quite sure that it actually works the way the founding fathers would have wanted it to work. And it also may be that just like any other institution, when it gets to a certain size, it becomes very difficult to move it in any very substantial way. I mean, it sort of has its own path and I was too young really probably to figure out that you could not go in and say, "Okay, now we're going to do this," and not have everybody say, "No, we are not going to do that." So, it was difficult for me. I mean, thank God for Dick Celeste, because action had been sort of forced together by the Nixon administration. There was a strong year irredentist movement in the Peace Corps that said it should be independent again. I thought it should be sort of policy independent ... Well, it cannot be policy independent. It's driven by the president. The Congress and the President give the policy. So, it cannot really be ... You know, you cannot go out and remake it into something that is not. But I thought there could be more ways of cooperating and training between Vista and Peace Corps. Peace Corps resisted that pretty systematically and consistently, because they were ... Okay. They would deny this, but I think it is true because they saw themselves as the sort of elite volunteers, VISTA volunteers. I thought being a VISTA volunteer was at least as hard as being a Peace Corps volunteer because you got to deal with your friends and neighbors. SM (01:19:20): When I was in high school, I knew kids that looked at them equally. I know a couple went into VISTA, before they went off to college, they wanted to do the VISTA thing. SB (01:19:31): Yeah. Well, it was a terrific opportunity and a wonderful four years for me, and I could not replace it, and I could not replace the people I had a chance to work with those years, for me. SM (01:19:43): You seem to be a little bit like the person who founded it though, because Sergeant Shriver believed in ... From reading his biography by Stossel, he had a whip in his office. I do not know if you have ever saw the whip? SB (01:19:54): No. SM (01:19:54): Yeah. In the early offices of the Peace Corps, and people asked him, "Why do you have a whip in your office," and being the guy he is, he said, "Well, it just means that I am a hard driving person. I work very hard and I work hour after hour," because he believed that this is the toughest job you will ever have. That was kind of the philosophy, but it is the greatest feeling because he ... Stories about he would sleep on the floor of an airplane when he flew. He did everything that the workers were doing. He was a great example. And one of the things says he believed in the think of hard work, and from what I am gathering and I read about you, you would be working 18-hour days. You had the same kind of philosophy, working all kinds of ... That was one of the qualities, when I read about your background, people admired you because you were a one heck of a worker. SB (01:20:50): Yeah. Well, who is it says, Woody Allen? "Success is 1 percent inspiration, 99 percent perspiration." Right? Or whoever it was that said that. I think a lot of that is true. And the only thing that they left out is that there is also a good deal of luck involved, in my experience. Being there the right time, in the right place. Now, sometimes if you're working ... Allison (01:21:14): Hello. SB (01:21:17): Hi! If you are working additional hours in one thing than another, you're more likely to be in the right place. Because we are there all the time. SM (01:21:27): In the 2004 election with Senator Carey, you made some comments too, you know one of ... SB (01:21:34): My wife, Allison. SM (01:21:35): Oh, hi. Allison (01:21:35): Oh, do not ... That is okay. We [inaudible] ... SM (01:21:39): One of the things that happens is the Vietnam syndrome. Today, you cannot even bring up Vietnam, or ... At least in the university, and I have been the university for 30 years. Whenever you bring up the word Vietnam or quagmire, it sends all kinds of unbelievable waves amongst fellow boomers that run universities or students who either their parents have told some them about bad things about that particular era or whatever, or maybe not explained it properly. But when Senator Kerry was running for president, you were very upset over bringing ... About his service record, when they were not talking about ideas. It was more, they were making comments about whether everything that he said was true. SB (01:22:24): Oh, [inaudible] because they were lying about his service record. SM (01:22:28): Yeah, yeah. And this is another quote of yours, and I think it is very important because it is somewhat symbolic of what I have witnessed in universities for the past 30 years whenever we talk about Vietnam. And the quote here is that "36 years after the idealism that produced the McCarthy insurgency, I see nasty, mean spirited, politic politics on all sides." You compare it to the Chicago comity pits. I thought that was interesting. And I do not know if that is true, whether that is an exaggerated quote, but you bring up a good point, because in that election, to me, that was ridiculous to bring those things up. SB (01:23:10): Yeah, it was [inaudible] ... SM (01:23:11): Had nothing to do with ... SB (01:23:12): Nothing to do with it. SM (01:23:13): ... what was going on. And to me, it is like the battle of Vietnam never stops. SB (01:23:21): Yeah. Well, the right has sort of demonized the (19)60s, and it was an era of loose morals and loose living and rejection of authority. And I mean, all kinds of things that the right says about it. And I just think that what they confuse, what gets conflated here is, there were really several things going on. One was a kind of cultural identity and revolution in politics, and Abby and Jerry and that crowd were into cultural revolution. Then there was the anti-war movement, which had to do ... Which was focused on political change. And sometimes those got ... They overlap, but frequently they were quite different. That is, the people who were working in the anti-war movement were not also spending their time promoting free love and free drugs and whatever other things that the right has said, "Oh yeah, well, the anti-war in the (19)60s. It is all the same." It was not all the same. There were distinct currents going on, and the anti-war current was, in fact, in some ways ... It certainly questioned authority, but it did not ... Most of us who were deeply involved did not intend to overthrow the cultural life of the world. I mean, we were more interested in ending the war and stopping the killing, and whatever we had to do to effectively do that. And we did not think that meant that the way to get that done was to go around breaking windows and making a fool of yourself. But the right has sort of stuck all that together and called it the (19)60s. And it's really quite different. SM (01:25:30): Because Newt Gingrich, when he came into power in (19)94, made some very strong comments about that particular period and blaming the breakdown of our society, the divorce rate, the second revolution, the drug culture, the isms, the welfare state, everything was blamed on that particular period. SB (01:25:49): Yeah. But I will tell you, you have been around interviewing people. David Hawk has been married for 30 years. I have been married for 30 years, and make a list of whoever you have gone to see. And by and large, I mean ... David Harris, I mean, was first divorced and then his wife tragically died. SM (01:26:12): Died, right. SB (01:26:14): But by and large, the people I know from that era have pretty stable personal lives, and family lives with a spouse or a partner or whatever. And frequently, the people throwing those rocks are the ones who themselves have personal lives that are a mess, and ... SM (01:26:40): Now George occasionally will take shots too. SB (01:26:43): Oh, yeah. SM (01:26:46): In his columns, in his books, he will have one or two little articles really attacking the (19)60s, but attacking the boomers, basically. And yeah, it is 78 million people is what we're talking about. One of the issues that I have tried to bring up with all of my interviewees is the issue of healing. I know we are getting toward the hour and a half here. We took a group of students to see Senator Musky about eight months before he passed away. It was a program we worked with Senator Nelson. I knew Senator Nelson real well. We would brought him twice to Westchester University, and we had organized nine trips. Okay. SB (01:27:30): It has been rescheduled. I am going to need to take it. SM (01:27:31): Right. SB (01:27:33): But they will call and let me know. SM (01:27:34): What was I ... I was starting to ask something here. SB (01:27:39): Senator Nelson, some trips? SM (01:27:41): OH, yeah. Yeah. It was about the issue of healing. The students actually came up with the question. The question was this, due to all the divisions that took place in America in the 1960s, particularly witnessing 1968, and since you were the vice presidential running mate at the Democratic Convention, I would like your response to this question that is, have we healed as a nation since those times or were those Black against white, male against female, gay against straight, those who supported the war, those who were against the war, those who supported the troops, those who did not, Vietnam veterans, against the anti-war people. The list goes on and on here. And the thought was that these young people who had not been born when all of these things were happening had heard that we were close to a second civil war in the United States? We were close to tearing this nation apart. Just your thoughts as-as Senator. And of course, he ... I would like your response to that first, and then I will tell you what Senator Musky said. SB (01:28:46): Yeah. No, I do not think, I mean, we were not close then. And I mean, in some ways I think we are closer now because the politics is deteriorated into ... There used to be adults in politics who could criticize each other, but still go out and have a drink. And I knew those people. I mean, I knew that time. And it seems like that time has now sort of passed. And the politics has been debased into essentially name calling and special interests trying to demonize everybody they are against. And the (19)60s make an easy target for that. But the idea that somehow or another in the (19)60s, we were close to civil war is preposterous. I mean, we were divided, but some things began to grow. I think, I mean, the moratorium was the first thing that a major trade union, the United Auto Workers, endorsed the moratorium, which we were very proud of because the unions at the time ... SM (01:30:03): ...We were proud of because the unions at the time were widely regarded as sort of flag waving. Whatever America wants to do was okay with us. And we had the usual little lefty unions, 1199 and the Leather Workers and stuff. But when we got the union, when we got the UAW of endorsement, even that, there was always a kind of tension in the room. Here's a bunch of young lefties, and here is people who are more worried about what happens on the shop floor than they are about what happens in Vietnam. And you could still have that discussion. I am not sure now you can have the discussion with the teabags. I do not know if there is any basis there to talk about. Their vision of the world is so different. So, no, I think we were not even close, and I think we're more divided in many ways right now than we were then. We thought Senator Musk, his response is, we have not healed since the Civil War. And then he went on to talk about the loss of 430,000 to 440,000 men in the Civil War where South almost lost their entire generation. And because he had just seen the Ken Burn series and he says, "I am not going to talk about (19)68". He did not even mention it. SB (01:31:36): Yeah. Good for him. SM (01:31:42): And if you go to Gettysburg, I do not know if you have been to Gettysburg. It is amazing when you go there that you see the flags on the southern side, the Confederate side, you see nothing left on the northern side. And yet I will interview Phyllis Schlafly, who I interviewed about three weeks ago here, and she said, "Oh, the North has not gotten over it, but the South has." So, we cannot even agree on the Civil War because she says the South has healed and the North has not. And if you go to Gettysburg, you would think it is the other way around. But those are pretty good comments. The students were expecting of different responses. SB (01:32:20): Yeah. SM (01:32:24): I want your thoughts on the split between the white students and the black students in the (19)60s. They were together for a while against the Vietnam War, and then toward the latter part of the (19)60s, you could see it on college campuses, they were distancing themselves from the Anti-war Movement and more toward the Black Power Movement here in the United States with Black Panthers and everything. At Kent State, you can hardly find any African American students at the protest. Although I recently saw one of an African American students holding one of the students that was wounded, so there were a few there. But did you sense the split within the moratorium? Did you sense the split that African-American students or the Latina students, the- SB (01:33:09): African-American and Latinas were never deeply involved for the reasons that I am not quite clear about, but I do not think it was so much as a split as there was never a common ground. The African-American students that I knew and the movement people tended to be focused, as you say, on identity questions of black politics, of black power, of war on domestic issues of racism and poverty. And most of the people I knew in the Anti-war Movement took a nod in that direction. Many of us came out of the Civil Rights Movement, but were focused first and foremost on the war. I do not think it was so much a split as it was never really together. SM (01:34:02): Were you pretty cognizant and- SB (01:34:04): Except during Civil Rights era. And during civil rights era, it was very much together. SM (01:34:10): You obviously went to three different schools, I think you went to the Red lands, I think Rutgers, and then you went up to Harvard Divinity School. Did you have a knowledge and a sense that the free speech movement of (19)64 and (19)65 was very important for college students beyond Berkeley? Because of the fact that those students believed in freedom of speech. Most of them had experience, which we already talked about, of going the Freedom Summer in the South. Many of them came back like Mario Sabio and Bettina after, and Tom Hayden and Casey Hayden, I am interviewing her as well. And what I am getting at here is that ideas were more important than careers. Mario Sabio talked about that all the time, that when he grew up in the (19)50s and then in the early (19)60s, the difference between his parents and that generation and our generation is that we are different. We believe that a university's for ideas, not preparing people for careers. Did that have any sense within the movement south where you worked with David Mixner and David Hawk and the others, that they were really more into ideas and not into career? SB (01:35:31): The, it is a comment of privilege, frankly. We grew up in a new prosperity that our parents had not experienced. And they were, I think more driven by career because their life experience was that it is fragile and you do not know what's going to happen, and you need to focus on that. For us, at least in my experience, it was quite different than that. Jobs were readily available. You always knew you could do something. Money was not... None of us needed a lot of money to live. Our expectations were not, at least mine, of having any substantial amount of money. You're working for 30 bucks a week or 50 bucks a week and doing organizing stuff. Well, that was fulfilling and it was enough money. We had to share houses because nobody could afford to live on their own, so you end up renting a house with six other people or something, because that was the only way we could afford it. But that was in some ways a time of... That is a comment about privilege as much as it is about the times. My kids do not feel that. They know it is going to be really hard, jobs are tough. It is hard to figure out what you are going to do. You do not have the privilege of assuming, "Oh, well I will go do that for three or four years and then I will be able to land on my feet someplace else." And so, at least in the case of my career, it is serendipitous. It certainly was not planned. I could never have planned that. I did not think when I was a young man that I was going to be a US ambassador. that I was going to be right here now. That I was going to run an agency. That I would be an elected official, none of that. It was all just sort of one thing led into another and I was in the right place at the right time. SM (01:37:33): You talked earlier about the fact that you have poor violence, because it is only negative when you have violence and it hurts the image of a group. But do you think that the violence when students from Democratic Society, which was a really legitimately good group, went to become the Weathermen, and when the Black Power Movement with the Black Panthers and a bunch Chicano movement, when the Young Lords. And when the American Indian Movement from (19)69 to (19)73 became violent around wounded knee. All these groups tended to head towards some sense of violence. Is that a first? SB (01:38:16): Yeah, sure. SM (01:38:16): Does that permanent [inaudible]? SB (01:38:19): And it destroyed them. It effectively destroyed SDS when the Weatherman split off. Suddenly you had to either denounce them or be identified with them. And I just think it is a fruitless short term, stupid dead end. It is not as if you are going to change this country by violence. And we should have learned from Dr. King, that you can change the country, but not with violence. And so, all of those split offs ended up destroying the very movement that they thought they were being the cadre or the radical cutting edge or the leadership, whatever kind of crazy terms they applied. SM (01:39:21): Your thoughts on the Vietnam Veterans of America who kind of took over the Anti-war Movement of (19)71, because SDS basically went. And the other groups had their own problems, but they seemed to carry on the anti-war movement from 71 until almost the very end. SB (01:39:38): That is true. SM (01:39:40): Yeah. How important were they overall in the scheme of things? SB (01:39:43): Well, it was terribly important because the politics of it were important. The right did not have a singular monopoly on saying, "Well, we support the troops." If the troops are saying, "We do not like this war," then those people who are against it are actually supporting the troops. So, it changed the politics dramatically. They have that, it was a big deal. It was a big deal. SM (01:40:12): When you look at, after all your years as an activist, an organizer, a leader, or an ambassador, like you said, I have not even gone into some of the other things you have done in the last 30 years. Because we'd be here five hours if that was the case. What lessons can you pass on to young people today based on your experiences, especially if young people are willing to listen in the tough times that they are living through right now, where they are just trying to survive and struggle with? SB (01:40:46): Yeah, it is very tough. SM (01:40:47): And in oftentimes had no time at all to even be involved in the classroom activities. SB (01:40:53): That is right, because they are working. SM (01:40:54): Yeah. SB (01:40:54): I remember that was also at a time when the great public universities were still accessible to people of modest means, which is decreasingly true as time has gone on, and vanishingly true now. So, what would I say? Well, I would say, I guess what I say pretty much to my kids, which is, you need to care about these things, they matter. They will matter to your children. They will matter to you. Whether it is the war or healthcare. You need to care and you need to be informed. But you also need to find sort of your own muse in terms of what you do with a career. It's not for everybody to be actively involved on a daily basis. One of my kids is an actor. One of them in graduate school at Berkeley. One of them is in a PhD program at University of Virginia. SM (01:42:02): My nephew is going there next year. SB (01:42:04): Yeah. Well, they are doing other things, but they have, all of them, a great consciousness about the common good, about the public good, and about their obligation to pay attention to that. To be involved in campaigns. To be active voters. Everybody can do that. Everybody can do that. And if you do not do that, then I do not know what it means to be a good citizen. That is the core of what it means to be a good citizen, is to pay attention. SM (01:42:44): Good words. What do you think the legacy will be of the... Yeah, we are talking 78 million people here. Todd Gitlin said... I kept talking about Boomers. He had a problem with it from the get go. And I have had several people decide, I am going to talk about Boomers. SB (01:42:57): Yeah. SM (01:42:57): I am going to talk about the period, the times, the issues. SB (01:42:57): Well, I agree with Todd about that. SM (01:43:04): And people your age, a lot of the people were the graduate students that were leading the undergraduates in the (19)60s. And Abby and Jerry Rubin and Tom Hayden, they were in the early and- SB (01:43:16): They are all a little older than me. Slightly older than I am. I think. SM (01:43:19): So, they call them pre-Boomers. And Richie Hayden, when I interviewed him, said, "I consider myself a boomer, Steve. I am a boomer. I was born in 1940, but I am a boomer." SB (01:43:30): I do not much like the term myself. But that post-war generation had a different life experience then. If the one before was the depression era, we lived through the prosperity era. SM (01:43:44): Yeah. What do you think the legacy will be when the best history books are written about the generation, particularly after on the 78 million have passed away? SB (01:43:56): I am hoping that the memory will be that we took our country seriously and we took seriously our obligations to try to set it right when we thought it had gone wrong. We were not always right, but I think it's changed and I think you see that now in, for instance, the openness toward gays. I think that is a legacy of that idea that all people should be acceptable for who they are. That is a direct derivative of the civil rights movement it seems to me. It took more years than it should have, but I think that openness of spirit is an important legacy. I would hope that would be seen. The (19)60s would be seen as the time when we began to take our country seriously enough and our fellow citizens seriously enough to really raise questions about the treatment of black people, for people. Hispanic people. Native American people, whatever. Gay people. It gets caricatured by the right as being so open-minded that our brains fell out. And I do not think that is the way it was. That is not my recollection of it. We thought hard and worried about the impact of our actions and took it seriously. SM (01:45:46): See, the no movements, you could say it, were a movement generation because a lot of these movements came about as a result of studying the Civil Rights movement and using it as an example, as a model. And certainly, the Anti-war Movement historically did that. Certainly, the Women's Movement and the separation. But if you study any of the movements, whether there's Chicano, Native American, even the Environmental Movement. Because I can remember, I have interviewed some people about how important it was with the Anti-war people making up with the Environmental people before Earth Day, and the consulting that went on between the two groups. To me that was collaboration, which should be a quality that we cannot forget. You have to collaborate to be successful. SB (01:46:29): Yeah. SM (01:46:31): And that to me, and I will get your thoughts on that, as a person who was involved in the Moratorium and the Anti-war that had the Environmental Movement student or young people consulting the Anti-war Movement, we're not going to step on what you're doing. Do you remember how important that was? SB (01:46:47): Oh yeah. That whole spring, the whole Earth Day, the first discussions were... I had been involved with this major event in the fall or events in the fall. So of course, they wanted to say, "Well, how would you do this? And what do you do about that? How do you get this done? Who do you talk to there?" So sure, there was a lot of that going on. SM (01:47:11): I only have three more questions and I will be done. I am not going to give you a name. I had this thing at the end where I give you names and terms, and what are your thought? I am not going to do that because you have given me already a lot of time. In your opinion, when did the (19)60s begin and when did it end? SB (01:47:29): Oh, it probably began in the mid (19)60s, actually, or the (19)60s, like (19)63, (19)64. And probably ended about (19)70, early (19)70s sometime. It did not start in 1960, at least in my recollection and experience, it did not start in 1960 before end in 1970. they certainly carried over through a year or two to get- SM (01:47:56): Stay Earth Day. In (19)73, a lot of people say went into (19)73, and you could even see on campuses the change in the fall of (19)73. SB (01:48:03): Really? SM (01:48:04): But the guy was there, and (19)72, (19)73, there were still things happening. And then on the fall, something streaking happened, and I knew it was over. SB (01:48:14): It was over. SM (01:48:17): Was there a specific event? (19)63 is the Kennedy assassination or the- SB (01:48:22): Well, the Kennedy assassination. The following year of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Civil Rights Movement. Everything sort of came together to raise questions about the American narrative. And it was that questioning, which really led to many other things. SM (01:48:42): When you look at your fellow Boomers, I consider you a boomer. I consider pre-Boomers as Boomers, they are all one. When you consider the 15 percent that were categorized as activists, which is still a lot of people in 70 million, can you, from the people you know, because that is all you can really talk about, what were their strengths and what were their weaknesses? If you were to, from a person who worked with so many? SB (01:49:15): Well, the biggest weakness was probably clarity of analysis. There was a lot of bullshit in the rhetoric at the time. There was a great deal of inflammatory language and schismatic politics so that you would have the, not just SDS, but Socialist Workers, Progressive Labor, the Shack Mantes, the Trotskyite, the boot-boot, boot. everything was split up. And now partly that reflected the fact that people were thinking about ideas and so they were driven in various directions by what they thought about those ideas. But I think our biggest weakness was really probably a lack of consistency in the analysis. A lack of rigor about how people thought about their own actions. The greatest strength, I suppose, was simply the incredible energy. And aside from that intellectual piece, the brains, the attention to getting things done. That is a funny thing to say, that the weakness was analysis, but one of the strengths was it was a bunch of very smart people. SM (01:50:55): My last question is, and I asked this probably on about half of the people I have interviewed, because I have been doing this since (19)96. Now the last year I have been asking, this is important. That might be your call, right? SB (01:51:01): Yeah. SM (01:51:01): And then I going- SB (01:51:20): Hello? Yes. Hey, Steve, can I call you back in two minutes? I will call you right back. No, that is not the call I have to take. SM (01:51:28): All right. Well, this is the last question though. But in your eyes, I have asked each person who has experienced the 60 plus years that Boomers have been alive from (19)46 to 2010, just a couple sentences to describe the decades that these people lived. And I break it down from right after the war, (19)46 to (19)60. (19)60 to (19)70. (19)71 to (19)80. (19)81 to (19)90. (19)91 to 2000. 2001 to 2010. Just characteristics of the legacy. SB (01:52:01): Well, the (19)50s, my experience in the (19)50s was classically late 1950s. It could not have been more suburban, bland, ordinary. That was my experience of life is everybody's stereotype of it was the life I lived. SM (01:52:24): Right. SB (01:52:27): Bland food, bland politics, bland everything. The (19)60s was in my experience as you know on a time of this incredible intellectual engagement and in ideas. And so, I kept going to school. And when I was not going to school, I was writing something or reading something or whatever. And also, of enormous change. I would say most of my best friends are people in most cases that I have known since the (19)60s. There was a kind of bond forged there in common action that even when it turns out sometimes later in life, you do not even like them much, you still think of him as friends because you shared so much, such an experience together. The (19)70s, well, for me, it was the enormous hope of finally electing a president who seemed to have some vision for the country, and then the incredible loss that it turned out that he could not actually govern. The (19)70s are a sort of lost hope generation. It went from really thinking, "Wow, the war is over. We can begin to rebuild the country. We can do some exciting things." To Ronald Reagan. The (19)80s. The (19)80s for me are all Ronald, they're just Reagan. He was the dominant figure. It was the dominant politics. It was the change and it was rejection of the two previous decades in a fundamental way, which is really what he ran on. And just to fall back into some vague America hurrah kind of thoughtless politics. In the (19)90s, we are once again an era of some hope, but much more tempered than for me. My expectations, Clinton's a friend of mine for many years before he was elected president. I thought he was the political genius that he turns out to be. Now, there is a guy that Luke Gingrich could say was undisciplined. But sadly, because he is the political genius of our generation indisputably. There is nobody even like him. The next generation has Obama, but our generation, Bill Clinton. So, the (19)90s were a much more tempered hope. Economic recovery, for me, of course, the (19)80s and (19)90s were the time when my children were young. So, a lot of that time was spent with family not doing something else. And then the first 10 years of this decade lost again to war and to growing anger. I just find it depressing. I find right now, I have never been so discouraged about the country as I am right at this moment. We have got this fabulous president who offers a real opportunity, and yet we cannot get passed the... We cannot have a real discussion about healthcare because one party has decided we are not going to have that discussion, that it is in their interest. Well, I cannot imagine it is in the country's interest to not have a discussion, a real discussion about healthcare. It is in the country's issue to fix this problem not to just say no. Anyway. SM (01:56:54): And I am done. But I would like just your thoughts. What do you think about the Vietnam Memorial? What has it really done to the nation, and why did we lose the war? I am, I am actually going over there. I go over there every time I am here. What does it mean to you that wall? James Scrap said he wrote the book to heal a nation. He said it was not only about healing the families of those who served, but and also to be a non-political entity. SB (01:57:25): Yeah. I find it terribly. I think everyone, I find the symbolism of it moving and a visit to it because of the that incredible list of names. We have now been at war for eight years in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have lost 3,600, SM (01:57:47): Oh no. More than that. SB (01:57:47): 5,000. SM (01:57:51): It is in the 4,600 right now. We are heading to five. SB (01:57:53): Yeah. But you walk down there and walk past the 55,000 names on that wall, it reminds you of... When we went to 125,000 troops in Afghanistan that was a huge deal. Remember, we had 550,000 troops in Vietnam. SM (01:58:13): And in your opinion as a person who fought to end that war, what was the main reason that Vietnam War ended? SB (01:58:20): Oh, exhaustion. Country just got tired of it, it just wore us out. And also, if you think about what it did to Vietnam, we would pretty... There was not much left to fight over by the time we got done there. We had so destroyed that country, and it has been so remarkable the way that it's been rebuilt since then. So disappointing in many ways and some of the things that the Vietnamese leadership did after the war. But anyway. SM (01:58:59): Very good. Well, thank you. (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 Sam Brown Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Brown, Sam, 1943- ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Politicians--United States--20th century; Political activists--United States; Brown, Sam, 1943--Interviews Description An account of the resource Sam Brown is a politician and political activist. Brown was the head of ACTION under President Jimmy Carter, and ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. He has a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Redlands, and a Master of Arts from Rutgers University. He also completed his graduate studies at Harvard University Divinity School. 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 2010-03-02 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.10.2016.29a; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.29b 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. 119:03 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/12dd2067fa0bc0904c3c27c20e8451af.jpg 92e4f114ceb3e390c715318ab09d11cb https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/7ef5d47bf44d8c2e8c33df2ca23dba48.mp3 5f924d6b33c3a3009e6e36363a7b7dc0 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 1997-09-27 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Douglas Brinkley Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Douglas Brinkley is an author, scholar and academic. He is currently a history professor at Rice University and the presidential historian at CNN. He is an author and has published 12 books. He received the Ann M. Sperber Biography Award in 2013 for his book, Cronkite. Dr. Brinkley has a Bachelor's degree from Ohio State University as well as a Master's degree and Ph.D. in U.S. Diplomatic History from Georgetown University.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:15233,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:9}">Dr. Douglas Brinkley is an author, scholar and academic. He is currently a history professor at Rice University and the presidential historian at CNN. He is an author and has published 12 books. He received the Ann M. Sperber Biography Award in 2013 for his book <em>Cronkite</em>. Dr. Brinkley has a Bachelor's degree from Ohio State University as well as a Master's degree and Ph.D. in U.S. Diplomatic History from Georgetown University.</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;Baby boom generation; Civil Liberties; Vietnam War; Democratic party; Activism; Vietnam Memorial; Dwight D. Eisenhower; John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon.&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;:14281427}}">Baby boom generation; Civil Liberties; Vietnam War; Democratic party; Activism; Vietnam Memorial; Dwight D. Eisenhower; John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon.</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 77:37 Subject LCSH Authors; Scholars; College teachers; Rice University; Brinkley, Douglas--Interviews Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Douglas Brinkley Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Benjamin Mehdi So Date of interview: 9 September 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) 0:08 SM: Okay, get over there. I will test it after the first question too. First question I want to ask is the recently and I have seen on the news a lot lately, and I have actually heard over many years, you will see George Will who will write articles on it yet he will make commentaries on ABC, you will possibly see Newt Gingrich saying it and on the floor of Congress and politicians generalizing about the boomer generation and their impact on American today, in mostly negative terms. I would like your thoughts and not only as your personal thoughts, but even from a historical perspective, whether the criticisms of the boomer generations has been leveled at them as they are the reason for all the ills in American society today, the breakup, the American family, the increase in the drug culture, the lack of respect for authority, those types of issues that were they were some individuals and even times the media tries to portray this group as the reason why we have declined as-as an American nation. 1:02 DB: In the view. I think it is all a lot of rubbish, that notion of blaming a generation for-for anything, particularly because what-what do you what do you have in a pre Boomer period, Jim Crow America, where African Americans do not have the right to vote, that they are living in, essentially an apartheid system throughout the south, that women are on subpar salaries, that minority migrant workers, minority workers have no rights whatsoever. You know, if you go back to that glorious Eisenhower (19)50s, before his boomers got control over American culture, what you would see is a is a white male autarky controlling the United States, his finances, and in controlling government. And I think we were much better off now in the (19)90s than we ever were in the (19)50s in the sense of more equity of distribution of capital. That is more civil liberties and civil rights for people. The American pie- it has been it was, it was being shared, I think, by more people, and hopefully by more to come in the future. So, I find that the boomer generation has been extraordinarily important in for has equal claim to being a group of a generation that has done more to change America in a positive fashion than any other generation simply on the areas of spite of civil rights and civil liberties which occurred during their period. Now, if there is going to be some criticism, there is-is a kind of feeling of the cheapening of American culture, the-the advent of kind of pop culture gone mad in, in Hollywood and magazines, records, music, but that is only because there is more and more people with capital, because of these changes to purchase, you know, D run DMC, you know, rap albums or to purchase, you know, Garth Brooks Country Albums or to get experiment leisurely in the drug culture. I do think that the promotion of drugs in the (19)60s, in some ways was problematic, because it is it not so problematic for middle class and upper middle class, but that just devastatingly dangerous for the underside, the other side, or Michael Harrington called it of American life. And so, you know, as any generation, there is a downside to certain things. But all in all, I think the boomer generation should be proud that they told the spoke the truth, and opened up the democratic process for more people than ever before. That is a major accomplishment. 3:45 SM: Just double check. It is kind of a little repetitive, because you already hit on some of the points. But if you were to look in 1997, we are heading into the new millennium. The overall impact of boomers not even looking at the criticisms that I mentioned the first question, but just as you know, the boomers are now reaching the age of 50. Bill Clinton has often said as a fore-runner, he feels he just reached 50. In fact, he turned 51 this year. But if you were to again, look at just overall this 65-70 million, I am quite sure the numbers of boomers amount of course, boomers being defined as individuals born between (19)46 and (19)64. Overall impact positive or negative? 4:28 DB: Positive. All generations are positive. I think it is all you know, there is nobody that goes around identifying themselves as I am a boomer. They do they have got kind of a problem. I mean, people are people. Kurt Vonnegut once told me there is no such thing as generation X, we are all generation Z. Each generation comes up together and starts themselves together and you know, there is no- or it could be generation a- but it is mean- meaning they are these deputies’ categorizations of everybody, by age bracket song. It is useful. In some ways, when you are writing and thinking about large, long-term trends in American society, but I do not think it has much bearing when you start talking about real people, they are always gaps between age groups, dad and son, you know, always have differences of opinion. That is kind of the way like this goes back to the days of the Bible. I do not think it is some new sociological generation trend. 5:25 SM: That leads you right into the question on the generation gap. It was a term that I do not even know if they use those terms. As a historian, you might know more than I would. But uh, that term was used over and over again, for boomers during the (19)60s and early (19)70s, to divide themselves and their parents to World War Two generation, mainly because oftentimes, boomers looked at the World War Two generation like they look at IBM, the corporate mentality, everybody be in it alike that, that whole picture of the IBM family of five people walking up front door, their house, all wearing a suit and a hat going into the same current status quo. And boomer said, not me, not me. 6:02 DB: Think it gets exaggerated. But if you look in the (19)60s you know, most Americans college students were pro Vietnam war that they were more college students that were for Richard Nixon then against Richard Nixon, in 1968 on colleges, and he where are the you know, we-we become hostage to is the extravagances of the counterculture of the (19)60s of you know, the Haight Ashbury experience and Timothy Leary's, in the factory in New York of Andy Warhol. And, and we, because of that the it spoke out so loudly and flamboyantly about, from an artistic perspective, and a social perspective. I mean, Abbie Hoffman, remember talking to some years ago at Princeton, he is now deceased, that he has to say, you know, we quickly learned all you have to do is call a rally, get 10 people, but if you grab a TV on a middle of campus, smash it with sledgehammers, burn an American flag, you will find about 300 people watching the freak event. And then the media will come in and cover it and bring it into a million homes. So, what started as eight people smashing up a television suddenly looks like it is this big event on campus. I do not think they are the upheaval that the counterculture had that they kind of impact on American society as the republicans like Newt Gingrich used to say it. It is the revolution in the (19)60s was a social revolution, dealing with civil rights and civil rights for African Americans and women, the battle browns, beautiful, historic battle markers. Sure, there are some from and emerged in the counterculture in certain ways like Kent State, you know, protest, you know, but most of them are aware of Selma. And watts in the march from march to Montgomery, and Birmingham, Little Rock, you know, Albany, Georgia, these were Greensborough. These were places where direct confrontation to change society took place in this massive way. Not that that because there was a love in that in Haight Ashbury, or Woodstock Rock Festival. Those are significant, but it is just a little, that is every generation is going to have something outrages the parents, today, kids will have in college, their three earrings and go to some other kind of concert. And it is an alienation process with mother, father, that is very healthy. I do not trust students that do not have a little bit of alienation. And then when they are young, I find in there, so they are not intellectually engaging, if they are going to be 19-20. And not really care to read poetry or fiction or be idealistic, and think that they can change some of the things or want to take a few swipes at the mainstream American culture. 8:54 SM: One of the things that said would you like some water? One of the things that is interesting, I have worked in higher education on 19 years, I was out of a for a while. And when young people today look at their parents or boomers, I always keep coming back to that term. There seems to be two reactions, and this is [inaudible] your feelings, whether you see the same thing as a scholar that teaches students and has worked with him for quite a few years. Number one, I am tired of hearing about it. I have seen these people live in nostalgia the- you know, the times are so great, you know, and the and the other thing is this, basically they are sick of it and then the then the, there is no middle ground. The other side is I wish I live then. I wish there were the issues today, like the issues then civil rights, you know, certainly ending the Vietnam War, the women's movement, a lot so many of the movements came to fruition the late (19)60s and (19)70s. Your thoughts on that? 9:47 DB: Well, it that part I think is-is true. The (19)60s are exciting, because young people-people in their 20s made a difference. I love looking at the pictures of young Dr. King and Stokely Carmichael and Andy Young and Jim Lawson and you know, John Lewis and they are extraordinary to see these young men in their 20s actually changing the US Constitution and forcing governors to in the federal government to respond to their desires for their rights there is to be 20 and have-have been part of that was so exhilarating. I have talked to any number of young people now that are what you are calling boomers and they are in their (19)50s today, that their highlights of their lives we are working with snick when they you know, we are actually at these sites and the change and the-the excitement and the notion of the antiwar movement. The fact is that they did bring Richard Nixon down. that Watergate in the Vietnam War of a- the people protesting were correct that this was an immoral war. There is- we could not find an honest historian in the country today, not to say that Vietnam War was a mistake. So, what these people were protesting were in many ways, accurate and correct. So and then the fact that the music of the era was just seemed to connect to the social protest in a way through whether it was through Bob Dylan or, or, you know, Janis Joplin or-or, you know, or others that just had that link to the-the soundtrack kind of to the era all makes it combined into a certain kind of counterculture romance that you could get caught up in and look back to, and you are never going to have that now, it is not the world's not quite like that. Now-now, the romance, you know, people are taking set up websites, for their political issues out on their homes, or will, you know, kind of try to organize some kind of rallies, but it just does not quite have the fervor and flavor that it did in the (19)60s. So, if you are interested in social activism, I think there is a, there is a missing element. However, an argument could be made that young people today have more outlets to explore the spiritual realm than they did back in the (19)60s, when you had a when was a much more an LBJ, how many kids did you kill today? Now you be much more defined young people's protesting in society in a sense, by practicing yoga, or work dealing with crystals, or adopting some kind of new age, religion or philosophy, have their own way of making their own spiritual space, you know, between themselves. And in that way, it was one of the reasons why as a writer like Jack Kerouac is so popular in college campuses is he was always dealing with the spiritual, not the political. And so, there is a sense of spiritual activism going on now. People trying to look at self in new ways, understand who they are, as a purpose, trying to explore the meanings of their, their life. And so, it is a different it is a more of an inward revolution. Right now, where I think in the (19)60s, it was an outward one, these things will all come and go and there will be another era of genuine protest in this country and some somewhere down the line. Now this was set versus the (19)60s for a while, but it will come. 13:15 SM: I like to ask you a- something like a what went wrong question. When young people and again, I was in that era, we thought we were the change agents for the betterment of society. We were the most unique generation in American history and, and as a historian, you probably may have a sense of that from other generations as well. But when you are part of it, when you are living it. It was just in the fact is that they felt that there was an empowerment that there we were the change agents you are in somehow that has not been transferred to the children of the boomers. 13:49 DB: Oh, I do not know about that. I think you are a little getting a little tied up on this boomer thing. From your own personal vantage point. The truth of the matter is there is a lot of arrogance of any young generation, gets on the streets and thinks they have ripped down a president and ended a war and brought about a social revolution and through race relations in America. That is a lot of accomplishment at a young age, and you cannot keep that crescendo going. So, you tend to look back on your past glories of that historical epoch in children being raised by parents or going to the dock any generation of kids they are going to say, oh, be quiet dad. It is like some different generation had to put up listening to look through dad's World War One stories. I was there in Europe. Now. This was when I was there Woodstock. It is the same there is not this kind of dividing line. It is as old as time can be. There is no big division between generations today. They accept- you know, in ways that are-are teasingly so or ways that are just kind of surface any more than there is with any other generation, and I would reverse it and say what went right. The Cold War is over the, the equal, we have a real much greater sense of what equal rights are and fair wages, you know employment benefits. The-the bringing income to minorities American, the next century is going to be over 40 percent nonwhite and allowing these people into the mainstream culture. The whole story of the boomer generation is one of just extraordinary success. Now if-if things did not go become, you know, golden for everybody the way you when you are 21, you think things are going to be different than they turn out to be that is another story. And no, in also there is a perpetual Peter Pannus about this generation, because they define themselves not in is a world as an older generation that they defined themselves when they were young. I have to tell you, it is no different than World War Two veterans, I interviewed D Day veterans in battle of the Bulge veterans all the time, that was the highlight of their life. They are 18, throwing hand grenades, and in the, you know, along the Rhine River, and it was their moment of, they have defined their whole lives around that particular experience. So, they may have gone on to own a car dealership or be an insurance salesman, raise a family, send them to school, they still define themselves as a veteran of World War Two, and it is their one thing that they are most proud of their contribution occurred when they were young. And I think you will find some boomers who had their defining moment when they were young. That is there is nothing wrong with that there are also people who get defining moments when they are older. And there will be some boomers that you do not even know their names of now that are going to be known as being the great leaders of that generation, who-who are now in their (19)50s only in the next 10-15 years are going to be excelling in ways that are the ending of AIDS and developing clean blood supplies. So, we do not you know, people that grew up in that generation, you know, they are all over these people. And so, there is was just as many as some people when they were young, they are going to be others that peak when they are older from your generation. It is great. 17:03 SM: When you look at the Vietnam War. In your opinion, why did it end? What is the number one reason that war ended? 17:13 DB: Because we failed to win. I mean, the ended because you can only take so much toward the ark, the domestic or tour economy apart, ruin the great society broke down two presidents, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. At that point, it is time to cash in it the-the chips, call it a quasi-victory like they did and send the troops home should have been done a long time ago. But, you know, the Vietnam War only ended because we were not winning. And it seemed impossible to win short of doing a kind of massive bombing campaign, which would have destroyed Americans credibility throughout the world, and would have done grave damage to NATO, and to continuing to call us on, you know, fractious relationships in American society. 18:05 SM: How important were the college students on college campuses and contributing to the ending of that war, knowing that when you look at this large generation, the biggest generation in American history, historians will say that 15 percent were really involved in some sort of activist activity at that timeframe. 18:24 DB: They were very important for framing the argument for giving a voice to the antiwar movement, through song through protest through just bodies to constantly apply pressure, though antiwar movement of 1965 looked a lot different than 1970 at Kent State. When you started getting people like William Fulbright and George cannons denouncing the Vietnam War, Walter Cronkite in Johnson's famous line there when Cronkite was anti came out, anti-Vietnam said there goes the war. He was losing America in the Harbinger's of that were ministers, pacifist groups, and youth culture groups were the Civil Rights Organizations find when Dr. King in April in May guess, yeah, April, was in April of (19)68 or (19)67, April (19)67, gave his speech, a Riverside Drive in New York, that in announcing the Vietnam War, and connecting the civil rights movement to the Vietnam War. That was a fatal moment for Lyndon Johnson. It was that that was when everything changed. And I thought that was the point that it was going to be clear that this was truly a social revolution and the antiwar movement now merged with the civil rights movement. 19:46 SM: When you look at the civil rights movement of this year, and when you look at freedom summer of 1964, and again, I know I am getting too caught up in the terminology of the boomers, but the oldest boomers at that, at that stage are 18 years old. And so, when you look at the impact of the boomers had on various issues in American history at that timeframe (19)60s (19)70s, how important were the- these boomers who may have had their first experiences, maybe through the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley when things started in (19)63. And then they went to (19)64, down south. But how important overall were these young people in the issue of civil rights? 20:23 DB: Well, they are extremely important because they first thought the African Americans largely in the civil rights movement were in their 20s. And as they developed many, most of their followers, it is easier to get a young audience that is in college to form a crowd, if you were going to hold on activity here this afternoon and wanted to get 200 people were better than to go to a campus and generate 200 people. They are all in a condensed area at one point of time. So it allowed civil rights, also, to have, you know, a sort of intellectual strongholds scattered throughout the country words like Cambridge and Madison and Hattiesburg and, you know, other college towns became symbols of places where people could share information and read about Herbert Marcuse, or Noam Chomsky, or could share their new enthusiasm for the Bob Dylan album could, you know talk about Mao Zedong and pass out his red books on campus and kind of create a was a place to spread a lot of this kind of, you know, youthful protest energy? 21:36 SM: You have, you have talked about some of the positive and negative qualities of the boomers. But if you were just maybe give through four adjectives positives and negatives? What were those positives again, be for the boomers and the negative? Just brief descriptions? 21:50 DB: Well, I do not-not sure. On the negatives, I think positive was that that when they are they confronted the crisis of the moment at a young age, which was the crisis in American society, the crisis in confidence in American leadership, and a crisis of what is democracy? Who controls the power? Who controls the purse strings of America? And why cannot we open up to allow more people into the system, that was the game going on when they came of age, and they confronted those issues in a in a vocal and forthright manner, and we are able to make a profound difference. They also, I think we are, I think that their contribution, you know, it became the popular culture now started in the (19)50s. But by the (19)60s, it became commerce and by the (19)70s really became commerce with so what I mean, it is the second largest export in America's, after our aerospace is pop culture, they talk about contributing to American exports and money, the whole pop culture industry that that emerged on a rock and roll and, you know, the endless massive Hollywood films and book tie ins and all the promotional aspects of things, which we frown on a lot, is what were some of our biggest money making activities in this country, you know, in the entertainment industry, which kind of emerges in in the spirit. And I think all things considered and entertainment industries is not necessarily a negative thing. I think it has quite a positive impact if it brings some sort of joy into working people in middle class people's lives. I do not really have anything negative on the generation, I think that is bad karma. You know, you know, to start seeing this generation that these negative and this one did it positive, it is, you know, it is just it is too cold. You know, there is, there is every generation confronting different problems. I think that yes, it was correct in the (19)60s generation to talk about sexuality openly, to let women talk about the need for their own sexual satisfaction in life for-for homosexuals to be able to come out like at Stonewall in places and have begun gay rights. The sexual liberation of the (19)60s was long overdue and puritanical America. On the other hand, it went overboard to the degree that free love and multiple partners led into the (19)80s the problems of sexual diseases in herpes and venereal diseases and in AIDS and so there was a cost factor that came in because it went too far. And I think if there was a criticism to that boomer generation, I think it is the sense of the excess in their ideas pushing it is they really believed in William Blake's notion that wisdom is not is excess. Hunter Thompson believes that he is a product of many ways of that period of access through-through excesses comes wisdom. I do not buy that, and I think that that is probably where that generation at that period where period of time pushed these envelopes a little too far. But today they do not. Today there is responsible they are running our government, their weather, and is any other generations responsible and running, you know, they have, they have grown up. But they be because they had an impact when they were 20 and 21. It made them feel they were more empowered Tom Hayden felt like, you know, when he wrote the Port Joran statement that we are going to change the world. This is a revolution right here this statement I just wrote SDS, you know, well, of course, now you may look back at that and realize that they were they were delusional. They think they were good as supplant the World Bank and, you know, these The International Monetary Fund, you know, through their revolutionary pocket proclamations. 25:54 SM: That is, it, there is one specific event that had the greatest impact on your life from this period. What-what was, there was there were so many, but if you could pinpoint one? 26:05 DB: Bob Dylan penning like a Rolling Stone. Because I did not get to live through, you know, when John F. Kennedy was-was shot, you know, I was three years old, when Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy was shot, I was a, Lyndon Johnson resigned, I was eight. I do not my memories of that those events are foggy at best; I was too young to know or appreciate him. So, I do not know quite I can see films. And I can read books, but I do not know just what it would-would have felt like to have been able to drift into San Francisco and go to Haight Ashbury and feel like you were part of this social revolution that was going on. But I can tell you one thing, I do know what it is like to drive in my pickup truck, down a country road and blast like a Rolling Stone and feel and tie all the sentiments and power of that entire generation, all kind of like pull into a funnel and transform in that one song. I get it, then I get chills. And I hear it. And I realized what that must have been like, the day that song came out. And I heard that on the jukebox. And I was sitting in a bar somewhere in America, you know, and I would have been ready to just head to any of these places that time that the moving in the just wispy right up that song. 27:24 SM: As a follow up, I want to recommend that to you. Listen, some of the country- Joe McDonald. Have you listened to the Vietnam Album? Yeah, unbelievable stuff. 27:33 DB: Yeah, that is straight Vietnam War protests like Rolling Stones piece of art. 27:36 SM: Right. One of the issues trying to get at in this project is trying to understand the healing process. There were so many divisions in America that time, different sides, lots of people that listening to each other. Again, getting back to that whole issue of not respecting authority and really challenging authority, but there were tremendous divisions. I want to get back to the Vietnam War. And those individuals who protested the war, were against the war. And of course, those who served. In your opinion, how far have we come in the healing process from the divisions of those times not only with between those who serve and those who did not serve, but even in the political spectrum, because you know, the history of the democratic party that has been the downfall is they started because of (19)68 and all the liberal mentality and conducting themselves in the war issue and, and the end only recently, are they may be trying to make the comeback? 28:35 DB: Yeah, no, I think it has been divisive in many ways. The combination of Vietnam protests the war. Also, Richard Nixon, Cambodia [inaudible], Watergate led to Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, led to them the-the reemergence of a jingoistic American stance through Ronald Reagan, and then slowly is led through Bush and Clinton into a moderate, right of center kind of approach in in this country, which is we are back kind of on the center. We are back on track during the Bush and Clinton years. But what the problem is, it is the-the part that is annoying, that still legacy of Vietnam is that in gets into your boomer question is where were how did you stand on Vietnam War. And we have to learn, I think, as a society to realize the antiwar protesters like Bill Clinton, were equally patriotic, as somebody who wanted to fight in the war. That is a hard concept for a certain portion of the population to believe. And in other words, Clinton's was denunciation of the war is refusal to fight in you know, some people look at it is cowardice and an almost cost him the election. I would argue that that he was the people that were protesting the war were equally American heroes, as were the veterans who went to war That concepts not an easy one for people to swallow. So, there was always a feeling well, if you were not pro war did not fight, you did not love your country. And I think there are many ways to loving the country. And it is not always just picking up guns and go into a war that you do not believe in. I think the civil disobedience that occurred during the (19)60s during Vietnam War was justified, I have to say, if I were grew up in that area, I would not I would have gone to war, I would have gone to fight. I know that about myself. On the other hand, I can also appreciate the courage that it took not to. Sometimes it is not just doing what you were told, but it is not doing what you were told that takes more courage. And I think that, you know, we need the-the healing process is there, it is underway, we need to constantly look at that period and realize that there-there are people that it is more people that act out of conscience and convictions of what they believe their best, are people that I can admire are not people who just were doing it because they got walking papers. Also, the disparity of who fought the war is still something that angers the black community. So many poor people and blacks ended up being the ones to shed the blood into a war, you know, where that people with money got out of the war. So, it becomes a sore point Vietnam because it shows the inequity of American life between rich and poor, yet again, I think you nailed the same thing. We look in our country. And you see that problem the vast disparity of wealth in the country. 31:39 SM: The Vietnam Memorial was opened in 1982. And it is now we are going to be having a big celebration down in Washington on the 50th anniversary coming up on Veterans Day, November 11. I have had a chance to go down there the last six years for Memorial Day and Veterans Day to try to get a feel and ambience helped me with this project get a feel about the healing process. I sense a lot of healing has taken place. But I also sense again, a little bit of a continuing divisions, the hatred for the Jane Fonda’s of the world never forgiving her for going and even Bill Clinton at times. Even Peter Arnett, who spoke two years ago, I sat next to three Vietnam veterans and they, he replaced Larry King who was supposed to speak, and they said if I knew he was coming, I want to show up today because he was the media, he was part of the problem in Vietnam. So, they had some negative stories, the media, but how important has the Vietnam Memorial itself, been in respect as Jan Scruggs wrote his book To Heal a Nation has it really healed the nation itself, man. And, of course, it was done a lot within the Vietnam veteran community. But your thoughts on the impact of that wall. 32:46 DB: I think it is important to first remember the war. It is important for the veterans that are alive today to go see, their families to see their-their buddies names on that wall, and it is always moving to watch veterans look at it. Beyond that, the memorial will be there. 100 years from now, 200 years from now, hopefully, you and I will be in our graves dead as can be. And people will be coming look at that wall and remember that moment in American history. But you have to realize its relevancy, what you are talking about today is as simple as because it is so close to our time. Years from now, it will be like going to a Spanish American War Memorial or-or Confederate War Memorial will be interest there but it will not resonate quite as strongly as it does right now in the-the nerves and the in, in the issues are so-so raw still, but it has, it has been a healer, a healer of sorts, it has been a focal point of energies for veterans to come to and hang out at. For people come and talk about the war. It has been a place to go a destination to, you know, to get some things off people's chests emotionally, mentally. So, it has, it has had a wonderful, long, cathartic service for our nation, I think. 34:03 SM: We took a group of students to see Senator Muskie because there were years before he died. And in that session, I mentioned this in your last trip here. We have to question about 1968, the convention was happening in America at that time. He was not well at that time he just got out of the hospital. We asked a question about the boomer generation and the healing process, and the divisions and we were expecting real response to talk about the (19)60s but when he responded he said we have not healed as a nation since the Civil War. He broke American the two parts and is there truth to that? 34:37 DB: No. Absolutely Could not be more true. That is what I am getting at here. When you focus so much on this boomer part, it is indulged self-indulgent because it is so close to us for looking at oh gosh is not a different look at our van it was no different than it ever was. They have it is so easy in every way imaginable. And the problems that we have international problems race has been going on for a long time violence their whole nation was founded on violence the whole selling the West was settled on extermination of Indian slavery, death, not meaning much. We are a violent nation. This is not new news that there can be people killed today in Philadelphia, oldest river countries that but we keep losing track of that in some ways, because we think everything is so new. And that is because we have no real historical sense about ourselves as a people, we always march forward without any understanding of looking backwards. So Muskie statement was one of sober reflection on the events, trying to quell the kind of hype that people keep making over Vietnam, simply because it is in their lifetime, and it is a crisis of their lifetime. Well, there have been millions of crises going on since the beginning of man, and they are going to continue to go on some large, some small, some bigger than Vietnam, some not. It was nowhere near as fatal Vietnam to our country is something like the Civil War. And it did not have anywhere near as damaging of ramifications for our country, as there was World War Two was an isolated bombing of peasant people in a remote part of the world, you know, for us, which, you know, gets way too much press and talked about and constantly simply because it is part of our life script, we experienced Vietnam in some way. So, it is a, it is a talking point, that next year is the 100th anniversary of the Spanish American War, I could not get any of the TV networks to do especially in the Spanish American War, much more significant more than Vietnam, in the forming of American life. We fire Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Philippines empire for the first time. It is the beginning of America and the world theater of trade with China wants to go on and on and on of what the Spanish American War did for American Life. We do not even want to talk about it. Nobody even wants to open a book, you cannot get a near publisher to publish a book on the Spanish American War, because nobody cares. Yeah, my god. 400 books on Vietnam, another veteran writing his story, this one from the protester, and oh my goodness, and-and if there is a criticism, I have on our modern culture is it is developing now. It is this focal point on self, to this degree that that is all we do is think about the, the tone and the tenor of our lives as being so significant, when we are just grains of sand, or just sparrows falling, where we were no different than anybody else. And we are all be ghosts soon. So, we should get on with some of the heavier matters of living in creating communities in a positive fashion instead of getting all tied up in the kind of acrimony over Vietnam. 37:36 SM: I know there is, there is so many books on Vietnam, but say 100 years from now, will they be writing books? Or is it the same? 37:44 DB: Sure, if I am saying all you have left is the war memorial that nobody goes to. 37:48 SM: And books gone on books collecting dust in a library. What do you think of the individuals again, I am just using the term here, the left leaders of that era who became conservative I think of a David Horowitz is in the world of Peter Collier, the world those individuals who are at the forefront of the left than they did a total turnaround, and then condemned all the people that were involved with them when they were young? And Just your thought on. 38:14 DB: Mr. Horwitz was a recent speaker here at your school or he was coming there. But they are, I do not have put much stock in those two gentlemen. Their books on the Roosevelt family in the Kennedy family are sleazy tabloid trash tracks. That just one step above the globe in the store, the National Enquirer in integrity, they their notion of coming out and denouncing a generation of playing all this politics, it is great press, and it puts them in the papers and headlines and people in people that are anti (19)60, anti what occurred in that period, from the left point of view, you know, meaning the right and loves this, you know, here is one coming to our side. It is like Eldridge Cleaver, leaving the Black Panthers to write for the National Review, or Jerry Rubin leaving the Yippies to work on Wall Street. You know, I think that oftentimes those characters that act like that do not have a whole lot of personal integrity of what it means to be a scholar and a true intellectual. They are simply into controversy for the sake and it makes them wonderful guest on-on the gambit of talk shows on television, but as you get right down to it, and not that they are not brilliant in their certain ways, but when you get right down to it, I do not see what they are, I just think what they are doing is creating noise and not putting the kind of sober you know, reality to it. The all of both of those books that they wrote on the Kennedys and Roosevelts are not you cannot put no I cannot use those footnotes without being considered a joke in a serious, scholarly way. It is not even pop history. It is always taking things one step at little too much of what an overstatement and inflation of fact, so you are just you are reading it-it is like you are reading a Harlequin romance, but yet they masquerade as being serious intellectuals and committed to truth so as a historian, those are not my type of characters you know and I would rather the- you know, it is me it is like with Horwitz, and Collier they bottomed out when the left bottomed out they went right there they were there for whatever the fashion of the moment is. I do not think they I mean as soon as America turned to the Reagan period, and that was where the majority seem to be at, that was where they were at. And they are, you know, they will always be there. They are never leading that movement. They are hopping on the bandwagon at any given moment. You know, if tomorrow there is a big social revolution that occurred my guess is you find them, they are jumping off the banding conservatism for the new movement of the moment. Very few people take them very seriously. 41:03 SM: You get a chance to read the radical [inaudible] 41:06 DB: No, you told me about that its worth reading. 41:07 SM: I think worth reading I think then I think that that is a lot better than the other books that you were talking about. I will not read the other two, but I think what I was on I think Brian Lamb had Horowitz or Collier on talking about one of the Kennedys of Academies of- 41:21 DB: They are, they are, they are major their major characters I mean, these are major quotes that, but they are not much above Kitty Kelly, they are getting really with the kind of with brains you know. 41:34 SM: I am going to I have got several other questions here, but I want to get into some of the individuals here of the year and I would like you to comment on your just-just brief thoughts on all of not only your personal thoughts on their impact of that period, but it is personal and an impact on the period itself. Jane Fonda. 41:57 DB: Jane Fonda is a great deal of admiration for her as an actress, she is superb as somebody who is largely been committed to-to you know, she is this is a Hollywood figure essentially, I have never taken her much more seriously than that. But she is a I think a fine woman who is a good actress, and it gets involved with some very good causes- I like her. 42:28 SM: Tom Hayden. 42:30 DB: like Tom Hayden also I think, unlike [inaudible], Collier and Horowitz, Hayden has a-a is constantly staying on the cutting edge of bringing out certain issues certainly he is no longer part of the ease of fringe character now he ran for mayor of Los Angeles and now everybody knows he is not going to win and he is so far on the left obviously but-but I think he raises some interesting points that makes us think about things he takes part in the American political process. I think he is a very honorable legislator and somebody whose ideas are always worth talking to in thinking about. I do not think Hayden does things for the money you know I do not think he is there to-to be sensational I think there is in general social commitment behind him to make-make changes I have looked at some of his recent books which will never make bestseller list because he is dealing one of them has to deal with you know, the need to study Indian culture and nature and environment all over yeah female book on environment and stuff, you know, but he is looking at issues and grappling with them he is not trying to just manufacture kind of you know, you know, hype up things. I do not think he is trying to particularly live on his past, past reputation. I think he is one of those characters has steadily been committed to-to his view of where America needs to go. 44:00 SM: Jerry Rubin and again using I am using 40 names here then so if anybody is my generation. 44:07 DB: Jerry Rubin’s you know, I think at the peak of his notoriety came with his book do it, which, you know, Jerry Rubin’s, just minor fringe figure of a really no import Abbie Hoffman had the great sense of humor, and wit, soon to be a major motion pictures deal this book, he was a lot more in that tradition of a Mort Sahl or Lenny Bruce, and Hannah. There was a great, great comment. He was a comic genius in many ways, Abbie Hoffman and I think you have to look at that side of the spoof of the hippies in his crate creativeness in guerrilla theater. And to understand that he is an important person, I think Ruben was always a second or third tier character who is never had either the charisma or the importance of Hoffman. 45:03 SM: Does not take up for going the next name [inaudible] Abbie Hoffman died several years back just outside Philadelphia. I think we were in Bucks County yeah; he was dead they found them, and he had $2,000 in the bank. Like I will never forget the article that was written the Inquirer stating that he had only had $2,000 to his name you get we have made a lot of money, but he has given away to friends having depression and that something that a note was written on his deathbed or the stating that no one was listening to him anymore. And you know, when I saw that and read that in his short obituary, despite what you might think, and what people might think about the hippie period, when he went into hiding and then he came back on the Phil Donahue show after he came out of hiding out in the state of Washington, I saw him in the Bay Area, he was working behind the scenes in the Hudson River dealing with issues on the environment and you are just your opinion on that statement that was at the end of this obituary. No one is listening to me any more so less I know he was having problems in his life but that struck me especially if people care about issues. 46:11 DB: Well, I think you have as you heard I said very nice things about Abbie Hoffman, but I mean on the front of his resume he is a con man he was a con man in a in a glamorous and funny in good one. We can always use it a couple of con men and they make life spice wants to recently William Burroughs in the New Yorker. He wrote before he died this horrible thing, but I had to kind of sick in a sick way agree with him which is a problem with Burroughs where he was saying not God, I do not. Let us hope to God that there are still people selling drugs in the streets and who wants a bland status quo America where everything looks like the strip mall, and everybody lives this perfect squeaky life what-what boredom? What dullness? I am a writer and one has to appreciate characters and Abbie Hoffman was a flamboyant, exciting, eccentric character. He but he was a con man. I do believe he was socially committed to things that he took on. And he had a massive amount of chutzpah to take on the CIA and to go and change himself to nuclear reactor sites and things as a social activist, which that kind of occupation takes, but I do not use the ways that his declining years dealing with cocaine and alcohol and depressants, I would not pay much attention. I do not think Abby was ever a symbol of that he was a symbol of the (19)60s but I do not think we want to he was only the symbol one certain aside of the (19)60s, which was the kind of hippie guerrilla theater of protest, which was mainly men on self-promotion, in getting in the news, you know, and being pranksters on the American scene. These are anarchists and we are always going to have some anarchist, I think they are healthy to have a few peaceful anarchists, not Unabomber anarchist, but people that could do social protest or play, play mild pranks on the mainstream society to make us see ourselves in Hoffman at his best, was that at his worst he was he was a criminal. And you know, so I just do not you see, it is unfortunate because what will happen is people will take Abbie Hoffman and Reuben as the (19)60s, Abbie Hoffman, you know the Yippies. This is just a fringe element of the period and I would again say take a look at the people wearing suits and ties marching with Dr. King all over the place singing We Shall Overcome. This is where the revolution in American life took place, not Abbie Hoffman staging a guerrilla theater event. And they were important Hoffman's events at the time, they are newsflashes and dramatic, and we will never forget it gets them. But it did not Abbie Hoffman, if Abbie Hoffman did not exist, not much would have changed in that course of American history. 49:00 SM: The Black Panthers is another group that certainly in this period, Huey Newton everybody remembers that poster of him. And certainly Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver. I remember seeing Kathleen Cleaver when she came to Ohio State when I was there. I mean, the whole city was in turmoil. And Kathleen Cleaver, when flew into the Columbus Airport and escorted by many-many cop cars to Mershon Auditorium. 49:28 DB: I do not place; Black Panthers are fascinating to study. I enjoy reading about Bobby Seale and Eldridge Cleaver and Huey Newton and the gang. But ultimately, believer in the nonviolent protest movement, also the politicized internationalizing, the civil rights movement that Dr. King was doing. I can never kind of, I think it is a mistake to glamorize the gangster mentality of the Panthers into acquainted with the-the honest civil rights efforts. That is the problem things got blurred by the late (19)60s and (19)70s where the great accomplishments of the era blurred into the Black Panthers, the great accomplishments of the peace movement got blurred into the Yippies, which became, which in many ways were the worst examples of the positive social revolution that was occurring. Yet one has to say I understand the Black Panthers the great line, the Panthers, Bob Dylan had a song it was all over now baby blue, where he has the line, the empty-handed beggar at your door is standing in the clothes that you once wore. And the Panthers changed into the empty-handed Bay, grab the door standing and the closer you once were, and he was carrying it, aka submachine gun, motherfucker. And you have got to do what we want to we are going to blow your head off whitey. That is a powerful switch of sentiment in in, it did do its desired effect of shocking white America into fearing blacks. And in that sense, hearing them more and empowering them, meaning turn the other cheek, you are not afraid if you can walk up to-to one of the students in Little Rock Nine and spit on them and they keep walking, or you can walk up to a black man and smack him in the face. And he turns the other cheek. White culture is not going to be afraid of black America when you now, since the Black Panthers. You walk down the street, I walked down tonight in Philadelphia with my suit on down the street and I see three black teenagers walking down the young, I have more money than them. I am more educated than them. Second, I see them immediately tense up, you are getting fearful. And then suddenly they are empowered, and I am not. And I think the Panthers are the ones that started that, which is an empowering black culture, which I can appreciate that on the other hand, it is not a solution. It is just, it is just more racial warfare. In so what I want to understand the Panthers and the sentiments that they had; it was it was quite primitive in its approach. 52:00 SM: The Berrigan brothers. 52:03 DB: Let me- mike was down yes, the-the Berrigan brothers are. I just got a letter to go have dinner with one of them. I forget which one, are they both alive? 52:17 SM: Ones in jail. 52:19 DB: Who is the one that is out of jail? 52:23 SM: But- Philip is in jail was give [inaudible] See, there is some- Daniel-Daniel Berrigan is out of jail. Philip is in jail. 52:30 DB: So, Daniel Berrigan went out of jail. 52:33 SM: Yeah, and I think he is not very well either. 52:34 DB: I need to catch up with him. 52:36 SM: He lives in New York, I think. 52:37 DB: He is coming to New Orleans. I am a have dinner with hi- Well, I think there are examples. I am Catholic. So, I think they are examples of the, of the role of what we call radical theology in that continues a wing of the Catholic Church that I have always admired. You know whether it is in Central America or the Philippines or their home of an activist priest and other useful, so I mean, we do not have that many of them and having Daniel Berrigan bringing some, you know, showing up, it had a calming effect for certain people connected the Catholic Church to some of the social the poor people's movement, in a very real way, the antiwar movement. I think some of Berrigan’s-Berrigan’s tactics got a little extreme of pouring blood on tanks and things such as this. But again, that was in do part to the recommendation of the media age that you need to do something extravagant. In order to bring the cameras there. The priest just held candles and sang the media was not going to cover that. But if you have started pouring blood on tanks, my God, you were going to be reading the nightly news. So um, you know, I think the Berrigan’s were shrewd in that way. 53:50 SM: There is a new book written on the Berrigan brothers, by Murray Palmer, and- 53:55 DB: I got to pick that up. 53:56 SM: Yeah, it is I am reading right now because we are trying to bring a group of students to down to Jonah's house to meet his wife because Phillip Berrigan’s his wife is in jail, because his daughter is 21 and she is carrying on the tradition of Jonah house. And I want to I want to ask students to go down and see how people are living their whole life to activism- 54:14 DB: Who is this now? Whose house? 54:16 SM: McAll- Jonah House. That is where [Elizabeth] McAllister. That is the wife of Philip Berrigan and his daughters. He has three kids. 54:24 DB: Phillip Berrigan does? Did they all live there? 54:26 SM: Yeah, they all live there and- 52:27 DB: What is it called? Jon- 52:28 SM: Jonah, j o n a h house it is in Baltimore. I want to go down and meet them. They are supposed to be three nuns there that are in- 54:34 DB: What do they do at Jonah house? 54:37 SM: It is, it is part of whatever they do is there for their livelihood is activism fighting for issues and they have someplace in the Midwest is where they have this weekly or monthly newsletter that comes out that is affiliated with Jonah house from the activities because his wife is like Philip and McAllister, I think is her last name and just impactful people because they were on 60 minutes. So, and the daughters 21. And now she is doing the same thing. 55:02 DB: At the Jonah house? 55:03 SM: Yes, she is a college graduate and- 55:05 DB: What is her name? She uh- 55:06 SM: Oh my God. There is, there is three he has got three kids and ones 16 ones 21 I think [inaudible] 55:12 DB: They all work there at the Jonah House? 55:13 SM: Actually yeah, I think the one works there. The others are going to school. They live in the area. Yep. 55:19 DB: Okay. 55:19 SM: Couple other names here, um Dr. Benjamin Spock. 55:25 DB: Oh Well, you know, Benjamin Spock is of course the baby doctor and antiwar protester and I think have also have a very positive character positive force. In the time of reassuring people in the end, it is just what both Berrigans and Spock so people said other it opened up the net of who can protest it. It brought in in people here is the most famous baby doctor denouncing sending young 18-year-olds to get their heads blown off in Vietnam. I think it had a powerful impact and convinced a lot of people. You know, I am with Dr. Spock, and it gave a celebrity status to gatherings. If you are going to want to draw 3000 people, you need some celebrities. And by having Spock there, you can guarantee people come out to hear Benjamin Spock. So, you know, he had a he had this, he has this footnote in the era. 56:19 SM: George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy. 56:22 DB: George McGovern has transcended the period really. And one of the great new deal liberals of recent times has continued to be somebody above integrity and honesty, decency. And if you really looked at McGovern’s foreign policy stances in the (19)60s and (19)70s when he was in the Senate, you would be amazed to see how right he was about so much. So, he is I think, of all these names are saying somebody is a little more special. I think he is- has a is really a maj- a major kind of alternative voice liberal voice in America and in simply carrying on the Henry Wallace tradition of the Democratic Party. 57:07 SM: And Eugene McCarthy? 57:09 DB: He is a little bit of a crackpot. In some ways, I like him. When I say crackpot, I just mean, he has become so irascible and so co- such a contrarian, that everything he does is he uses his wit and intelligence to win people over all the time. I do not think he has ever evolved out of his role in being the antiwar senator. And that was (19)68 that was 30 years ago, and he has still kind of the, you know, living on that that one moment where I think he could have been more useful in our politics if he continued to work as a congressman or, or did something beyond sort of just living on his past reputation. 57:53 SM: Getting into the presence of this era. And I will start with Eisenhower, because again, you know, as a Young Boomer that was the first person I remember, as President going from Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. 58:06 DB: Eisenhower was underrated, overrated at his time by being double elected, and love, underrated in the (19)60s and (19)70s. In truth, he kept America out of war. He was he most famously taught us that we need to balance our budget that we should not write more money for checks than we then we have to fiscal conservative in those ways, which we are seeing now is probably prudent, and was an honorable and good president. John F. Kennedy was the right man at the right time, that great passing of the torch from Ike the oldest president ever to the youngest, he represented the tenor of the times when society was changing, just think of the number of new African countries coming into the UN at that time. And, and all of this so when I think, you know, I think the Kennedy also, you know, did a fairly decent job of handling himself in the middle I am going to use the restroom. Just a minute. Kennedy. Yeah, so I think a larger question before going through each of these, I think we were lucky we had largely good presidents Sidney Kennedy was a good president in in the Cold War period, except for Nixon, I think we would say Nixon and Reagan are the two presidents that I find reprehensible in certain regards. Both because of largely their great dishonesty that both people and towards the American people, their inability to tell the truth, to me was, was frightening. But the I think Kennedy, of course, has some of that too. But he just could not help but reveal that he was the person representing into the era in a certain way. I think he made inroads with civil rights that were extremely important. I think his handling of Cubism in Britain. And we were important I think he said it kind of tenor for-for the era. And of course, assassination is such a moment in American life that will never be forgotten. I think Lyndon Johnson was much better president and some people think in some regards, certainly his Great Society programs in his fighting for civil rights, puts him at the forefront of American leadership in this period and on the other hand, it is so paradoxical you have that his obsession of seeing the world from a Cold War lens in Vietnam but I would say you know that there was many students of history there many sides of Lyndon Johnson the complex man and-and I have a large amount of admiration for him Nixon it just the paranoia factor with Nixon and with Johnson just drives you crazy as a historian I mean, these people are not are to have that kind of level of paranoia and to be in power is scary to me. You know, one of the things that I liked about Clinton, and I like about Bush, I like about Ford and Carter, was that they were not paranoid. They were my head is something in them was able to take a little bit more balanced. You they were not feeling that they were being you know, people were after them. Even Reagan did not have that kind of paranoia. They did not at all. So anyway, that is my view. 1:01:23 SM: Just a few more here. Timothy Leary. 1:01:29 DB: Leary was a kind of like a carny, at the carni- at the carnival or something, he is not really a serious character. And I think, look, I mean, what was good about Tim Leary, was that here was a Harvard psychiatrist. Experimenting was something worth experimenting with, LSD, what are the effects of this newfangled drug it was legal at the time, he the belief that it had these different powers. But I think what I do not like about Leary is not that he was willing to talk about LSD. But I think that kind of Jack Kerouac once said, when they tried to have him take LSD, then by then I mean Ellen Ginsberg and Leary and all and Kerouac said hey, guys, walking on water was a made in a day in the thought that they can walk on water in a day by eating a little tablet, to me seems, you know, that suddenly they were going to have all the answers to the universe, because of the chemical shows that kind of stupidity and naivete, and it was worse- had some very damaging effects on American culture. On the other hand, if you take the kind of Aldous Huxley approach from his book, doors of perception, certainly I think, experimenting with LSD, did open up perceptions for some people and could have been a thing but as soon as you start going over and over again doing did you become an acid head and fry your brain and to you know, there are a lot of young people that [audio cut] 1:03:14 SM: Barry Goldwater. 1:03:18 DB: Well, let me just say one thing about the Timothy Leary, what I do not like to doing on now, is the inability to talk rationally about these characters like I am trying to do, because as soon as you say anything positive about Timothy Leary people either go love Leary, that was that polarization you were talking about on figures like that? It is disturbing mean, if I told The New York Times Book reviewer that I found Timothy Leary interesting. They would not give me any more books just to review for The New York Times. These are the controversial characters because of the way we look at drugs now. But I think it is a story you just have to understand that put if you put Leary in his time and place you-you can see how he emerged, why he emerged in it was not a matter of promoting Timothy Leary, but it was a matter of just understanding that Leary's bizarre contributions to that period you know, there was all sorts of American history is replete with every kind of religious fanatic imaginable I am not sure Leary is more strange than Joseph Smith was, you know, with the more finding the Book of Mormon you know, these are kind of false prophets that are that are always out there and they are worth studying that we are talking about. That does not mean one embraces their-their efforts. Goldwater was over there was a misunderstood in some ways he is the genuine article, the real libertarian conservative, I think is its harsh anticommunist views were dangerous. With his- the way he would talk kind of cavalierly about bomb dropping bombs on Vietnam and things. I think his inability to understand the civil rights movement properly was a great drawback. In- thank goodness, we got defeated horribly by Johnson and (19)64. On the other hand, Goldwater as his career, we look at his whole career, we can see that he was a man of personal integrity of deep beliefs. A true Western conservative, somebody whose word was good, somebody who had a big role to play in the bringing down in Richard Nixon because he could not stand to have something like that wine to the American people. Somebody who supported the Panama Canal treaties, when Ronald Reagan did not. A genuinely somebody who you could at least deal with, and I think was a very positive figure in American life. As he as we look at his whole life, I think there was a moment of time when he ran for president where he was certainly not fit for that position, due to his at least the rhetoric of a kind of strike militancy that was behind him, which would not have been helpful at the time? 1:06:05 SM: What about Ralph Nader? 1:06:07 DB: Nader's the kind of the perennial watchdog, nothing new there and nothing changes there goes to the beat of his own drum, is that he has the that squeaky clean ethic, which is useful in throwing Nader on corporate America or on any issues always. It is always useful to have people that are keeping others in check. He is the unwritten check in our checks and balances. 1:06:36 SM: Hubert Humphrey. 1:06:39 DB: Classic-classic New Deal, liberal writing of the coattails of FDR well into the (19)60s. First rate senator, not much of a vice president botched his opportunity to be president in (19)68. But it is one of these sorts of honorable senators who has very good for labor and, you know, a positive force also on getting the Civil Rights Act of (19)64 and (19)65 through. so, you know, first rate, first tier senator. 1:07:13 SM: Muhammad Ali. 1:07:17 DB: Absolutely major figure, I mean, more- bigger than all the people he had mentioned so far, in the league of his own because years from now, he will be remembered forever. And probably the most well-known name in the world. Muhammad Ali, everybody knows him everywhere. He just an extraordinary combination of spirituality of political conviction, of athletic prowess, of his ability to speak so fast that in rhyme and in riddles, and he just captured all of our imaginations. And I think his antiwar protest was mutually significant. But as he has moved on in life, through his disease, he has become a symbol of disease. Here is somebody that is handicapped with that Hodgkin's disease, Parkinson's disease, right, and is able to go around the globe and constantly reach out to other people in pain and misery. And he is a symbol of many things that are that are that are positive. It is probably the most singular athlete of the 20th century most well-known athlete of the century. 1:08:31 SM: Spiro Agnew. 1:08:32 DB: Just a you know, a corrupt footnote to the times. Dirty black Asterix to the Nixon era, never had any real power ever. It was just a hat henchmen hatchet man for Richard Nixon, a bit word politician from Maryland who never really had any-any sense of real genuine accomplishment in his career, short of being, you know, working on saying pithy phrases to put down fellow other Americans. It is not leadership to win power by denouncing other Americans leadership. It is about bringing people together, as soon as you have a president that scapegoat’s elements of the population for our nation's problems. You have about bad leader, a good leader should never scapegoat a fellow citizen, no matter who he should end up liking all groups in America and you know, unless you are obviously a murderer in any criminal class, but, you know, you know, you know, in case of Agnew trying to scapegoat gays or women or the women's movement or blacks, that is the lowest kind of thing. It is like the Jonathan Swift notion that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel claim. 1:09:45 SM: Robert McNamara. 1:09:47 DB: McNamara was the as the was our worst Secretary of Defense in the history of the post since it was created in (19)47. He was the worst because he was somebody who knew Vietnam was futile as early as (19)64 and (19)65 and allow the word continue lie to himself to Lyndon Johnson to the American people. And now his as how, has a hard time living with himself, because, he started out to be a wonderful character in many ways he, you know, a decent I think, motor executive with Ford Motor. But by not having the courage to talk candidly and put his career on the line to the best of the country. He ended up leading the president and therefore our nation down the garden path in Vietnam. 1:10:36 SM: Dr. King, Martin Luther King, we could probably talk for hour and a half. 1:10:42 DB: You know the giant of our time because of his ability, oratory of writing, of the sheer courage of Dr. King, and what it took to every minute, every moment knows that there were death threats on your life, something, any protest you were had could be your last, and to constantly pick yourself up with a smile in forge forward. It was the perfect leader for the civil rights movement, and we would be hard pressed to think of a replacement for King those sorts of people with genuine leadership qualities come around even once every couple generation. 1:11:15 SM: What about some of the women of the Gloria Steinem is Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan, the leaders of the women's movement, they are your thoughts on them. 1:11:25 DB: Unfortunately for the women's movement, they never had a Dr. King none of those people can hold a candle to Dr. King, but yet all of them had their significant role I think I think Gloria Steinem's come out of that group to be a somebody who understands women's issues in a way in a larger cultural context. For her generation, at least to Hillary Clinton's of the world, you know, understanding the need to be both a mother and both activists but also to you getting a little more conservative when they get older, but also wanting a sense of sexuality without, you know, saying I do not I am not disowning feminism, totally, I mean, being feminist, feminine qualities totally. So, I think she is the most-most interesting of that group as a personality. But the women's movement itself was usually important. On the other hand, I do not think it ever went far enough, due to the fact of fractions within their either coalition, and a lot of women wanted doors open for them, or wanting, you know, traditional kind of, I want to be a housewife, or I want to have that is, you know, they never really were able to capture the kind of swelling movement of two demands there for the Equal Rights Amendment. Still never really too cold yet. Any woman today, working in network news or in law firms owes a lot to those women who are, I think, a lot of doors down for them. So, the combination of a lot of minor characters added to a lot in the women's movement, but none of them exuded this kind of control or leadership over the movement. 1:13:05 SM: That he had mentioned earlier about Bob Dylan. And I just use a general term the music musicians of this period. And the impact of this generation has there ever other means there has been music in the (19)40s there was Glenn Miller and all of that, but has there ever been a generation in America where music was such a crucial part of their being? 1:13:23 DB: No, but I think everyone now it has become since then, I think it was a post war phenomenon, the beginning of the road record albums, you know, early part of the century so by the but it would be really becoming a mass product in postwar period where everybody had a record player. So, he started having a lot more people identifying with the singers in the (19)50s. But everything Elvis Presley bit more than Bob Dylan, and it was Elvis Presley, who really, really brought, you know, this sort of mass way Frank Sinatra, you know, and (19)50s rock and roll, you know, which is to be made the big change. I think Chuck Berry's an enormously influential and important and underrated figure. But that is different story. 1:14:07 SM: As we are getting close to the end if you get a meeting at 11:30 I want to end around. One question here in the final question is dealing with the issue of trust is a historian you probably can go back to other periods in American history where Americans or even leaders had problems with trust, but want to read this do you think we will ever have trust for elected leaders again after the Vietnam War after Watergate, after the enemies lists that we all knew and [inaudible] as college students, we knew what Nixon was doing. Remember being an Ohio State University and there were cameras over around the entire oval and infuriated our campus because every picture of every student was being shot and we knew it. Why? And if the boomer’s distrust what effect is this having on the current generation of youth, which is the kids- 1:14:56 DB: I think Bob Dylan often has wonderful sayings for all time. He is not a (19)60s character. He has a brilliant album out that just came out right now. And Dylan's and an album out called Empire Burlesque, which emerged in in the early (19)90s. Very, no would have been, it would have been. I am sorry, it would come, I think, in the late (19)80s. But yeah, late (19)80s. Empire Burlesque, which is a line in there, “If you want somebody you can trust, trust yourself,” is the name of the song. And I think that is sort of the subvert ethic of our time. Now, if you want somebody you trust, trust yourself. That is why there is this turning into words to self so much. The distrust of government has led to reemergence of the individual. And people now trying to learn to trust who they are on that deep turning inward right now. So yeah, there has been permanent damage done by Watergate and Vietnam, and in corruption and politics. But look, it has always been there. Nobody is ever, when is the time people truly trusted politicians. I mean, there were moments, you know, I think, during the war time, when there was a kind of, but you know, FDR was moved and distrusted by endless numbers of people. I just do not believe our countries ever based on pure trust in the politician, or anywhere in the world. But I do not think it is eerie damage. That is- I do not see a shortage of people running for Congress. I do not see a shortage of things. And I think our country is in pretty good shape. You know, I do not think that are, I think the American people should be distrustful of their government in some ways, and to keep an eye on them. And that is what the whole checks and balance system is about. We also know that we have the power and we taught our politicians through Watergate, that we can bring you down at any minute. So, you better run a straight path. And so, we get people I think, Watergate does not have to be seen as a negative and Vietnam does not have to be seen as negative. It could be the triumph of-of Watergate, the triumph of taking down a precedent that was breaking the law, replacing them and business went on as usual. 1:17:09 SM: Is that is that the lasting legacy might be that history books are written about? 1:17:13 DB: That is right now. James Cannon’s wonderful book on Gerald Ford, that came out recently, you know, it is really hammers that point home that Watergate is the triumph of the American constitutional system. It is not a negative event. 1:17:27 SM: Dr. Brinkley, thank you very much. 1:17:31 DB: You are welcome. 1:17:32 SM: Great. Excellent. (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. Douglas Brinkley Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Brinkley, Douglas ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Authors; Scholars; College teachers; Rice University; Brinkley, Douglas--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Douglas Brinkley is an author, scholar and academic. He is currently a history professor at Rice University and the presidential historian at CNN. He is an author and has published 12 books. He received the Ann M. Sperber Biography Award in 2013 for his book <em>Cronkite</em>. Dr. Brinkley has a B.A. from Ohio State University, an M.A. and Ph.D. in U.S. Diplomatic History from Georgetown University. 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 1997-09-27 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.10.2016.28a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.28b 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. 77:37 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/74d17d53bd481eda22765d5272bf70e8.jpg 3d908d792f9feff4fb690993858a8d3f https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/4b0a2778cfbab258100cd4318f8f5a68.mp3 5dadf904093f9f091920edb452509500 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 1997-08-13 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Alan Brinkley Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Alan Brinkley is an author, scholar and a professor of American History Columbia University. He specializes in the history of twentieth-century America. Dr. Brinkley has been part of the Columbia University faculty for 27 years where he also served as the University Provost and chair of the Department of History. He previously taught American History at the University of Cambridge and Oxford University. Dr. Brinkley received his Bachelor's degree from Princeton University and his Ph.D. from Harvard Univeristy.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:15107,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:16777215},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,4995385],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:11}">Dr. Alan Brinkley (June 2, 1949 - June 17, 2019) was an author, scholar and professor of American History at Columbia University. He specialized in the history of twentieth-century America. Dr. Brinkley has been part of the Columbia University faculty for 27 years where he also served as the University Provost and chair of the Department of History. He previously taught American History at the University of Cambridge and Oxford University. Dr. Brinkley received his Bachelor's degree from Princeton University and his Ph.D. from Harvard University.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University libraries Digital Format ausio/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;Baby boom generation; Vietnam War; Youth Rebellion; Historian; abortion; Political Correctness; Tolerance; trust; empowerment; Berrigan Brothers; Benjamin Spock; Black Power Activist; Timothy Leary; Martin Luther King Jr.; John F. Kennedy; George McGovern&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:2,&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:14281427}}">Baby boom generation; Vietnam War; Youth Rebellion; Historian; abortion; Political Correctness; Tolerance; trust; empowerment; Berrigan Brothers; Benjamin Spock; Black Power Activist; Timothy Leary; Martin Luther King Jr.; John F. Kennedy; George McGovern</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 68:21 Subject LCSH Authors; Scholars; College Teachers; Columbia University; Brinkley, Alan--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: Alan Brinkley Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 13 August 1997 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:05): ... now to make sure it is coming out okay. The boomer generation is of course individuals who have been born between the years 1946 and 1964. That is the categorization. I would like your comments, Dr. Brinkley, on your thoughts on individuals who try to categorize an entire generation of 70 plus million people for a lot of the ills of American society today in 1997, 1998. I would like just your overall thoughts on what you think the impact of the boomer generation is on America than this year in 1997. AB (00:00:47): Well, I think the only way to answer that question is to try to think about what is distinctive about the boomer generation. And that is made more difficult of course, by this very expansive chronological definition, 1946 to 1964, that is almost 20 years. Which means in theory that two members of the same generation could be parent and child. So, I prefer to think of the boomer generation as the people who were born in the first 10 years or so after World War II. Even though the definition that you are using is a a longer one. I think there are two things that are distinctive about that generation. The first is its size, and that is an obvious distinction. This is the biggest generation in American history. And as it moves through the various stages of life, its experiences will almost inevitably be the dominant experiences in terms of the way the economy performs, and the way the culture behaves. When the boomer generation was young, youth culture was at the center of American culture. As the boomer generation got older, the culture began to focus on its experiences as it moved into later periods of life. So, it has an unusual position of cultural and economic power in our society, simply because of its size. And that makes it more influential, relatively more influential than other generations have been through most of our history. The second thing that I think makes the boomer generation distinctive, is the character of American society when its members, which include me and probably you, were growing up. I think this is a generation that grew up in a time of uniquely high expectations, both for America's future, and for the future of individuals in America. And this is actually true not just of the United States, it is true of most of the Western industrial world. People who grew up in the (19)50s and (19)60s during periods of very rapid economic growth and very high expectations, absorbed a set of expectations for themselves and for the world that in retrospect may seem unrealistic. They came to assume that society was moving in the direction of a much higher level of success of social justice than had been the case in the past. They came to assume that there would be much higher levels of personal freedom and opportunity than there had been in the past. They came to assume, we came to assume, that our lives were likely to be characterized by an unusual level of self-fulfillment and self-realization because the opportunities would be boundless. And of course, those expectations turned out not to be true, or could they ever have been true. And so, a generation of people came of age in the (19)60s with enormously high expectations, suddenly to confront the reality of a world that was not as malleable as they had thought. It was not as easy of changes they had thought. It was not as prosperous as they thought. It was not as just as they thought. And so, the disillusionment I think, of young people who had grown up with one set of expectations, encountering a set of experiences that in effect shattered those expectations, accounts for a great deal of what happened in the (19)60s I think, among young people. Obviously, there were particular events in the (19)60s that hastened this process of disillusion with the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement particularly powerful among them. But I think there is something about... I mean the fact that the youth rebellion of the (19)60s occurred all over the world more or less simultaneously, not just in the United States, suggests I think there is something larger than the particular events that were happening in America. That there is something characteristic of this generation of young people who in the industrialized world, that made for a particularly difficult experience of adjustment to the realities of adult life. SM (00:05:14): Excellent. I am going to follow up on that, but I want to make sure this is working properly. As a follow up to that question, when you look at today's generation, the young people that are in college today, and I guess you do not have to categorize them all as being college. But they are the sons and daughters of the boomers. We see that the children of boomers do not vote. We see that the children of boomers are not really politically... well, have an interest in politics or political matters. There is a tremendous interest in volunteerism. Studies in the chronical higher educational state that as many as 85 percent of the incoming freshmen over the past years in all colleges, have been involved in some sort of volunteerism before their college years. But that generation that you speak of, that 10 years from '46 to (19)56, they came into that era of desiring, of having interest in political issues, social issues, civil rights, ending the war in Vietnam. A lot of the movements developed at that time, the women's movement, the gay and lesbian movement, even the Hispanic world, the Native American movement, they all kind of were around that timeframe. What happened? If you talk about those young people that were in that first wave of movers, having those kinds of attitudes, and you already reflected on some of it, that some the reality set in as they got older. But how could they... And they do not vote either. I am trying to get to the fact is, boomers do not vote, and their kids do not vote. And yet they were so involved in these things. Just your overall thoughts on what happened as this group is just reaching 50 now. AB (00:06:58): Well, first the question of why people do not vote. I mean, first of all, the decline in voting spans all generations. And young people have always voted in much smaller numbers than their elders. I would assume that at least some of the children of the boomers who are not voting today will vote when they are in their 30s or their 40s, when they are more settled and have families. But 18- to 25-year-olds have always been the lowest voting group in the population, 18- to 21-year-olds have of course have been voters only for a generation. So, I do not think the decline in voting is anything distinctive to the post baby boomer generation. I think that it is simply a broad disillusion of the politics that affects all of society and has reduced voting in all generations. But as for the absence in this generation of the kind of political activism that characterized the (19)60s, I think this generation had a very different experience in its youth. I mean, these are people who grew up in the (19)70s and the (19)80s, in the (19)90s, when political possibilities seemed very constricted. When a whole series of presidents either failed or had very ambiguous legacies, which there were no real political heroes for most people. And it is not surprising, I think, that this generation would not have the same faith in the ability of conventional politics to make a difference in their lives, or to make any major changes in the way we live as a society. That is very different, I think, from the generation that came of age in the (19)60s which saw endless possibilities in politics. And it is the efforts of the (19)60s to make the political system do a series of things that it failed to do well, that is in part responsible for the much lower expectations of the political system today. SM (00:09:12): Would you just list several adjectives to describe the boomers, positive adjectives, or negative adjectives, what would those adjectives be? AB (00:09:24): Well, I hate to generalize in this way about a generation which of course is proposed to people of enormously different experiences, and backgrounds and assumptions. But if there is anything distinctive generally about my generation as opposed to say my parents' generation, or my children's generation, I think it is probably the sense of... how to put it. I think the (19)60s for a lot of people in my generation was an extraordinarily disillusioning experience. Particularly disillusioning as I have said, because our generation grew up with such high expectations. And I think that the legacy of the (19)60s for this generation, for my generation, is a somewhat greater difficulty of feeling wholly a part of the institutions, and the values, and the cultural morays that characterize the traditions of mainstream American life. I think there is a slight sense of detachment, and of ironic detachment perhaps from these institutions. Even though we live within them and work within them and on the surface have more or less the same relationship to them that our parents did. I do not think there is the same passionate conviction that these institutions really work well that our parents had. SM (00:11:17): It is interesting you used that term, passionate. How about a book? When I was home from visiting my parents up in New York, Cornell University, a used bookstore about a couple miles from the camp, it is called the Phoenix. And they had a book called Ferment on Campus, and it was written in 1964. And it was analyzing the silent generation, and the people going into the early (19)60s, and this on rush of new young people with political idealism and activism. And they had a little section in there on passion, and actually a real big section on that. That was a quality that was really parcel of the boomers, but it is not so much... It is kind of looked upon sometimes negatively amongst Generation X and how they look at it, so with the comment. One of the things that I am trying to get at here is the impact that maybe that first wave of the boomers had on some of the major issues at the time. Certainly, the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. Just, you cannot define a whole generation again. But when you look at the Vietnam War, how important were the college students on the college campus at that time of ending that war, number one. And number two, how important were the boomers with respects to the civil rights movement? Because some people will basically analyze the movement and say by 1964 and Freedom Summer, many of the civil rights things, successes that had already happened as the boomers are just turning 18, and they got involved in freedom Summer down south some of them. What is your thoughts on those two areas? AB (00:12:58): Well, of course there was a Black baby boom generation too. And they are not quite the generation that was in the vanguard of the civil rights movement in the early (19)60s. People who were in college were born before or during the World War II. But certainly, by the mid and late (19)60s a lot of the African American activists in civil rights and other racial issues were baby boomers. And I think were responding to some of the same forces that white baby boomers we are responding to. As for Vietnam, there is a lot of controversy over the degree to which student demonstrations affected policy in Vietnam, and there is no very good empirical way of answering that question. I do think that the disruption of our culture and the life of our institutions, the attention that student demonstrations drew to the war, the anger, and the polarization that student demonstrations created, helped make the continuation of that war seem politically and socially intolerable to leaders who might otherwise have been inclined to keep it going longer. Now, there were many other things of course that made the continuation of the war seem intolerable too, including an enormous defection in support for the war among older people who were disillusioned with the war. Not because they thought it was immoral, but because they were frustrated that we were not winning it, and it was dragging along so long, and casualties were so high. So, it is very hard to separate the influence of different forces that all worked together to make the political cost of the war seem too high to justify continuing it. But I do think that the student generation, the student demonstrations, played a significant role. Maybe not a decisive role, but a significant role in that process. To get back to the civil rights movement, as far as white baby boomers and the civil rights movement go, I do not think white baby boomers played much of a role in the civil rights movement. People of my generation, by the time we were old enough to be involved in the civil rights movement, the movement was largely over with the form that it had taken in the early (19)60s. It was not any longer as much an interracial movement. There were not as many opportunities for white people to play a role in it. I think there was, for people of my generation, having grown up with the images of the early (19)60s in the civil rights demonstrations in the South, a higher level of awareness and sympathy for at least parts of the Civil Rights movement than earlier generations might have had at a similar age. But as far as actually affecting the movement in a direct way, I think not in an enormous way. SM (00:16:13): Have you changed your thoughts at all over the last 20 years when you were a young boomer in college, and then as you got into maybe five or six years out of college, started a family? And then 15 years, 20 years, 25, 30, you have been pretty consistent in your thoughts on boomers or have you changed your thoughts? AB (00:16:34): Well, I mean, I have an unusual relationship to this generation because I am an historian, and I teach about this period, and I will write to some degree about this period although it is not my principle field of interest. So, I have more reason than most people do to think about these issues on a regular basis. And yes, of course I have changed my views in ways that I cannot... I cannot even tell you what they are. I mean, I think I would hope that nobody goes through life with the entirely unchanging views that we did something wrong. If people did not reassess the past of their own, and their country's past periodically. I think if I had to characterize the changes in my own thinking, I think I am more aware than I was in the (19)60s of how difficult it is to achieve social change quickly and successful. I think I have somewhat more respect for institutions, and somewhat more of a belief in the value of institutional stability in society than I once did. I do not by any means repudiate the politics in the (19)60s, or the ideas that I embraced in the (19)60s. In a large sense there is still many things that I believe in the (19)60s that I still believe today is unfashionable as those things now are. But I think I have a somewhat more sober view of what is possible and what is likely. And I think I have a somewhat less iconoclastic view than I once did about institutions and traditions. And I do not believe now, I do not think I ever fully believed that all institutions and all traditions were obstacles to freedom. But I certainly do not believe that now to whatever degree I once did. SM (00:18:51): One of the terms that was often used when I was in college, I went this school, I am very proud of going there. A lot of who I am was because of my years there, and it was a hotbed of political activism. Those last years in fact, our president. Dr. Deering who resigned about a year and a half after I graduated, because he was physically destroyed but all the... He just could not handle any more. And he went off on a sabbatical and he came back and worked at Upstate Medical Center, and he retired there. Because he just could not... There were a lot of administrators that really almost did not survive that period. But one of the terms that I can always remember, and I have read it in history books and on it was an attitude. I do not know if it was an arrogance, but it was an attitude that we are the most unique generation in American history. We were the boomers of that period, knowing that activism was part and parcel of the people from the (19)30s too. There were students that were activists on campus in the (19)30s. But when you hear that statement, if you had heard that when you were a college student, one the most unique generations because of all the changes that happened, the issues that young people were involved in, just your overall thoughts on that terminology? AB (00:20:07): Well, I mean in some ways it is ridiculous, and in other ways it is a truism. Every generation is unique. No generation is like a previous generation. SM (00:20:16): Okay if I get a drink of water- AB (00:20:19): Of course. As I have said, I think the (19)60s generation was somewhat more distinctive than other generations have been. But to say that it is the most distinctive in American history is ridiculous. I mean, there is the civil war generation, the World War II generation is a very distinctive generation in a completely different way, the depression generation. Almost every period in American history has events that shape a generation's perspective on the world, and make each generation distinctive in a different way. What makes the boomer generation more distinctive than other generations I think, is primarily its size, that is truly unique. It is the biggest generation in American history, both in absolute numbers and in relation to the generations that proceeded and followed it. So that is the first thing. Whether its experiences are more distinctive than the experiences of other generations, I am not sure. They certainly are distinctive. But I do not know that they are any more distinctive or even as distinctive as the civil war generation or the World War I generation or any number of others. SM (00:21:36): I think when we talk about uniqueness, certainly each generation is unique. But there is still the feeling that the boomers are going to be the change agents, the betterment of society. Whether they accomplished that goal, I do not know, did it end the war, end the draft, to assist in the civil rights movement, and then all the other movements. And we are going to make America a more just society. People are treated equally. And I think that is what I am... And I do not know if any other generation, even though they were unique, felt that way. AB (00:22:08): Well, I think they did, certainly the World War II generation, the millions of GIs who came home from World War II, they talked in exactly the same terms. This war was not fought for nothing. We are going to make this world a better place, a different place. We are going to change our country and make it better. They had the same sense of being agents of change that our generation did. Their vision of change was not the same as ours, but they certainly had a passion about their role in history. And that generation has played an incredible role in history, and just as a symbol of it, the fact that every president from Kennedy through Bush was a member of the World War II generation. I mean, there is a whole generation that was basically skipped over as we kept electing these World War II veterans as president. We skipped 20 years or so down to Clinton in (19)92 when the Dole is the candidate again this year. I mean, this generation has had an extraordinary dominance of American life, which is now fading of course, because they are now at an age where they are passing between [inaudible]. I do not think you could say that the (19)60s generation was any more fired with a sense of its own importance than that generation was. SM (00:23:40): That is a real good observation. You are the 41st person I interviewed, and the first person who has really brought that up, and I think that is important. My dad challenged me in a home world because he fought four years in the war, and he is real proud of it. He used the GI Bill, he came back with the whole works. So that silent generation in between the World War II veterans, they never really did have a president. They probably do not regret it too. One of the things that I am trying to get at in this project, and I would like to your thoughts now on the whole issue of healing within America. In the (19)60s there was tremendous divisions, so I do not have to go into detail about them. But I have tried to go to the Vietnam Memorial the last six years, both on a Memorial Day and Veterans Day, to try to get a feel in the ambience. Whether the healing process has really taken place, not only amongst the Vietnam veterans and their families, but amongst those who were for and against the war, and just people who were maybe not the 15 percent who were actively involved in protest or activism of that period. I would like to know your thoughts. Because this is really geared to what Senator Muskie said in our meeting, when I asked him about the fact that we healed. And he had a kind of melodramatic pause, and he almost had tears in his eyes, and he had not been well. And he came back and said, "We have not healed since the Civil War." And he said, "Let us not talk about '68 in the convention, but let us talk about the civil war." Because he had just gotten out of the hospital and seen the Ken Burns series, and the generations of people who were probably killed in the civil war, and how it really affected America. So, your thoughts on, in 1987, as a historian who teaches young people and has taught young people who writes history books, where are we with respect to healing from the divisions of the (19)60s? AB (00:25:40): Well, it depends on what divisions you are talking about. I think the division over the war, which was so polarizing in the (19)60s, is no longer an important fact in American life. People still disagree about whether the Vietnam war was a just war or not. They still disagree about... Excuse me. Give me just a second to get some water. SM (00:26:12): Yeah. AB (00:26:17): As I was saying, I think the divisions over the war, although they have not disappeared, are no longer an active and divisive force in American life. I think as veterans get older and become absorbed into the life of being adults and family group members, their scars on the whole healed to a large degree, not entirely, not everyone certainly. But there are other divisions of the (19)60s that I think have not healed. And I think in a way Senator Muskie was right. Because there are divisions that preceded the (19)60s and long survived the (19)90s, the racial divisions that the (19)60s brought into a much harsher light than they had seen since the civil war. There have been great changes in the push between races in the United States. And I view great progress in some ways. But that problem is still at the center of our existence as a nation and it has been for 300 years. So, there has been no fundamental healing, I think, of the racial divisions of American life. I think that there are periods in which those divisions are particularly searing and difficult, and periods in which they are somewhat less corrosive. But I do not think there is very much variation. And so, I think that those divisions remain. And then there are divisions that the (19)60s did not create, but helped illuminate perhaps for the first time, that are also still very difficult for us to deal with. The division between men and women, between feminists and gay feminists, between supporters of abortion, the opponents of abortion, the divisions between gay men and lesbians and straight society. All of those are things that were not new to the (19)60s, but the (19)60s made an active part of our culture and our politics, and we were very far from having resolved any of those issues. Even though on all of them there has been significant change, and with time significant progress. I think the divisions in American life are more numerous today, and no less acute today than they were in the (19)60s. The way in which those divisions make themselves felt are not quite as destabilizing as they were in the (19)60s, but they are still here. I think there was a period before the (19)60s when these divisions were sort of artificially obscured by politics, and by popular culture, and by other things. The (19)60s brought them to light and they are still in the light. SM (00:29:57): [inaudible] already at... As a follow-up to that observation when you talk about the divisions, one of them is the dialogue that we had between each other. Again, it all depends on the metaphor of an individual's life. What Newt Gingrich's metaphor in life, how he was raised in Georgia may differ with how Bill Clinton was raised in Arkansas, and their perceptions. Some will say that, because the divisions were so strong, because protests were so obvious at that time in so many areas, and pointing of fingers, the reason why we have problems in society today is because of your group, or because of you, not me. And it is almost like the concept of dialogue. What has happened with the dialogue in America today. What I am getting at is this. Do you feel that in the dialogue, the discussions that we have within each other, whether it be between races, whether it be between different lifestyles, that we are living in uncivil times, the dialogue... And then some people will point right back to the (19)60s when for example, college students would go in and would not listen. I know this happened at my school, and I reflected on it all the time with my friends from SUNY Binghamton. When I was then older I would expect more. They would not listen to administration, but they would satisfy a demand but then always had a different demand. There was a really a hostility, an unsettled presence dialogue beyond just the concern of an issue and a cause. And I am wondering if you see any linkages between that time and today and the dialogue we have in each other? AB (00:31:36): Well, I think both the (19)60s and our own time are less civil in the sense that, I think you mean the word, than the (19)50s were, or the (19)40s. I civility is an overrated quality, and there is certainly a value disability, but there is also a value to challenging orthodoxy, and there is a value of conflict, when conflict is needed and civility has often been something that has been used to circumvent or short circuit challenges to authority and institutions. I think the kind of civility in the (19)60s, which you mentioned, was particularly dramatic. And not I think, one of the happy features of (19)60s. The intolerance that students and many others felt not only permitted but almost obliged to show those people that they-they disagreed, the contempt for authority. It is one thing to question authorities, another to reject the authority [inaudible]. I think the late (19)60s, at least in universities, was a particularly uncivil time in which there was a kind of driven orthodoxy among students that both intimidated students who disagreed with it from expressing their views, and encouraged students to try to intimidate faculty, administrators and others. That was a relatively brief period at the height of the passions over the war. But it was a period of quite substantial incivility and intellectual discourse, just as the early (19)50s in the era of McCarthy was a period of great chilling effect of discourse. I think in our time there is certainly a lot of heated language and sharp conflict in our culture and universities and elsewhere. But I do not think of this as an unusually uncivil time. First of all, there are lots of examples that are trotted out all the time of political correctness becoming the source of a really shocking intolerance. And some of those examples are quite right, and they have really not been shocking as an intolerance and discrimination in the name of political correctness. So, they were not nearly as many as there have been in the name of other forces, is what it seems to be. But I think on the whole, character of intellectual discourse today, the character of academic discourse today, and even to some degree the character of general public discourse today is more tolerant of more things than it has ever been before. And that makes for a lot of sort of chafing and a lot of uneasiness. It is not an easy popular culture to live in. It can be very jarring. But at least it is a culture that does more than our culture ever did before, to give voice to all the different cultures that make up the nation. So, I think whatever parts we paid in civility we have gained in democracy. SM (00:35:34): Interesting. Because in the best history books, you have probably heard this 100 times over the years. When the best history books are written, of course 25, 50 years after an incident happens, what will the historians be saying about the boomers. Now, you know, boomers are only 50 now, and so we are talking to still get 15 productive years at least, 15 to 20, and hopefully boomers are going to learn a lot longer and retire later, so they will be confirming the society for longer periods of time. But if you could put your history cap on now, and you could have tremendous revelations right now about your feelings, it might be... AB (00:36:16): I will [inaudible]. SM (00:36:16): What will the history books say about this generation? AB (00:36:17): Well, I cannot predict what historians will say 20 years from now. All I can do is tell you what historians say now. History moves in unpredictable ways, and I do not know what the evaluation will be of the (19)60s from respect from 20 years, or what I will think 20 years from now about the (19)60s. I do not know what other younger historians will think 20 years from now. I think that if I had to predict, I would predict that the (19)60s will be remembered as they already are, as an unusually pivotal decade in the very life, the life of the 60s I mean, basically mid (19)60s to the early (19)70s. I think the (19)60s generation, if there is such a thing, will be remembered as I have already said to you, as a sort of distinctive generation that had a particular relationship to society. What historians will make of all this. Whether they will think the impact of the (19)60s was on the whole a good thing or a bad thing. Whether they will believe that really dramatic changes came on in the (19)60s or just modest changes, I cannot tell you. I tend to think that the (19)60s will be seen as a time that produced quite dramatic changes in the character of American life, whether it would be seen as a really important turning point in our history. But I cannot tell you how the balance sheet will read in terms of whether those changes are thought to be good things or bad things. SM (00:38:08): If there is one specific event that happened in your youth that had an influence on your life, what is that one? AB (00:38:19): Well, I suppose the event that I remember most vividly, the public event that I remember most vividly as opposed to personal events is as, for many other people, the assassination of John Kennedy. I am not sure I would say that that is an event that changed my view of the world in profound ways. But it is certainly an event that left an extraordinary imprint on my sense of the world. I think what had a bigger effect on me was not so much an event as a moment, and that was probably 1968 and the extraordinarily turbulent events in even more extraordinary concentration of jarring events that occurred within a relatively short period. The Tet offensive, the end of the Johnson presidency, the King assassination, the urban arrest, the Kennedy assassination, Chicago. I think 1968 was a year that made everyone who was old enough to be aware of it and young enough to be still unformed in his order of thinking. We consider a lot of assumptions about what we thought about our lives, our world, our country. I think that would be the event, a year could be an event, an event that I would point to as being most influential in my view. SM (00:40:02): There is a brand-new book out from 1968 in memory. I think it is Jules Lichtman. AB (00:40:07): Oh, well there is so many books on 1968 now- SM (00:40:09): Yeah, it is really good. AB (00:40:10): It is so good? Oh. SM (00:40:13): It is a good one too. There's one written, I think by [inaudible] Kaiser, what is it called? Kaiser, that came out a couple of years back. And it is my understanding that David Eisenhower and Julie Nixon Eisenhower are supposed to be working on a book from the Nixon presidency from '68 to the time he resigned. So, I am not sure when that is going to out. So, the issue of trust is an issue that faces many boomers today, and it is certainly a quality in America today that is lacking. And it is getting back to this trust in leaders, trust in other people. Psychologists just will say... Because I remember if a psychology course is when you think of it. Psychologists will say that if you cannot trust others, you have got to trust some people to be actually a success in life. Yet so many of the boomers did not trust the elected leaders of that period because of the things... We all know the story about Lyndon Johnson on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, where some people say it was just a way of getting into the war. It was not, I would say, an honest way of getting into the war. It certainly was not what Robert McNamara did as Secretary of Defense with President Nixon and Watergate, and a lot of those things of that era. But this period of trust is a quality that many boomers do not have. How prevalent do you feel this quality of lack of trust is within this generation that is now reaching 50, and it is passing onto its children, who I work with day in and day out in the university. And I have sense there is a lot of distrust amongst young people, authority people, and distrust of authority too today. AB (00:41:54): Well, I mean this is one of the most commented upon phenomena of our time. We decline in trust in almost every kind of institution in American life. Starting with government, but extending throughout the spectrum, including lawyers, doctors, clergy and academics, understanding group [inaudible]. What has caused it? I think in part it has been the failure of government and of many other institutions to deliver on the promises that they made in times. But I think it is also been more importantly, a displacement onto institutions of an anger and disillusionment that many people feel about what has happened to the economy. Obviously, the economy has been quite good for many people, but for most people, at least until quite recently and probably still, the economy has been something that has made their lives much more anxious, much less secure, and in some ways much less affluent than they had expected it to be. And I think there is a great sense of disappointment among many Americans about the way their lives have turned out, their economic lives have turned out. And I think a lot of the loyalty towards, and trust in institutions that was so characteristic of the (19)50s and (19)60s was a result of the extraordinary successes that so many Americans were enjoying as their lives got better and better and better. And in the 20 some years since the early (19)70s, that has not been experienced in those people. And so, the same institutions, the accumulated trust and loyalty on the basis of successes in the (19)50s and (19)60s have forfeited it, because of basic structural changes in our economy works that are not necessarily a fault of these institutions, but they are blamed for it any less. SM (00:44:37): Exacerbation, because when I interviewed Congressman Gunderson two weeks ago in Washington, former Congressman Gunderson, he said that he felt that when boomers age then reach the age of 65 and go into retirement, one third will be well off, one third will be in very bad dire straits financially and saved or whatever. And then one third will make it okay, but they are not going to be able to really enjoy themselves in a retirement, it will be just like a struggle day in and day out. And it is interesting, because we Congressman Ken [inaudible] on our campus, it was a year and a half ago talking about a book Common Sense. And in his lecture, he said one of the biggest negatives of the boomers is they have not saved, and they were going to pay a heavy price... I have two more questions for you. I will just ask you some names just to reflect upon. Then we will be done with the interview. These are names of the period. But, one of the concepts of the (19)60s, and again boomers had it in the first wave of boomers you were talking about, was this sense of empowerment. We teach students day in and day out when they come to school to feel empowered, idea of the students in leadership positions, but that their voice counts. And we are always dealing with issues of self-esteem. I hope a few people feel comfortable with who they are and what they are all about, and then they will speak their thoughts earlier. But I like your thoughts on the sense of empowerment amongst today's young people that you teach. Whether it be a peer [inaudible] or the history of reflection of young people today, whether they feel empowered because they are the sons and daughters of boomers. And whether you feel that boomers as they have gotten into adulthood and now hit rushing 50, feel a sense of empowerment that their voice counts. Maybe they do not vote, but where they work, involved in the local PTA, get involved in the local government or whatever. Just your overall thoughts on the concept of empowerment amongst boomers and their kids. AB (00:46:40): Well, my experience of the college generation of power era is skewed by the fact that I have never taught anything but elite Ivy League institutions. So, the young people that I encountered are on the whole quite privileged people. And I am not sure that any generalization I can think about them would be meaningful for the public as a whole. But I will say that comparing the students that I encountered today from my own generation, comparable students in the higher pool institutions, I think there is a much lower degree of engagement with politics, conventional mainstream politics. My generation had a higher degree of career and economic anxiety, and a much more pragmatic view of education than this case when I was in college. But I have to say also that I find among students today, a much larger level of commitment to, I guess what I would call, community-oriented activities that most people I knew in my generation ever had. You mentioned volunteerism, and there has been a tremendous increase in volunteerism. High schools all over the country have incorporated volunteerism now as opposed... They are part of the curriculum. It is becoming almost unusual for people in any reasonably good high school not to have some experience with volunteering activities. And I think that is a kind of social commitment that we undervalue when we talk about this generation. And in many ways, it puts our generation to shame. We may have been deeply involved in movements to end the war and demonstrations on behalf of this or that. But not many of us have worked in homeless shelters, or worked in AIDS clinics or different kinds of things that so many students today are doing without any recognition, without trumpeting it in any way. So, I do not consider this generation an uncommitted generation. I think their commitments are different from ours. They might take a different form from what once ours did. They are perhaps less hopeful than we were or where we were at. SM (00:50:00): I am going to list a couple of names here of individuals that anybody who they were alive in the (19)60s will remember these names. Maybe not to give a dissertation on each one, but just to simply give a few comments and your thoughts on their overall impact then, and their significance in the history of the times. First two would be Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden. AB (00:50:26): Well, I would have to talk about them separately, because I think their years together are less important in both their lives than the years before they were together. Tom Hayden was probably the most single, most influential person who has left a somewhat more pragmatic figure in the left than others, but was very committed to radical. And in the years since then, he is tried, and I am not sure how well has succeeded, to find a way to fuse his radical commitments to mainstream politics, which is what a lot of formalists have tried to do with varied degrees of success. Jane Fonda, I think was a young, fiery, famous privileged woman with a lot of unearned political power, who felt very strongly about the war and did not have very good judgment with how to express it, as in consequences with 30 years. SM (00:51:37): You still think part of the Vietnam veterans... See those badges, you are going to watch them. But then there is some with a wall [inaudible]. Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman. AB (00:51:52): Well, in a way I find them hilarious figures. Because they both had very well developed yet somewhat bizarre sensitive humor. And also, because they were such, in a way, they were almost the clowns of the new left. And they made political farce a part of the political process in a way. I do not have great admiration for them, I think they were very intelligent. I do not think they had much political sense. But when I think of them, I think of them as dark figures from our past. I think of them as sort of Atlantis figures in both senses of the word. SM (00:52:53): Berrigan brothers, they just did a segment on Philip Berrigan on Sunday morning. AB (00:52:56): Well, I admired the Berrigans at the time. And I am somewhat uneasy with the kind of passionate extremism they ultimately embraced. But I think that they had commitments that were based on a real moral sense of what was right. And although I do not admire everything they did, I admire their commitment. SM (00:53:40): What about Benjamin Spock? AB (00:53:41): Well, I am not sure that I admire Benjamin Spock's ideas about child rearing. SM (00:53:49): He sees the challenges softly. AB (00:53:49): Nor does he still subscribe to the ones that he was famous for in the (19)50s, But, you know, I think he was a decent man. He tried to use the power and the wealth that he had gained to do some good. I am not sure that he had much impact, but I admired him for his efforts. SM (00:54:14): How about... There is so many people here. The black power advocates, the Bobby Seales, Huey Newtons, Eldridge Cleavers. They were kind of very impacting. Sophie Carmichael, Taggart. AB (00:54:26): Well, I am not a great sympathizer with the idea of racial separatism, and so I am not very sympathetic to the ideas that they espoused. But on the other hand, I certainly can understand how black people, male strip of the (19)60s, would come to those conclusions. I think they helped create an unhappy tradition of Black politics that I think has done African Americans more than good over time. But I do not think I would attribute it to them personally. I think they would prove it was inevitable that these ideas would start to emerge, parts of the African American world, several reflections if it had not been with somebody else. SM (00:55:41): What about Malcolm X? AB (00:55:41): Malcolm X is really an enormous figure I think in African American history, and American history. I do not subscribe to the idea that he started out as a man filled with hate, and then came to a greater understanding and became more moderate and benign as he grew older. I think from the time he became engaged in politics, he was a deeply committed radical, who over time redefined his radicalism to embrace class issues somewhat more than they had at first, and racial issues somewhat less than they had at first. But I do not think he became any less radical. SM (00:56:24): Timothy Leary. AB (00:56:25): You know, this issue I suppose I am somewhat in accord with the right, which is that, I think the romanticization of drug use in the (19)60s was one of the most damaging legacies that our generation left for our children. And I think the romanticization was probably ignorance to a large degree. I do not think most of us... I was never aptly crossing them. But most of our generation used and celebrated drugs, understood the damage that they would do, both to them and to the society, but they probably should have. And Leary, it seems to me as he became a celebrated figure, he was someone who just was [inaudible] of this issue. SM (00:58:14): Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. AB (00:58:14): It has been said a million times. I think I probably admire him more than any other figure of the (19)60s. You are all aware of set of limitations that critics have attributed to him. He was a truly great man. SM (00:58:18): Do you admire the fact of the stand that he took against the Vietnam War, and all the criticism he took at that time by even his fellow civil rights leaders. AB (00:58:24): Well, I think it was probably a tactical error. But I think it was a morally defensible position. So, I guess I do admire him. SM (00:58:42): Let me just change this. I have just got a couple more names. Some of the presence of this period, you have already made reference to John Kennedy, but just your thoughts on John Kennedy itself. AB (00:58:50): Well, I think Kennedy is in many ways more important in death than he was in life. And he was, as a president, an interesting president with some accomplishments, but not great accomplishments. He has not had many great accomplishments. He may have had more if he had lived. But I think he became, almost despite himself, a symbol of a kind of energy, and activism, and vigor, and idealism that has had and continues to have an enormous impact on American culture and on American aspirations for people in my generation, the next generation. He is an extraordinary phenomenon, and much more extraordinary a phenomenon in death than he ever was in life. SM (00:59:41): I shook his hand when I was a kid at Hyde Park, and I was there the day that Eleanor Roosevelt was trying to get the... It was a Sunday, and the parents were going back on a trip, and we just lucked out. We did not know what all commotion was. And he was there in the FDR Library talking to her about... I guess, at that time I did not know why he was there. I just know he was a candidate. And he came out and I shook his hand as he was getting into the car and left the library. He came out the back entrance. I was a young kid, so I will never forget that. The tan, the thin striped suit and the smile and everything. Robert Kennedy. AB (01:00:18): Robert Kennedy, I had a real passion and devotion to, which I also had to his brother. My admiration for his brother has faded in the 30 some years since. My admiration for Bobby has not faded as much. I think he, coming out of a family situation that in many ways was sort of traumatic and destabilizing for all of those kids, found a power in himself in his last year's that was just extraordinary. SM (01:01:09): George McGovern. AB (01:01:10): Well, George McGovern I think was a smart, interesting man. A lot of the stature of many of the other major political figures of that age. I think he did not... The political imagination of the more successful figures of his time had spread this time. SM (01:01:44): Eugene McCarthy. AB (01:01:48): Eugene McCarthy is someone who never quite fit in a political world, who could not quite fit in it at the level that he maintained as a presidential candidate. I think he was a decent senator, a little more cerebral than most. And I think he was an effective voice in 1968, legitimizing opposition of the war. After 1968 I think he became kind of an embittered man who spent the rest of his public life angry about what he thought had been done to him, that he had been cheated somehow. SM (01:02:34): Richard Nixon. AB (01:02:37): Oh. SM (01:02:39): You can write a book on that. AB (01:02:49): I can write hundreds of books as people have. He is a brilliant man, great politician, very important figure in our history, very important president. And I think his great flaw... The flaws were kind of resentment and bitterness towards the part of the world that he believed had rejected him, but never left him even that he is a pinnacle of success. And also, I think a basic... I do not think he had very many core convictions. I think there was a moral compass in his political view. And he was such a realist, such a devotee rail politic, that he lost sight of any role center that might have reigned again as he was busy doing or tolerating things that finally destroyed him. SM (01:03:55): Was not that one of the criticisms of John Kennedy, that he was more of a pragmatist, and if it was not for his brother who really had a conscience and developed a conscience? AB (01:04:04): No, I do not know. That is something that could be said about a lot of politicians. I do not think there is anything wrong with being a pragmatist. But I think there has to be something at the core of it. This is one of the [inaudible] of Clinton too, is that there is nothing at the core. I do not know that I believe that. But I do believe that in Nixon. SM (01:04:26): George Wallace. I am trying to get all these boomer names. AB (01:04:33): Well, I think Wallace helped launch a new kind of politics that eventually became, at least for a time, a dominant politics in this country. But Wallace was too crude and too racist and too reckless to profit from it at the end. SM (01:04:53): Spiro Agnew. AB (01:04:55): Oh, slippery crook. SM (01:05:03): [inaudible]. Muhammad Ali. AB (01:05:05): Oh, I am a great fan of Muhammad Ali. And I think he was treated very badly by his country, or at least by his government. But a man of great courage, great spirit. SM (01:05:30): Herbert McNamara. AB (01:05:34): I do not think he is a bad man. He is a very smart man. But his intelligence is a throwaway that made him inappropriate for the kind roles that he played in the public wise. SM (01:05:49): Barry Goldwater. AB (01:05:52): Well, Barry Goldwater is the last voice of a bolder conservatism unconnected to the cultural politics that was dominating. He was a conservative, sort of rock-hard convictions about communism, the cold war, government, individual freedom. And there was a kind of icy certainty about him that made him somewhat unpalatable to the electorate in a way that Reagan, who shared many of those beliefs, but also managed to identify himself with a lot of fuzzy cultural issues, was not. SM (01:06:43): Three more and we are done. AB (01:06:45): Okay. Actually, I think we have to be done with maybe one more, because is 3:00 now. SM (01:06:49): Okay. Just your overall impression of the musicians of the year and the impact that the music of that era had on boomers. It will be Bob Dylan, just a general analysis of all the music from that period. AB (01:07:03): I do not know that I can do that with the time that I have. Clearly both rock music and folk music were both the defining cultural products of those generations. I am sorry. SM (01:07:17): That is okay. I will like to just take three pictures of you. AB (01:07:20): Okay. SM (01:07:22): Thank you very much for taking this time. AB (01:07:25): Oh, it was my pleasure. Very interesting project. SM (01:07:28): Do you know Dr. [inaudible] at- AB (01:07:30): Yes, he is a good friend of mine. Have you talked to him? Or... SM (01:07:33): Yes. He came to our campus and spoke about his latest book. AB (01:07:36): About the Parchment book. SM (01:07:38): Yes. AB (01:07:38): Yeah. SM (01:07:41): Gave in to the development project too. Because he came to our campus last year in the middle of [inaudible] to begin, the conspiracy, so the mental degree, so that is [inaudible]. Just one more, just one more. AB (01:07:55): Make it quick. SM (01:07:58): Yeah. We have a light... Do you mind if I just put the wide angle on here? AB (01:08:00): I do not have time really. I am sorry. SM (01:08:05): Okay. AB (01:08:06): I am sorry to rush you out. SM (01:08:07): That is okay. Thank you for being able to have an hour with you, I really want to thank you. And... (End of Interview) 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. Alan Brinkley Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Brinkley, Alan ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp4 Subject The topic of the resource Authors; Scholars; College Teachers; Columbia University; Brinkley, Alan--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Alan Brinkley (June 2, 1949 - June 17, 2019) was an author, scholar and professor of American History at Columbia University. He specialized in the history of twentieth-century America. Dr. Brinkley has been part of the Columbia University faculty for 27 years where he also served as the University Provost and chair of the Department of History. He previously taught American History at the University of Cambridge and Oxford University. Dr. Brinkley received his Bachelor's degree from Princeton University and his Ph.D. from Harvard University. 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 1997-08-13 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.10.2016.27a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.27b 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. 68:21 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/c8a26e36a3d81d74052308df92cd6dc7.jpg 0f942b97df33d1268c9b7d885f62fd89 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/838c25478b6228e7b5b6064273c46cf5.mp3 7c04cf1246368ddca0af8868f429f278 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 2010-02-25 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Malcolm Boyd, 1923-2015 Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Malcolm Boyd (June 8, 1923 – February 27, 2015) was an Episcopal Priest, author and activist for many social constructs such as racism, religion, and war. He was one of the first priests to go public about his homosexuality. He was very involved in the Civil Rights Movement and rallied against the Vietnam war which made him a national champion among others. After being open about his homosexuality, he wrote a book about his journey and fought successfully for women and homosexuals in the Episcopal church. He graduated from the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, California. &quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:15235,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:16777215},&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:4995385},&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:11}">Malcolm Boyd (June 8, 1923 – February 27, 2015) was an Episcopal Priest, author, and activist for many social constructs such as racism, religion, and war. He was one of the first priests to go public about his homosexuality. He was very involved in the Civil Rights Movement and rallied against the Vietnam War, which made him a national champion among others. After being open about his homosexuality, he wrote a book about his journey and fought successfully for women and homosexuals in the Episcopal church. He graduated from the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, California. </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;Freedom Rides; Martin Luther King Jr.; Jonathan Daniels; Civil Rights Movement; Arlington National Cemetery; Common Cause; Baby boom generation; Healing; Veterans; 1960s; Black Power; Weathermen; Kent State; Jackson State; Spiritualism; The Beatles; Stonewall; Harvey Milk; Legacy of Slavery; Sexuality; AIDS epidemic; John F. Kennedy; Robert Kennedy; Jackson State; Richard Nixon; Watergate; Woodstock; Summer of Love; Counterculture; Hippies; Yippies; Drug Culture; Black Panthers; Weathermen&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:2,&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:14281427}}">Freedom Rides; Martin Luther King Jr.; Jonathan Daniels; Civil Rights Movement; Arlington National Cemetery; Common Cause; Baby boom generation; Healing; Veterans; 1960s; Black Power; Weathermen; Kent State; Jackson State; Spiritualism; The Beatles; Stonewall; Harvey Milk; Legacy of Slavery; Sexuality; AIDS epidemic; John F. Kennedy; Robert Kennedy; Jackson State; Richard Nixon; Watergate; Woodstock; Summer of Love; Counterculture; Hippies; Yippies; Drug Culture; Black Panthers</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 88:43 Subject LCSH Episcopal Church; Clergy; Political activists--United States; Authors; Boyd, Malcolm, 1923-2015 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 Malcolm Boyd Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Boyd, Malcolm, 1923-2015 ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Episcopal Church; Clergy; Political activists--United States; Authors; Boyd, Malcolm, 1923-2015 Description An account of the resource <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Malcolm Boyd (June 8, 1923 – February 27, 2015) was an Episcopal Priest, author and activist for many social constructs such as racism, religion, and war. He was one of the first priests to go public about his homosexuality. He was very involved in the Civil Rights Movement and rallied against the Vietnam war which made him a national champion among others. After being open about his homosexuality, he wrote a book about his journey and fought successfully for women and homosexuals in the Episcopal church. He graduated from the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, California. &quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:15235,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:16777215},&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:4995385},&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:11}">Malcolm Boyd (June 8, 1923 – February 27, 2015) was an Episcopal Priest, author, and activist for many social constructs such as racism, religion, and war. He was one of the first priests to go public about his homosexuality. He was very involved in the Civil Rights Movement and rallied against the Vietnam War, which made him a national champion among others. After being open about his homosexuality, he wrote a book about his journey and fought successfully for women and homosexuals in the Episcopal church. He graduated from the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, California. </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 ND 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.10.2016.26 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. 88:43 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/a241e9b50dd29b12de82cf8cd00ff17c.mp3 590da30bb3caaeba63c5c2aed19fd853 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 2011-01-29 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Linda Borus Language English Biographical Text Linda Borus is the Chief Investigator with the State Appellate Defender Office, State of Michigan. Borus was an activist and Ph.D. student at Columbia University when she became the investigator for Bernard Stroble (Shango) case, as part of the Attica Defense Committee. After this trial, she devoted her entire career to working in the criminal justice system. 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;The 1960s; Columbia; Attica; John Kennedy's assassination; Malcolm X; Martin Luther King Jr; Anti-War Movement; Mohammad Ali; Baby boomer generation&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:2,&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:14281427}}">The 1960s; Columbia; Attica; John Kennedy's assassination; Malcolm X; Martin Luther King Jr; Anti-War Movement; Mohammad Ali; Baby boomer generation</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 130:39 Subject LCSH Michigan State Appellate Defender Office; Public defenders; Borus, Linda--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 Linda Borus Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Borus, Linda ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Michigan State Appellate Defender Office; Public defenders; Borus, Linda--Interviews Description An account of the resource Linda Borus is the Chief Investigator with the State Appellate Defender Office, State of Michigan. Borus was an activist and Ph.D. student at Columbia University when she became the investigator for Bernard Stroble (Shango) case, as part of the Attica Defense Committee. After this trial, she devoted her entire career working in the criminal justice system. 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 2011-01-29 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.10.2016.25a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.25b 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. 130:39 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/5781dc81c746e671dd6a48210cd1b6a9.jpg 29d4ab8a488ac75e89c11c8355beed34 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/2b7be8e337d2094696aa1f32692240b6.mp3 da7f47f783aa92f14aae48ec6b888eaa 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 ND Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Julian Bond, 1940-2015 Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Julian Horace Bond (1940 - 2015) was a social activist and leader in the civil rights movement, politician, poet, educator and author. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia. Bond is best known for his fight to take his duly elected seat in the Georgia House of Representatives. He later served as the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the NAACP. Bond died in 2015 at his home in Fort Walton Beach, Florida after a brief illness.&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}">Julian Horace Bond (1940 - 2015) was a social activist and leader in the civil rights movement, politician, poet, educator, and author. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia. Bond is best known for his fight to take his duly elected seat in the Georgia House of Representatives. He later served as the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the NAACP. Bond died in 2015 at his home in Fort Walton Beach, Florida after a brief illness.</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;Baby boom generation; Women's Rights Movement; Activism; Public education; Vietnam War; Race; University Campuses; Martin Luther King Jr.; Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy; John Kennedy; Hubert Humphrey; George McGovern; Muhammad Ali; Richard Nixon; Spiro Agnew; Gerald Ford; Angela Davis; Affirmative Action; Individualism; Tolerance; Cooperative Action; Healing; Vietnam Memorial&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:2,&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:14281427}}">Baby boom generation; Women's Rights Movement; Activism; Public education; Vietnam War; Race; University Campuses; Martin Luther King Jr.; Malcolm X; Robert Kennedy; John Kennedy; Hubert Humphrey; George McGovern; Muhammad Ali; Richard Nixon; Spiro Agnew; Gerald Ford; Angela Davis; Affirmative Action; Individualism; Tolerance; Cooperative Action; Healing; Vietnam Memorial</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 99:33 Subject LCSH African American politicians--United States; Political activists--United States; Civil rights movements—United States--20th century; Bond, Julian, 1940-2015--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 Julian Horace Bond Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Bond, Julian, 1940-2015 ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource African American politicians--United States; Political activists--United States; Civil rights movements—United States--20th century; Bond, Julian, 1940-2015--Interviews Description An account of the resource Julian Horace Bond (1940 - 2015) was a social activist and leader in the Civil Rights Movement, politician, poet, educator and author. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia. Bond is best known for his fight to take his duly elected seat in the Georgia House of Representatives. He later served as the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the NAACP. Bond died in 2015 at his home in Fort Walton Beach, Florida after a brief illness. 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 ND 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.10.2016.24a; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.24b 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. 99:33 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/60e1630bc1016f93106ae50ffaccbd1b.jpg 669b9785a8e8ad007d873a3847fffe26 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/71d4d39e9e7bed1ff17940719af0e9f9.mp3 0a7cfabc5cf066ef420eb8d1cef2e922 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 ND Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed David Boldt Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;David Boldt was editor of the editorial page of The Philadelphia Inquirer and a political columnist for the same paper during the 1980s and 1990s. Boldt won the Pulitzer Prize as a member of The Inquirer's team that covered a nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island electrical power plant, and received a citation for excellence from the Overseas Press Club for his reporting on the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Boldt has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in interpreting contemporary affairs as an adjunct professor at Temple University in Philadelphia. He earned a Bachelor's degree in History from Dartmouth College.&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}">David Boldt was editor of the editorial page of <em>The Philadelphia Inquirer</em> and a political columnist for the same paper during the 1980s and 1990s. Boldt won the Pulitzer Prize as a member of the <em>Inquirer</em>'s team that covered a nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island electrical power plant and received a citation for excellence from the Overseas Press Club for his reporting on the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Boldt has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in interpreting contemporary affairs as an adjunct professor at Temple University in Philadelphia. He earned a Bachelor's degree in History from Dartmouth College.</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;Baby Baby boom generation; Women's Movement; Civil Rights Movement; Anti-War Movement; Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; Tom Hayden; Linden Johnson; Bobby Kennedy; Vietnam War memorial; Bill Clinton&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:2,&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:14281427}}">Baby boom generation; Women's Movement; Civil Rights Movement; Anti-War Movement; Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; Tom Hayden; Lyndon Johnson; Bobby Kennedy; Vietnam War memorial; Bill Clinton</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 121:15 Subject LCSH Editors; Journalists; Awards—United States; Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant (Pa.); Iran—History—Revolution, 1979; Boldt, David--Interviews Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: David Boldt Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Benjamin Mehdi So Date of interview: ND -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) 00:03 SM: The Boomer generations and the (19)60s and early (19)70s is being attacked as one of the reasons for the breakdown of American society. Could you respond to this criticism and comment on the period and its impact on present-day America? 00:31 DB: Oh, boy. Yeah, I could probably write a book about that. Well, you know, I think that-that it is fair to say that almost every institution in our society was kind of torn apart during the (19)60s and (19)70s. Many of them for no good reason, and often rather thoughtlessly and without giving things a lot of attention. You know, you can go through a whole series of things from the breakdown of the institution of marriage to the drop off in the sense of obligations to the community. It undoubtedly became a generation that was—was very much into what we now call 'expressive individualism.' And that basically forgot, because, for the most part, it had it so easy, and had it so easy in a very profound way. That they just did not have a sense of why certain things were done the way they were done. And principle among those is the fact that you cannot have a democratic society unless people are as aware of their responsibilities of that society as they are of their rights. And we basically lost that sense of responsibility. 'If it felt good, do it' was the maximum of the generation. They were brought up by a generation that had been through the Depression and World War II that had really been through hard times. And you know, to some extent, I think the parents of the boomer generation and my parents, I am—I was born in 1941, so I sort of saw them kind of coming up behind me. The parents, of that generation just went to incredible lengths to protect their children against the very kind of experience that had enabled them to succeed. Whether that was getting a good education, you know, establishing a successful relationship with other people, whether it was in the family, or in any of our institutions or universities, with our political community. Keep this [inaudible] 3:36 SM: What has been the overall impact of the Boomers on America? Positive or negative? 3:41 DB: Well, we just had the, I mean, it was all summed up by Tom Wolfe and the "me" decades. We had an entire huge generation dominating, or certainly its elites, as they emerged in journalism, in the media, in politics, in the entertainment industry, that was just totally self-indulgent. Or remarkably self-indulgent, not totally. The question is what was the effect? The effect was to completely lose the sense that rights carry with them responsibilities. You know, when Thomas Jefferson wrote The American Ideal that all men are created with certain unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He was writing that in a frame of mind where he believed that if people pursued happiness, they would regard the chance to be a fully involved citizen, a parent, an effective member of the community at work and in the civic realm as maximum happiness. And for this generation, it became too often, the pursuit of happiness reverted down to the lower nature of man and became a seeking of pleasure through music, artificial substances— basically drugs, sexual experiences, and we just lost that whole enlightenment mindset which is so basic to the to the American faith and to the success of the nation. And the whole— I think the whole experiment became imperiled, because the wretched excesses of the baby boomers. Yeah, I believe that in social history, as in physics, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. And so, you had— not only did this create this tremendous culture of self-indulgent pleasure, but it created its opposite as well— the reaction to it. You know, I have often thought that the antics of the left as much created Watergate as did Richard Nixon himself. It became an atmosphere in which excess was— in which it turned out that Barry Goldwater's supposedly rejected idea that moderation is a— can be a, in certain circumstances a vice, and excess can be a virtue. I mean, he ultimately triumphed! It turned out to be what was believed and it ended up— I mean, many other commentators have written about this. And I guess the most evocative is Tom Wolfe in the "me" decade, which I still think is the most, it stood the test of time and is the clearest, most effective analysis of that time. 07:40 SM: Let us double check to make sure everything is working here. Okay, but you have to admit also that there are probably— let me get out my questions here, so I get a spontaneous feel and the written questions. [laughs] Cannot you say that there were some good things, though, with respect to the boomers, in terms of the fact that this generation ended a war, responsible for ending a war. In my comment— in my interview with Senator McCarthy, I asked him specifically that particular question that if there is not any other generation in American history that had such an impact on American foreign policy. And he said there were other perils in American history but not to the extreme of the boomers and what they did. So, they ended the war, many young people got involved in the Civil Rights Movement, many young people get involved in the environmental movement, for the Earth Day. So, with, do you think the media portrayed them in such a way that it is not doing justice to some of the good things they did? 08:50 DB: Well, that is just flat wrong. First of all, the baby boom generation did not end the Vietnam War. Like it or not, Richard Nixon ended the Vietnam War. And he ended it after defeating the Peace Party candidate George Govern— McGovern—by, I think, one of if not the biggest, one of the biggest landslides in American political history. I mean, it is amazing to look back and see that from 1970 onward, something like 70 percent of the American people were against our involvement in the war, yet somehow rather the antiwar movement, and I think this is unprecedented in our history, the antiwar movement was never able to get it together sufficiently to turn that around. I mean, what they should have done, instead of marching in Washington, which really turned out to be sort of a waste of time and, you know, everybody felt good about it, they really did not do anything. But they needed to do was go out and defeat congressmen who were voting for the war or supporting the war effort. And elect those that were, and they had to get out and elect a presidential candidate in 1972, or 1968, who would have ended the war. The Civil Rights revolution had nothing to do with the baby boomers, except that they-they were in on sort of the victory celebration of it. And that that gave them this feeling that they were both Vietnam, the fact that the Vietnam War was looked upon as a great moral victory of the people who were opposing an unjust war. And we will always wonder just why it was that all those people fled from the communists as they moved into the country, whether they really were all this capitalist dupes have always wondered why it is that the United States is now being welcomed back into Vietnam, in such an open, in such an open armed way as to whether we will always wonder if our perspective on that was-was totally correct. Either when we were for the war or when we turned against it-it was a very difficult situation very nuanced. But turning to civil rights, I mean, the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, when the baby boomers were still in the middle of a, we were just starting college, I guess, or the for the first of them had just gotten to be, just gotten to college, I guess. There were no baby boomers involved in Mississippi summer, which was when you had to really suck it up and go down there and do something that was really dangerous. They were there for sort of the celebrations afterwards. There were no baby boomers on the podium at the Civil Rights March 1963, very few I suspect in the crowd. Baby, the civil rights revolution was won by, as nearly as I can tell, there were no baby boomers on the freedom rider buses. There were no baby boomers marching in Selma. The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement had a belief, were religious leaders, were the kind of leaders that the baby boomers would later reject, laugh at ridicule. And so, I have never marked leaders of the Civil Rights revolution lest we forget, we are people like Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy. They are the people I know of who were inside the University of Mississippi, where people like Ed Goffman, who was my predecessor is the editor of the editorial page, he was down there for the Department of Justice. Right? He is a World War II veteran. The basic legislation that brought about the Civil Rights revolution in 1964, brought about the culmination of the Civil Rights revolution, was done with without any conspicuous assistance from the baby boom generation, but they always thought that they had something to do with it, because they were there. What was the third thing that you were getting credit for? 13:38 SM: Well, the environmental movement Earth Day, 1970. 13:46 DB: Well, I do not know. I do not know enough about the history of the environmental movement, to say, you know, to what extent it was, it was successful, it was always had its greatest successes. So, when it was removed from the spirit of environmental Nazism, which characterize sort of the baby boomer-boomer approach, marching in front of nuclear power plants, it was nothing. And when you had people like the Environmental Defense Fund, who were able to negotiate things that actually bring about formulas in legislation that drastically reduced the amount of pollution that was being put into the air, and to clean up rivers, and maybe there are a few baby boomers involved in there. But yeah, I mean, it is the environmental movement gets so difficult to analyze. Did you see the cover story in New York Times Magazine four weeks ago? That said basically, recycling is the most fun wasteful activity that humans engage in. That I will not attempt to recapture the entire thing, but it is- it makes us feel good. And we tell all our kids about all things that have been accomplished by recycling. And it actually turns out that it is not any particular benefit to us that we are not running out of place to put our trash that it is probably environmentally more sound certainly, and I mean, I was just thinking about this the other day, it was big fight that we had to we had to have a trash to steam plan. And I think everybody with a college degree, I think every member of the baby boomer generation in Philadelphia, certainly the college educated part of the baby boomer generation, but Philadelphia absolutely had to have a trashed steam plant to take care of its trash, and it was just kind of the low rent blue collar people of South Philadelphia, a couple of kind of aging crypto Marxists like David Cohen on the city council, who said, no this is not a good idea. Now we have to look back on that whole situation and say, those people were right. We did not need to trash the steam plan, the trash to steam plan would have actually added to pollution as opposed to what we are doing with our trash now. So, I look on the environmental movement as-as being a mixed movement. And, and I guess I should say that I do not really know a lot about who the people were. I have met the guy who was who started the first Earth Day. 16:42 SM: It was Senator Nelson. 16:44 DB: Well, no this was actually a guy named, who got Senator Nelson to do it and he went around, he was doing the 25th anniversary. 16;52 SM: Right. 16:52 DB: So you got sort of petered out, you know, the Earth Day for a few years now. Then they had a big splash on its 20th or 25th anniversary, whatever, whatever it was. And not much. And then in between, you know, the work was done. There are all kinds of ironies to the history of that situation. I will just mention one other one. John Ehrlichman, Nixon's, whatever he was, counsel, was one of the first environmental lawyer, the EPA was created during the Nixon administration. The fact that I will bet if you went around and asked 1000 people today, you could not get more than a handful to tell you that. It was because environmental ism was something that clearly had to be done at that time in terms of providing people with clean air and clean water. And we did it. 17:46 SM: We can agree that women's movement they were that was not late (19)60s, early (19)70s phenomena, as well as the same lines as the Civil Rights Movement. The terms that Laurie scholastic was not. Betty Friedan was not a boomer. 18:04 DB: Guess neither was who wrote. And neither was the woman who wrote the other. Oh, is Betty for Friedan is the feminine mystique. And then there is yet another that you have not mentioned. Yeah, the leaders that were not baby boomers. And the response to it among Baby Boomers has been equivocal, I mean, the feminist movement itself? Well, I, I do not know I have not studied the history of the women's movement that much. I never thought of it particularly as being connected with the boomers. 18:50 SM: This is kind of a long one here. Can today’s generation of youth, which is a slacker Generation X learn from the boomers. What can the boomers teach today's college students? This question is based on the fact that many of today's students often look at the (19)60s and early (19)70s as a period of activism, drugs and single-minded issues. Though many of the same issues remain there are new ones. And the lessons of the past are either not taught in schools or never discussed between the parents of the boomers and today's generation. Please keep your thoughts on the issues and Boomers lives and how they can have impact on students’ eyes today. 19:29 DB: Well, I guess what we are dealing with is the aftermath, trying to pick up the wreckage after the baby-baby boomers have gone through. And I guess in particular, destroyed our educational system came up with this idea that we no longer needed to have standards that would go to pass fail and that would be fine for college courses. We had all these grand experiments that were equally grand failures, open claims restrooms, social promotions. The new math could go on for some time. And we were now sitting around, we were trying to kind of put things back together again. And this is a federal Road A, I cannot remember his name. He is a Nobel Prize winner. He wrote a book called physics for poets. And he works with the Chicago Public Schools, one place where they-they seem to be making some progress, getting things back together again. He said somewhere back there in the (19)60s and (19)70s, we just lost it. I do not know what it was. I do not know what it was the new math, the open classroom. The fact that he says we cannot underestimate the fact that women suddenly discovered that the only career open to them was not they had other careers open to them besides teaching, and that had an effect on education was not compensated for it, I am very I am very much worried. I, you know, I would hope that generation X would represent kind of a reaction against the baby boom generation, that there would be a it would be sort of a return a new appreciation of political institutions, or social institutions. And there is not. The kids, the baby boomers not only did a bad job themselves, but they left the legacy behind of having been bad parents as well and raised a generation that does not know much or care much. And I do not know what we are going to do about that. I am not pessimistic. Because I do not think our I do not think young Americans, you know, fortunately us and for them. Still going? Yeah-yeah, I do not think young Americans are that much worse off than young Germans or young Japanese. I mean, it is sort of it is funny the way you know, kind of a spirit of the age passes around the entire world. But as luck would have it, slacker-slacker ism, is not confined to the United States. And our slackers will be up against the Germans and the Japanese slacker. And they may just come out of it. Alright. But at some time or other, I would like to see some sign that we understand again, the importance of our obligations, and our responsibilities to our community, to our families, to our government. Just like to see that. Rabbi, sometimes I feel I see signs that I do not think they can look to the boomers for that. And we have this oddity I mean, the person who seems to have the- we have the Republicans running somebody, the last tethering of the Second World War, I am sure he will run for president. And he is being run because he represents a- because it is felt- he represents a kind of moral values that he cannot find anywhere else. Or, you know, my own generation was kind of failure in terms of I mean, whatever you would call us that was kind of the last generation the niche between those people who went off to World War Two, and those who were born after World War Two. We did not for some reason, produce an effective, effective leadership. I do not know why that is. You look at the people who came close. And it is a little disappointing. I certainly do not think Gary Hart would have been a good president. And I cannot rattle off the ones that were candidates and might have even come close. But it is an interesting phenomenon that we have gone directly to a baby boom president from a world war two generation president has skipping over the generation in between. So, I am not sure it is fairly clear that generation X is not looking to us for leadership either. World War Two generation is now in its (19)70s. I think we are going through a period in which we are really going to have to reinvent America to use a cliche which it will have to be the kind of discovered anew why we did different things. And I hope it is, but I do not think they can look back. I thought, the basically Generation X from what I Read, look back at the (19)60s and they were sick and tired of hearing their parents say have great things had been good. The music had been wonderful it was to be so easily on the winning side and so many complicated. I would not say single minded, but perhaps simple minded issues that have in retrospect turned out to be a lot more complicated than we thought. I did not know what I mean, in Bill Clinton and his best, I think he has an understanding of what went wrong. And yet he is-he is also the embodiment of it. What went wrong? That is a tricky question. I do not know. I almost think that generally, the Generation X and whatever the generation is, is going to come after have to both look to the look to the past and look to the future. 25:59 SM: Some of the people- 26:00 DB: I mean the deep past, somehow or rather than have to rediscover history, there is no sign that they are. 26:08 SM: You have got to see some of the baby boomers today. Oh, no, it is still working. Yeah, read more. We have boomers like Bill Clinton, Al Gore got John Kessing, which was highly respected in the Republican Party, that you have got the Christian coalition of person like Ralph Reed. Now here, you see you have got extreme conservatives, and you have got liberals and again, moderates in the middle, you got people like Bill Clinton, and they tend to understand where he stands on an issue. There are boomers. So this is getting off the track. Here are the questions I am asking but what does that say about boomers when you see the differences even within that group? And there some may be lean towards your thoughts on what the boomer generation should be? 27:00 DB: Oh, perhaps they are. I mean, perhaps to be some, although, like, never turn around that that motif of just rampant hell for leather, damn the torpedoes. Individualism that mark the era? I mean, I guess Newt Gingrich, as close, as close as you come to sort of an antidote? I think some of them understand that. I mean, I was really, I think, actually, that was one of the things I gave you was, I thought that Al Gore's speech at the 1992 pension when he talked about how when we look into looking into his son's eyes after the accident, and saying that he then realized that we were on Earth for some larger purpose than ourselves, or however he put it. That was, I thought that was a very significant sign of maturity, of a real realization that we are part of what wolf in the me decade, calls the chromosomal flow, the flow of history of humanity through history, that we are an extension of our parents, and that our children are an extension of our lives. And it all goes on. We have an obligation to those children and their-their children, even. And so, I mean, you have people who are, you know, trying to point out the wretched excessive, somebody said, read just the other day, that Bill Clinton was the perfect expression of America at this time. Somebody who, you know, has great mind and tremendous ability, but total-total inability to control his own appetites or to dissect his own appetites, and a tremendous ambivalence. Although I sort of like his I am not one of those people who criticizes him for being wishy washy. I think a certain amount of deviousness is necessary in politics, and when used for good is not to be criticized. Franklin Roosevelt was so devious that his most trusted aides said they would come out of a meeting with him and not really sure where he stood on a particular issue. It is often a mark of greatness and a leader, and I have been a supporter of Clinton's, an avid supporter from very early on. And have this this this hope that he that because he is so much of his generation, his accesses are literally Sex, drugs and rock and roll. Even although he did not enhance Yeah. But that, you know, maybe he, because of what he understands. And I mean, is not an odd sort of way, but profoundly religious person. Which is not so odd. I mean, I think religion is one of the ways that you cope with the weaknesses of humanity. And to that extent, is somewhat different from many other boomers. But was the threat of where the question was? Maybe you better get me back on track. 30:33 SM: I am going to go on to a question here, where you could just get some adjectives to describe. If you describe the youth of the (19)60s and early (19)70s, please describe the qualities you most admire, and the qualities you least admire. first, if there is any qualities you admire. Well, okay, they are good. I think we should be pretty close to her. So, yeah. 30:54 DB: I think one thing you can say about baby boomers and whether or not they were in on the civil rights revolution, they are not racist. They are certainly not the extent they were [audio cuts] before. There you go. You know, one of the things. The other thing that happened during the baby boom, is that somehow America got separated into its cultural elites. And the great unwashed masses. And if you actually look at the voting record of baby boomers, it has been far more conservative than you think. Baby Boomers voted for Ronald Reagan. But the-the kind of opinion leaders and people who were kind of representing the generation kind of got disconnected this very complicated concept. I mean, entire books have been written about it, then Daniel Yankelovich, over to his book. Title, I have forgotten, I am getting to that age where you forget these things. Christopher Lasch wrote something that is literally like the disconnected. 32:07 SM: Elite, something of the elite. Yeah. 32:11 DB: In which he talked about this. So that happened. So it is true. I mean, you are talking about the baby boomers, you are talking about that kind of cutting edge. The baby boom, the one that was most in the media, but I will take care of all these. And so I say that. Baby boomers, whatever you make whatever else you may think about them, this is actually quoting somebody else's observation. They are not racist. And they, what else can you say that was good about them. Which me there was such a disappointment. I saw you know, as I went into my 20s, I thought, you know, gee, I am going to be part of the best educated, most healthy ablest generation in the history of the world has ever seen. So sort of, saw these, these ranks of people coming behind me that you know, in the time I grew up. I know, I am rambling. I will try to try to make a point here. My point and I do have one is that I really saw it as being the American century we hear we were intact as a nation, and you are kind of towering over war torn Europe and defeated Japanese and ravaged Chinese. And I thought that, you know, it was just going to be one of the-the golden arrows of a world history, and then kind of look back, and everything had come apart. So in terms of specific adjectives, there was hard to think of positive adjectives you want to say idealism. But it was an idealism that was so easily won so untested. In an idealism in which you had this peculiar turn about which cowardice could be seen as valor, the dodging the draft could be seen as a brave thing to do the long tradition in American history. People who disobey that, who opposed their country's position, but realize that their duty to the community required them to go along with it, you know, famous essays written by I am sorry, I cannot rattle off the names. But there is a famous poet who went off into the Mexican War American war even though he deeply opposed Oliver Wendell Holmes, I believe, sir In some war, he opposed and wrote very eloquently about, you know, I think this is wrong, but this is what my country is decided to do. 35:08 SM: But then you, William Fulbright wrote the book, The arrogance of power, that the-the true Democrats and the true will leaders were coached and refused to go. 35:19 DB: Well, that is right. So the saying became a very confused time. You are asking me to boil it down to a few adjectives, positive added adjectives would be I think you have to give them credit for being energetic, innovative. Lot of new things certainly brought up made the transition into they began the transition into the information age. Some questions whether they were making the turn or not. On the other hand, the-the advocates on the other side, I did not give you a very good answer. I mean, I suppose by thought longer, I could think of some more positive advocates. But the negative adjectives would be the ones I have used before self-indulgent, uncaring. Heedless. All of it caught so neatly in that song and hair. how can people be so cruel, especially people who care about people? There was a great tendency among the baby-baby boomers to love mankind but to be very unpleasant to be around. To love mankind, but not necessarily get along very well with people. And I think that song from here, really focused on that and really caught it. If you look at the lyrics, I think, tells you something. 36:54 SM: You hit a point though that an adjective if you were to even ask some of the generation X and the slackers characteristic that in the theory, they cared about minorities they cared about. They did not trust leaders. And that the whole concept of trust is another issue that is coming up later. Another question, but they were scared. They cared about the environment, they cared about minorities, they cared about what was happening, poverty in the inner cities they cared about. I know that some of the characteristics of the (19)60s liberals, for women behind the scenes, they were basically xeroxing off. We have heard all those stories; they really were not equal. But still, it was an era where a lot of people start caring about things feed instead of just going to work every day. That is what that that is interesting. Could you comment on that? Because I think caring you say they were not a caring group yet. So many things they got involved in that they did care that- 37:59 DB: I think it was summed up in that idea, they cared about humankind, but they did not care much about people. Going back to the civil rights, I mean, you can pick up on each one of the strands that you are pointing to. As I said, the important advances in civil rights were made by a previous generation. And they just kind of basked in the afterglow, of those accomplishments, the I mean, they created the welfare system, which turned out to be, I guess, one of the most pernicious social mechanisms in the history of the world. And now we are trying to figure out I mean, now we have had Bill Clinton come along, and say that we have got to change welfare as we know it, and everybody knows it. But we ended up spending a lot of money thinking, thinking really, that spending money on something would help. And if you go back and you look at what they actually did, there was a tremendous decline. During the ascendancy of the baby boomers, in participation in PTA meetings, in voting, I mean, if they cared, why did not they vote? In it, it is so many indices of so many indices of actual civic involvement and some extent, you cannot separate the baby boom generation and the effects that it had from the fact that it was also the TV generation. I wonder, I think we are just beginning to understand what that might mean. If someday it will be better known as the TV generation, then as the baby boom generation, because there is no question that watching television drained a lot of time that people might have otherwise spent being. Being ten mothers. What captures me is the epitome you caring about the environment, that we went from a time when my father would be president of the PTA. At the Roosevelt Elementary school would change the environment by getting a traffic light install the place where the kids had to walk across to get the school, to where the equivalent today would be someone who cares about the and that that required work, you know, going to meetings every month, getting-getting, putting up with a lot of crap going through dealing with a bureaucracy downtown. And whereas the caring about the environment seems to me to be consistent mainly, once a year, writing out checks for the Sierra Club and putting the calendar up on your wall. I do not see those signs; I think that the entire baby boom generation has been up until very recently. I know there is controversy about this, and I am following it closely. They are really trying to understand it. But certainly initially, there was a tremendous decline and involvement in civic organizations in kind of almost everything, but churches that cinco gone along almost the same level, kind of under the surface with nobody noticing. But, you know, all kinds of civic organizations, choral societies, you know, all the decline and all summarized in the essay Bowling Alone, which is a rebut by Robert Putnam at Harvard, where we stopped bowling leagues and went out and started Bowling alone. I mean, I think that is connected with the baby boom, phenomenon. There is also I noticed an essay disputing that in this weeks’ Time Magazine, that is complex. It is not, there is no simple answer, you know, as we were saying before, but the- this image of a caring is to care about them by to care about the urban poor. By having basically government programs that did not work and being tremendously reluctant to recognize only now is being recognized that we have not made a dent in poverty. And it is true. I mean, Ronald Reagan was right, we had a war on poverty and poverty won. The number of people living below the poverty line is I think, today the same as it was in 1960. Or maybe more. I mean, the poverty line is artificial blind. But, you know, I think that tells us something, we did not solve the problem. In fact, during the baby boom, ascendancy, you had the whole creation of the underclass, the whole division of the country, and the haves and have nots has accelerated, not decelerating. I do not see any signs of any great humanitarianism. 43:27 SM: Have you changed your opinion on the use of the (19)60s over the last 25 years, say when you were very 1978, what you thought about them, and maybe what you thought about in 1980, and then now in 1996- 43:41 DB inconsistent. I mean, I wrote, When the war ended in 1975, pretty much the same thing I told you about how it was not the antiwar movement that ended the war. In fact, the antiwar movement was remarkably ineffective, in terms of translating popular sentiment. Because, you know, just you had the-the radical part of the antiwar movement that could never kind of connect with the rest of the people who were upset about the war as well. It never became an effective movement. So, I mean, I can go back and if we went into the archives of the inquire, I think we can find they-they said exactly that 1974 Because anything, I have changed on that it has become an appreciation of you had really great music. The cynic might say they produce some really great elevator music. But there really has not been anything like that since. And This contributions in popular culture have been-have been pretty good. 44:57 SM: A lot of the music of that era was There are so many messages in the music. You know, there were a lot of messages written by Bill and he really sat down and listened to philharmonic orchestra some of those musicians of that era and really listened to the words and really, almost like goose bumps to you want to get out there move, be it be a changing, you know, for the betterment of society at times? 45:26 DB: Well, you know, I guess. I mean, that is-that is what I say is one thing, you ended up with an appreciation for the popular music and I heard somebody the other day, make the case that maybe we are living through a golden age now that people live in gold, the trenches never know it at the time. But we are questioning everything and kind of coming up with new forms, to-to respond to the basic requirements of human society that we are going to, we are going into the dawn of the information age, and that maybe people will look back on this kind of a great day. And my own, that was an intriguing possibility. But I would think that if we are in a golden age, we have had better art and its that thinking that maybe when the actual cultural history of this era of the last quarter 30 years of the, to get back into the (19)60s, the (19)60s, you know, really starting to 65 or so. And then and go well into the (19)70s Maybe the Beach Boys good vibrations will be what people go to hear 100 years from now or, or some kind of Jim Morrison in the door, come on baby light my fire, the long version will be seen as a as a crowning cultural achievement. And, yeah, we knew we had crummy literature and nobody could really write very well, but-but Star Wars will be remembered. The Star Wars trilogy will be remembered as the great epic of our, our time. 47:19 SM: I mean, notice how a lot of the (19)60 songs are now in oh, advertisements, including the chambers brothers time, time, which is a very big song back in the late (19)60s, time. 47:30 DB: What is amazing, and every hit movie, for a while there had to be built around some-some song, the soundtrack of lives that Stephen King movie about the kids, its all rock and roll songs. And Tom Cruise and fighter pilot movie is all built around that the righteous brothers, you have lost that loving feeling. And for while I think every single movie that came out was built around some (19)60s rock and roll song. And yeah. Look at that still going after all these years, the Beatles may not be our first not adding anything. But I am sure that so many more records since they broke up than they did. While they were all together. 48:22 SM: I am going to go double check to make sure that is still going overall. Yeah. Where would you describe the boomers as the most unique generation in American history? 48:32 DB: No, gosh, no, I certainly they were the most-most unique. I mean, there was nothing else like them. What do you mean by unique? 48:46 SM: They were so different from any other generation that they stand above the crowd, so to speak, and you look at all the generations since our founding fathers look through all the generations. There are people out there that say no, there was never a time like the (19)60s and (19)70s. Except that happened. 49:05 DB: I was going to say in terms of extraordinary generations, certainly the generation that lived through the Civil War must be up there. And the most amazing generation of Americans were the founding fathers, but he is just still fucking amazing. Now they know whether they that different from the generations that came before them are not unique. It was they were unique, in that sense. be something I would have to give more thought to. I do not know. They were a mutant generation. I am just going back to that idea of kind of forgetting the fact that being an American and having rights and responsibilities I do not think any other generation has done that. There was much in the (19)60s. It was like the 1920s, kind of in terms of indulgence, and the baby boomers coming of age rabbit gets rich in the (19)80s was rather than maybe women, really the decade of greed, very similar to the 1920s, I do not think I have a feeling for a history that would enable me to really compare them. In that way, we forget how extraordinary times we have all lived through, I mean, being on the frontier must have been this next generation, that is going to take us into the information age, I think they have a and the generation that took us through the progressive era at the end of the last century, which we really had to remake ourselves from agricultural to an industrial nation, from a nation of the little local economies into a national economy, just like now we have to go from national international, during our Roosevelt's generation, Theodore Roosevelt himself such an extraordinary individual, that it is hard to say, We have had times of wretched excess too. 51:35 SM: it is often quoted that only 15 percent of the Boomers were truly activists for the link civil rights, Vietnam or protest during lesbian youth movement, the environmental movement, and overall, being active in issues of the day was just another way to lessen the impact this group has had on Americans. 51:51 DB: Oh, I was thinking I mean, that was what I was referring to before the boomers are identified by that 15 percent. They are voting statistics are actually sort of surprising. But you know that those are the people who were activists who were I mean, they put their stamp on the generation, I think they are entitled to the credit for that. I mean, I think-I think that the- those 15 percent I think that is probably true of any generation, there is like 15 percent of them are activists. As I say, the unique thing about the unique thing, one of the unique things, something possibly you need to be careful that word. Was this splitting apart. And to elites, which function kind of independent. They thought they represented the rest of the nation, but they did not. The awful truth was the people who are going around yelling power to the people did not realize that the people already had power. And then the people were getting increasingly annoyed at the people who are going around yelling power to the people, you follow me. I mean, that was why they voted for Richard Nixon, including a lot of baby boomers. I wonder about the statistics which show but yeah, there were people who put there was an activist group that put a stamp on that generation, I think they are entitled to at least that letter. Whether I like what they did or not. I think any generation. 53:33 SM: Do you? Do you feel that the boomers are a generation that is still having problems with the healing? Veterans Memorial did a great job with veterans and in some respect for families and veterans? But do you feel that healing is really taking place in large numbers? And I am trying to getting at here is, you know, we see a lot of unsettled dialogue today in our society, shouting instead of listening, very little dialogue. And I am wondering if there is a direct correlation of that back to that era. It is-it is- 54:03 DB: But there is but I think it is television. Television is what destroyed dialogue. If you do not talk to television, you are spending six hours in front of the television, much- 54:16 SM: Do You think the computer age is going to continue that with your computer all day, you are not going to talk to anyone either. 54:22 DB: Well, I do not know. I mean, I know if you sit at your computer all day, you actually do pretty much nothing but talk to other people. I mean, that is what I do on my computer twice a day, pick up my email, send off messages. I mean, I have the sort of dream that because of email and computers, people will learn how to write again. That may be fanciful, or you know, even-even silly when especially when you look at some of the obscene crap. That is on the internet. But I, you know, funny things like that happen. I do not think though that chat rooms are really a substitute for human contact. If you want to want to know what, you did not really ask me what I expect, what was the question again? I do not want to wonder that far. 55:21 SM: Do you think here is, do you feel that boomers are a generation that is still having a prominent feeling? 55:26 DB: Oh, yeah. No, I think there is confused as ever. But I hope that there. I hope that we are starting to see in the current moment, you know, we are finally getting to the point where people are able to talk candidly about what the things are, that did not work and went wrong. I think that is Clinton's great contribution to American history is to somehow I mean, he really did get the political dialogue back to the real problems of real Americans and off of the symbolic stuff, which is the essence of the baby boom, slash television generation. The symbolism, soundbites. motional, ism sensationalism living for sensations. So, yeah, we are definitely still having a problem. I hope we are starting to do better. 56:31 SM: What are your thoughts about former left leaders who have been writing books recently about their involvement in the movement? Horowitz Rosen Collier wrote a book called the disrupter generation where they work to the extreme left, and now they are-they are analyzing themselves and saying, admitting to their wrongs and then basically condemning anybody else that was ever involved on the left. And we are seeing more and more books coming out that way. Those the left becoming basically conservatives. 57:07 DB: Right, I you know, I cited the destructive generation, we had that first conversation, I thought that was just a very, you know, that book just has a lot of truth telling in it. The class of (19)64 was another good book. I mean, I think you are right. Coming out and becoming conservatives, you are reminded about some famous person once said that anybody who, anyone under 30, who is a, who is not a liberal, does not have a heart, anyone over 30, who is not a conservative does not have a brain. And, and, you know, doubtedly, seeing that effect take place. And it is kind of I mean, I am a great believer in the pendulum theory of history, and that, you know, things had to swing back. But the question, you know, that I asked at the top of one of those columns that you put there is- is- there ever been a society that is really kind of swung so far into self-destructive behavior that has come so far? unfastened from its from its moral underpinnings and come back? I think that is the question. We are looking to find out the answer to that. What was your question? Again, I- 58:31 SM: Think the left leaders and the left leaders. 58:33 DB: Well, I think they did-did a lot of important truth telling and it had to be done. It was a dirty job, but they did it. I mean, I subscribed to Colliers. Horowitz and Colliers public publications. You know, I think sometimes they get a little bit. Neither, I mean, you have to allow them. I mean, quite often, they will go get a little spin a little bit out of control. But I think they have been very important. And- 59:06 SM: I know that you have already basically answered this question. I have to ask him directly. Again, it was boomers used to say they were going to change the world. In we were often quoted as being the that would change the world in a positive way. Was this true? Were they different? And in what way? Yeah, I have. 59:22 DB: The world has stayed pretty much the same. And what they had to discover is that there are reasons why the world is the way that there are reasons why families exist. And if you are going to stop having families, you better damn well, that some better system for working it out before you do it, and I think now they are coming back to that realization that if you are going to have successful politics, people have to participate. You have to have a dialogue. You have to talk things through they stopped doing I thought, well, we do not need to do that. We thought we already know what to do. I do not have to think about. 1:00:07 SM: How do you deal with this whole issue, though another characteristics oftentimes placed on boards that they are very- [oh, yeah] Dr. King did not he have the same philosophy. Because if you look at the civil rights movement, not to criticize Thurgood Marshall. But that was a more gradualist approach to the courts, as opposed to Dr. King's nonviolence, which was, I am tired of all the roadblocks we wanted. I want this now, we are not going to have any more of these roadblocks placed in our, in our face, to end racism, the society and to integrate society. And so do not you think the boomers had a lot of that same type of philosophy that they saw these roadblocks fully by the Bureaucracy. And, and thus, they became very impatient and basically took the line of advocate that civil disobedience, we are going to go to the streets. So, we are going to-we are not going to have these roadblocks anymore. We want to have- 1:01:02 DB: Like, I mean, what is the start of the question again? Let me try to respond to it because brought another thought to my mind. 1:01:11 SM: This whole issue that the boomers are an impatient group that they really want it now. And they use Dr. King is an example of that through his civil nonviolence, because except the Thurgood Marshall approach through the courts, he said he would not get into the streets. 1:01:29 SM: Well, you can hardly call the actions of Martin Luther King, precipitous or sudden or impatient. He was redressing wrongs that dated back 100 years if you want to count it that way. 300 years. And at that point, people, African Americans, black Americans, and I suppose Negroes or colored people. As Dr. King would have said had waited. 1:02:16 SM: This is a question dealing with just specific names and your individual response to these your gut level feelings about them as well. And maybe your also your perception of how we think boomers today, look at these people. They can be just short responses. Tom Hayden. 1:02:35 DB: Tom Hayden, replaced by Ted Turner. 1:02:45 SM: [laughs] Very Good. Any other comments? 1:02:47 DB: Oh, yeah, I guess one of the numbers of what, an example of one of the people who was who seemed to have a lot of promise that did not never, never really came off. And I could not tell you where he is today. 1:03:02 SM: The state legislator in Sacramento. I am surprised he is still an author. He is going to be at the Chicago convention as a delegate. And that is interesting, because in (19)68- 1:03:12 DB: He was outside. 1:03:13 SM: Lyndon Johnson. 1:03:16 DB: Oh, gosh. I should tell you what I think of Lyndon Johnson in 100 words or less Johnson is a tremendously complicated man and the Carroll biographies come close to perhaps they do not give him some of the credit he deserves. But he was me, he will always be hurt by the fact that people will be repelled by what a by his lack of ethics, lack of personal ethics. You basically had somebody with an amoral mentality. I have a friend named Ron Kessler wrote, it happened in the White House Science bestseller as reading lately, he is always say that the nation was really badly hurt by the fact that you had somebody who was basically a criminal, this President of the United States, and he has all this stuff about this incredible amount of White House stuffies, though, that you wanted to crisp short answer. You know, Lyndon Johnson, very complex, tremendous achievements in terms of the passage of the Civil Rights legislation. But basically, not anyone that is going to be looked back on as a great president. His personal failings were too profound. I will try to be short. 1:04:55 SM: Bobby Kennedy. 1:04:58 DB: Bobby Kennedy, you have a piece that I wrote there. I was in the hotel the night that he was shot that was one of the most was something I will never, I mean, it is just so profound, I almost cannot sum it up. Bobby Kennedy was the last political leader that might have held us together prevented the polarization. The most amazing thing I remember about him is later on doing a political story somewhere in East Texas around Lufkin. was actually a story out of Congressman. Corrupt Congressman. But in the course of the reporting there, I discovered that that a major portion of the Bobby Kennedy organization in that part of Texas had conned George Wallace. There was something about the continuation of the Kennedy Mystique, his own ability to communicate a vision of what America ought to be doing, that I think was real was powerful and that it could have held us together instead of that. That incredible period of polarization and splitting apart that we went through. 1:06:24 SM: Eugene McCarthy. 1:06:27 DB: Eugene McCarthy was thoroughly ordinary person who has kind of thrust into a role far bigger than he was capable of playing. 1:06:44 SM: George McGovern. 1:06:47 DB: I would say almost exactly the same thing about him. This man who just did not have a there was no center to it he. I have a lot of thoughts about that, because I used to actually teach a course based on the 1972 campaign put the McGovern's strategy in that was just get to be the farthest out on the left as possible. He did not really know what he was for. He has this famous $1,000 giveaway, he did not he never knew. He never really knew what he was for. He never had thought through. He was basically a weak and incompetent leader. And once campaign got to be a contest of competence versus incompetence he was done for. 1:07:50 SM: When people look at the liberals of today, they will say that man that comes to mind most George McGovern, because he stood by his liberal beliefs. 1:07:58 DB: I cannot remember a single thing that he believed in. Here is a candidate who managed to get himself, he projected so poorly, in terms of what he believed that he managed to get himself defined by his opposition as the candidate of the three a’s: abortion, acid and amnesty. Theodore White talks about that, and it is making me the president in 1972. And because he did not, you know, the whole the whole story of $1,000 giveaway you is because he just sat there and listened to these economists who just winged it and he said, he just kind of took some of the stuff they said seriously, and because he himself just had not thought things through. I mean, that was one thing that was different about Clinton was different about Carter that they either in Carter's case worked very hard to try to get to the bottom of things or just had a superior understanding of the way the world works than George McGovern did. 1:09:21 SM: Hughey Newton. 1:09: 24 DB: I think history has shown what kind of person Huey Newton was revealed. 1:09:31 SM: So did you also put in that category the bobby Seales and the Eldritch Cleavers? The Panthers too? 1:09:41 DB: Yeah, I think the but we have now seen I mean, you shall know them by their fruits. I think if you look at what became of all of them the truth has emerged. 1:09:59 SM: Jerry Rubin and Abby Hoffman. 1:10:02 DB: They were opportunistic, imposters. People you know the there are people who actually change events and they are people who were kind of thrown up like froth off the top of Wave. And Hoffman and Reuben were in the latter category. 1:10:25 SM: Timothy Leary. 1:10:28 DB: Timothy Leary was an interesting guy who kind of typifies what went wrong. The fact that somebody of his stature and ability would actually say that what young people should do is what Amis favorite tune their turn, turn on drop out? I mean, that along with if it feels good, do it? Where are the statements that characterize the era? I mean, I think he can be seen as a major, major influence on what basically became a malignant movement. 1:11:15 SM: How about Daniel Ellsberg. 1:11:18 DB: Daniel Ellsberg just, again, somebody who happened to be in a certain place at a certain time and was not particularly important before or since. 1:11:32 SM: Ralph Nader. 1:11:36 DB: Well, I mean, I think everybody has to have a certain amount of respect for Ralph Nader. And some extent is [inaudible] in his belief in the powers of litigation, have worn, have gotten to be a little bit annoying over time. I do not believe he will be effective this year as the Green Party candidate. If I have to say one thing about him is kind of an archetypal example of somebody who loved humankind, but you would not really want to be around personally for very long. 1:12:23 SM: How about Dr. Benjamin Spock? 1:12:26 DB: Well, Dr. Spock finally admitted that he did it wrong. He will be much paid attention to as a wonderful final book, and perhaps he is still alive. Yes. But he wrote a book, say basically taking it all back. I looked through the book jacket, and I did not actually get it to read it. [audio cuts] Great, you have to give him credit for that. But he also is, he also has a lot of a lot to be the answer for and he has answered. I mean, I think I would, I would take his own judgement of himself. At this point. 1:13:15 SM: Hubert Humphrey. 1:13:16 DB: Hubert Humphrey. Alright. It is one of the most well-meaning and misguided figures in American history. Misguided and star-crossed. 1:13:31 SM: John Kennedy. 1:13:33 DB: Oh, gosh. Difficult to cope with what we have to prove what we know about John Kennedy today. And yeah, there is aspects of his personal behavior affects [audio cuts] his personal behavior. We are surely reprehensible. Were absolutely reprehensible. Yet there is no question but in terms of style grace under pressure, eloquence. He has set a standard that American presidents will, presidential candidates will be measured against for the rest of my life. 1:14:25 SM: Martin Luther King Jr. 1:14:27 DB: Well, true hero. But whose contribution almost cannot be underestimated? Whose brain still sets the standard for what America should aspire to? It is amazing to think that the highlight of the opening ceremonies to me would be the clip of the King's Speech. The opening ceremonies at the Atlanta Olympics. And here that was 1964, (19)74, (19)84, (19)94. More than 30 years later to think that his words and his vision still carry such strength, meaning is amazing. 1:15:29 SM: Berrigan Brothers. 1:15:30 DB: Minor character Hello, [audio cuts] Gavin the Olympics bring him to mind. He was the only figure that could bring together the white antiwar movement and the civil rights movement. He was the unique figure is way beyond his athletic accomplishments. And I mean, not surprising or unworthy. That he would be at one point, at least the most recognized person in the world. 1:16:13 SM: He still is. 1:16:17 DB: And I think it was it was that fact that he really did seem to stand for so much during that time. And it is amazing. Just an amazing figure. 1:16:37 SM: George Wallace. 1:16:47 DB: [chuckles] George Wallace was a fascinating figure far more articulate and, in his criticism, of big government. That whole area is so complicated, I mean, to think of him as the man stood in the University of Alabama door to block the entrance of black students and yet he started off as a kind of liberal politician and then was beaten, said he would never be up Niggered again. I remember him as just being and under an underappreciated articulator of some basic American call them populist, but maybe even more profound than the label with indicate ideas. You want short sharply, right. I can still remember him speaking at Dartmouth College in 1964. He made this tour of campuses, they just went to Harvard went to Dartmouth he went to in the Northeast, and people just being stunned at his articulate [inaudible] and humor. Still remember things that he said? We down here in Alabama, do not believe that everything that comes from Washington is heaven sent. This line about the bureaucrats that could not park their bicycle straight, and that he did not believe that all juvenile criminals had gotten that way because their daddy did not take them to see the Orioles play. And he-he was an incredibly powerful speaker. When he came back again about four years later, it triggered a riot. They rocked his car and but people did not know what to expect when they went there in (19)64 were amazed that this guy they expected to be a room and a bumpkin could speak with such authority and he was he was drawing on much more than racism and should be remembered for that. 1:19:11 SM: Jane Fonda. 1:19:12 DB: Changed, the thing I always say, I got to get shorter because you know, the thing I remember most about Jane Fonda was her first husband who directed her in Barbarella explaining how their marriage had come apart, saying I simply did not want to be married to the American Joan of Arc. That is the only thing I can remember that might add to what others would say. 1:19:46 SM: Robert McNamara. 1:19:47 DB: Robert McNamara when I was a cog in a wheel I did not read this book. It is good a very good book. I remember him as somebody who set out to be the best secretary of defense he could be. Right remember about him was his idea that the army could be the thing the army did best was education. And it could become a vehicle for bringing kids out of the terrible schools in the inner cities, giving them an education and an opportunity. And then how ironic it was, that the army he created would become, although it would do that, it would become the institution in our society that was most effectively, racially integrated, would be remembered as being the institution that just so unfairly sent so many young black Americans to their deaths in Vietnam. There is such an irony involved there it is so complex. I mean, it is so terrible all of the he made mistakes, a terrible mistake. And yet, there is that other irony that we would not know about them. If he had not had the sense of his own role and history to make sure that they were recorded in the study. Who would come back and answer for them in book late in life? kind of remarkable. 1:21:39 SM: Gerald Ford. 1:21:40 DB: Gerald Ford was a thoroughly decent, honest guy. But not, did not have the makings of greatness. 1:21:52 SM: Richard Nixon. 1:21:55 DB: [chuckles] short, sharp answer. Yeah, Richard Nixon was Richard Nixon was it was really an enigma who I do not pretend to have any special insight into. Watergate was awful. And, you know, I mean, another thing that contributed to the moral smugness of the baby boomers. You know, as I suggested before, that the wretched excesses of Watergate we are in their way, and sort of equal and opposite reaction to the wretched excesses of the left. I do not have anything to add to all the other things that have been said about what an enigmatic guy was. 1:22:44 SM: How about Spiro Agnew? 1:22:46 DB: Spiro Agnew is a small, corrupt, dirty little politician, by accident of fate, ended up briefly in the spotlight and has since slumped back to the level of which is appropriate, which so far as I know is total oblivion. 1:23:08 SM: How about Barry Goldwater? 1:23:10 DB: Barry Goldwater was a man who stood the test of time. Even people who did not like him always thought that he was a decent, intelligent man. There is that irony that I talked about before, that the nation would seem to so completely renounce his philosophy of excess being a virtue and moderation being a sin. Yet ultimately, that came to be the hallmark of the generation that so many things that you remember about him? If he was a good, honest, interesting guy, the reporters that covered them used of respect him. I do not think any of them voted for him. And- 1:24:07 SM: How about John Dean and John Mitchell? 1:24:10 DB: Oh, other people who are just-just in the spotlight of history, more or less by accident. Do not think Tom Mitchell was a villain. Nor was John Dean a hero. 1:24:31 SM: Sam Ervin. 1:24:32 DB: Sam Ervin was the person who was given his role and accomplished it certainly gave us faith in the he gave us back some faith in the American political system press more than he should have. He was not that great person. But I think the Watergate hearings did establish the idea that we were capable to a remarkable degree, if not entirely, examining ourselves looking at our shortcomings. 1:25:09 SM: And Gloria Steinem. 1:25:11 DB: Gloria Steinem, I have trouble remembering anything that Gloria Steinem did as such- 1:25:21 SM: [audio cuts) money was a big factor. 1:25:24 DB: I guess I knew that it seems to have gotten so involved and you know, sort of the-the self-fulfillment movement I think her name will always be remembered and, and that many people will have the problem I am having right now that says, we will have a great difficulty remembering just exactly what for. 1:25:58 SM: And musicians of the year of Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, those- 1:26:03 DB: They will live forever No. They were the one unmitigated triumph of the (19)60s generation. 1:26:17 SM: Do you feel this is just a personal question? Do you feel that you have made an impact on American society? now, since being asked that has been asked to all the participants, including some Vietnam veteran, they know in Philadelphia and Senator McCarthy and Senator McGovern. And as a follow up, do you feel you would have made a positive impact in your life on the boomers and this current generation on generation? 1:26:43 DB: [audio cuts] Hello [audio cuts]. If I have, it has been very modest. [audio cuts] Your records more than Oh, that would be the only way I would have any effect. 1:27:00 SM: On the generation gap in the (19)60s and early (19)70s, and the generation gap and two cents on today. 1:27:05 DB: [audio cuts] was there. I do not think I have any really profound insights to offer on that, and not that I have on any of the other things. I did not feel there was a gap between myself and my parents. They are not a baby boomer do not feel I feel I am pretty close to my own son is 25, which makes him a generation Xer. But we have never talked about how he feels about baby boomers. So, I do not I just do not do not have a good sense of that all I know, all I know, is really derivative, what I have read from other people, I do not have a firsthand grasp of that. 1:28:06 SM: What is the lasting legacy of the boomer generation? 1:28:11 DB: I hope that the lasting legacy of the boomer generation will be a realization that all of the things they trampled on and tore down. By forcing us to learn the process all over again. That they will renew it sort of the way every once in a while forest has to be burned. 1:28:47 SM: Again, and this Might be repetitive, but what role at many does activism in the boomer generation penetrating the lives of- 1:28:52 DB: None that I can detect And of course, I had that question about you know, to what extent the activism was apparent and what he said was real. 1:29:11 SM: If it is possible to heal within a generation now this week, this is a little different than the previous to heal. Do You think it is possible to heal within a generation where differences and spiritual assistance healing process should we cater and is it feasible? 1:29:25 DB: Well, say that again. 1:29:31 SM: Do you think it is possible to heal within a generation where differences and positions take within- 1:29:37 DB: A generation of time or to heal within the baby boomers? 1:29:41 SM: The Vietnam veterans coming back the divisions between those with protests or heads many of our trans remember that scene in New York City. Where not all they were not all when they were younger hardhats on the front of where it was in New York. The divisions are still obviously there. Do you think it is possible to heal within a generation we are different systems decision to assist in the healing process should be cured as a peaceful? I want to follow this up for example, during my many trips to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington I have been and I have really had a cute year to what I have been hearing a lot of pictures for example, the most portrait that I have man standing at the wall with a jacket on with-with an artificial arm and an artificial leg. And a denim jacket with a big Sanjana Jane Fonda bitch. And, and then hearing in the front row with the last Memorial were for Vietnam veterans did not want to listen to Peter net, because he was the one of the reporters that said bad things about Vietnam veterans, one of the early reporters. So they were there, but they had no respect for him. Even though he-he accepted the invitation Jana scrubs to be there. And certainly, that the dislike of Bill Clinton, which is so ever present amongst all the veterans that I have talked to, I do not care if they are liberal or conservative, everyone I have interviewed so far, and even just to my observations at the wall, is that they just do not like. 1:31:06 DB: Alright, I wonder if it was actually reflected in? So, it is an eroding statistic. The? Well, I think that I think it is, it might be possible to bring about healing within a generation. In fact, you would expect that it would be taking place, it is kind of surprising that there has been so little of it. And I think that reflects the fact that not the divisions were so why certainly the divisions were as nothing compared to the divisions in the Civil War generation, or even the-the American Revolution generation were supposedly created. John Adams, you had a third of the people who were for independence, the third were for staying with England and the third who did not much care. The what has been lost are the mechanisms for healing or reconciliation, we do not have the mechanisms for civic dialogue. We do not have civil societies, everyone is now seen. And so, we do not have any place that we can go and talk about this. We do not have the civic institutions. They do not have that sense of participation in, in civic and cultural and political organizations that might allow the kind of dialogue and healing to take place. It is all taking place in the mass media, and I suppose it has had some success. But I am not optimistic. I think these people will still be fighting over it and over shuffleboard in their retirement house. But it is- 1:32:51 SM: What is interesting is that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was built to heal amongst the Vietnam veterans and their families and a chance for injury. Yet you still see the political attitudes at the wall at these ceremonies. And it is amazing. I was I was really under pressure in the Vietnam veterans a large number were truly starting to heal. And then I, but then I see [audio cuts] 1:33:24 DB: Yep. 1:33:25 SM: Your comments are interesting. 1:33:28 SM: I just wanted to mention, too, that when we went to see Senator, students to Washington, we met him about two and a half years ago, he had something comparable departments and gym shaking, but his mind was still sharp. And we had two hours with him. And did most of students had never met him, most of them and had not even heard him until they had an opportunity to meet him and read his Vita. But the one question that I asked, which brought tears to his eyes, was the question about the inability of the talking about the (19)68 Convention. The trend is divisions in America at that time, and, and the inability of a lot of boomers like myself to have to who still had this trust toward people of authority based on those times. And I thought he was just going to respond about the (19)60s and then he did a melodramatic pause. Then tears are brought to his eyes, the students are all looking at each other. I was looking at the students. And then finally he opened up and he said, I was in the hospital at that time. Looking at the Civil War, I was very sick for a while looking at the Ken Burns Civil War videos to the Secretary of State and when he was in the hospital, and he said, we have a meal since the Civil War. And so, he said for us to start talking about the (19)60s that we really had to divide America into two eras before and after the Civil War. And that was very revealing, because the Senate's clear message to the students in that room. That Civil War generation went to their graves without healing with all the Problems of reconstruction here, according to Disney, and that are is the boomer generation of Vietnam veterans on the protests of the war, the 15 percent, who are activist, some are playing the games, some who did not stay 85 percent of this were supposedly, they were not in the file, but maybe have it in their subconscious, but they take their kids to the wall. So the kids say Dad what did you do in the war. And they did not go or whatever, that there was a tremendous market. And they have made the boomer will go to their grave with [inaudible]- 1:35:33 DB: Oh, well, I think that is absolutely true. I think the Vietnam I mean, the War Memorial, just tremendously moving and effective. Memorial. I do not think anybody goes there without feeling the sense of loss and sacrifice, and courage and bravery that was involved and played there added those figures of the people, the guy was 1000 yards, there, and so on. But I think the only hope is that the context will change. We actually check to see whether-whether Vietnam vets really vote in a block against Clinton. 1:36:21 SM: I do not know, I do know one thing in my I get to know her a little bit. Not well, phone conversations that we took students to watch. And he wrote the book, the prize winning book. Fortunately, if you have not read that book, the best written books ever written. He was hired by George Mason University to teach writing, he knew how to write was a skill that very few people had, at my understanding. He was writing essays that are carried were designed to kill themselves. He was halfway through it. But the one the one thing is that Vietnam veteran supported Bill Clinton, up until the fall of (19)93, in the spring of (19)94, and he killed himself may have a war but-but then in this in February of (19)94, something happened between love of Vietnam veterans and build one another. They say flip flopped on certain issues. And he was very bitter, and then the obituary and some of the people talked about, he wanted to become the first ambassador of Vietnam, what was the goal is to become a personal masterpiece. He was very daring to go to Vietnam to visit with some of the veterans over there to try to help them and in certain ways, so but something happened, I do not know. And I probably not investigated further. I think there is there was some sort of a break between the Vietnam Veterans and Bill Clinton in that period in 1994, the spring and I do not think it is healed because I went to the Vietnam Memorial. Veterans Day ceremony this past November and tap CEOs and corporations are really bad mouthing bills in public. And we are bad mouthing the government and some of the things. So, there are some very serious divisions now between Bill Clinton and the Vietnam Veterans and I but I do not understand why. I do not understand what is going on behind the scenes. 1:38:19 DB: Yeah, I wonder if a lot of people it is fair to Vietnam just have no connection with that. They are certainly not part of did not join veterans’ organizations are not. I, I only know one Vietnam veteran. And he was a public relations guy for-for infantry. Even I believe that there are only two Vietnam veterans that work for the Philadelphia Inquirer. I think the one thing that is really wrong in that movie is that courage under fire. Is this idea that there is some old combat veteran working for The Washington Post. I do not think there is any. I bet he checked. If you could change something you wanted to go into, Rob, that there is no combat veteran from Vietnam working for The Washington Post banquet, there might only be a handful of people who have served anywhere at all. And that was one of the things that has-that has happened. We really volunteer army and so on. The Army has become a sort of a foreign experience used to be one of the rites of passage. And that ended in the boomer era. We have not I mean, we lost the all of the things that define maturity. From the time when you had to start wearing a tie to the office or working in a farm of some kind. 1:40:01 SM: Do you think that we will ever have trust for elected leaders again after the debacle of Vietnam and Watergate and Uber's. Distrust, what effect is this having on the current generation of youth? 1:40:13 DB: That is a tough question. I mean, I think we have trust for some leaders and do not have trust for others. I think I like to think that the political process, at least at the presidential level is reconnecting. And we saw it in 1992, we will see more of it 1996. Although 1996 may end up just being a putting out election. I am not good at predicting the future, by the way. I have had a few lucky guesses, but I do not know what is going to happen next. But yeah, we have to get back to trusting our leader. If we do not, we are sunk. So, it is really asking the question whether the American experiment democracy will continue or not. And I have to believe that will. But that is part a leap of faith. 1:41:15 SM: Is still running. Yep. Yeah, please, I apologize. Some of these questions are repetitive, but I direct. How did they use it (19)60s and early (19)70s changed your life and the attitude towards that future generations? Did they have any effect on your life? 1:41:42 DB: Yeah, there is a great tendency for them, for me, for them to make me cynical. So many examples of good intentions gone awry. Which is a theme of Kurt Vonnegut's books ended up being big [audio cuts] 1:42:04 SM: Are there examples of events or activities, major cynical, or just the whole game? 1:42:12 DB: Yeah. Let us see. Let me see if I can at least pick out one. Hello, I think the one area that I have concentrated would concentrate on and I mean, I think it takes place with across the spectrum. I gave some examples earlier. And everything from trying to deal with urban poverty dealing with urban problems. But most profoundly we see it in education, where you have had all of these well-meaning quotes unquote, reforms that have had the net effect of diluting and making our education less effective. At a time when we needed more than ever. How many people who thought they were doing something good, and then having a disastrous effect? Open classrooms, the new math, social promotions, the dumbing down of the curriculum, the IT erosion of standards, grade inflation, all things done by people with proof that the road to hell probably is paved with good intentions. And you have to go back and undo it. Or the point of it that anecdote, I started on way, way back about the guy who wrote the book Physics for poets and is involved in the in the Chicago Public Schools is that we can very quickly destroy an institution, it takes a long time to build it back. I guess the people feeling that they were doing the right thing by achieving self-fulfillment in their own lives and wrecking the lives of their children. end up just shaking your head. Santa's amazement. 1:44:13 SM: Great history books are written on the growing up years from the boomers saying 25 to 50 years and I am ensuring those people do not major in undergrad program, the higher ed in graduate school. We were always taught best issued books were probably issued 50 years after events take place from best books on World War Two right now are being written today. As opposed to some books written by James McGregor burns, really? When the history books are written on the growing up years for the overseeing 2550 years from now what will be the overall evaluation of the boomers? Because of the booming right now are, Well, I do not get into this category of making (19)46 to (19)64 because sometimes those people born between (19)46 and (19)56 in the late (19)50s and early (19)60s. We got a couple of people in West Chester that I just have a hard time relate to. They are still categorized as boomers, but they had no sense of what transpired back then. 1:45:09 DB: Not only that they resent the older boomers. I think your divisions probably are better. What will History Think? 1:45:22 SM: Yeah especially some of them are just coming into power now. So- 1:45:25 DB: I am sad to say that I am not good at progress. prognosticating history, I do not think there is any way I would just stick with I have gotten really fond of this analogy with the baby boomers were like a fire that had to burn through and clean things happen. So the new growth could occur. 1:45:55 SM: [audio cuts] And last question, is this. The youth of that period of belief, they could have impact on society and government policy in the (19)50s (19)60s and (19)70s. Vietnam policy, the draft civil rights legislation, nonviolent protests, multiple months, in other words, a sense of empowering, why is society resisting this today? And why in your words, are the sons and daughters of boomers feel less confident about their ability to have an impact on society? And in some respects, less desire to seemingly less opportunity? Am I wrong in assuming this question? 1:46:30 DB: I think the problem is they turned out to be wrong. So many of them are going back with things like education what are the policies we look at? They thought they could solve poverty in the city, and they could not be now undoing the things that they tried to do to try something else. And we are going to do it with a great deal of trepidation and not going to do it, that same sense of we can change the world. And we will probably do it better. You looked at all the things that they tried to do look at things that, for example, that the baby boomer era created, whether as baby boomers did it or not, they have to reflect a lot longer, maybe even look some stuff up. But questioning whether affirmative action was the way to eradicate racism. Because we have discovered that in many cases, and it is hard to weigh the case in which it does good in the cases in which it does bad. It is exacerbated by the fact that the welfare system that we tried to create did not free people from a downward spiral. Or it did not pre bring people back up, and instead seems to launch them into a multi-generational downward spiral into which situation seems increasingly dire, which we now feel when you come right down to it, but we have too many people in America now that cannot do anything that anybody would pay them the minimum wage for, and that the system is creating more of them. What was question again? I got a little lost. 1:48:26 SM: What was the impact of the Boomers have had and they felt they could change? 1:48:37 DB: They felt they could change the world. And they were wrong. And so, people are kind of stepping out onto the charred ground, it has been left very cautiously and carefully and tried to rebuild something there that will pay more attention to the laws of unintended consequence. And things like- 1:48:59 SM: Do you feel that there is a direct correlation. I went back to the question earlier that the reason why Generation X youth or young adults cannot get involved is because of the examples that have been set by their parents. Whether it be over the kitchen table, or just by observation. 1:49:23 DB: I once again have to take myself out of that, because I did not see that. I do not know. I mean, I go to see a movie like Reality Bites are clueless or whatever. And I do not understand. I do not know what happened. I do not know why those people are the way they are. I do not know if it is a reaction to their parents. I tend to think it is because our whole society lost the ability to transmit its values. And I hope we are getting it back. But this whole the whole lack of knowledge and interest on the part of this generation is-is really appalling. And people are always trying to figure out ways to make excuses for it. I expected to be some kind of, you know, the fireman talks about a back blast when they go into a fire and the fire has gone in a certain direction for a long time. And it gets to be a, an area behind the vacuum, and then suddenly things blast pack into it. I expect we are going to see something like that. And it is going to happen, particularly in regard. I think we already see it happening in regard to spiritual values, kind of so many of these questions you bring up, you could spend an entire chapter on the boomer generation holds up as the great example of what it what was accomplished. It holds up the civil rights revolution as a great example of what can be accomplished, and yet rejects the central religious core of that movement. At least its activists. It is the least as I say, somehow, rather America just continues to be the most religious country in the world. This kind of goes on like some something underwater, a big iceberg underwater. So, you cannot say we have lost that. 1:51:33 SM: I do believe this church attendance was down from like, when-when I was getting the link with the church every Sunday and Sunday school was over. But as I got older, myself, I did not go to church anymore. And a lot of my peers get caught up into that, too. And I am kind of wondering, it was not like the (19)50s. It is fascinating. 1:51:56 DB” I mean, this sort of was my impression, but I am told that if you would look at Gallup Poll asked people what percentage 40 percent went to church, or synagogue last night went to religious services in the previous week, and it is just tasting exactly the same. Just like there is another America out there as we connect with it. Just kind of goes on. 1:52:24 SM: Person in my position to work with student’s day in and day out. And I work with a lot of faculty to work. Frustrated that today's college students love it, they have faith in them, it is not they do not have faith, have you always had faith in young people, you always give them the benefit of the doubt. And but that does not mean that they cannot be constructively criticize the time. And that is that they do not have a sense of history. They, they do not do much reading, they do not really want to understand the past. They only want to deal with the present and really care about the future. But the sense of history and a lot of a boomer faculty, they do not get frustrated with some of their students on some occasion and they go back to when they were asked. And because of those times, we questioned faculty members in the classroom. It was highly interactive, faculty were in the residence halls at that time, there was a linkage between the faculty and then now faculty members do not seem to be linked to students at all. It is I do not know I am trying to get at here and it is somewhat frustrating his friends, absolutely baffling try to see we are trying to see the image of today's students as we were in some respects and that is to challenge a lot of these young people in my opinion do not challenge the system. 1:53:44 DB: But I can tell you that is my impression as well. Correct me even to my-my-my son, his friends. I gave his girlfriend 20 bucks she would she said you know we are reading all these plays and they are just such crap. So why do not you say anything that you say challenge professors. You know, I think this stuff is just by eliminating all the ambiguity and it has come so close to some sort of quasi pornography. Brit modern British theatre, modern British drama. And this is why you might want to get an A and I am already I have a 3.78 grade average and I am getting turned down for interviews because they want people put their grade average I will give you 20 bucks if you stand up and just say one thing because I want to see if anybody else stands up and says the same thing. I want to see what Professor react and nobody joined here, except the one or two students she already knew felt that way. And professor’s kind of matter of fact in class but then when she went into took discuss her paper with women, he reduced her to tears and I think it was educational to do that. 1:55:05 SM: David Are there any other final comments you would like to say? 1:55:14 DB: No, I want to thank you very much for participating in private. No, I think I have had a chance to say pretty much everyone thought that I did not get in, you know, there was a feeling that to some extent, the assassinations, just cauterize everybody's nerve endings, that people did not feel things is profoundly anymore. That you after you have been through the death of John Kennedy, the assassination of Robert did the assassination of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, you-you got to be afraid to hope. And that was another thing that went on was that had a big effect? Hard, hard cremation. 1:56:00 SM: Could you? Just everyone out there? Were you waiting in the room for Bobby Kennedy to go through the pantry there? Because there was no more he made the announcement he told to another group. What does duh. Yes, that is exactly right. There were two ballrooms or four people in each spoke, I think the people who were I do not know how they separate. I think the people the first group were kind of more insiders, although my wife was a precinct cabinet for the time. And we were in the lower ballroom or, and he was going to the pantry to come down there. And it did not come and I just wandered out into the hall. And there were people in the rooms down the hall or watching the whole proceedings on television and went into one and there was a woman just keeled over. She had fallen over in a chair and sobbing uncontrollably. And there was great disturbance and discombobulation in the room. I thought it was over this woman who, you know, is having some perhaps some kind of epileptic fit or diabetic shock. But it was all because they just heard that shot over the television. We did not know it in the big room because televisions were off because he was going to come and speak. But the ambassador just after that, I mean, in that piece I gave you my wife said, you know, part of me died with him. And you guys never she was never able to do enthusiastically support anybody. 1:57:49 SM I have [audio cuts] Many times and I have gone to that spot. 1:57:52 DB: And neither was I- 1:57:55 SM: White crosses there in Arlington. 1:57:57 DB: Well, yeah, it makes me sad though, because the kids that come there, they do not seem to have the same appreciation. I interviewed the guard there. Something like fussy has working to the post from (19)69 to (19)72. Watching. Yeah. So over I have been there for and I remember him today, the kids now they just do not. They do not have they do not understand. And he started to cry. [inaudible] (19)63. So it was not the tenth. 1:58:29 SM: If he gets enough in here to regarding the heroes, that maybe they had heroes, they looked up to sometimes Europe may not be the right word. Think they looked up to John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and some of the other civil rights leaders to like a young man in Java who was other politicians too, that were run. Today, again, it is just a sense that I have there are no people that go for their parents, sometimes I it is interesting. I have had some interviews with students. We interviewed students for positions on our campus within our nations, and specifically asked them who their heroes are. And I thought [inaudible] majority are my sister, me and my upbringing. And my parents divorced. My-my parents, my mom and dad, they may not be both, but it may be one of them. So I find that interesting. And again, this is only about 30 or 40 students. Commentaries, but you never hear oh my heroes Martin Luther King, my hero was John Kennedy, my hero or any of the current leaders. It is just amazing. 1:59:45 DB: Yeah, as an as an editor, I tried to bring back the idea of Return of the hero. I remember back they still have the Lone Ranger on the cover. And inside the head stories that people were getting ready to go to look at heroes, again, Movie Star Wars to come out and set those turning points. But it really has not. I saw US News and World Report tried to do the same article five, five years ago or so. And turned out that heroes, they turned out to be entertainment figures, people who portrayed somebody else. And somebody talking about that was saying so amazing that when they have when they were having hearings in Washington on foreign problems that one of the people had bring in a sissy space because he was in whatever movie that was about the trouble on the farm the fact that we do not have heroes. It is really, really important. 2:00:49 SM: Joe McGuiness wrote a book about [inaudible] Did you read that book? 2:00:53 DB: Yeah. 2:00:55 SM: Talking about Teddy Kennedy segment and we are trying to get through to them for a long time. Bear with me here. [audio cuts] (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 David Boldt Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Boldt, David ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Editors; Journalists; Awards—United States; Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant (Pa.); Iran—History—Revolution, 1979; Boldt, David--Interviews Description An account of the resource David Boldt was editor of the editorial page of <em>The Philadelphia Inquirer</em> and a political columnist for the same paper during the 1980's and 1990's. Boldt won the Pulitzer Prize as a member of the <em>Inquirer</em>'s team that covered a nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island electrical power plant, and received a citation for excellence from the Overseas Press Club for his reporting on the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Boldt has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in interpreting contemporary affairs as an adjunct professor at Temple University in Philadelphia. He earned a bachelor's degree in History from Darthmouth College. 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 ND 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.10.2016.23a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.23b 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. 121:15 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/2ea57eb59a0c65487ac17f3707f6b54c.jpg 9ce45aed36c190df1145e2e5bdcf2dd1 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/e81b37090534585d8e5002bfc39bfef0.mp3 18e428025eefb1ccd9f42b9aaea9b268 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 2010-06-12 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Daniel Bell, 1919-2011 Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Daniel Bell (1919 - 2011) was an American sociologist, writer, editor, and academic, best known for his contributions to the study of post-industrialism. He received his Bachelor's degree at City College of New York and his Ph.D. at Columbia University. Bell became a professor of Sociology at Harvard University, where he remained until 1990.&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}">Daniel Bell (1919 - 2011) was an American sociologist, writer, editor, and academic, best known for his contributions to the study of post-industrialism. He received his Bachelor's degree at City College of New York and his Ph.D. at Columbia University. Bell became a professor of Sociology at Harvard University, where he remained until 1990.</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;The End of Ideology; Baby boom generation; Karl Marx; Anti-War Movement; Sociology; Non-Violent Protest; Wounded Knee Massacre; American Indian Movement; Arguing the World; The Pentagon Papers&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:2,&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:14281427}}">The End of Ideology; Baby boom generation; Karl Marx; Anti-War Movement; Sociology; Non-Violent Protest; Wounded Knee Massacre; American Indian Movement; Arguing the World; The Pentagon Papers</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 90:13 Subject LCSH Sociologists; Authors; Editors; College teachers; Bell, Daniel, 1919-2011--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: Daniel Bell Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 12 June 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:01): All right. I will continue to look at it too, to make sure it is not... Yeah. As a former journalist, some of these I am going to read and then I am just going to prompt you to. As a former journalist and great professor at several prestigious universities, what would you say about the students of the boomer generation? Actually, the students you had in the classroom for many years, those were the students that were born, and propped, and going to college between 1964 until 1981 because the boomer generation is defined as those that were born between 1946 and (19)64. Do you feel positive about that generation as a sociologist and as a person who experienced them in the classroom? Do you feel negative qualities starting? Did they stand out in comparison to your students post boomer, those that were in college in the mid to late (19)80s and beyond? And maybe those before? Any thoughts you have on students from that generation? DB (00:01:11): I think the question is too broad. There is a range of students in every generation. And there is a difference to those who come to me as a teacher and those who simply stay away. So, it is difficult for me to talk about a generation. SM (00:01:42): How about instead of talking about the generation as a whole, how about the students that you experienced? The ones that came to you, the ones that sought your advice, counsel, or you were kind of a mentor to, and they were your mentees? Did you find them very inquisitive? Were they fairly well-read? DB (00:02:21): Excuse me. When you think about particular students rather than generation or range of students... And when I think of a particular set of students, they were all extremely bright, very inquisitive, and somebody eager to challenge me, which I like very much. There is no fun or excitement in simply teaching students when there is an attitude to them, but I like students with whom I can argue with and who can argue with me. And sometimes they argue from the left, sometimes from the right. It varies with the class. And the other thing is that I have always liked teaching with a colleague. At Columbia, I taught several seminars with Lionel Trilling on literature and society. At Harvard, I have taught several seminars with Hilary Putnam, who was a philosopher. SM (00:03:48): Yes-yes. DB (00:03:53): And in one sense, we argued well with one another, as well as with the students. So that there was not any sense that we're setting forth knowledge on high. We were interested in what sort of problems when raising. What we have always started to do is to make distinctions, which override some of the clichés. For example, when I was teaching with Hilary Putnam, we would say that some issues are constitutive and some are intrinsic. People often confuse it too. Sex, for example, is intrinsic because it is based on hormones. Whereas, gender is constructed. It is based on cultural norms and such. And when people talk about sex and gender without making those distinctions, they are confusing people. So, our effort has always been to try to cut through many of the clichés of any of the arbitrary statements, to try to really sort out the actual differences. Sometimes, for example, issues are reductive, meaning that they go from psychology, to biology, to chemistry. Sometimes they are what we call emergent. Maybe they are expanding what they tried to cover. We used to say, for example, what is the most important prefix in the English language? And the answer would be, most important prefix is re. Which you sometimes rearrange. So that you are always reorganizing what you are doing. And therefore, you are making distinctions, which allow people to sort out what is it you are trying to do. SM (00:06:09): What is interesting, just looking at your background and you talk about how important Sydney Hook was. You did not actually have him as a teacher, but he was like, you saw him and what kind of teacher he was with his students, and when he taught in college. And one of the things about the boomers, oftentimes they will say is that the teachers were available to them. We could talk to our teachers, we could talk to our professors. Our professors really encouraged us to go out and listen to people, and different points of view, and had different experience in colleges. And if we were not pushed, maybe we would not have gone and had them. So, there was a closeness. There seemed to be a closeness during the time that the boomers were in college. Closer ties with their faculty members. And again, you liked the students had challenged that. Again, you cannot talk about an entire generation. But the experiences from that period, from say (19)64 to the beginning of when Ronald Reagan became president, that was the time when boomers were in college. And there seems to be not that closeness anymore on college campuses like there was in the past. DB (00:07:27): Depends upon the school. A student from Berkeley, I would say, "Who was your teaching in college?" He said, "Oh, I do not know?" He took all elective courses. So, there would be several hundred students in a course. So, I said, "What is the point of taking such a course?" "Well, we had to." SM (00:07:49): Yes. DB (00:07:49): I think these large elective courses are nonsense because you might as well simply have a recording. And so we play it. It is where there is a possibility of being able to interact with students in seminars and such. And one thing about Sydney Hook as a teacher, as one learned, he was always willing to take opposite points of view just to be able to challenge a student. Was not necessarily his point of view per se, but seemingly he would take an opposite point of view. One of my best students, for example, always acknowledged that fact. Was a man, David Ignatius. I do not know if you know the name? SM (00:08:45): That name does ring a bell. Yes. DB (00:08:46): Well, David Ignatius is a columnist in the Washington Post. SM (00:08:49): Okay. DB (00:08:50): And he was the editor for a while in Paris of the Tribune, owned by the Times. And he would always say, "What I appreciate most about you at seminars, is you made me change my mind. Not that you want to per se, but I was interested in the problem and you began challenging me on this to define it, to organize it. Why are you interested, etc." And he says, "Finally, I changed my mind." He has written about that. He has written several columns about that. SM (00:09:27): He was a student here. He is a boomer probably too, probably during that timeframe. Again, a teacher is very important in the development of student. We always say at orientation and for years, it is very important to find that teacher or a few teachers that will be there for you, you can talk to for advice and counsel. And not only on courses you take, but certainly if any issues come up. Sydney Hook seems to be that the type of person. I remember, I have some quotes in there, I put them in the email that I sent you. I have a question on Sydney Hook toward the end of my... But that is a very interesting point of view that students need to hear the other side, and try to wonder and understand the other side. Do you see that was happening back then in colleges, that a lot of teachers wanted people to hear both sides? Some people today say that it is not the same on college campuses. DB (00:10:39): Again, I cannot generalize on that. I find any generalization rather awkward because the thing I constantly deal with students is to say, you have to make relevant distinctions. What distinctions are you making? So you know what belongs there and what belongs there. And therefore, if you know what distinctions you are making or why you are making them, then you can begin to decide what is relevant, what is not relevant. And so that... SM (00:11:24): You are the author of so many classic books, including the End of Ideology. In just a few words, and it is a broad question again, but what was the main theme of the book? It did look at the (19)50s, when boomers were in elementary school. So, when you are talking about that, the book came out in (19)61, I believe. (19)60, (19)61 and boomers were just going into junior high school at the time. So, you are basically writing about the (19)50s and the late forties. And the change that is happening in our society to the service economy. And could you in your own words, say why you wrote the book, why you felt it was important to write it, and the basic theme? DB (00:12:18): Well, I think the title sums it up. Namely, that ideologies have been fabricated or fixed, instead of usages of concepts. And therefore, the subtopic of the book, if I am not mistaken, is on the exhaustion of ideas in the 1950s. SM (00:12:40): Yes. Yep. DB (00:12:43): So that in one sense, the main target was Marxism used as an ideology. Not the law of Marxism was that, and we were wrong. But those who use Marxism as an ideology, in a sense, would be the target of the book. SM (00:13:03): It's interesting because during the 1960s, as you remember, many of the... Particularly after 1965, (19)66, (19)67 and it was very evident on Columbia's campus in (19)68 with Mark Rudd, that a lot of the students were reading that kind of book. They were reading Miles. Somebody told me people only carried Miles's book just to impress people. They had not really read it. But in terms of, I interviewed Mark Rudd, and Mark Rudd said, "Well, Marx was very important. Many members of the new left were reading that." That way of [inaudible] was very important. Revolutionaries were very important. So, the ending of what you were saying was going on the (19)50s, some of the people in the new left, student leaders of the anti-war movement, were bringing those ideas back. Any thoughts on that? DB (00:14:00): Well, in (19)68, add along and count with Mark Rudd because we have been supporting David Truman with the stipulation that they should not call on the police. Because the police would simply go in and break heads. And I was saying to Mark Rudd, what you are doing is trying to play Truman's game. It came out later, as Mark Rudd himself said, one of the issues was the question of the gymnasium on the Harlem side. And he had never been there. He did not know anything about it. He was using these things simply as tools, props. And that was the main thing I disliked about him. That you were not really arguing a problem. You were not really saying, I believe this. I believe that. But you were using them as a tool. And he was using ideology as a tool because he had a language to impress people, but he never understood what the language itself was. And I would say to him at one point, "Who's Bruno Bauer?" He said, "I do not know." I said, "But you're talking about Marx and not know Bruno Bauer? That Bruno Bauer is one of the people that Marx talks about in the Communist manifesto and one of the chief people between Feuerbach and himself. Do you know who Feuerbach was?" "No, who was it?" And so, there was a complete ignorance there of actualities of ideas. SM (00:16:02): Did you change your opinion of him at all over the years as he's... DB (00:16:07): I have no sense of what he was or what he became. The person who I thought most had been in the new left for a while was Paul Berman. SM (00:16:17): Oh, Paul Berman. Yeah. He wrote a book on Vietnam, I remember. DB (00:16:20): Yeah. He has written several books. He has written one book now recently on Islam and on in the Ideology of Islam. But Paul Berman was a young man who had got to think through, he was a good friend one time of Rudd. But after (19)68, he began moving towards the amicus because they were opposing ideas with which he was unfamiliar and he had to encounter. So I think that Paul Berman was the best person to come out of that movement. And Rudd, probably the worst. SM (00:16:55): Are there any people within that movement, because Mark was just one person, but when you think of the anti-war movement, several people come to mind that were... Tom Hayden or Rennie Davis, David Harris. Of course, Dave Dellinger, William Kunstler, the lawyer. Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin. A lot of different... In fact, Rubin was over at Berkeley for a while and Abbie Hoffman seems to be everywhere. Is there anything in any of those people that you admire? Because they are at the cap, the top of the cap, the top of the pyramid in terms of the names of that era. DB (00:17:50): Well, Hayden had been in the University of Michigan and he came to see me. And clearly in his own mind he was saying, have to choose between C. Wright Mills and Daniel Bell. And he chose C. Wright Mills. Recently, there is a book which has come out by Ki Ochs and Arthur Filleg on Gerth and Mills, which is a devastating book. Reputation and Scholarship, how Mills manipulated Gerth and tried to get credit for the work on Max Weber. But they never knew that. And I have in my book collection of essays are the, which I think one of my favorite books is the... It is a book of essays dealing with technology, and religion, and such. And there is an essay there called From Vulgar Marxism to Vulgar Sociology. And mostly about Mills. And there he was thrashing away with these large scale generalizations and you never knew... Well, how things are going right now. There is a power elite. So, there is no change in the power elite from the beginning of the republic to the end. And he said, but you're talking about power, not about politics, which is the distinctions between people and such. No, I had no respect for Rudd because he wanted to go out and swing at people and have them swing at him. Because he thought, "I am going to be a tough guy and we will get into a fight." Well, you want to get into a fight, get into a fight. But that is not a way of making distinctions or understanding issues. SM (00:19:50): I sense that when you are saying these things and you make very relevant points, and that is knowledge is power. And we say this to students all the time, that if you are going to understand your opponent, you need to read about what the opponent stands for. Do not just attack them based on emotion, but have knowledge with power. Do you think that when you look at the movements that came about after the anti-war movement... The civil rights movement was already taking place, obviously, and it was a role model for the other movements that followed. But the anti-war movement itself... Point I was trying to make here. I am trying to get it right. I lost my train of thought here. The anti-war. Yeah. What were your thoughts on the anti-war movement itself and the people that participated in it? Do you think they were genuine? I know you cannot, again, because you cannot generalize, but when you look at the anti-war movement, you see different segments. You see the religious segment, which was the Catholic. Daniel and Philip Berrigan, the anti-nuclear group. Then you had the students. And then you had people like Benjamin Spock, the doctor. And you had these people coming from all different angles and all different walks of life, and violence was something they all opposed until the Weatherman, the Black Panthers, groups like that came around. Did you admire at least some segments of the anti-war movement, these other movements before they were- DB (00:21:41): I admired most of them because I thought it was genuine. I started out in some sense supporting the government and then turning against it. A group of us wrote a long letter to Lyndon Johnson, as we had contact with a lawyer who worked for Johnson. And he encouraged us the write to Johnson, and he would get Johnson to write a reply, which he did. But we were saying that it is the wrong war, so to speak. Sorry, I am being carried out in the wrong way quite often. So that the man, for example, who had been the senator and now became the head of the new school, had- SM (00:22:39): Kerry. Yeah. DB (00:22:43): ... Sent me to kill people. I knew a bit about the Vietnam War, in a personal sense. My son-in-law was in a Coast Guard in Ensign, and he was patrolling the boats. He was patrolling the rivers. And he would write letters to me or he would come home and talk. DB (00:23:03): ... and he would write letters to me or he would come home and talk. He would say, "We are doing it all wrong." So, I had great respect for many of the people there because their feelings were quite sincere. But no respect for people like Mark Rudd who are manipulative, who are using this as a manipulative issue. There is a man who is been a very good friend of mine, Max Lerner, and he wrote a book with a dreadful title called Ideas Are Weapons. Well, ideas are not weapons, ideas are ideas and you debate ideas. But to say, "Ideas are weapons," is to denigrate ideas and to devalue them. I told Max... he is a wonderful writer, very good columnist for New York Post- SM (00:24:01): Is he? DB (00:24:02): ... taught at Brandeis. I said, "Ideas are not weapons. It is the wrong way to think about it. If they are weapons, you should be using it to smash people, rather than to debate with people." But he thought, and maybe he was right in one sense, if you have a good title, you keep it. SM (00:24:29): That is what book publishers like sometimes titles that would get you to sell your book. Obviously, going beyond Mark Rudd, there was certainly Bernadine Dohrn, another person from the Weathermen, and Bill Ayers who was in the news a lot because he was in front of Bill Clinton. Just your thoughts, when you think about... and even as a historian or as a sociologist teaching classes, my golly, you look at the Civil Rights Movement, you look at the anti-war movement, you look at non-violent protests, you look at the Gandhi philosophy of non-violence. Then all of a sudden in the late (19)60s, because the anti-war movement is getting frustrated, you see a segment trying to turn to violence through the Weathermen. There is always the question, people do not understand whether the Black Panthers were violent or not. But there is the scene of Stokely Carmichael challenging Dr. King, basically telling him, "Your time has passed. Non-violent protest does not work." We had the experience of the students at Cornell walking around with guns, although I do not think they had any intention of using them, they just wanted to use them as a symbol. Then in the American Indian movement, you had Wounded Knee where you went from Attica in 1969 to Wounded Knee in 1973, which was about violence. Seems like violence never wins, does it? As a sociologist, I think you have even said some things about violence is just totally bad. I mean, it only brings enemies rather than supporters. DB (00:26:09): Nonviolence can work only in a society which respects people's ideas. Obviously, nonviolence cannot work in Nazi Germany. They can just go in and smash you. But nonviolence works when people respect ideas and say, "Well, if you're willing to take the stand and be nonviolent, well, then I will respect that." I think that in this country, nonviolent worked. Nazi Germany, it would not. In the Soviet Union, it would not. SM (00:26:50): They would be dead if they did that. DB (00:27:10): The thing which I just dislike most the is that the New Left was taking to the university as the focus of their attacks. Any great university and for a while, Columbia was a great university, respects different points of view. And you cannot destroy a university. But someone like Mark Rudd was ready to destroy the university. Not everyone in that Weatherman group, some of have been students of mine and I knew them very well. They would say to me later on, "You know, you made as read a book, which really shook us up and we would argue about it." I would say, "Yes, I know." This was Dostoyevsky's book, The Demons. Had different titles, but the real title was The Possessed. Well, then The Demons, because it is about his group, followers of Akunin, who created violence. I do not know if you know the book? SM (00:28:29): No, I do not. I- DB (00:28:32): Well, it is one of the great books of its kind. New translation, it is called The Demons. It's one of Dostoyevsky's great books along with Crime and Punishment and Brothers Karamazov. Because it is about a revolutionary group and what happens in the revolutionary group. And they identify very strongly with this and it shook them up. SM (00:29:06): You talk about Marco, what did you think of Mario Savio and Bettina Aptheker, and I think Goldberg led that group that were the student leaders of... Ian Rossman... the student leaders of the student protest movement at Berkeley, the Free Speech Movement. Because they said it was all about ideas, the university should be about ideas, not about corporate takeover of the university. In the very same time, Clark Kerr, then the president, talked about the knowledge factory. Of course, that upsets students because many of the students of that era did not want to be their mom and dad who just never questioned authority, they just put a hat on, like an IBM mentality hat. DB (00:29:55): I came out to Berkeley, I met with [inaudible], (19)64, (19)65 because Clark Kerr wanted me to come the head of the Institute on Labor Relations. So he invited me to come out to Berkeley, talk with him about it, I did. Of course now I was crossing the campus with Marty Lipset. [inaudible]. SM (00:30:18): Oh, yes-yes. DB (00:30:20): A man came running across the campus, said, "Hey, Lipset. We are off of the July Days, we're going on to October." I said, "Who is that?" He said, "Oh, it is that crazy nut, Mario Savio." They had an image of the Russian Revolution. The July Days were the ones when after all, they tried to turn against Kerensky. SM (00:30:40): So, the Free Speech Movement was a- DB (00:30:57): I do not know if you have seen the film Arguing the World? SM (00:30:59): No. Well, maybe I have. But was that a documentary? DB (00:31:05): Well, in a way, yes. I strongly urge you to see the film. It's about four of us from City College and our past live [inaudible]. It is about Irving Howe, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, and myself- SM (00:31:27): Kristol? DB (00:31:27): ... coming out of City College and moving out into the larger society. SM (00:31:31): And that was Seymour Lipset too, right? DB (00:31:35): Lipset was not in this one. SM (00:31:35): So, it was Howe... DB (00:31:37): Howe, Kristol, Glazer, and myself. SM (00:31:39): Okay. DB (00:31:40): There is a text of that that had been put up by the University of Chicago Press, edited by Joseph Dorman who did the film. So you may want to get a copy of the book called Arguing the World. This gives you the debate between the four of us and our friends from City College starting out in (19)38, (19)39 and moving up to the 1970s. Well, it is published by University of Chicago Press, the text of it, and the film itself is very strong in many ways. You can probably call PBS. SM (00:32:30): I can get. You can get anything on the computer if you need access to something. I- DB (00:32:40): The film called Arguing the World and directed by Joseph Dorman, D-O-R-M-A-N. I said, then there's a text of it elaborated, probably find the University of Chicago Press. I would say it would be a rather crucial book for you. SM (00:32:57): I may have... I have so many books. I am amazed that... In fact, I have just been here and I have bought a few books up at Harvard Square. I mean, they have great used bookstores around here. But obviously the Mario Savio and the group at Berkeley in (19)64, (19)65 were not the same as the SDSers and the ones we were talking about at Columbia. But they were the precursors, they were the forerunners for all the movements that followed. They just celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement out there just recently, too. Do you have any high regard for them in terms of the... Because there is quite a few names, the names, because there is like 20 of them that were student leaders. They have gone on in all different directions, some very successful in life. Mario Savio did not live very long. He's passed on. He was not very well for many, many years. There is a new book out on him, too, by Dr. Cohen, I think it is out of NYU. DB (00:34:07): I do not already know the Berkeley people at all. However, there is a long section on Berkeley in this film because of the fact that Glazer was teaching there. There is a woman who comes out attacking Glazer, and it turns out Sam become a member of the city council. SM (00:34:30): Oh my gosh. DB (00:34:34): Excuse me. SM (00:34:34): Yep. I have a couple quotes here that I want you to respond to from your book, The End of Ideology. Here is one quote... Oh, there's three of them and you can respond as a group. Quote number one: "We have seen the exhaustion of the 19th century ideologies of Marxism as intellectual movements that explain the truth." Well, you have already even referenced to that a little bit. Number two: "Many intellectuals have begun to fear the masses or any form of social action." I find that because when you look at the masses and social action, that is a lot of what the (19)60s was about. Then the third one, and I love this one and I hope I can somehow remember this forever. It was a quote, I think it came either you or [inaudible], "The difference between capitalism and communism: capitalism is system where man exploits a man and communism is vice versa." Now I hope I can remember that because that is a classic. When I read that, I said, "That is something, Steve, you ought to remember." But I wanted your thoughts here because when you look about the masses, whether the elite phrase of the masses or whatever, when you think of the Vietnam War and you think of the movements, they were about masses of people. The Montgomery Boycott with was about a mass of African Americans who said that, "We're not going to ride the buses." The 1963 March on Washington was a mass gathering where Dr. King gave his famous speech. You had the Black Panthers, you had these other groups, the Young Lords, the American Indian Movement, the National Organization for Women, the anti-war movement, the Earth Day group, the gay lesbian groups from Stonewall, and of course, the Black Panthers. These were all masses. These are masses of people. So, if what you are saying here is that many intellectuals have begun to fear the masses or any form of social action. How do you respond to that? Because that is what the (19)60s are really all about, and early (19)70s. DB (00:36:52): Well, different periods of time having the keyword. Nobody, today uses the word masses. At one time you had a magazine called The New Masses, which was the communist magazine, edited by Mike Gold and Joseph Freeman. Ortega y Gasset had a book about the masses, the famous Spanish [inaudible]. It is a word which has now gone out of relevance, partly because it never had a defined meaning, who were the masses. In some ways, Ortega's book, and he was after one of the most important philosophers of the (19)20s and such, were the scientists, which was is strange. But the word masses has gone out of fashion. Today you have race, gender, and equality. If you look through a period of the (19)50s and (19)60s, I do not think you will ever find the word gender. It was not a term that was used then. But now, gender became an important word to define the women's movement. You did not have a woman's movement then. Most of the movements in the (19)50s and (19)60s were led by men and you had very few women. In fact, the women were complaining they had to do the dirty work, cleaning up and such. Today, gender became a key word. The question is always when and where are keywords used and why. As I say, gender becomes important because it symbolizes the nature of the women's movement and women's rights. Nobody in that period of time, let us say of Mark Rudd, would ever think of gender. It was not within the framework they are thinking. So, masses disappears. And one of my books has a long essay on nature of masses, maybe in The End of Ideology or some other books. SM (00:39:12): This is another very important quote that... I have a lot of your quotes here, but... "A society is most vigorous..." This is very important, and I wish people would read this today. We maybe could get along better. "A society is most vigorous and appealing when both partisans and critics are legitimate voices in the permanent dialogue that is the testing of ideas and experiences. One can be a critic of one's country without being the enemy of its promises." That is prophetic. In my view, if the people that were either leading the country during the Vietnam War, the divisions over civil rights, if they sat down and discussed these two quotes and just the importance of opposing points of view... They are important in your eyes, are not they? DB (00:40:05): I would say this, that certain statements are derivative of their time and relevant to their time and certain statements transcend that. The one you have given me now, I would say transcends the nature of time. It is a permanent situation in any society where there are differences of opinion. I cannot think of any society, unless it is a totalitarian society, where you do not have differences of opinion. So, if you have differences of opinion, you have to respect the differences. I think one of the important things about this society is that it goes back in the very beginning of society, one of the things I used to say, I am not sure I could pinpoint where I said it exactly, is that until World War II, we never had a state in this country, we had government. You had states in Europe. Because these were unitary elements, were pulled alongside together. We only began to have a state where we got involved in war where you had to pull a pieces of society together. You had a government, and a government is different between a government and the state. Hegel used the word state, but not government, you see? I do not think if you ever go back and look at the writings of John Quincy Adams or Thomas Jefferson, they ever used the word state. They never thought of the United States as a state, even though the various states, the 13 states that made up a union. But it was not a state in Hegelian sense of unitary focus. We had a government, not a state. We began to have a state during World War II when we had to pull the society together and organize an army. We never had much of a standing army. A state has a large standing army. We never had a large standing army until World War II. Even afterwards, we still never had a large standing army. SM (00:42:30): Then, of course, we fought the Civil War and constantly, it was all about the union. It was the union, South and North. But we preserved the union. DB (00:42:40): It was a war between states. SM (00:42:47): Yes. DB (00:42:48): There was not gestalt, you see? SM (00:42:55): Yeah. Again, you had mentioned Mr. Berman, but are there any other people that you truly respected. We are talking about here, about, one can be a critic of one's country without being the enemy, I think there were many people did not understand that in the (19)60s and early (19)70s. Because you had even Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, two different Presidents, but very distrustful, opposing points of view of their policies. DB (00:43:24): But people forget that are not domestic issues, they are both fairly alike. Then Johnson built The Great Society, which was Medicare and extensive social security. Nixon tried to do that with Pat Moynihan as his advisor. But both got trapped by foreign policy. Therefore, the domestic agenda was pretty much eclipsed or simply laid low. But we forget that there is a domestic agenda in both cases, even with Nixon. Of course, with Pat Moynihan there as Nixon's advisor, there was an emphasis on the family and strengthening the family. I mean, the whole point of Pat Moynihan advice of Nixon is, one of the problems is that the Blacks in this country never had much of a family. They had been slaves or they dispersed. Therefore... I was on six to eight government commissions. The most important one was on technology and automation. Robert Robert Stovall and I directed most of the reports, one called Technology and American Economy. People do not know, do not remember or do not think about it, that one most important situation in increasing productivity in this country, particularly in late 1930s, 1940s, which was chemical fertilizers. Chemical fertilizer increased the productivity on the land. Before World War II, one of the bad, major social issues in this country was sharecroppers. People did not even know the word sharecropper, but these were people like the Blacks who lived on the land and with the chemical fertilizers, they were not needed. So they moved up North, they went to Watts in Los Angeles or to Harlem or Chicago. People say, "Look at all those Blacks that are unemployed." Well, they were never employed. There were sharecroppers on the land. Chemical fertilizers increased productivity enormously and pushed the Blacks off the land and moved them up... and pushed the Blacks off to land and moved them up north. Black became an issue in the north because of this. Great people understand, I know this, you see, because the Blacks had never been there, except in Harlem, had never been there in large numbers before. But the chemical fertilizers pushed them off the land. And what also happened is that the chemical fertilizers polluted many of the lakes and rivers. SM (00:46:28): That is right. DB (00:46:29): And created a social cost, which regular people had understood, because it was not there before, but the pollution in the lakes and rivers came from the chemical fertilizers, which increased [inaudible] society. So, you have the double edge of it. SM (00:46:47): It is amazing. Of course, the Hudson River is one of those rivers that was... Now, it is getting back to normal. I think they have been trying to work on it for years. Let make sure I switch the side here. I cannot even see how far we have got to go here. Yeah, I am going to... Make sure it's working okay. All right. In your opinion, when did the (19)60s begin and when did it end? DB (00:47:26): I have never liked the idea of dating particular periods of time as if there were unitary elements. They were not. It is part of our nature of a journalistic society where you have to have a label or something. So, you talk about the (19)60s, the (19)70s, the (19)80s. So many things were happening in each of them. There were so many cross currents. So, to talk about the (19)60s, as if there is something unitary about it, it is never made much sense. So, I cannot respond to the question, because I do not understand it as a question. SM (00:48:03): That applies to all the decades. Even people when they say that the (19)80s was Reagan. There is more than Reagan then. DB (00:48:13): Well, any period of time has many cross currents, so that, it seems to me, it makes no sense we have to talk about these (19)60s, and these (19)70s, and the (19)80s. What happened between 1975 and 1980. Do you know? SM (00:48:29): Between (19)75 and (19)80? Yeah, that was the year of the disco. DB (00:48:35): I am trying to show you that, what if you were breaking the thing down? What happened between 1975 and 1980, suddenly you find yourself a little wobbly. SM (00:48:43): Yeah, I know that the Iran hostage crisis was in (19)79 and that ruined Carter. Carter had problems with gasoline and all that other stuff. I could write them down, but you got to think a little bit. DB (00:49:01): I was an advisor to Carter. There's a book which came out recently about the Carter administration and the famous malaise speech of his. And Chris [inaudible], and we were both in the White House with dinner with Mr. Carter, and I respected Carter. People forget that Carter originally was an engineer. He claims a graduate of the Naval Academy, meaning he was a peanut farmer, but he was an engineer, and he had a very good rational mind, but he was caught by the circumstances, particularly by the Iran hostage situation. SM (00:49:41): Yeah. When you think of, again, the presidents that were in charge, supposedly, when the Boomers have been in line, that includes anybody from Harry Truman to Obama, do you pin any of them as greater than the others in terms of what they have done for [inaudible]? DB (00:50:03): Depends upon what issue you are thinking about. There are many different issues and many different circumstances. After all, Lyndon Johnson is defined very largely by the Vietnam War, which is true in the sense of, this was a major concern. But at the same time, they were building the Great Society Program, which people then tend to diminish or forget, and forget the people who served him. My friend Charles Haar at Harvard Law School, was very much in charge of the Cities Program and the Metropolitan Program. And they were very important people and who were very-very good, but they were diminished by the attention to the Vietnam War. SM (00:51:06): You wrote in your book... What is the basic theme of your book, the coming of the post-industrial society? And as an added note, are you the person that really came up with that term? It was Professor Bell. We never thought of that term until Professor Bell wrote about it in his book. DB (00:51:31): Well, no term ever comes cleanly out. David Riesman used the term at one point, much earlier, but it was never picked up, never done. There was a man in France who did a book on post-industrial society. But I was talking about two different things. One was the move away from manufacturing to services. The services were not simply the McDonald's hamburger kind of thing, but research services, there is other forms of service to the economy, and the word post-industrial was simply to indicate we are going beyond that. But the more important dimension of it was the development of the theoretical knowledge and the reliance on theoretical knowledge, and that many of the things we think about, we derive with theoretical knowledge. Let me give you an example. You know what a laser is? SM (00:52:36): Mm-hmm. DB (00:52:37): What is a laser? SM (00:52:39): Well, a laser a sends a beam. It is a beam of light. DB (00:52:45): Well, how is it different from other beams of light? SM (00:52:48): How is it different from other... I would think there would be intensity that you could control. DB (00:52:54): No. SM (00:52:55): No? DB (00:52:57): The laser goes back to a paper by Einstein in 1904, 1905, that light is not just a wave, but light is a quanta, a pulse. Laser is an acronym. Do you know what the laser means? SM (00:53:10): Mm-mm. DB (00:53:12): Light amplified by simulation of the emission of radiation, L-A-S-E-R. [inaudible] Charles Townes at Columbia in 1939. It's a different way of focusing light through the emission of radiation. So, it changes the plutonium view of light as a wave. And you have to know the theoretical foundations. That is Einstein to Charles Townes. And the word laser is an acronym. Light amplified by the simulation of the emission of radiation, L-A-S E-R. SM (00:53:51): When Clark Kerr gave that famous speech about the knowledge factory, you're talking about the post-industrial society, that is an important part of it, isn't it? The university is a knowledge factory and that is what- DB (00:54:02): Well, I do not like the word factory. SM (00:54:05): He wrote that in the uses of the university. DB (00:54:07): I know, but it's not a factory. A factory is organized about particular things. The thing about knowledge is, it is very diffused. You never know where it is going to come from, where it's going to go. So, I say the paper by Einstein in 1904 is a foundation of the laser along with many other things. But it went from Einstein to Charles Townes who was then a physics professor at Columbia who created the laser. And with a laser, you can send a beam to the moon. You can also do an operation on the eye. It is the use of light in a different way by the simulation of the emission of radiation, L-A-S-E-R. SM (00:54:51): That is what you mean by the codification of theoretical knowledge. DB (00:54:55): Yes. Exactly. Exactly. SM (00:54:58): You also said something very profound too in this book. And again, I have only read a couple chapters, that the growing tension between equality and meritocracy is something a social and ethical issue of the century. Now, that is pretty prophetic as well, because there's obviously been that... The whole, Dr. King, the (19)50s and the (19)60s short equality, not only African-Americans, people of color, women's, gay and lesbian in a double thing- DB (00:55:32): Well, people do not know who it was who invented the word meritocracy and what it meant. Actually, it was a word invented by a man named Michael Young, who was an Englishman who had been, at a one point, the head of the Labor Party research department. And he used the word meritocracy. In one sense, Jefferson used the same term without calling it meritocracy, namely, opportunities of men of talent to arise rather than birth. Before that, your status in society was based upon birth. And you inherited a piece of land, you inherited if a factory, you inherited a practice as a dentist. But Jefferson said, we want to have this open to men of talent, not just birth. Michael Young, when he did the book on the meritocracy, and he used the term... first one to use the term meritocracy, however, pointed out that there was a negative sense of meritocracy. And to some extent, I have understood that. His notice of the negative sense was, you longer had excuses to be where you were. You had no meritocracy. If you were in a low position in society, you were there because you had no merit. And therefore, meritocracy kept people down as well as moving people up. So, the idea of... When I was [inaudible] phrase a just meritocracy. I have always used the phrase, a just meritocracy, never meritocracy by myself. Because meritocracy also pushes people down. You have no excuses to be where you are, because you have no merit. But Michael Young was a very stimulating person, extraordinary man. SM (00:57:38): When was he alive? Or when was his heyday, so to speak? DB (00:57:43): Well, his main contribution came after World War-War II when he wrote most of the Labor Party documents. I spent the year with Michael Young in the Center for Advanced Studies. SM (00:58:00): Oh, in Princeton? DB (00:58:01): No, in Palo Alto in 1958, (19)59. And I wrote an... a collection of Michael Young's essays published by [inaudible]. And I wrote the introduction to that. And people right now no longer know Michael Young. He became Lord Young of Darlington and there's a Young Foundation in England. SM (00:58:38): There were two books that came out in the late (19)60s that were very popular with the young people. And they kind of explained the Counter Culture, and the different kinds of consciousness that was going on, the changes that were happening. As a sociology, I do not know if you ever assigned them to your students, but what were your thoughts of the Greening of America by Charles Reich? And the second one was The Making of a Counter Culture by Theodore Roszak. Those were very major books. I will add though, that Erick Erickson also wrote several books on protests and descent around that time, and so did Kenneth Keniston. So, when you think of that period, say from (19)67 to (19)73, (19)74, those are major, major writers? DB (00:59:27): Well, the two books you mentioned are forgotten, and rightly so. They are very slim books and very thin books. They were coining phrases, not really making an argument, particularly the Reich book. Whereas Erickson and Keniston, they were more serious people, particularly Erickson, of course. There's also a man in Harvard named Murray who invented The Thematic Apperception Test. But the Greening of America, it is a phrase, it is a title. It is not a theme or an argument. And The Making of a Counter Culture, well, where is the Counter Culture now? SM (01:00:16): I know in graduate school it was required reading. We had to read it. It had different levels of consciousness. And Dr. Roszak, I guess has just retired from University of California, Hayward. And he just wrote an update to it, as people are becoming senior citizens, The Making of a Counter Culture, where are they now kind of a book. But to you, they are not major at all? DB (01:00:45): No. SM (01:00:48): As a group of 75 million Boomers, how do Boomers fit into your definition of the post-industrial society? DB (01:00:58): Well, I find that too loose a generalization. Among 75 million, there must be about 70 million different opinions. So, I cannot respond to a question so loose as that. SM (01:01:14): Do you think that, this is a question I have asked everybody though, that because there were so many divisions in America and during that timeframe because of the Vietnam War, those who supported the troops, those who were against the troops, supported the war, against the war, divisions between Black and white. I was on college campus when those divisions were intense, certainly that the other divisions that were happening in America at that time. Do you think that this has permanently affected the generation, the Civil War generation, that they will go to their graves with not coming to terms with some of the divisions that they experienced in their lives? And I preface this by saying that we asked this question to Senator Edmund Muskie when we took a group of students to Washington DC in 1995, because the students who were not alive in the (19)60s wanted to find out if he had his thoughts on what they had read in their classes, that the nation was on the verge of the second civil war, that all the things that they had seen in 1968 at the Democratic Convention, and the assassinations, and the president resigning, and riots and burnings and everything, wanted to know if that would have had a permanent effect on the generation which was their parents. DB (01:02:40): Well, again, I think of the whole statement, two set of loose terms, the verge or the verge [inaudible] the case and civil war between whom and whom? Again, these are phrases, not ideas. SM (01:02:59): But the healing though, that is really with respect to those who served in the war, the Vietnam veterans and those who protested the war, some of them may have issues as they move on. DB (01:03:15): Well, there is one woman who changed so much of this. You know who that would be? SM (01:03:22): One woman who changed... DB (01:03:24): All these perceptions. SM (01:03:28): No. DB (01:03:29): Her name is Maya Lin. SM (01:03:31): Oh, yes. Oh, yeah. The wall. DB (01:03:36): Suddenly you have a very different feeling about the war when you see all those names on the wall. When she first proposed the wall, Bill Buckley said, "This is dreadful. We do not want this modernist stuff. Why do not we have a traditional thing?" So, most people do not realize, if you go look at the wall, that next to is a man on a horse, a traditional statue, which supposed to symbolize, you see, the Vietnam War, which nobody even looks at. SM (01:04:05): You are talking about the Three Man Statue? DB (01:04:07): Hmm? SM (01:04:08): The Three Man Statue, you are talking about? DB (01:04:10): I do not remember what it is. SM (01:04:11): Yeah. DB (01:04:12): But Maya Lin's wall suddenly became the symbol, and suddenly gave a sense of appreciation of the names of these people. SM (01:04:28): You find it interesting it took the Vietnam veterans to take the lead on the monument issue, because there had been no World War II Memorial, there had been no Korean War Memorial. There really had not been a World War I Memorial. And now, there is the World War II, there's the Korean... They have kind of taken a lead in that area. DB (01:04:47): And the Roosevelt Memorial. SM (01:04:48): Yes, the Roosevelt, and now the Martin Luther King. DB (01:04:50): Quite late. SM (01:04:51): Yes. And then the MLK Memorial, which is being built right now. Jan Scruggs wrote the book To Heal a Nation. That was his book. DB (01:05:01): Who? SM (01:05:02): Jan Scruggs, the founder of the Vietnam Memorial. And the goal of his effort to get the wall built was to heal the veterans and their families, and to pay respect to those, but in some sense, to also help the nation heal from the war. And I will respond that Edmund Muskie, he did not even mention 1968 in his response. His response was, we have not healed since the Civil War and in the area of race. And then he went on to talk about that for the next 15 minutes. And then he said, and by the way, we almost lost an entire generation of Americans when 430,000 men died. The effect that this had on future generations of America, it was devastating. DB (01:06:01): I am beginning to fade. SM (01:06:03): Okay, I got, all right, maybe three more questions? DB (01:06:07): Well, go ahead. SM (01:06:11): See if I can cut this down. I guess maybe what I will do, instead of asking these specific questions, I will just mention some of the personalities of the period and just give you... Because you had strong feelings toward Mark Rudd and others. And I to usually end my interviews by as listing about 20, 25 names, people just give a quick response to them, in terms of that period. For the following people, just your thoughts on the following people mean to you. Tom Hayden? DB (01:06:55): A crooked man. Look at the film Argue in the World. There's interviews with-with Hayden there, you will see what I mean. SM (01:07:05): How about Jane Fonda? DB (01:07:08): Rather forlorn personality. SM (01:07:11): Rennie Davis. DB (01:07:14): No one will ever know that name again. SM (01:07:17): Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. DB (01:07:21): Two clowns. SM (01:07:23): Timothy Leary. DB (01:07:27): Worse than that. A man who would destroy himself. SM (01:07:36): Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. DB (01:07:39): Decent man, was unfairly roughed up by the Nixon administration. SM (01:07:49): Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. DB (01:07:53): Decent men, particularly McCarthy. McGovern, I support McGovern when he ran, because my colleague, Irving Kristol, supported Nixon, but both decent men, but not major figures. SM (01:08:11): How about John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy? DB (01:08:17): John Kennedy was a personal force, but never had sufficient weight of ideas. But we never had a chance to find out. Robert Kennedy, such a mixture of things. He worked for Nixon. One time was pretty much on the right and on the left. You never knew, in a sense, what the man was about. And he died too soon. SM (01:08:50): How about Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. DB (01:08:54): Well, Nixon was a very clever man, very shrewd man in his way. Spiro Agnew was a complete crook.... way, could describe as a complete crook. SM (01:09:04): LBJ and Hubert Humphrey. DB (01:09:08): LBJ was a very good man. Could have been a great man, but was trapped by the Vietnam War. Hubert Humphrey was a very nice man, but not an intellectual. He wanted to be an intellectual, but never was. And that was his problem. SM (01:09:28): Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. DB (01:09:31): Well, Gerald Ford was a decent man and he played a decent role when he was in the White House. I think Jimmy Carter was very much underrated. And his work after he left office, and going around the world and such, been very important work. SM (01:09:51): How about George Bush Number 1 and Ronald Reagan. DB (01:09:57): George Bush Number 1 was a fairly good politician, and as a political person, played out a good role. Ronald Reagan, I have never understood, really have never understood, because he is a man who responds to cue cards. But he does is very well. I have never understood the adulation for Reagan or what achievements were supposed to have been. I think what he did do, in a way, was to take the country, which felt very guilty by the Vietnam War, and got the country to put it all aside for a while. SM (01:10:45): Well, Bill Clinton and George Bush the Second. DB (01:10:50): Clinton was a very good politician, very shrewd, very smart, but never wholly consistent. George Bush the Second, to me, was a cipher, a little cipher, and in many ways a very unfortunate president. Particularly by letting Cheney do so much behind the scenes. SM (01:11:22): Of course, President Obama and Dwight Eisenhower. DB (01:11:26): Well, I think Obama has great potential. His books of wonderful books, great sense of feeling, but he has not had that much of a chance, now, to really bring it out. Eisenhower was a man who was underrated. He was very good, very shrewd, but he was shrewd enough to appear not to be shrewd. SM (01:11:52): How about Harry Truman, because he was the very first president for the movers. DB (01:11:58): I would say Truman was, again, underappreciated. He was a very good president, most importantly, because like Nixon, he knew how to choose good people around him. SM (01:12:10): Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, people who stood out for the Women's Movement. DB (01:12:20): Gloria Steinem was a great publicity hound, and very shrewd at that. Bella Abzug, again, she was defeated by Pat Moynihan, and eclipsed by him. SM (01:12:38): Mm-hmm. DB (01:12:41): And who was the third one you mentioned? SM (01:12:44): Oh. It was Betty Freidan, Bella Abzug, and Gloria Steinem. DB (01:12:49): Well, Betty Friedan was important because she was able to re-focus attention on the nature of the Women's Movement, and the Women's Movement's role. But, essentially, it was the ability to put forth an issue rather than anything else. Gloria Steinem always took issues. People forget that one time she worked for the CIA. SM (01:13:15): I did not know that. DB (01:13:16): Yeah. SM (01:13:16): Oh, my God. DB (01:13:17): She and Clay Felker. When the CIA was setting up movements to oppose communist fronts, she worked for the CIA at one time. And then, she married Mort Zuckerman. We could go to any lengths to see how weird this woman is. SM (01:13:37): How about Malcolm X and Dr King. DB (01:13:43): Malcolm X became important because King was killed. And his rhetoric was, for a while, very strong. But after a while people realized it was rhetoric. King had a strength of personality, but people forget, he was also plagiarist. SM (01:14:08): That is come out recently from- DB (01:14:10): Came out sometime ago. SM (01:14:12): Clayborne Carson, or... DB (01:14:13): Sometime ago. But that famous speech of his, it was ad hoc. "I have a dream." SM (01:14:23): He did use that in some of his sermons before, too. It was an ad hoc, but he had used that phrasing in some of his sermons. DB (01:14:31): No. He was very shrewd in terms of knowing when to put forth certain ideas and certain rhetoric. And he was able to take advantage of it. SM (01:14:40): During that period, you had the Big Four. And I do not think you have seen anybody since. The Big Four, which was James Farmer, Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young, and Dr King. That was a powerful portion of this. DB (01:14:51): Well, I knew Farmer quite well. He was a good man, but never had real strength behind him. Wilkins is a very, very good man. Wilkins is a real intellectual among them, in a way. Who was the fourth? SM (01:15:05): Whitney Young, and Dr King. You already mentioned [inaudible]. DB (01:15:11): Whitney Young was a good leader of NAACP, for groups for that kind, but, except for the last one, never played a national role. But Roy Wilkins, particularly in terms of Washington politics, played a much more important role. SM (01:15:28): How about Muhammad Ali and Jackie Robinson, because they were monumental people-people. DB (01:15:33): Well, I have never been a fan of boxing, so I cannot talk about Muhammad Ali. Jackie Robinson was an extremely good baseball player and deserved, in that sense, his fame. SM (01:15:52): And then, the Black Panthers. And I have to admit, because there is [inaudible]. DB (01:15:54): The Black Panthers were a dreadful movement, in which the one-time Horowitz, was-was right wing, wrote about the Black Panthers. They were dreadful people in terms of people they killed and the people they tried to support, and such. SM (01:16:20): There is- DB (01:16:20): I think the Black Panthers did more to destroy the Black movement then almost anything else. SM (01:16:26): Yeah. I will mention, though, that there are six big personalities that stand out here. And of course, it is Bobby Seal, Huey Newton, Eldridge Cleaver, Kathleen Cleaver, Etta Brown, and Stokely Carmichael. And Nate Hilliard is another one. Elaine Brown. They are big names. DB (01:16:46): Well, they are all names. Cleaver, however, as you know, went overseas, and then turned the other way. Went over to the right. SM (01:16:54): Right. DB (01:16:57): Bobby Seal. Well, one has to distinguish those people built up by the press and by the need for certain individuals to build up people like that, from their actual accomplishments. SM (01:17:12): Forget Mark Rudd, here. What did you think of Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, because they were the weatherman? DB (01:17:18): Well, Dorhrn was a dreadful person, the way she, at one point, approved of the Manson killing. They stuck a fork in a woman. Oh, yeah. I think she is a dreadful person. SM (01:17:41): How about George Wallace? DB (01:17:44): Who? SM (01:17:44): George Wallace. DB (01:17:46): You mean from the south? SM (01:17:47): Yes. DB (01:17:47): Well- SM (01:17:49): He was in the elections there, a couple times. DB (01:17:50): He was a southern politician, and a bad one. And he was very dangerous for the country. SM (01:17:56): How about Barry Goldwater and William Buckley, these real strong conservatives. DB (01:18:00): Well, Goldwater, for his time, was a fairly good man. But then, other than the phrases that he used when he ran for President, had no real substance. Buckley was an incredibly shrewd man, and incredibly good at publicity, debate, and very effective. Had respect for Buckley. SM (01:18:35): And then, the last thing is just these terms or these events. What did Woodstock and the Summer of Love mean to you? DB (01:18:46): Again, these are media terms built up by attention by the media. And Woodstock, somebody gave a phrase. The Summer of Love, people would not even understand what it means anymore. One has to distinguish between media-built sensations and actual movements. And I do not think either Woodstock or so-called Summer of Love, the hate Asbury kind of thing- SM (01:19:13): Mm-hmm. DB (01:19:15): ... are real movements. These were media events. SM (01:19:18): How about Watergate? DB (01:19:25): Watergate was an actuality, and proved how duplicitous Nixon and his camp could be. SM (01:19:39): The other thing I mentioned was just the term, counterculture. What does counterculture mean to you, and communes? DB (01:19:45): Nothing anymore. SM (01:19:46): Communes. DB (01:19:48): Nothing anymore. SM (01:19:49): A couple who have gone on to be fairly successful. Woodward and Bernstein. They are thought to have changed the way journalism was. DB (01:19:58): Yes. I think it did change, in a way, but more so again, as a media event than actuality. And best illustration, the Times never became a Woodward and Bernstein kind of paper, became a sober-grade paper, as it should be. SM (01:20:23): How about the Vietnam Veterans against the War? DB (01:20:28): No understanding of that. SM (01:20:31): The American Indian Movement? DB (01:20:33): Again, no understanding of it. I do not even know what it is. I know what the term is supposed to say, but I do not know what it means. SM (01:20:41): The Young Lords were the Latino version of the Black Panthers. They were big in Philadelphia. DB (01:20:49): Again, I have no sense of what all that is anymore. SM (01:20:53): And the National Organization for Women, as a group? DB (01:20:56): A what? SM (01:20:57): Now. DB (01:20:58): Again, no feeling for what it means. SM (01:21:03): And the Equal Rights Amendment. That failed, but there was strong attempts for it. DB (01:21:13): What rights do you want? When you say equal rights, there is no specification of, what rights do you want? Again, one has to distinguish between a mood, a movement, and actuality, and as all these things roll together. SM (01:21:33): And the year 1968, which is a traumatic year, which included Tet. DB (01:21:40): Well, again, I do not like such terms. I do not think they are useful, at all. I think they obscure more than they help. SM (01:21:53): This might be a general question, too, but you are a scholar, you are a writer, and you have written about periods, you wrote, in the 1950s, The End of Ideology. Do you think that a person like you, 50, 60 years from now, when most of the Boomers have gone on to higher Up, let us not even talk about what they are going to say about the Boomers? What are they going to say about young people and the people that grew up after World War II? What would the legacy be of that period, that many believe is a period of disruption and change? DB (01:22:30): Well, what's interesting to me is how quickly so much of that gets obscured now by the Muslim problem. Suddenly, the Muslim problem's everywhere. Paul Burner writes a book attacking a Muslim thinker, and the papers are full of arguments about that. Suddenly, that obscures everything else before. Beginning of the year 2000, the Times Literary Supplement published a list of the most important books of the last 50 years, or more. And two of my books were listed, The End of Ideology and The Cultural Context of Capitalism. Two books by Isaiah Berlin were listed. Two books by Belinda Orange. David Reisman and Ken Cavalharad had only one book listed. SM (01:23:28): Wow. DB (01:23:28): So, if you look at the Times Literary of Supplement, which afterward, was one of the most important intellectual journals, they list the most important books. But who would know that, Isaiah Berlin, Cavalharad, and myself, the only ones who had two books listed. SM (01:23:42): What an honor, though. What an honor. This book is a classic book. I have actually encouraged people to read it, right now, The End of Ideology. I think it is great. DB (01:23:54): Well- SM (01:23:56): I think it is got so much context. And when I was reading it, and when I read it a long time ago, because it was linked to a class, but now I am reading it, I can enjoy it more, and I can take a chapter, and I can take a page, and I can take an idea, and just stop and try to understand it more, rather than rushing it for a class, which I had to do when I was much younger. But it was very good. My very last question is this. And I thank you very much for spending this time with me. And I truly appreciate I it. It is an honor to meet you. The (19)50s, you were a journalist in the very beginning of your career, and then, you became a professor. But I was curious of what you thought about television and the television media. Because the young people that grew up after World War II, TV was what replaced the radio. And, of course we knew about the Vietnam War through television more than any other war. The question is, do you think that describe the (19)50s television, particularly when this generation was younger in the (19)50s, (19)60s, and (19)70s, really is exemplary of the times they were living in? Can I just put mention these? When you look at the (19)50s, now, this is a little boy. I am remembering now, me as a little boy watching TV near Ithaca, New York. I can remember seeing Victory at Sea, Hopalong Cassidy, watching Walt Disney, Edward R Murrow, I loved him, Arthur Godfrey, I know my parents loved him, and Art Linkletter's House Party, those things kind of stand out, and all the westerns, of course. Then, you get into the (19)60s, and the things that stand out more was TV shows like Laugh-In. You see more and more Black artists. Vietnam War's on TV, the Smothers Brothers seemed to be highly unusual, and All in the Family was something that stood up for the (19)70s. I guess, the question I am asking is this, how has TV influenced the young people of that grew up after World War II? And do you believe that the television and journalism as a whole in the 1950s hid some of the realities of the bad things that were happening in America, right up to the time President Kennedy was elected? DB (01:26:28): Let me put it this way. I think what TV did was to make us aware of a visual culture. Now, it is interesting that there was something before that, which was very visual, but never had that effect. And that was photography. Photography was about a hundred years old by the time of TV. But photography never had that much of an effect. There are great photographers like Steichen, and others, very great photographers. But it never had a mass effect the way TV did. And what TV did was to move, radio did not disappear, radio, in fact, flourished to when people used their cars more. Because when you drove your car, you put on the radio. But it made us predominantly a visual culture, and gave us a sense of the impact of things. Because what it did is allow us to visualize things. So, yes, it has it changed the way the Gutenberg press changed the nature of culture of its own time. Do you know who the Cuopisei were? SM (01:27:40): The who? DB (01:27:40): Cuopisei? SM (01:27:40): How do you spell that? DB (01:27:52): C-U-O-P-I-S-E-I. SM (01:27:52): No. DB (01:27:58): The Cuopisei were all the people thrown out of work by the Gutenberg Press. They were the copyists. Before the Gutenberg, people had books, but they were done by copyists. And Thomas Carlisle wrote a wonderful book about this. But the first technological unemployment were really the copyists, because people had books, but they were copies written out by people who were paid to copy a book. For the Gutenberg Press, you had moveable type. And therefore, you can do away with the copyist. In some way, TV had an impact the way the Gutenberg people did. And the contrast, I would say, is with photography, as you had to the copyists before with the Gutenberg Press. You had photography before, but never had that kind of impact the way television did. SM (01:28:58): One last thing I forgot to mention. What were your thoughts of Kent State and Jackson State? DB (01:29:02): About what? SM (01:29:04): Kent State and Jackson State in 1970. That was such a tragic event. DB (01:29:08): Well, these were horrible events, and rightly so. But there you see the impact was due to photography, the image of the young woman- SM (01:29:24): Yes. DB (01:29:24): ... and the man being shot. There, it was not television, but photography, which became important. SM (01:29:31): Are there any final thoughts you have in terms of, I am writing about Boomers, and we have hit a lot of different areas here. And you have hit different angles that other people have not hit, in terms of ideas and what you have written, and so forth. But is there any- DB (01:29:50): I would hope never to have final thoughts. I would be able to go on and on and on and on. SM (01:29:55): Is there any question I did not ask that you thought I might ask? DB (01:29:58): No. SM (01:29:58): No. DB (01:30:00): You have been very comprehensive. SM (01:30:02): Well, thank you very much, professor. It is an honor, an honor indeed. And I am going to take- (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. Daniel Bell Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Bell, Daniel, 1919-2011 ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Sociologists; Authors; Editors; College teachers; Bell, Daniel, 1919-2011--Interviews Description An account of the resource Daniel Bell (1919 - 2011) was an American sociologist, writer, editor, and academic, best known for his contributions to the study of post-industrialism. He received his B.S. at City College of New York and his Ph.D. at Columbia University. Bell became a professor of sociology at Harvard University, where he remained until 1990. 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 ND 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.10.2016.22 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. 90:13 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/3d6e3ae1bbb475fa573681b735d69ee5.jpg 60e26f57e6fe8bc2d2b58551415fa62a https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/ff8c54048e3784b4ac366e4ea12b5594.mp3 4f97e2da114533d20c63291f12088908 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 2010-07-29 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Rosalyn Baxandall, 1939-2015 Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Rosalyn Baxandall (1939 - 2015) was a feminist historian, activist, author and educator. She was one of the leading figures of the feminist movement in New York during the late 1960s. Baxandall received her Bachelor's degree in French at University of Wisconsin and her Master of Social Work at Columbia University.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:6531,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,5099745],&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;}">Rosalyn Baxandall (1939 - 2015) was a feminist historian, activist, author and educator. She was one of the leading figures of the feminist movement in New York during the late 1960s. Baxandall received her Bachelor's degree in French at the University of Wisconsin and her Master of Social Work at Columbia University.</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;Quakers; Sexism; Activism; Women's Liberation; Sex, Drugs; Rock n' Roll; Senator Muskie; Healing; Conservatives; Freedom; Counterculture; Woodstock; Summer of Love; March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom; Black Power; Weathermen; Students for a Democratic Society.&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;:14281427}}">Quakers; Sexism; Activism; Women's Liberation; Sex, Drugs; Rock n' Roll; Senator Muskie; Healing; Conservatives; Freedom; Counterculture; Woodstock; Summer of Love; March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom; Black Power; Weathermen; Students for a Democratic Society.</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 111:24 Subject LCSH Feminists; Historians; Authors; Political activists--United States; Baxandall, Rosalyn, 1939-2015--Interviews Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Rosalind Baxandall Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Shah Islam Date of interview: 29 July 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) 0:04 SM: Are you ready? 0:05 RB: Yes. 0:06 SM: [inaudible] I will continue to check this too. Who were your role models when you were growing up, who were the teachers or parents or leaders that helped you become the person that you are today? What inspired you even before you went to college? 0:23 RB: Okay, well, in some ways, my grandmother who had talked to me about marching and suffragette parades, my mother's mother. And also, she inspired me because her husband died when she was very young, leaving her with three young children, and she first took in sewing. And then she got a GED. And then she became a lawyer. And the fact that she was female, and a lawyer, and did not have a husband supporting her was inspirational to me. And she also used to go on very exotic trips. I mean, they seemed exotic to me, they would not. The world is smaller now. Like to Argentina. She would go on these trips alone. And so, she seemed extremely adventurous… to me. And then… other role mo— I mean, most of the role models were in my family. My father was a role model since he had been a communist and labor organizer and then changed his life and became a doctor. 2:15 SM: So, you had the inspirations— [crosstalk 2:17] SM: —really, RB: Within my family. 2:18 SM: Right. 2:19 RB: I would say they were really within my family. Rather than people outside. Not my teachers, particularly. When I got to college, my teachers were inspirations. 2:32 SM: Now, where did you go to school and the teachers— 2:36 RB: When I went to scho— The University of Wisconsin. 2:37 SM: Great school. 2:41 RB: I had many inspirational teachers, now let me— In American history, I have this man who taught us through using documents, and I cannot even believe that I cannot think of his name now. Anyway— William Appleman Williams. He was a real inspiration. My French teacher who I had a job working for. [inaudible] She was inspirational. I used to talk to her a lot. She had had an affair with Camus. And so it was really— [crosstalk 3:17] RB: —interesting that SM: [inaudible] Really, affair? RB: Yeah. Oh yeah. SM: Ha-ha, oh my God! 3:19 RB: I mean yeah. She had been a lover of Camus. And I mean, it is written about. 3:24 SM: Wow. 3:25 RB: So, she knew Camus and Sartre. 3:28 SM: Wow. 3:29 RB: And I majored in French, and— Simone de Beauvoir was a real… was somebody that I looked up to. 3:40 SM: She wrote The Second Sex— 3:41 RB: —Second Sex. 3:42 SM: Yeah. 3:43 RB: And I had first seen The Second Sex in my parents’ house, because I thought it was a sex book. There was a man and a woman on the cover. 3:53 SM: Right. 3:55 RB: Not dressed, so— and it was called The Second Sex. So I thought it was a sex book, and I was very curious about it. And read it. And I read it, like a guide to life. And I have my original book at home and every other word is underlined. 4:14 SM: Hard to find first editions of that book. 4:16 RB: Yeah, and I do not know if it was the first edition— 4:18 SM: They are reprinting it now. Just came out reprinted. 4:19 RB: Oh I know, a new… a new translation. 4:22 SM: Oh wow. 4:23 RB: So that was very inspirational to me. 4:25 SM: Mhm. What did… what inspired you to become a feminist? Were you part of the new left antiwar movement— [crosstalk 4:31] RB: Yes. I was. SM: —when you were younger, or− 4:33 RB: Yeah, I was part of the new left. I mean, I was not a major part. I worked on a magazine called Yet Report. I translated things from the French. I went on active— the antiwar movements. I was also, I worked for mobilization for youth, and I was active in Welfare Rights. Even in high school. I went to Philadelphia, with the Quakers and worked in slums on weekends helping people clean. And then I remember going to a night court, which was really an incredible experience. This was in Philadelphia. 5:21 SM: Mhm. 5:22 RB: Then I went, in hi— this was still in high school, up to Connecticut, where they had nuclear submarines. And we did civil resistance in front of these submarines. 5:42 SM: I think that is where the Berrigans went one time I think— 5:44 RB: Yeah, well it was a, it was a− SM: Yeah. RB: …place to go. SM: Yeah. 5:47 RB: And so I did that in high school, too. So I was already… active. But if— none of my friends did this in high school, I was very different than anyone else. I mean, no one I knew in high school was political. 6:03 SM: Where did you go— what state, did you go to school in New York? Or− 6:06 RB: In New York. [crosstalk 6:07] RB: Yeah. SM: Right. 6:08 RB: In New York. Yeah. I mean, people that I knew were political. I mean, it was the late (19)50s. They were not political. 6:15 SM: One other thing, I have interviewed Susan Brown Miller, and I have interviewed quite a few people. And what— The difference between mainstream feminism and radical feminism, correct me if I am wrong, the radical feminists were more of the new left feminine— 6:31 RB: The New Left feminists. 6:32 SM: But— RB: I was definitely a New Left— 6:34 SM: Betty Friedan is the mainstream that was— RB: —stream. Yes 6:37 SM: Ms. Magazine may be more of the— RB: —mainstream— SM: —mainstream. [inaudible] Friedan— 6:42 RB: Right. We wanted to change the whole of society, not integrate into it. We did not want better jobs in the society, we really wanted to change the society. So, we were part of the New Left. 6:57 SM: Right. 6:58 RB: And it was just that we found out in the New Left, that we needed a women's movement. It was almost by accident. 7:08 SM: Did you f— Did you feel like a lot of the women that I have interviewed, that the sexism that was so prevalent within the antiwar movement, the civil rights movement, and most recently, I have heard even in the gay and lesbian movement, and the Native American movement, and because I have interviewed people that it was ramped, and a lot of the women in those movements said, to get away from those, and join the women's movement. [crosstalk 7:31] RB: Right. SM: Do you agree with that? 7:32 RB: And that… that was in order to have you know, I— I mean, I can remember that my ex-husband, who was active in the new left, his friends, sometimes when I talk, they would answer him. [crosstalk 7:50] SM: Wow— RB: As if he had said what I had said. 7:52 SM: They will not even recognize you— 7:53 RB: It was that you were almost invisible, in meetings and things. 8:00 SM: Was that something that you were involved in the— was it Mobe? Do— were you involved in Mobe? 8:04 RB: I was involved in Mobe. 8:05 SM: Did you see these new left activists; they just treat women and like, go… go Xerox! And— [crosstalk 8:12] RB: Right— SM: and that kind of stuff? RB: Right. 8:14 RB: And also, sweep the floor, you know, not only go Xerox. And then… since we were the ones going toward the door and talking to people a lot, they would have to get information from us, and then they would give the talks. 8:30 SM: Oh my God. 8:31 RB: So, I mean, we did a lot of the labor and so on. We got very little from it. 8:39 SM: What is amazing in the studies that I have done of some of the activism, at least at the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in (19)64, Bettina Aptheker was able to stand up on that car and speak. 8:49 RB: She was able, but she says that she was one of the guys. 8:53 SM: Okay. I know that to offs— 8:56 RB: At that time, she felt like one of the guys, and she did not even think of herself as a woman. 9:01 SM: Then there is Mario Savio’s girlfriend at the time who he ended up marrying, she was also—Goldberg or− 9:06 RB: Goldberg, yeah. 9:08 SM: Yeah, there were 2 Goldbergs, [inaudible] they were… they spoke too— 9:12 RB: Right. And in the film about Berkeley women talk about being— 9:16 SM: Right. 9:17 RB: —invisible. 9:18 SM: It is amazing. 9:20 RB: And even in Wisconsin that was true. Men always wrote the things, it was just assumed. 9:27 SM: I am going to get back to books here obviously you are a scholar and a writer yourself and you have already mentioned The Second Sex but what were the— the books that really turned you on as a young person that inspired you? Wow, again, you— you already read The Second Sex and— but were there other books, like the— was The Feminine Mystique real important to you? Was— 9:49 RB: No, The Feminine Mystique, when I read The Feminine Mystique, I really thought— I know that it influenced some people, but I mean I was interested in it, but it did not influence me because it was about… over educated women who were not… were not living up to their potential, when there were so many women that did not even have opportunities to live up to their potentials. Especially at the time that I read it. I mean, the books that influenced me more was Fanshen, about the Chinese Revolution, that influenced me enormously. 10:32 SM: What year did that come out? 10:34 RB: What? Fanshen… must have come out… they have an anniversary of it. I think it came out in around… It came out in the late (19)60s. And in the book, the women get together and do consciousness raising, like we did. And they speak bitterness… about their experiences, both with men, and with the oppressive Chinese government to recall their pain. And that had a big influence to me about how people could change the whole of society and make a revolution. 11:11 SM: Do you like the term boomers? I say, I have been asking this now for the last 30 people because— 11:17 RB: I do not like the term, I do not like the term baby boomers, although that gets- 11:20 SM: Because you see what happens. You got the… you have got the greatest generation that Brokaw talks about which is the World War II generation then you have this group for five years called the Silent Generation, which is… they were not very silent. They were the people that were the leaders that were [inaudible] in (19)40 and (19)46— 11:35 RB: Right. They were in people like Ginsberg— [crosstalk 11:38] RB: —and people SM: Yeah! 11:40 SM: Tom Hayden and— RB: Yeah!— SM: —even Ronnie Davis— RB: Yeah! 11:42 SM: Richie Havens had said I am born in ’41, they said, but I am a boomer. I am not, you know, and the— Todd Gitlin told me he says, you know, kid, I will not even talk to you if you keep saying boomer I will not even— [crosstalk 11:52] RB: Right. It is not− SM: —talk to you. RB: I do not [inaudible]— SM: You know, it was… it was about a period. 11:57 RB: It is about a period and ‘boomer’, first of all, a boomer now… it just has to do with consumerism, not with activism— 12:05 SM: You see— it is also that, from what I am learning more and more is that the first 10 years of boomers, those born between (19)46 and (19)56, yes, they were all influenced. 12:18 RB: Right. SM: But when you start getting into the (19)57— RB: No− SM: —to (19)64— RB: No− 12:21 SM: They were ten years old! How can they— [crosstalk 12:22] RB: Right− SM:—you know— 12:23 RB: −they were not inf—, you know SM: Yeah, so− RB: Maybe they were influenced by other things. SM: When they get— RB: Like the media and things. 12:29 SM: When you look at your… the generation that you are linked to any… anybody born I think (19)38 on, so to speak, would you… would you say it is more like the Vie— is there a term you like to use the Vietnam generation, the Woodstock generation of the.. the protest generation that, uh, you know— 12:46 RB: The (19)60s generation or something? Or the movement? Yeah, no way. 12:50 SM: Yeah, ‘because that is kind of more of the— [crosstalk 12:51] RB: Right− SM: —definitive generation— RB: Movement generation− 12:53 RB: But not boomers. I do not like boomers, ‘because it just seems like consumerism. 12:58 SM: One of the questions… I interviewed Phyllis Schlafly, and she said, and David Horowitz said the same thing— 13:04 RB: Uh huh. SM: [inaudible] ramparts. 13:06 RB: Yeah, I-I… went out with him. So, I know— 13:09 SM: Oh you know him well? 13:10 RB: Yeah. I mean, in another era. 13:11 SM: Yeah. Well, Dav— well David's a brilliant guy. [crosstalk 13:13] RB: Right, he is— SM: You know, and I— 13:15 RB: And he wrote… very important books— 13:17 SM: Oh. RB: —early on 13:18 SM: I have them. I have all these— 13:19 RB: Yes! 13:20 SM: —books. And I have been wanting to— he wrote at Berkeley and I got— 13:23 RB: Uh huh. SM: —a first edition of it. But he will not even talk about those now. Now that is like that is— 13:26 RB: Right. Yeah. 13:29 SM: But one thing you have to admit about that— 13:30 RB: I met his parents; I was at his parents’ house. 13:33 SM: —so the passion he had back then for the left is the same passion he has for the right. So he is pretty consistent in his passion. But what I am getting at here is- 13:41 RB: He has better rewards with the right. 13:43 SM: Yeah. For money— 13:44 RB: For money, right! 13:47 SM: That the people who were the troublemakers of the (19)60s are now running today's universities, and they are running the departments and the studies department— 13:55 RB: Right, that is true. SM: —the women's studies, Black Studies, Asian American Studies— [crosstalk 13:58] RB: Yeah, American studies. SM: —Native American Studies— RB: Right. Yeah. True. SM: —gay and lesbian studies and environmental studies. 14:03 RB: Mhm. SM: Do you agree with that? 14:04 RB: I think that is one arena we have been very active in. 14:09 SM: So, you do not take that as a negative you take— 14:11 RB: No! SM: —you take that as a— 14:12 SM: That… that leads me into how had professors changed in their teaching styles since the (19)60s? What did the (19)60s and the (19)70s do to the whole new wave of teaching? 14:24 RB: Well, I mean, the content of the teaching changed. I mean, we… taught much more about social movements, rather— we taught both what was happening at the bottom as well as what was happening at the top. We did not just teach elite history. We taught peoples history as well. And… the way we taught is that we cared about our student’s experience. 15:03 SM: When do you think that began… did that begin on actually some of the professors that were teaching the boomers? 15:09 RB: Um, some of our professors I mean, like William Appleman Williams taught the original documents and us to analyze the documents. He did not just have secondhand sources, and that was very important—primary sources, go to the primary sources. 15:29 SM: Right. RB: And so, he had a big influence. In the women's movement— for a while when I was teaching Women's Studies. We… we taught a great d— we put people in circles, and talked about our own experiences as well, and that we were the experts on our own experience. It was not other people that will be experts. 16:05 SM: Right. RB: And that has held me in good stead because I wrote a book with another woman about the suburbs. And the reason we wrote the book is because the books that our students were reading lived in the suburbs said this had nothing to do with their lives in the suburbs now. 16:26 SM: Yeah, I think the… I guess… Again, I have interviewed conservatives and liberals, I am making sure you get all points of view here, and Michelle Easton from the Clare Boothe Institute. I do not know if you have heard− 16:38 RB: Uh huh, that is great. 16:39 SM: And the concern they expressed, and this is not me, I might… I am not… I just get interviewing. That is all I am. No, but… is that… that many of the new laughter of the activism that the new left… the activists in the (19)60s, wanted their point of view heard, because they felt it was not being heard, and they had to fight for it to be heard. And they were kind of shutting down the other points of view, whether it be Richard Nixon speaking on the podium, or you know, whatever. Yeah, and then they come to power within the universities, and they are doing the same thing that they accused others of doing back then of not allowing a cons— a smart conservative point of view. Because Phyllis Schlafly said to me, I bet you my… I bet you have not included any of the women's studies programs, or I bet you some of the conservative speakers— Michelle Easton says to me, I bet you they do not include Ann Coulter, because they do not consider it an intellect or Michelle Malkin, or this new congresswoman— 17:34 RB: I think, as a matter of fact, we include them far more than they include us. Because we do believe in democracy, and a balance. And I am always so pleased when the students are conservative, and that we have different points of view in the classroom. And I have debates in my classroom, and make students take different points of view. Because I think you learn a lot that way. 18:06 SM: See, then that… see that… I know that for a fact, that I have been in university for 30 years, but I hear the other side. And I have been in a university where it was of— only two… two or three tenured faculty members are free to say they are conservative, because the rest of them were all liberal for fear their jobs. But it is… that-that has come up, that feeling within the university. And certainly, when we had Ann Coulter come to campus there has been some sort of reaction to her point of view as not being smart enough to [inaudible]− 18:37 RB: And I tell the students look, I want to tell you, this is my… this is where I am coming from, this is my point of view. But I want you to have, you know, I want us to argue. 18:48 SM: So, your teaching point of view is also what Hillary Clinton said in… in her biography that she learned that she was a Goldwater girl. And she learned about the other side because she did… she was going to be Goldwater and her friend was going to be for Johnson. But their teacher in high school said you have to take the other point of view. So, you learn about everything you can about Lyndon Johnson, and you debate for him, and she will debate for Goldwater. 19:15 RB: I make black students… debate from the slavery point of view. First, they are a little… uptight. I mean, because it is really important to have other points of view. And I constantly have debates in my class. 19:33 SM: Well, that is important, [inaudible]. 19:35 RB: You know, and take sides. They have to know the other side. And they learn a lot by listening to it, and thinking of how to counteract that argument. It is really good. 19:44 SM: It can change people too, because— 19:47 RB: Right! 19:47 SM: —Hillary Clinton became a— 19:49 RB: Yes, right. 19:50 SM: —democrat when she was a diehard Republican. 19:52 RB: Right. 19:52 SM: She was a Goldwater girl! 19:51 RB: Right. 19:51 SM: So… anyway, I am trying to read my writing here. I am not going to— 19:57 RB: Is the light bad? 19:58 SM: Oh no, I just… I had to… I should use my glasses here because, if you bear with me, I am going to… put my glasses— 20:03 RB: Oh, I understand, I would need my glasses to read. 20:07 SM: But I cannot [inaudible]… I have a problem to my fam— nob— nobody-nobody in my family can read my writings. So let us do it. Bear with me here, to boomers correct me if I am wrong, grew up with a very naïve… but they were very naïve, and they learned what the meaning of fear stood for. The idea of ‘be quiet’, ‘obey orders’, ‘do not question authority’. Fear, and being quiet, and being naive was the norm in the (19)50s, to many of the boomers that were born after the war. The (19)60s and (19)70s was just the opposite for all three. There were lots of injustices, many people spoke up to challenge what I believe was wrong. And they did not… they were told not to challenge authority, but students challenged everything. And this basically is because of some of the things that took place in their lives. The McCarthy hearings in the 1950s, the concept of fear, the Cold War, the concept of fear, the worry about the bomb, the concept of fear, speaking up and you could lose your job, that was very common in the (19)50s. It was written in white collar. So, you are right, Mills talked about it. Civil— and of course, the Civil Rights and Women's Rights and all the rights in that movement, it kind of developed, which challenged that kind of mentality in the (19)60s, because— they would be questioning what was wrong with President Johnson, Nixon, and Kennedy in terms of their leadership and speaking up, or they might not have spoken up so much for Eisenhower. Your thoughts about these, the dichotomy between these two extreme periods of when that front wave New Left, people born in the (19)40s, though, say, the mid (19)50s—these qualities of fear, being quiet, and also being naive? 21:53 RB: Well to deal with the fear, I grew up… when I grew up we had FBI agents outside our house, and were told not to talk to them. So— and my father’s friends went to jail. But my father did tell me that I should be proud of those people in jail. So, I did not, I mean… I knew that there were consequences for speaking up. And I grew up with the fear. And as a matter of fact, I think people, the little older generation, like myself, who saw McCarthyism, and saw conservatism, and then saw change, were less naive. Because they saw that it could change back also. And when it did change back, they had the earlier experience, as well, and they were not as naïve, because we had seen both periods. And people who had only grown up in the (19)60s, and seeing this quick change, just expected that to be forever. 23:19 SM: Like the ones today they are— 23:21 RB: Right. And then when things got really conservative, again, they were not able to deal with it. But we had seen that that is what happens in history. And as a historian, you see, I mean, that there are shifts, things change back. And people have to change, and sure we were… we were naive. And it was good that we were naïve in some ways, because we tried things that people did not think we could do. And if we had not been naive, we would not have done it. We would have been too cautious. 24:03 SM: Right. 24:04 RB: And so you have to be a little gutsy and blind to try these things. 24:10 SM: You know it is amazing, when you reflect years later, and this is just my observation, I have heard from other people, that they were naive because parents, you know, the parents were… they were not upset with their parents, but it was the way things were in the (19)50s you know, that kind of thing. But then if you reflect on it, it is not really criticism of your parents, it is a criticism of television, what you saw, the things that you use— wait a minute, there were no black people on TV in the (19)50s, Amos and Andy was the only thing on in the early (19)50s and they made fun of— slapstick. And then Nat King Cole goes on for six weeks and that was it until the early (19)60s when I Spy and Flip Wilson and Diane Carrol on The Nurse Show came on TV so— you see— wait there were no blacks! There were no other people on there. And-and everything seen from Walt Disney was all about the cowboys and Indians! [inaudible] cowboys and Indians! Indians are always the bad people. The white hat, so you start seeing that maybe we were not as naive as we thought, you know, as we age, you can start reflecting on things that are wrong, even without somebody telling you. 25:18 RB: Right. And also, it helped in a way that we believed in democracy, because we then tried to get a better. If we had been totally cynical— my students nowadays are so cynical, they think nothing can change, everything is corrupt! We believe things could change. 25:36 SM: Yeah, yes. 25:37 RB: I mean, we believed we could make a difference. We bought that, which was great. If we had not been naïve— 25:44 SM: Do you think, though, that there is even some fear? I find that the people that run today's universities are boomers, or, you know, first gen— generation Xers who really did not get along with boomers. 25:57 RB: Right. 25:58 SM: Generation X’s, I do not think… like them. We had poor programs on it, not across the board. 26:02 RB: Yeah. 26:03 SM: So, you get the people that are into these universities are the boomers that experience what you and I experienced, and also the generation Xers who had a problem with boomers to begin with. And they see things, but they are afraid of a return to what was, particularly with the term activism. I sense that this is me. And I spoke up at the university about this, that volunteerism is fine, because 95 percent of students are volunteering, and they at the end, they are doing great jobs, and it has never been higher. However, the term activism is a term I sense they fear. They do not like it. Am I wrong in perceiving that— [crosstalk 26:39] RB: No, I think they do not like it, no. SM: —because it brings back the memories of what was, and it could come again. 26:44 RB: Right. They do not like it. And also, you know, they have seen… like I had my students read Thoreau and they were very surprised that I had them read it. And I said, why? And their idea of activism, and these were feminist students, were right to lifers, and people on the right. They did not have any idea of activism of the left. That is not what they have seen. I mean, they have seen people bombing. I mean, they have seen the Oklahoma bomber, they have seen the World Trade Center bomber. They think of that, as activism. 27:29 SM: Oh, wow. 27:30 RB: So, their activism is terrorism and the right. And that is what they equate with activism. People who are against the law. 27:38 SM: How would they think about the tea party group? 27:41 RB: Well— I know! That— they— I have not— 27:45 SM: Had a chance— RB: Yeah, to talk to them about that [laughter] 27:49 SM: That… that is amazing. Because what happened is, when I have read books, I think some people think of the negatives, they think activism is off to the left. Well, activism does not have any political— 28:02 RB: At all! SM: —control. There is left, right and anything in between! 28:06 RB: Exactly! And so therefore, my students, I have students who went for abortions, and they were trying to be stopped by life— right to lifers. They think of that, as people breaking the law, people setting clinics on fire, they think about as activism. 28:20 SM: Let me turn this one, and I can… this is a 30 minute. This is a 45. Dealing with two of these here. 28:29 RB: Okay. 28:30 SM: Bear with me. I have stopped it— 28:33 SM: [inaudible] when I finished the interviews. What are the major accomplishments of the second wave? In terms of what have been the major accomplishments in the women's movement? And secondly, what are the major failures? 28:46 RB: The major accomplishments, I really think? I mean, obviously, there were changes in laws and, you know, now girls do athletics. We have an equal rights amendment. But I think more important the way people dress, the way people… young girls dream, think, their expectations. It is so all pervasive. The changes that people do not even know that it is there. It is like the air that we breathe. Girls grow up now, ex— with great expectations. They do not think of themselves as second class citizens. They think that they can do what men can do, and maybe better, they see they are the best in their class. They are called on by their teachers. They see role models all over. And I think it is so pervasive that we cannot even see it. And I mean, obviously, you know, there is a change now it is going back, people can get abortions, there is… people are less prudish. I mean, the music changed…the way people… the way people, take for granted that girls wear pants! We had a fight for girls wearing pants… to school. I mean, all of these basic kinds of things, the fact that girls do not wear girdles, make up. Just such basic changes and freedoms. Girls do not have to wait at home when a boy asks them out, they can ask them too. It is this… basic everyday life changes. Aside from the laws and their… now girls are in all sorts of jobs that they would not have been− 31:05 SM: How about— RB: −play differently. 31:08 SM: How about— was the failure of the— 31:11 RB: And this is a big failure in that we did not, at least the radical part of the women's movement did not create lasting organizations. And so, they are not around now. Now is around. But we had such loose anarchistic structures that we did not last in that way. 31:36 SM: Yeah, one of the things that has come in some of the interviews, and it is in my belief, because I worked in the university for 33 years. And that is, that what you saw in the early— in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s, where if there was an anti-war movie, you said that you saw all the movements, with their placards and signs. It seems like the movements today are in their own world, the women's movements in their world, the gay rights movements in their world, the environmental movements over here, the Native American movement is West— 32:07 RB: Although there would probably be some crossover. Some, but not— 32:08 SM: Yeah, it seems like they do not work together, that there is no collaboration. It is all— as some people said, it is a bunch of special interests and— 32:15 RB: Right. And also, people make their living that way. It is not like it was before. 32:21 SM: Right. 32:21 RB: I mean, they have these organizations. But there, they each have an interest in surviving. And not looking after the whole. 32:34 SM: One, One person, well-known female leader. And she is a liberal, said that, when I asked her about the National Organization for Women, what she thought about it, if she loves the organization and thought it was very important. But she said, if you walk into the national headquarters now… now they have literature, for she says, abortions, AIDS, and the pill. And she said, that is what they stand for now- There is no— 33:02 RB: No jobs? 33:03 SM: No, no. She said, if you walk into their office— 33:06 RB: Really? 33:06 SM: —That is all the brochures you see in these three areas. And they— you do not see anything about the laws they are working on, the-the— all the other things. And so, I am wondering your thoughts on that? It is just your thoughts. 33:21 RB: Well, I think that people characterize the women's movement that way and forget that they did other things. For example, one of the things that I was most active in was daycare centers. And you do not hear a lot about the women's movement creating daycare centers and insisting on daycare, because people have a stereotype of the women's movement as not caring about children. 33:47 SM: Right. 33:48 RB: And that stereotype, women were supposed to care about themselves and no other things. And that was not what I saw in the women's movement at all. You know, and I do not see a women's movement around today. And there is a little of a women's movement around that. I know that works on the morning after pill. So, you are right on that, but not much else. 34:17 SM: The daycare centers very important. I think that is, that is a historic accomplishment from the women's movement. But if you are talking about weaknesses, I have a niece that just had a baby and I still think that corporations and businesses are still insensitive to the needs of women raising children who are still working. She said in most places, there is no privacy. There is no— you know, if they are, if they have to breastfeed their child, there is no priv— go into the lady’s room, no! Where is there a— 34:46 RB: For executives there are but there is not for the common worker. See I read this article. 34:50 SM: Yeah. 34:50 RB: Executives could breastfeed, and they make places for them. But for the common article— women, there was nothing. 34:57 SM: That should be a major cause— 34:59 RB: Well of course it should be— 35:03 SM: —and also there is the… the thing about taking care of a child too, which is they get, I think, two months or three months off of, you know? And then something about the husband should also be— 35:13 RB: Fraternity leave— 35:15 SM: Yeah. 35:15 RB: —so the husbands get a head start. 35:15 SM: Yes. So, the— you know, I am a firm believer of six months. 35:20 RB: Right. Oh yes! SM: Have either— 35:21 RB: But other countries have two years. Sweden, Denmark, France. We are the most backward country in all of the— 35:28 SM: And why is that? Why— 35:30 RB: Because we have a very bad welfare st— state. I mean, we— it is all left up to the individual. I mean, we have the most backward healthcare system of all the so-called advanced countries too. It is part of our welfare system. 35:46 SM: You know, the idea— 35:48 RB: We are very backwards and unfortunately, I think in the movement, we were so against the government that we became against systems, and did not, we were so anti-government that we did not think of how the government can help us, as well. 35:05 SM: Right. 35:05 RB: It was a big failure in the movement. It is both things. I mean, you could be against the government. But also, we have to look at what the state can do for us. 36:18 SM: Right. 36:19 RB: Especially now. And then people started buying into all that Reaganism and the minimum state, you know, and that just really irks people who are not wealthy. I mean, it is just welfare for the rich. 36:33 SM: We know what Reagan did— the AIDS crisis. 36:37 RB: Right! 36:37 SM: And in any of the interviews I have had of some gay and lesbian, especially gay men, who were major figures. They start crying when they talk about what he did not do in the (19)80s. 36:49 RB: Oh yeah. Provincetown is the gay capital of the world, right? 36:53 SM: It is? 36:54 RB: About six miles from here. 36:56 SM: Oh, I did not know that. 36:58 RB: They call it Viagra Falls. [laughter] 37:00 RB: And, it is, I mean, it is 80 percent gay. 37:02 SM: Oh my God. 37:03 RB: Yeah. It was one of the beginning of people helping each other because there was not government help. 37:10 SM: Amazing. Why did the ERA fail? Well, my first boss at High University was really working hard for it, at… in Ohio, and I can remember her having the radio on when the vote was taking place, and it did not pass in Ohio. And she worked two years on it and when she went home, she was devastated. Your thoughts on why the ERA did not pass? 37:32 RB: I really think… it was a case where the right was in power and had the media and scared working women, who thought oh, wow! I do not want to enlist in the war. And it was all scare tactics. And the people on the left and people I knew, sort of ignored it. 38:01 SM: Yeah, Nixon was, I think, in power at the time. 38:05 RB: Yeah, and they just scared women who felt they would not be protected. 38:13 SM: Yeah. 38:13 RB: And, and then I do not think that the radical part of the movement like myself, we did not work on it at all. 38:23 SM: Some people think that Phyliss Schlafly single handedly defeated it. 38:27 RB: She did very well. I do not know about single handedly, but the mood of the country had changed. 38:33 SM: I got a question here that I will read, and that is the mothers of the baby boomers, I think my mom here, raised most of the 74 million kids from (19)46 to (19)64. Or as we have talked about those from (19)40 to (19)65. How can some of the feminists say that most women of the era were unfulfilled? How do we know this? And is not it important to know that someone was home when you arrived home from school? That is what happens when you— I have talked with even liberal, left-wing baby boomers, and they love the fact their mom was home in the (19)50s when they got home from school. And a lot of kids today are missing that because they do not see a father or mother home they just come home after work. And Phyliss Schlafly talked about she-she-she said you know all this business about being unfulfilled as a female you know, I could have gone on, and I could have been long gone on and become a senator or even a bigger name politician, but my husband did not want me to and so I listened to my husband, and I did not. 39:38 RB: She was not home. She was always out doing speeches. 39:42 SM: I know but, just— just that concept. Well, if-if you I think Sally Roche for good— for full name. 39:51 RB: Yeah, Wagner. 39:51 SM: Yeah, she-she-she made medicine that if you really talked to a lot of the mothers of the (19)50s. They will probably say that they were not fulfilled, if you had a chance to talk to them, they never spoke about it. Just your thoughts on that? 40:04 RB: I do know. I mean, my mother had resentment. She definitely had resentment in that she would have— there are some people that would like to stay home. My mother was one, who was much better at career than she was at raising children. My father was the more gentle person, and would be better home. But she was discontent. And she communicated her discontent to us, all girls. I mean, and she did put her husband first. But it was almost absurd the way she put him first, I mean, and we put in first we take turns of the table sitting next to my father. He was— the best foods would always go to my father. The best of everything. And we always knew, we said, thank God, we did not have a brother, he would have been so favored. We were so happy it was all girls, because a boy would have been favored. And my mother did communicate her discontent. 41:31 SM: When you— you cannot have— 41:33 RB: My father treated her well, but she was discontent from society’s expectation. 41:38 SM: Well, Sara Evans wrote a great book, you know— 41:42 RB: Yes, I think— 41:43 SM: —And I think it is one of the best books ever written and— 41:44 RB: It is very good. 41:45 SM: —if everybody could read the first chapter in the introduction, you would get a wide awakening because of women in professional careers, as opposed to women who are housewives, and she breaks it down. And of course, World War II, and then coming back and the whole thing there. So, and I, my, my mom was a very successful secretary, she was unbelievable, but she just stopped everything, and was raising kids. And everybody on the street that I grew up in, the mothers were home, and the fathers are off work and we never saw our dads! it was always there— 42:16 RB: Uh huh, right! 42:17 SM: So then, then all of a sudden, these changes happen in the (19)60s, mid (19)60s, basically. 42:24 RB: Yeah. 42:24 SM: The second wave move— women's movement has been all inclusive with respect to women in— no, has the second wave women's movement been all-inclusive with respect to women of color, and women with different sexual orientation? And I preface this by saying, do black women identify more with being black first and/or being a woman second? 42:49 RB: It depends on the women, some identify, like Shirley Chisholm, who ran for president, she identified as a woman and a black and could not break it down. But some identify more with women, some identified much more… with race. And we all came from the civil rights movement, so it is not that we were not concerned, we had concern. But we also came from a civil rights movement, that at that point, that the women's movement started, was into black power. 43:26 SM: Right. 43:26 RB: And did not want women as… did not want white women as part of it. They thought we should do our own thing. So, our own thing was women. 43:37 SM: Right. 43:37 RB: And we made some overtures. But it was not enough. And we also made the mistake often, of talking for all women. When we were not all, you know, we were a certain kind of woman. Although, there were like, very, varied women in the group. I gave you the name of Carol Hanisch, she is from a poor rural family. 44:04 SM: I may be interviewing her she— she just responded back in— 44:07 RB: In Iowa. I mean, I, they were varied. People just talked about certain women. But there were lots of women from different backgrounds. 44:15 SM: Let me change this tape. 44:21 RB: [inaudible] 44:21 SM: Oh, you already talked to her? 44:23 RB: I emailed her, she said, you think I should do this? I said, I do think you should do it— 44:27 SM: Oh I really— I need to make sure that women's point of view is in this project. 44:32 RB: Right, and also, you know, she was very active. She really, her idea was Miss America contest when she did all sorts of things. And she was an AP, and she was also in the South during the civil rights movement as a UPI reporter. 44:46 SM: Oh wow. 44:46 RB: But, she is from a poor family in Iowa. But people just think that it was all upper middle-class women. It was not. But that has— what has been written about. 44:58 SM: You know Kaycee Hayden came from— I am trying to get ahold of, you know, Casey— 45:04 RB: Yeah, I know her. 45:06 SM: Well, Casey says she is going to do it but then she is hesitating because she— and she has not done interviews in years. 45:09 RB: Oh I know. That would be great— 45:11 SM: And but she is… she has agreed to do it. But then she hesitates, as I get close to it so [inaudible]— 45:18 RB: That would be good if she did. 45:19 SM: We will kind of see what happens here. I also bring up here, lesbian females, you know whether they identify more as lesbians or as women first? I do not know— 45:31 RB: I do not know. I mean, it depends. It really depends on… there is a big variety. And the thing is that I do think that lesbian women identify more with women than they do with gay men. Because there is a real division in that movement. 45:47 SM: Oh, yeah. And I have been told about the sexism in that movement— 45:49 RB: Oh, yes. It is incredible. 45:51 SM: As a matter of fact, there was a period when they will not even talk to the men. 45:54 RB: Right. 45:54 SM: Which is unreal. And actually, there is some things today going on that I— 45:57 RB: Right, still, they, I mean, so that there is real divisions, and there are some that feel closer. I mean, [inaudible]. She is a woman that— who writes a lot, and she was much closer to the women's movement. 46:10 SM: See, I had three other Latino women, Native American women, certainly Asian American women, and we know ever, certainly, we know about the first two here, but Asian American women, you do not hear anything about them in the (19)60s. 46:24 RB: And there were Asian American women, in-in our book, we write a little about them, they had a little newspaper in-in California, there were some Asian Americans. 46:32 SM: Well, I am trying to interview Gary Okihiro who— 46:34 RB: That would be good, yes. 46:36 SM: We brought to our campus and I forget the other similar person. And I am interviewing Kim Phuc. But because Kim, I know Kim from the Vietnam Memorial, but I— I think it is important— the boat people, we have to talk about the boat people, but the boat people are really (19)75, and they became, they were boomers from another country, and then they grew up and they have been so successful— 47:01 RB: It is unreal, yeah. 47:03 SM: I actually am— close students— I have been most close— affiliated with other Asian American students my whole life. I do not know what it is. Because I bet, they have advised organizations on most of my Facebook friends are former students. They know I care about Vietnam— [crosstalk 47:17] RB: Uh huh, that is pro— right. SM: —and most of them are Vietnamese. 47:22 SM: Okay, where did the (19)60s begin, in your opinion, and when did it end? And what is the watershed moment to you? 47:29 RB: Okay, I think the (19)60s began in 1954. 47:37 SM: Okay. 47:39 RB: With the civil rights movement, and sort of the burning movement of all the (19)60s. And then… I think it ended in the late… in the mid to late (19)70s. [inaudible] late seventies. 48:00 SM: Was there an— 48:01 RB: Then the economy changed, there was an oil crisis, the government changed. It really became different 48:09 SM: Say around, Jimmy Carter’s period? 48:10 RB: Yes, right. It was around Jimmy Carter's period. 48:13 SM: Some people in the [inaudible] 1975 because that is when the helicopters went off the– 48:17 RB: Right. 48:17 SM: And in Vietnam, but a lot happened in, in Jimmy Carter's here, too. 48:23 RB: Right. 48:23 SM: Was there a watershed moment? 48:25 RB: I do not think it is a watershed moment. I think it is gradual. 48:30 SM: So there is no— is there any one event you would— 48:32 RB: Well, I mean, the Supreme Court decision started things that were in the works in 1954. And the water— I do not, I cannot see an end. Because there is… trickles, still. 48:46 SM: The legal love of laws that have been passed in the lines of boomers. Now when we are talk— I am still using the term, I cannot— 48:55 RB: Right, that is okay. 48:56 SM: But it is from (19)40, (19)40 on– 48:58 RB: Right, right. 48:59 SM: The laws that were passed by the Supreme Court during this timeframe, they had the greatest impact not only on boomers, male and female of all colors and sexual orientation, but certainly women. What do you think are the most important for women? We know Brown versus Board of Education— 49:18 RB: Well, the Equal Rights Amendment, Title 9 for athletics for women was very important. 49:24 SM: That was in the (19)80s was not it… I think, yeah… yeah. 49:26 RB: Yeah, Title 9 was the (19)80s. Equal Rights Amendment was before that. The EEOC was very important to the Equal Opportunities Act. 49:37 SM: Well now what would that state? 49:39 RB: That stated that… Equal Opportunities Act, it had a board of discrimination and it added women as well as blacks… 49:49 SM: Okay. 49:49 RB: –to the Equal Right Amendment. And it also said, that since it had the idea of equity as well as equality… you could not have equality if there were no women in the job. So, you have to have an idea of equity. For example, there are no women truck drivers almost. But women— nurses have more training and more responsibility than truck drivers. So, if you look at equity, they should be paid as well. So, you have to look as equity as well as equality. 50:41 SM: Now do not forget Roe v. Wade. 50:43 RB: Yes. 50:43 SM: Yeah— 50:44 RB: And of course,1973, that was so basic. I was very active in the first abortion speak and– 50:53 SM: How important were the beats, in your opinion, in shaping the attitudes of not only the new left, but— actually activists of all— 51:03 RB: They were very important to me; they were very important to me. I mean, I, in high school, go to the village, I looked up to them. Even though women were not the key in the themes, it seemed like a big breakthrough. 51:26 SM: Ann Walden was the youngest of that group. She was born in 1946. When she was very close to Ginsburg— 51:34 RB: Uh huh, really? 51:34 SM: —there seemed to be a relationship between those two that was very strong. And they had the center— 51:41 RB: Well Susan Suntodd was somebody looked up to— 51:42 SM: Right, right. 51:43 RB: —and she was involved in that movement. Beats and existentialists were influences. I mean, I read. I read Ginsburg's poetry aloud. I went to readings of his— 52:02 SM: That was one of the— I was at one of his chants. At Ohio State. 52:07 RB: Yeah, oh, no, it was very moving, and a real breakthrough. 52:10 SM: Yeah, the banning of [inaudible] I believe was 1955— 52:17 RB: It was late— yeah, it was early. 52:19 SM: That was kind of a historic happening as well. And what was it about them that they challenged authority where they were like, very unique. They did not care what people thought of them . 52:28 RB: They challenged authority. They were also— they were against war. They were against bomb testing, war, all of those things. They— for me they dressed in black when the popular culture colors at that time were fuchsia and chartreuse. And they had freedoms, I mean, not only sexual freedoms, but marijuana. I mean, they— that was very, I mean, sex, drugs and rock and roll were very important. 53:15 SM: One person I interviewed out in California who was part of the counterculture out there, is it Neal Cassady? 53:22 RB: Yeah. 53:22 SM: He said Neal Cassady is the Beat. He is— you had the Ginsburg's, and you have your Snyder— [crosstalk 53:29] RB: Roman [inaudible] 53:30 SM: —[inaudible] all these others, but something about him, attracted all the others. And so people look to him as like the model Beat. you agree with that? 53:42 RB: No, I looked at Neal Cassady as a model too. 53:45 SM: I have a question here on healing. This is a question that I have asked— actually asked everyone, even Senator McCarthy when I first started this so long ago. It is a question of healing as a generation. In 1985, I took students to see Senator Muskie, six months before he passed away, he was not well, he had just gotten out of the hospital, and Gaylord Nelson had been able to organize this meeting with him. It was one of our leaderships. So, we took 14 students there and one of the questions they came up with it was based on videos they have— they have observed in the (19)60s. And the question they wanted to ask was, thinking that he would respond about 1968 in the summer, based on all the divisions that took place in America, in the 1960s, and (19)70s, including the divisions between black and white, male and female, gay and straight, the riots and burnings within the cities, the assassinations during the (19)60s, the extreme divisions and those who supported the war, those who were against the war or those who supported the troops and against the troops. Do you think the boomer generation, like the Civil War generation, is going to go to its grave… not healing? And then they waited for him to respond. I will tell you, his response. Do you think… do you think that the boomer generation as a whole has an issue on healing because of this extreme divisions? I know you— many do not think about it, but some do! I am one of them. The divisions have— just were, so intense. And there was so much happening, that, you know, a lot of people like closure in their lives, but I am not sure if closure is possible. Just your thoughts on the concept of healing? 55:30 RB: I do not know about— I do not know— you know, I do not know about— I mean, I think… that… as far as anti-feminists, I do not feel much healing. But I can feel a lot of healing for people who went to Vietnam, I never was against the troops themselves. And I do not think we were, you know, many of us, so… And people that were for the war, they continue to be for these wars now, you know. I do not feel much sympathy with them. 56:18 SM: Somebody said, it might be better to say [inaudible] 56:22 RB: Yeah. 56:22 SM: I think I am fine– 56:26 RB: Yeah, I do not see– 56:28 SM: I am going to use this tape here. Some somebody said that it would be better if you simply just paraphrase this question, say those who supported the war, those who were against the war, which means those who went to war and those who did not, and that— and will that can ever heal? And the reason why the question came up is, what happens to the anti-war people when they go to the war for the first time, and they are with their kids? And they say, Dad, Mom, what did you do in the war? You know, that there is any guilt that they did not serve. I think that was really getting at when, when 58,000 plus died? 57:06 RB: Well, I mean, some of the people even if they did not serve, some of them protested against it. But then they were ones that did nothing. I mean, I think if you look at the wall, I do not feel it. My grandchildren now could be— asked me about it, I can tell them about protesting against this war that was killing people, and wars that are existing now. 57:34 SM: So, in a sense, what you are saying is that even the men who served in this war, they did their purpose, and we had our purpose— 57:42 RB: Purpose. 57:42 SM: —because it was genuine and real, and it was for good… 57:45 RB: Right, exactly. 57:45 SM: –it was not for bad. So, I am not going to criticize the young man. 57:51 RB: Criticizing them, is the people that sent them to war, and did not serve. 57:55 SM: Right. And then the people that protested the war— James [inaudible] does a great job talking about, there is difference between those who protested the war and those who evaded the draft. 58:05 RB: Right. 58:05 SM: And he is guilty. He feels guilty, but he does not, he does not [inaudible]. Because they did, because those people evaded the threat never protested the war. So– 58:13 RB: Right well, some had evaded the draft. I knew people that evaded the draft and protest the war. The– 58:21 SM: The— Senator Muskie answered the question in this way, he said that he never even responded about 1916. We thought he was going to talk about all the students in the [inaudible] each other— 58:32 RB: Right, yeah. 58:33 SM: He did not even mention it. He said we have not healed since the Civil War, because we have the same problem. We have the issue of race, and it has not— said it is still here. 58:41 RB: And it is, when you look at the states that voted for Obama in the states that did not it is a Civil War. 58:46 SM: And you know something when people say that they criticize Obama and then in the next breath, they say, “And I am not criticizing him because he is black.” If I hear that one more time I am going to jump out the window. Because I know some people, you know, I am not saying they are racist, but it is like, “my best friends are black.” That saying— I do not know… you do not have to, you do not have to say it!— 59:10 RB: You do not need to say it! Right. 59:13 SM: That is what Glenn Beck says. Do you think also the word that the— this particular generation is a generation that does not trust? And is that good? 59:23 RB: No— 59:23 SM: One of the characteristics of the generation is not a very trusting generation. 59:27 RB: I think it is good not to trust. You know, there is a lot in especially big government and government not to trust and questioning authority is very useful. 59:40 SM: That— 59:40 RB: We want our students to question. We want them to ask questions and not just assume that authorities are correct, since they are not most of the time. 59:51 SM: In a sense, you are saying that then this is healthy for democracy– 59:55 RB: It is. 59:55 SM: –because we are challenging the system. 59:57 RB: Right, and we need more challenging of the system. 1:00:02 SM: Very good. One of my interviewees said that now he has become a special— now— that, oh now has become a special interest group. I cannot read my own handwriting. That concentrates more on the irony, I already— I think I have already asked that question, so… strengths and weaknesses. Okay. What do you consider some of the strengths and weaknesses of the boomer generation? And I know you cannot, you cannot talk about a whole generation of people but you can talk about people you know. 1:00:30 RB: I think the strength of the people I know was that they were very daring… that they organized with other people… and protested for what they believed and stood up for what they believed, and some of them suffered for it. Some of them benefited. And the weaknesses are… that we did not have the staying power to change with changing times. And we also did not know our enemy. 1:01:30 SM: Has the enemy been the same for— 1:01:33 RB: No, the enemy has been very different. I mean, we had good times in the (19)60s, good economic times, liberal governments. And when it changed to more conservative times, we did not know how to deal with them. They knew how to deal with it, but we did not. They divided us. 1:01:53 SM: Yes, that is— 1:01:55 RB: They had spies in our organizations, we, you know, we were trusting people, we did not know any of this. 1:02:02 SM: This leads to a question here that, what was it like? And I am basically giving this question to you, what is it like being a female in America during the following timeframes, and maybe you have probably— your experience is comparable to other females of the time. And I am only saying the, because when we are looking at the boomers now, you know, we are talking right up to today so— 1:02:27 RB: That it was the most invigorating, marvelous, fun time. 1:02:31 SM: Let me break this down— 1:02:33 RB: I loved it. 1:02:34 SM: —what was it like from (19)46 to 1964 women that were— 1:02:39 RB: That was much harder. That was much harder. It was like, continual repression. Feeling a combination between oppressed and invisible. 1:02:53 SM: How about 1961 when President Kennedy came into 1970. 1:02:58 RB: That was joyous times. Fun was so important. It was so much fun to live in. It was, the atmosphere was anything is possible. Lots of experimentation, new freedoms, adventures, incredible friendships, Re- learning, and learning things. 1:03:40 SM: How about, how did the (19)70s differ from the (19)60s, say from 1971 to Reagan– 1:03:47 RB: (19)70s just started changing. I mean, America was not a great nation, and it began to be not a great nation anymore. We stopped producing anything. And we, it was no longer the same kind of times. Starting in late to mid (19)70s. 1:04:12 SM: Would you say that that period, right up to about (19)73, (19)74 is really part of the (19)60s because, yeah. 1:04:19 RB: Yes, that was part of the (19)60s, it was late (19)60s. 1:04:21 SM: How about 1981 to 1990, which was actually the period of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the first. 1:04:28 RB: That became much harder. I mean, it came… I mean, the sixties had ended and you had to make a new life and realize that the movement was not there anymore, although some friendships continued and… 1:04:52 SM: Do you agr— Go ahead. 1:04:53 RB: …and some protests continued. 1:04:57 SM: Yeah, I know the anti-apartheid movement was about the only one that— the only movement that, that— that was early (19)80s, (19)83 to (19)84. 1:05:04 RB: Yes early (19)80s. 1:05:07 SM: Do you feel that the criticism oftentimes of people that grew up in the (19)60s generation, which is all of them, but basically is that their idealism died as they got older, that they are no different than any other generation as time goes on. They become parents, they get a job. There is always this scattering of people that stay the way they were, but the majority of them just moved on with their lives. And, and when they said, when they were young, that they were going to change the world. And we are going to end war, great peace, and racism, sexism, homophobia, and make the world a better place to live that, that was just young people talking and dreaming and hoping but in reality, as life goes on, they have responsibilities. And, and security does mean a lot to them. Because they got to put bread on the table. Just your thoughts on that. 1:05:57 RM: I think that many, many people from the (19)60s that I know, are still active, and not active in the same way. Because the world has changed. And whenever I have a student who is an activist, it turns out that someone else is an activist in their family, and many I mean, my son's activist, I mean, they— it is not— they do change, and they do go on and their lifestyles change. But some of their idealism lives and they are still protesting in their way. 1:06:47 SM: You know, it is interesting— 1:06:48 RB: Or teaching, and passing it on to their students. 1:06:51 SM: As I, as I have gotten older, because I am in my early (19)60s, now. It has gotten stronger in me, not… not weaker, because I am more confident in who I am, what I am all about, and I know who I am as a human being, and that is who I am. And so— 1:07:09 RB: No one I know almost has— the only person that I know, personally, that has gotten conservative is David [inaudible]. But most… most of the people have not. True their lives have changed, they have jobs and things, but they have not gotten conservative. 1:07:24 SM: Think his friend [inaudible], another one. They were both- 1:07:27 RB: Oh yeah, Peter, I did not know Peter. 1:07:29 SM: Yeah, yeah. 1:07:29 RB: I did not know Peter. 1:07:30 SM: Yeah, I think he was— 1:07:31 RB: Yeah, I did not know Peter. 1:07:32 SM: —[inaudible] too. 1:07:32 RB: But I did not know. 1:07:35 SM: You already talked about the— 1:07:39 RB: Yeah. 1:07:39 SM: Alright, where is it [inaudible]. Anyway, I am moving around here. 1:07:44 RB: Right that is okay. 1:07:46 SM: And, I think you have already talked about your books, both prominent writers. Legal decisions, we were doing pretty good. If you were in a packed house, of 500 female college students today. And one asked you named the three or four events in your personal life that made you who you are today. Now, this is a little takeout, from the first question, but it is a little more specific, with all of your strengths and imperfections that we all have as human beings, what are they? And I asked this to Peter Kyer and Peter Kyer said, you know, I cannot answer that. You know, I got to think for a while. Then, he— then he thought about, jeez, yeah it was— I had a maid when I grew up, who was an African American maid, and she was very important. And then he went on to talk about the experience about the maid. And then he was writing a book on it. He was writing a book on the maid. And then he said, he talks about, well, then, then I had this person that did this for me. And then I know that I went to— I just happen to be at this particular event at this time. So, he has really just really went to town on it. Other— now you have already mentioned a lot of things that influenced you— 1:09:00 RB: Yeah, I do not— 1:09:01 SM: But are there specific events? 1:09:02 RB: Specific events… I do remember, that I could not go— my birthday party had it be called off because the Rosenbergs were being executed. And that had an enormous impact on me, not only because as a kid, I was angry that my birthday party had to end. And but I then we went to this demonstration. I was a kid about the Rosenberg— 1:09:45 SM: I do not think they were guilty. 1:09:47 RB: Well she certainly was not. 1:09:49 SM: Yeah. 1:09:50 RB: Even if, you know, the bombs he did was not even a secret. But anyway, the thing is that all around the world, they protested this. And, I mean, I saw that there were events that were much huge-er than me, like my birthday party. This execution, which was a world event, right? So, it sorts of put in perspective, the personal and political. There were these events outside that determined people's lives. Plus, it scared me that my parents could be killed. You know? Not that I even knew they were communists at that time, but I knew there was something a little different about them. 1:10:42 SM: Were you aware of the Hollywood 10? At that time, too? And their testimonies before the- 1:10:47 RB: Not totally, but my parents knew some of those people. So, I mean — 1:10:51 SM: And, and the people that lost their lives? 1:10:53 RB: Yes, I knew— 1:10:54 SM: Committed suicide because— 1:10:56 RB: Right, I knew a little about that. Yeah. 1:10:59 SM: Was there a generation gap in your family at all, but if any- were your, were your with you and your parents, in any way— 1:11:04 RB: Yeah, there was a generation gap. I mean, you know, they did not like the music I listened to or the sloppy the way they thought I was dressing, no there was definitely a generation gap. 1:11:18 SM: Now, what is interesting, I interviewed a very powerful Vietnam veteran about a month ago in Washington, Jack Wheeler was the guy who raised the funds for the Vietnam Memorial. And, and there was a symposium in 1980 with James Fallows, Phil Caputo. Really top people— Bobby Muller. And basically, they talked, they said- was talked about the generation gap. And one of them— oh and James Webb was not a senator. And I think they brought up the fact that the generation gap to them was not between parents, and their sons and daughters. It was we- it was within the generation, that the generation gap was those who served and those who chose not to serve. And James Webb, if I make sure I get his quote correct because he is a pretty tough cookie. He said that… he thinks that the boomer generation, which is being praised for being a generation that served, really is the generation that did not. By people who protested and did not go to war when people in World War II and World War I, and it was it was a rite of passage, one of the services— to serve your nation. You know we had so many, that did not serve either in a variety of ways. So that was what he thought generation gap was. Do you think you agree with that concept, or– 1:12:44 RB: I did not have that much experience with that. Yeah. 1:12:51 SM: Yeah. 1:12:51 RB: But that is, it is very different for people. So— 1:12:57 SM: Yeah, especially if there was a rite of passage that many of them have gone through. 1:13:03 RB: Right they think— people serve for many different reasons. I mean, I have this black friend that, you know, it is just a way out of his life. 1:13:11 SM: Yeah, I— 1:13:12 RB: Not like he was so gung-ho war, or saw it as a passage. You know, I do not know, he made two girls pregnant. He, you know, did not know what he was doing and it was just like kids that serve today. 1:13:26 SM: So, some go in there for a career too and some did that. 1:13:30 RB: Want to get their school paid for I have students all the time that tell me they want to enlist to get— 1:13:35 SM: One of the criticisms of the military back then is that they did that to young people that did not have any money. And as a result, they end up dead in Vietnam. There was a con job so to speak. What are, what are some of the slogans of the women's movement? I have been asking a question about slogans. And I said, there were three slogans that I personally feel kind of define the boomer generation. One of them is Malcolm X by saying and “by any means necessary”, which is symbolic of the more radical revolutionary toward violence type of mentality. 1:14:09 RB: The Women's Movement was pretty anti violence. 1:14:11 SM: The second one was the hippie mentality, which Peter max it was, I am a poster you do your thing. I will do mine. If by chance we should get together that will be beautiful. 1:14:21 RB: Yeah, no, but for movement build that is not good. 1:14:23 SM: Yeah, and the third one was the one Bobby Kennedy was quoted. He took it from the writer from the 19th century. And the summons sees things as they are and ask why I see things that never were asked why not, which is a more of an activist mentality— 1:14:38 RB: Uh huh, right, yes, that one makes more sense 1:14:40 SM: —of seeking justice [inaudible]. So those three I thought, but I did not know if there was any other— 1:14:45 RB: The woman’s movement, the personal as political. That what you think of is personal. Like if you are being beaten. It is not personal, it is political. And having an abortion, birth control, they are not only personal issues, they are political issues as well. So that was a very important one, the personal is political. 1:15:12 SM: The last two periods that I did not talk about was the period 1991 to 2000, which was the end of the George Bush period and the Bill Clinton era. What is— what is that, for women and for you, for example just— 1:15:25 RB: Pretty bleak. Pretty bleak. 1:15:29 SM: Any progress there in any way? 1:15:33 RB: Not too much. 1:15:35 SM: And then, of course, the years— 1:15:36 RB: No, I would say it was the opposite of progress. It was going backwards. They have changed abortion to make it harder to get abortions, there are fewer abortions. People do not give abortions anymore. I mean, it has gotten backwards. 1:15:52 SM: And the year— 1:15:53 RB: [inaudible] starting to get a little better. 1:15:54 SM: The year 2001 to 2010 with George Bush the second and for Barack Obama on this— 1:16:00 RB: Well with Barack Obama there is at least there is hope. We do not know where it is going to lead, but at least there was hope. 1:16:08 SM: We are in obviously, in another war with George Bush with Iraq and Afghanistan. 1:16:13 RB: Right, we are. 1:16:14 SM: And certainly, Obama's going to gung-ho. 1:16:16 RB: He is. 1:16:17 SM: So, I do not know where that will lead. 1:16:25 SM: I would like your reaction to the following people. 1:16:29 RB: Okay. 1:16:29 SM: Terms, and what these events mean to you personally. 1:16:33 RB: Okay 1:16:33 SM: And we have still got at least 15 minutes here. Kent State, Jackson State, what does that mean to you? 1:16:40 RB: It meant a lot to me, Kent State, Jackson State. First of all, Jackson State people do not know about as much as Kent State. And it was a more working-class college. It was not an elite college. So it was very important. And then Jackson State, which was much more ignored, was equally important. And even though they came at the end, they were exceedingly important, and the fact that it was getting more violent. And people getting were more frustrated on both sides was very important. 1:17:22 SM: What does the wall mean to you? The Vietnam Memorial. 1:17:26 RB: It was a very important commemoration when I have gone there and seen all those names. And I do not know people that died in Vietnam, but it was just— it was a very moving, important Memorial. Just to have some kind of commemoration of the damages. 1:17:52 SM: Have you ever met Diane Carlson Evans? The Women’s Memorial? 1:17:55 RB: No, no. 1:17:55 SM: You ought to meet her someday. 1:17:56 RB: Yeah, I know. 1:17:57 SM: Got to bring her to your class. What a- she went before Congress to fight for the women’s memorial— 1:18:00 RB: No, I know she did, I know she did. 1:18:03 SM: And because she saw the eight names that were on the wall, but with a three-man statue, she fought for that woman statue. She did a good job. It is interesting when I asked a powerful Vietnam vet that the question about what I mean I heard that Diane really had to fight to get that Memorial built. What kind of— was there any sexism within the Vietnam veteran community? And he immediately responded, he said, no, we supported Diane from the get go. And of course, I have heard otherwise, but not from him. And it was basic as that, well look at the wall, Maya Lin designed the wall, she was a female. Who designed the woman's memorial? Glenna Goodacre. And then there was a man that designed the three man statues so two of the three main standards are women. And so, so there is our case. What does Watergate mean to you? 1:18:58 RB: Watergate, was really an opening that- first of all, it was televised. And people really got to understand what this dirty Nixon government was doing. And it was the beginning of unraveling that people could really see and feel. I mean, this new unraveling it is, it is almost like the Pentagon Papers. It has, has not created a ripple. 1:19:37 SM: Yeah, starting. But just the term counterculture. 1:19:41 RB: Yeah. 1:19:41 SM: What do you think of that. Were you- I wonder how do you— 1:19:44 RB: I define myself as part of the counterculture- 1:19:47 SM: And what is the counterculture to you? 1:19:49 RB: I like the counterculture; it was not the mainstream culture. It was not having the same goals of conquering people's— treating people very differently, wanting to live life in the moment. And it was caring for the earth– 1:20:21 SM: How About hippies and yippies. Hippies— 1:20:24 RB: Yeah, I like the hippies. You know, when I felt like a hippie myself, I lived on the Lower East Side. Liked the hippie culture. It was an alternative to the admin culture. 1:20:37 SM: How about the yippies which was Hoffman and Ruban— 1:20:40 RB: Yeah, well, I knew them. I was not as— I mean, I knew them personally. And I mean, they did things like burn money. I mean, they showed contempt for values that I felt should be made to quest- to people to question. 1:21:03 SM: How about Woodstock and Summer of Love, two separate incidents. One in (19)69, and one is (19)67. 1:21:05 RB: I did not go to Woodstock. I could have, but… I mean, it was a memorable occasion. Music was good. 1:21:20 SM: A lot of people forget the summer solstice of (19)68. 1:21:23 RB: Right. 1:21:23 SM: Yeah, that is, I— nobody talks about it. But that was big, too. 1:21:28 RB: Right? 1:21:28 SM: The year 1968. What does that mean to you? 1:21:31 RB: 1968? It meant the international movement. And it meant the beginning of the women's movement. There was a movement in Mexico, there was a movement in Germany. 1:21:47 SM: Yes. 1:21:47 RB: It was a worldwide— 1:21:50 SM: France. 1:21:51 RB: —New Left. Yeah, France. New Left. It was a worldwide— New Left was an international group which was very important. 1:22:01 SM: The 1963 march on Washington. 1:22:05 RB: That was incredibly important as well, in that racism could not be denied any longer. Thousands of people were daring to dream that it might be different. And mobilizing. And even though it was not the radical part of the civil rights movement, it was people from all over the United States. Unions, different people, maids, chauffeurs so many different people coming together. 1:22:49 SM: How about the incident on Wall Street with hard hats, beating up hippies with long hair. That was pretty similar. Like– 1:22:58 RB: Yeah, that was— showed the enormous class differences. The press was pushing. 1:23:08 SM: Some people say that was what was the silent majority were those hard hats. Because that was what Nixon was always talking about , the silent majority. 1:23:21 RB: I do not think they were the silent majority. But anyway, you know, they had their point. And they blame the wrong enemy. 1:23:28 SM: You brought up black power and black power was really prevalent on college campus, late (19)60s, early (19)70s. And Kent state, you cannot even hardly find an African American student, because it is more all white students. I am actually interviewing the president of Kansas State Student Government in three weeks. And he was an African American. But there was a— if you read James’s Michener’s book, I can state there were no African American students there. And if there were, they were asked to leave, because at that time— I was on Ohio State's campus in the early (19)70s. And black students went more towards what was happening in America and not toward Vietnam. There was that split, and the Afros and everything was pretty strong there. So black power, your thoughts on black power, and its intimidation factor number one and Black Panthers and the concept of what they were all about in terms of— 1:24:23 RB: Well, in a way, black power was a lot like separatism that had been, you know, there since Booker T. Washington, and saying, look, we can do it alone. And in the women's movement in some way. We were inspired by black power, because women's power, we had our own movement. We did not have men in the movement. And it inspired us to do our thing on our own and that we did not need men to be leaders anymore. We could be the leaders. So, there were lots of correspondences between black power and the women's movement. 1:25:12 SM: What did you think of the- when… did you think Black Panthers were violent? Number one, even though they had the food program and number two, SDS went from being an antiwar group to a violent group. Yeah, well, the weatherman- 1:25:27 RB: I am actually very against the weatherman. And they were the most macho people too. And anti-women and kind of ways and guns and macho. And it was the most anti female thing. And I did not like that transition at all. 1:25:44 SM: I mentioned that even in the American Indian Movement from (19)69 to (19)73 that was so strong that the hopes that Alcatraz, when they took over Alcatraz, and then the violence at Wounded Knee showed again, the violence does not win. Right. So, you had you had Wounded Knee for Native Americans. you had the weatherman for SDS, you had the Black Panthers, right? People have Huey Newton or Bobby Seale says we were not violent. We were there— we had guns to protect ourselves because police had guns, but then then also the Young Lords, which was the Latina, Puerto Rican group, they kind of copied the Black Panthers, so— 1:26:18 RB: But they also had breakfast programs and other things, as you say that people forget. 1:26:22 SM: Right. Right. What did you think of Earth Day? 1:26:28 RB: Earth Day, I remember going to Earth Day and my son knew more people on the demonstration for the first time than I did. 1:26:36 SM: You were in Washington for the big one? 1:26:37 RB: I was in New York City. 1:26:39 SM: Okay. 1:26:39 RB: Was it June 13th? One— and I remember my son went with me and he was saying hi to everyone and knew everyone. And I thought that was just great, that he knew more people than I did. 1:26:49 SM: Let me change the tape. 1:26:58 SM: Like at least— 1:26:59 RB: And the hippies had some of the Earth kind of things and preserving the Earth in them as well. I mean, I began having gardens and sewing things and caring about the earth and the water supply and mulching as a hippie. So, Earth Day seemed a continuation of those concerns. 1:27:25 SM: Yeah, I think the environmental movement is very strong today. Of course, there is a lot of enemies of it. 1:27:29 RB: Yeah. But it is stronger. 1:27:30 SM: It is, it is very strong. 1:27:31 RB: And it will get stronger with things like BP. 1:27:35 SM: Oh, my gosh, yes. 1:27:36 SM: The Free Speech Movement, (19)64. Just your thoughts on it? Because it was really the preamble to all the foul– 1:27:44 RB: In California. 1:27:45 SM: Yeah. 1:27:46 RB: Because, I mean, I was writing about Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and, in the Wobblies, the IWW. They had to have free speech movements, and they call them free speech movements, in order to be heard. So, in order to even raise money, with people in the south, you had to have a Free Speech Movement, to even talk about the war, and to talk about the civil rights movement. So, it had to come first. And free speech is always part of a movement. 1:28:22 SM: But I always admire— I wish I had met Mario Savio; he was not a well man. He died in his fifties. 1:28:27 RB: Right. 1:28:27 SM: And I do not know if you saw him [inaudible] I mean, there is a new book by Dr. Cohen at NYU— 1:28:33 RB: Right, yeah, NYU. 1:28:35 SM: I am interviewing in September— 1:28:37 RB: Right, my son [inaudible] 1:28:38 SM: —Strictly an hour and a half. Nothing but the free speech movement. And but one of the things that stands out, and I want you to comment on it, that he… that Mario Savio, whether you liked his style of speaking or where he, you know, came I think he originally came from New York— 1:28:56 RB: He did come from New York. 1:28:57 SM: Yeah. And the fact that you got to admire this guy, because he-he got it, that the university was about ideas. And he talks about the recent, you know, stopping about literature being handed out, you are denying ideas on a university campus. And so, he did what Clark Kerr talked about in the uses of the university, the noun, not the knowledge factory was like the corporate factory. And so, he was challenging that kind of a system— 1:29:30 RB: [crosstalk] Right and he was saying— 1:29:31 SM: The corporate mentality— 1:29:32 RB: —we cannot be cogs in a wheel 1:29:33 SM: Yeah. 1:29:33 RB: We have to change. You know, we are not little cogs. We have to open our minds. And that is supposedly what learning is about, and you cannot learn unless you have many ideas. 1:29:47 SM: See that is what worries me about the lessons that were learned from the Free Speech Movement and everything right up through probably today is that is when I interviewed Arthur Chickering, who gave me an hour and a half of his time on the phone, the great educator, rural education identity that we had to read for my graduate program. I asked him, is there any last comments you would like to make when I ended the interview. He says, yes. I am disappointed in today's universities for one reason the corporations are taking over. 1:30:13 RB: Yes, they are. 1:30:14 SM: And this is from a conservative educator— 1:30:17 RB: Yeah, but it is true, yeah. 1:30:19 SM: And that was exactly what Mario was saying. And that was [inaudible] 1:30:22 RB: Things have gotten so much worse! 1:30:24 SM: Scholarships are all based on raising funds. Everything is raising, you know, buildings are named just raising funds, scholarships, it is everything. And even in activities in— 1:30:35 RB: Even the kind of funding that is given, the people's work. 1:30:40 SM: Yeah, it has got to show that it is— 1:30:42 RB: That was what we were protesting against now the university is much worse. And also, the idea of public schools. We do not even have- we used to have free public schools. Now, even though state universities are so expensive— 1:30:57 SM: [inaudible] yeah. 1:30:58 RB: It has gone up 18 times since I have taught. 1:31:01 SM: Yeah, yeah. And I do not know what is going to happen to Berkeley. Because— 1:31:06 RB: No— 1:31:06 SM: I know some students that have left, they were not coming back. They were going to, they were going to another, they were leaving, they were leaving Berkeley! 1:31:13 RB: Right, I know, they are ruining, they are really making things— also, it is what is happening in our country now, where the differences between the rich and the poor are getting greater and greater. The gaps between the rich— 1:31:26 SM: Yeah and the middle class is going to go into the poor, and the- so 2 percent and the 98 percent— 1:31:29 RB: Right, and it is really what is happening, and therefore. for public education, they do not care. 1:31:36 SM Just a few more here, Freedom Summer. 1:31:40 RB: It was very important in— that was very important, not only for the work that was done, you know, educating black people in freedom schools, but the white people changed so much. Seeing the roles of the blacks and black leaders like Fannie Lou Hamer, and that there were people who were sharecroppers who had no education but could teach you a whole lot. And it gave people a new sense of class. And what you could learn from the people. 1:32:22 SM: Sergeant Shriver in the Peace Corps, and I— and I say Sergeant Shriver, he has got Alzheimer's now just like— 1:32:28 SM: Yeah, that is what I hear. 1:32:30 SM: And he is not long for this world, unfortunately. 1:32:34 RB: But the person from Pennsylvania who started the Peace Corps, he was president of my college at first. 1:32:38 SM: I have interviewed two pe— Harris Wofford! 1:32:39 RB: Harris Wofford. He was— 1:32:40 SM: I know Harris Wofford. 1:32:41 RB: —He was president of Old Westbury. 1:32:43 SM: Yeah. And well, I know him well in fact— 1:32:45 RB: I do not know him well. But he was president of Old Westbury when I first came. 1:32:50 SM: Yeah, well, he was from, from California. He was my first speaker at Thomas Jefferson University. Then I went over to his law office before he worked for Governor Scranton and I, seeking an hour of his time, and I invited him four times to come and speak at our school once during the Rodney King crisis when he was senator. And, and I interviewed him in his backyard, before we moved to Washington, where this book, and he— his wife, was just Claire was everything to him. And he has never been the same since he last- 1:33:22 RB: Were, well, he was president of a college so I— 1:33:26 SM: But just your thoughts on Sergeant Shriver and the Peace Corps- 1:33:28 RB: I think the Peace Corps was another very important idea, especially… We live in a world economy. And it is very important that people to see what America does to the rest of the world and how what we can learn from them, and they from us. And it was very meaningful for people who went I know, people that were in the Peace Corps, and it changed them enormously. 1:33:54 SM: What are your thoughts? When you look at the Presidents since 1946, which includes, one of the things I learned very early, when I was four or five, I learned all my presidents. I learned them the least. 1:34:05 RB: Most of the presidents have been very dismal. The good ones stand out. As a historian that is what I think. 1:34:11 SM: Well, when you think of when you think of Truman, and Eisenhower, and certainly Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and then you have Ford. 1:34:23 RB: Ford, yeah. 1:34:24 SM: Carter, Reagan, George Bush the first, Bill Clinton, George Bush the second, and now Obama, when you think of these people, these are the presidents that have been alive when boomers have been alive. And if you are talking about even FDR, for those that were born in the early (19)40s. Any of those events do you admire for their issue, for their work on behalf of women when they were in positions of leadership? 1:34:51 RB: Eleanor Roosevelt, not— not Roosevelt, and under Johnson, very good legislation was passed. I mean, the Peace Corps and those things did affect women. And the War on Poverty did affect women. Not specifically, he did not appoint that many women or have feminist consciousness, but some of his programs were really important for women. Johnson above them all. 1:35:19 SM: What were some of those programs? 1:35:21 RB: Well, I said the War on Poverty, the Peace Corps… Equal Rights Amendment passed under him, ERA. 1:35:37 SM: You mentioned also Eleanor Roosevelt and I have not talked about her at all, hardly in any of my interviews, but— 1:35:43 RB: Human Rights, she was the one to talk about human rights and she is very important. And as a wife of a president, she was very active in her role. 1:35:53 SM: She lived until— 1:35:54 RB: Aside from being gay, you know— 1:35:55 SM: She lived until (19)62, 1962. 1:35:58 RB: Right, she was very active in the UN. 1:36:03 SM: So, she was too— she— would you say she was a person— 1:36:05 RB: She was someone you could— I looked up to her. 1:36:08 SM: The women's movement is also often identified as a United States effort. But when I interviewed Charlotte Bunch– 1:36:16 RB: Oh, she— 1:36:16 SM: She talked about the international aspects, was Eleanor Roosevelt, a key figure in the international women's issues in the UN? 1:36:24 RB: She was in the UN 1:36:27 SM: Right. 1:36:27 RB: In UN, in Human Rights. 1:36:28 SM: Just a few more names, I do not tell you— 1:36:30 RB: Okay, that 1s alright. 1:36:31 SM: Okay I am going to— at least they are all— because— just your thoughts on Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda. 1:36:37 SM: Um, Tom Hayden is still doing very good work. Now. I get this newsletter that he does. And he is one person who has changed with changing time and continued to be important. I mean, I really liked his Newark project… in Newark. He was not very good to Casey Hayden, or he was not good to other girlfriends, but on the whole, I think he is a very positive role. And he continues to be an activist. 1:37:14 SM: He has written and brand-new book now on the movement. 1:37:18 RB: Right, yeah, so, he continues, I mean, he is someone who is lasting. 1:37:22 SM: Jane Fonda. 1:38:25 RB: Jane Fonda. I mean, she popularized, really, fitness and protest for a while, and she certainly was hated. By the right. They made her a major enemy. 1:37:40 SM: And they still do. 1:37:43 RB: And as you know, a founder and an actress she played an important media role. 1:37:49 SM: I am interviewing Jeremy or Jerry Alinsky tomorrow, who wrote a book— 1:37:52 RB: Oh, right. Yeah, right. 1:37:53 SM: [inaudible] on Jane Fonda about Miss— Danny Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. Just your thoughts on both of them. 1:38:03 RB: They made protesting very much fun. And they, they had this yippies. I mean, I did not think of it is irresponsible, but some people good. I mean, they wanted people to feel that you could have a hell of a good time and still protest, and be very creative and inventive. 1:38:36 SM: How About the Black Panthers. And I said just like I cannot just say Black Panthers because they had like seven or eight major personalities and just if any of these people stand out— Stokely Carmichael was obviously when was— 1:38:50 RB: He is international. 1:38:51 SM: Yeah, he challenged Dr. King— 1:38:51 RB: [inaudible] Yes, right. 1:38:53 SM: —your time has passed and so Stokely Carmichael, of course, Bobby Seale, and Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver and Kathleen Cleaver and H. Rhett. Brown. 1:39:03 RB: They are all very different. Kathleen Cleaver, I was reading a book the other day; she did the introduction. She is a lawyer now. I mean, they are very, I mean, Huey Newton turned out to be a criminal. I mean, they are— they are all very different. Bobby Rush beat Obama— 1:39:20 SM: Oh, that is right— that is right. 1:39:22 RB: You know, they are very, very different people all of them. 1:39:27 SM: And the one that was murdered in Chicago. Yeah. 1:39:29 RB: Yeah. What is his name? The Chicago brown women. The Chicago branch was one of the best branches of the, of the Black Panthers. They are the ones that had a big breakfast program. 1:39:40 SM: And then there is the— Angela Davis who was not a Black Panther. 1:39:34 RB: She was sort of a media… communist, media star. 1:39:51 SM: Anything about her? 1:39:53 RB: I mean, intellectually, she, I mean, I used something that she wrote in my class about slave narratives. She wrote something about Douglass. 1:40:12 SM: How about Tommy Smith and John Carlos, they were in the 1968 Olympics. They raised their fists. 1:40:17 RB: Yeah, right, I do not, you know– 1:40:18 SM: They are black power. 1:40:19 RB: Yeah, right. 1:40:20 SM: Not Black Panthers. 1:40:21 RB: Right. 1:40:23 SM: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. 1:40:27 RB: You know, very useful event. I wish the new papers had as much impact as he did. That is a very brave individual. 1:40:37 SM: How about Dr. Benjamin Spock? 1:40:40 RB: I mean, my father was a friend of his. 1:40:43 SM: Really? 1:40:43 RB: Yeah. My father was a friend of his, he thanks him. My father, in his book. My father helped make him more left. 1:40:51 SM: Your— your father wrote a book? 1:40:53 RB: No, Ben Spock’s Book. 1:40:56 SM: Oh, I have Ben Spock’s book— 1:40:58 RB: Yeah I believe he thanked my father, Lewis Fraad, for helping him. 1:41:03 SM: How about Timothy Leary? 1:41:07 RB: LSD. I do not know, guess he escaped from prison too. No. 1:41:13 SM: Yeah. The weathermen got him. 1:41:16 RB: Yeah well, LSD, you know. 1:41:20 SM: George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy. 1:41:22 RB: I did not relate to them that much. 1:41:25 SM: Neither one of them? 1:41:27 RB: Neither of them, nope. 1:41:28 SM: What about LBJ and Hubert Humphrey? 1:41:31 RB: Oh, LBJ, in retrospect, as a historian, I think was very important to Senate leader and president, but I did not at the time. 1:41:40 SM: What about Nixon and Agnew? 1:41:42 RB: Well they were major enemies– 1:41:45 SM: And… RB: But they look good in comparison to Bush, and smart. 1:41:49 SM: George Wallace. 1:41:51 RB: At least he changed. 1:41:54 SM: Barry Goldwater and William Buckley, because those are major. 1:41:57 RB: Yeah, they were at least thinkers. They are much better than the right wingers that are around today, like Sarah Palin's much more intelligent and thoughtful. 1:42:07 SM: But the— Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. 1:42:11 RB: I think more of Betty Friedan than I do of Gloria Steinem. I mean, she is a media figure. There is nothing that she has written or said that I think is very worthwhile, but she certainly is a figure that people look to. 1:42:23 SM: About Bella Abzug. 1:42:25 RB: I admired her a lot. 1:42:27 SM: [crosstalk] A lot of people do not realize he was waiting before she was a congressman. 1:42:29 RB: —She was very gutsy— 1:42:30 RB: Very gutsy person. 1:42:32 SM: She risked her life going down South. 1:42:34 RB: Oh I know. She was an amazing person. She-she- I helped her start a daycare center. She wanted one in her campaign headquarters. 1:42:47 SM: Wow. Muhammad Ali and Jackie Robinson— 1:42:50 RB: I looked up to Mohammed Ali and Jackie Robinson and I think it is odd that my students do not know who either of them are 1:42:56 SM: That is amazing. 1:42:57 RB: Black students, have never heard of Jackie Robinson. 1:43:00 SM: See another one that is now up there is Curt Flood because Curt Flood was [inaudible] now more is being written. There is a couple of biographies coming on, on him. And they are going to do a section in the Cooperstown on him. 1:43:11 RB: Oh, really? 1:43:12 SM: Yeah. Because he has, he has not, he has not given any [inaudible] again. 1:43:17 RB: Yeah no. 1:53:17 SM: They bought him— actually, Muhammad Ali, is… I cannot think of— anything else here? 1:43:22 RB: I did not even like boxing, but I watched Muhammad Ali. 1:43:27 SM: Yeah, he was, he was something else. As far as, as far as musicians of the period and the music was very important politically, it was in tune with the times, but how important was music in your life in terms of not only just relaxing you and laying back and enjoying it— 1:43:43 RB: Like as protests, it was. It was. 1:43:44 SM: —but in terms of stimulation, who were the artists that really stimulated you? 1:43:47 RB: I mean even though there was sexist artist, the beat and things like the Rolling Stones influenced me and I went to the concerts and Dylan. I mean, I was influenced by male rock and roll. Even if the words were saying something different to me than the rhythms. 1:44:09 SM: Were you into Folk, as much as Ryan. 1:44:10 RB: I was into folk music. 1:44:13 SM: About the Motown sound. 1:44:15 RB: I liked Motown; I still adore Motown. 1:44:16 SM: Is there one album that you have that stands out but like me people? 1:44:24 RB: Maybe, I like Janis Joplin. I like Janis Joplin a lot. And she inspired me and feminist kind of ways. 1:44:35 SM: Too bad she passed away really quick, very bad drug situation. And down to my last three questions, what role did women play in ending the war in Vietnam, because the group or groups of personalities, the role of women in building the women's Vietnam memorial. We all know about Diane Car— Carlson Evans, who was involved in that. But the reason I bring this up is because when I interviewed John Wheeler in Washington, DC who raised funds and he has, he wrote a book, Touched With Fire. He says the three most important things that happened as a result of the Vietnam War was the— that women were, were antiwar or involved in the antiwar movement. And it was really inspirational. So, it was right during the women's movement. So— 1:45:23 RB: It was during the women’s movement. And we were very involved in the antiwar movement, as involved as men. 1:45:29 SM: Do you feel that one of the things is lacking today and students understanding— they think in terms of power and empowerment, we had Tom Hayden on our campus about six years ago. And Tom, Tom talked—[third speaker interrupts]—we were talking about women— 1:45:53 RB: In Vietnam now. I think we were the troops in the movement. We I mean, I know people like Leslie Kagan that were ahead of mold and devoted their lives to the antiwar movement. 1:46:05 SM: Are there— you said you went to some of them? Protests— 1:46:10 RB: Pentagon loans. 1:46:11 SM: Were you there at the (19)67, the raising— 1:46:15 RB: Yes, the raising of the— I was there. I was even in the front lines. 1:46:18 SM: And Norman Mailer was there. 1:46:20 RB: Yes, I know. 1:46:21 SM: And as was— Dr. Spock was there too. 1:46:24 RB: Spock was there yet. My father was in jail. Yeah. 1:46:28 SM: What was that like? A lot of people will laugh, their going to levitate the Pentagon in (19)67. What is the… what was that feeling like being there? 1:46:37 RB: The feeling was, that we have the power to, we have the power. And you do not take it literally, to rock the Pentagon. To make it air. 1:46:51 SM: Were you there at the time that the guy burned himself? Underneath McNamara? 1:46:53 RB: Oh, no, I was not there. 1:46:55 SM: What do you think of McNamara and Kissinger? 1:47:01 RB: I think they are war criminals. 1:47:06 SM: Yeah, so what I was getting at here is that when Tom Hayden was on our campus, he asked our student government if they had, if they were empowered, and they said, oh, yeah, we determine budgets, we give out money. And Tom said, we control the money that goes, no, I am not talking about power. I am talking about power. They did not have a- they did not know any difference between it. And I do know that I brought up in a student affair once meeting of the word empowerment and that scared, you know, just saying power. What is it about the difference between the word empowerment as opposed to power, I mean? 1:47:40 RB: Empowerment is sort of a spiritual state of mind. And it is an individual thing, of empowerment. It means like, you can feel empowered, you can change the color of your hair and feel differently and feel empowered. But it has nothing to do with power and who rules. 1:48:05 SM: Yet, Tom— 1:48:05 RB: It is an individual kind of… thing. I feel empowered. 1:48:11 SM: See he told me at dinner, he says, I hope the students in the audience are not like the students at dinner with me. He was dead serious. And no, they were not that was, that— those students went off to student government, and— and then the students that were at the program stayed about an hour afterwards and Tom started talking to them. That is the Tom, that, yeah, those are the ones that ask the questions. My very last question, legacy. What do you—two-part question—what do you think the legacy of the women's movement will— do you think there will be a third wave? You know, there was the first wave. I even took my dad before he passed away to Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s home after her father died. 1:48:56 RB: Oh, wow that is wonderful. 1:48:57 SM: And I— one of my famous, favorite shots is walking up the back stairs with my dad looking up at me. And we were— and I have gone to Elizabeth Cady Stanton house three times now since my dad died, and again brings tears to my eyes, it was a great memory of being with him that day at the house. But getting back to this, will there be a third wave in the women’s movement? And what is the legacy of the second wave? 1:49:24 RB: I hope so. And the legacy of the second way is, as I said, the way people think, dream, act, imagine, live their lives. And I would hope that there is going to be a third wave. 1:49:44 SM: Do you think that— when— you are a scholar and you write books, and scholars often know that the best history books are written 50 years after an event like the best World War II books— 1:49:51 RB: Oh yeah definitely. 1:49:52 SM: 50 years after the (19)60s and (19)70s, I will say 50 years from 1980 when Reagan came to power, what do you think the history books are going to say about that time and the generation that grew up after World War II? 1:50:11 RB: I think people are going to admire it a great deal and see the enormous changes that were made, and that it was a real triumph of democracy, from below. 1:50:25 SM: And those media people today, whether it be Newt Gingrich or George Orwell, in his writings, or Mike Huckabee, on his TV show or some of the commentators on Fox when they say that a lot of problems in America today are due to those times in the (19)60s and (19)70s, when love was rampant, drugs were rampant, divorces were rampant– 1:50:52 RB: Well, those people are divorced more than most people in the sixties, that is all I can say. 1:50:56 SM: Yeah, you know, do you have any— was there a question that— that I did not ask you that you thought I was going to ask? 1:51:07 RB: Cannot think of it at the moment. 1:51:08 SM: Was there any final comments or– 1:51:09 RB: No, that, you know, I think a legacy of change and democracy is only going to ask, and I hope to see it again in my lifetime. 1:51:22 SM: Good. Well, thank you. I am going to— (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 Rosalind Baxandall Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Baxandall, Rosalyn, 1939-2015 ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Feminists; Historians; Authors; Political activists--United States; Baxandall, Rosalyn, 1939-2015--Interviews Description An account of the resource Rosalyn Baxandall (1939 - 2015) was a feminist historian, activist, author and educator. She was one of the leading figures of the feminist movement in New York during the late 1960s. Baxandall received her Bachelor's degree in French at University of Wisconsin and her Master of Social Work at Columbia University. 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 2010-07-29 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.10.2016.21a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.21b 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. 111:24