94 10 1775 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/0ff89b73f7e0f3e8353d04c9f18c8edc.mp3 52c566d478a352e14cc2465bd55e43d2 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 Armenian Oral History Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Aynur de Rouen, Ph.D. Description An account of the resource This collection includes interviews in English with informants of all ages and a variety of backgrounds from various parts of Armenia.  The interviews provide deeper insight into the history of the Armenian culture through personal accounts, narratives, testimonies, and memories of their early lives in their adoptive country and back in Armenia.   Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright.  Relation A related resource <a href="https://www.binghamton.edu/libraries/about/collections/oral-histories/index.html#sustainablecommunities">Sustainable Communities Oral History Collection</a> Language A language of the resource English 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 3/28/2016 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Gregory Smaldone Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Suzanne A Froundjian Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 25:25 Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Rights Statement This audio file and digital image may only be used for educational purposes. Please cite as Armenian Oral History Project, Binghamton University Libraries, Binghamton University, State University of New York. For usage beyond fair use please contact the Binghamton University Libraries for more information. Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Born in NYC to second generation Turkish-Armenian immigrant parents, Suzanne was involved in her Armenian church from an early age. She holds a master's degree in illustration and is fluent in Armenian. Suzanne also has two children, Anoosh and Rafi and is working on an Armenian cultural preservation project. "}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":15105,"3":{"1":0},"11":4,"12":0,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":11}">Born in NYC to second generation Armenian immigrant parents, Suzanne was involved in her Armenian church from an early age. She studied Communications Design-BFA at Pratt Institue and is an Assistant Professor at Fashion Institute of Technology. Suzanne also has two children, Anoush and Rafi and is working on an Armenian cultural preservation project. Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Turkey; orphanage; church; traditional roles; traditions; Armenian language school; food; genocide; diaspora; gender roles;"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":15105,"3":{"1":0},"11":4,"12":0,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":11}">Turkey; Armenia; Armenian church; Armenian culture;Traditional roles; Traditions; Armenian language school; Food; Genocide; Diaspora; Gender roles. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium Armenian Oral History Project Interview with: Suzanne Anoushian Froundjian Interviewed by: Gregory Smaldone Transcriber: Cordelia Jannetty Date of interview: 28 March 2016 Interview Settings: Manhasset, NY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) 0:01 GS: This is Gregory Smaldone conducting an interview for the Armenian Oral History Project with Binghamton University’s Special Collections Section in the Binghamton University Library. Please state your name, your age and a little bit yourself for the record. 0:16 SF: My name is Suzanne Anoushian Froundjian. I am sixty-two years old. I live in Manhasset, New York. I grew up in New York City. 0:25 GS: So when and where were you born? 0:27 SF: I was born in 1953 at Lincoln Hospital in New York City on a 135th street which is no longer there, the hospital. And I grew up– I started– I first lived with my parents in the Bronx on East 233rd street, and then moved to the country–to Bayside, New York when I was two years old. And we went from an apartment to a house. 0:57 GS: Okay, and how long did you spend there? 1:00 SF: Twenty four years. 1:01 GS: So you grew up in [inaudible]. 1:03 SF: Yes, I grew up [inaudible]. 1:05 GS: Perfect. Where your parents immigrants? 1:07 SF: No, my parents were both born in New York. 1:09 GS: What about their parents? 1:10 SF: There parents were immigrants, all immigrants. 1:13 GS: Where did your grandparents emigrate from? 1:15 SF: My maternal grandparents were both from the same area, the village of İçme which is outside of Kharput, which is in Western Armenia, now Turkey. 1:30 GS: Now Turkey, were they fleeing the Armenian Genocide? 1:36 SF: Yes, they were. My ̶ let us see– my great grandfather, my mother’s grandfather came to America when he was twenty-six, twenty-five years old in order to raise money to bring his family here because there was the imminent danger of the genocide. And he settled in Whitinsville, Massachusetts near Worcester and he worked here to try to raise money. He died of– he died here at twenty-seven of– God what did he die from– of Pneumonia. Brought on, they said by being on a street car when it was– from getting a chill– who– God who knows and so he left behind his wife and six children, four children. She was a young– younger than that and was, had lived with her family but they all lived in enclave but they had to decide what to do and so they sent the girls– the two girls to an orphanage for safekeeping so they would at least be safe near Eastern Relief Fund Orphanage. They sent one son to Mexico who was–who with relatives who were fleeing the area and her baby who was two or three, she kept with her. The family, that family had not seen each other all together for fifty some odd years until they reunited. My grandmother and her sister were not too–they saw Smyrna burning. They were on a boat. They, eventually went to Corinth, Greece with the orphanage. The orphanage was funded by the Americans– the American Near Eastern Relief Fund, Henry Morgenthau was the– was one of the benefactors. She babysat for Robert Morgenthau many times who was the– what was he in New York City– the attorney general and Barbara Tuckman, the– his sister who was a historian. She was contacted by my grandfather who wrote to her, who knew about her family and she came to America– actually she came with her sister to Cuba. She married my grandfather in Cuba. They came to America. And she came as an American citizen and they sent to my great aunt to Mexico to be with her brother. 4:17 GS: Okay, wonderful. Can you tell us a little– a bit about your childhood growing up, do you recall your goals and your aspirations? Who your kinship group was? 4:28 SF: Well, I mean I had an American life and an Armenian life. And my Armenian life consisted of church. I spoke English as a second language, I spoke Armenian as the first language. I grew up with a lot of family and church and Armenian life. I also grew up as an American. My parents were American. 4:50 GS: So, would you say that your friends were mostly Americans, mostly Armenian or was there a mix or did you have two separate groups? 4:58 SF: I had separate groups because they did not mix at that time really. There were not that many Armenians in Bayside although there was a church there so they ended up being a lot of Armenians. 05:07 GS: Would you say– where was the main social space for the Armenian community? 5:12 SF: At the church. Yeah, there really were not, were not any groups. When the more– when the new comer Armenians came they started forming more clubs and organizations which is how it was there, but in America really the only place was the church. 5:27 GS: Okay– what– hold on– so did both of your parents work when growing up? 5:41 SF: Yes, Oh no not my mother. No not until I was– she went back to school when I was thirteen, went back to college. 5:52 GS: What did she study? 5:53 SF: She studied education. She went back to– she went back to Queens College and started with one class and then two and then decided to finish her degree which she had left to help support her family after her father died. 6:08 GS: What were your parents’ roles in the household? 6:11 SF: Traditional roles but equals in terms of how– my father never was– they were– how do you say– he was not bossy. He was not– they were equals in every way. 6:28 GS: They were equals in every way but your mother was the caregiver and your father was the breadwinner? 6:32 SF: Primarily, my father also was very hands on, did lot of things like shopping and cleaning and helping and doing– so yeah. 6:42 GS: Now you said you spoke Armenian as your first language and English as your second language? 6:47 SF: Yeah, I was, I think I was the trial child because I was the first grandchild and I was the first– and I was the daughter. And I guess I spoke Armenian– my daughter ended up speaking Armenian pretty–Anoush spoke Armenian pretty much too. But that way– but they figured if they spoke to me in Armenian that I would answer in Armenian and I did. So I learned– When we moved to Bayside and I was two, some neighbor told my mother that a foreign family had moved in because the little girl did not speak English. Of course you learn English right away. By the time my brother was born, when I was three, I was already speaking English and he did not know much Armenian at all compared to me. 7:28 GS: So did you– how may siblings did you have? 7:31 SF: I have two brothers, one three years younger and one seven years younger. 7:35 GS: Okay, did they end up speaking Armenian? 7:37 SF: Very little, although interestingly they did a lot of Armenian things. They did not have the language but culturally they were– Carl, my brother Carl– was very involved in the church. He was a deacon. He was an archdeacon. He did Poorvar, you know incense burning and he did a lot of– He knew the whole liturgy which is no small feat. 8:01 GS: Okay, did– so none of you attended Armenian language school? 8:05 SF: I did for a couple of years. I hated it. [laughs] 8:10 GS: How old were you when you attended? 8:13 SF: Like eight, eight to ten maybe. And I– it was really set up for Armenian-speaking children. It was not set up for American-Armenian kids. So I stayed– when my mother finally let me stop going, I was happy. 8:31 GS: Okay, did you and your siblings attend Armenian bible school? 8:35 SF: Yes, um, well they attend Sunday school, I attended bible school as an adult at the Diocese. 8:42 GS: So you would distinguish between bible and Sunday school? 8:47 SF: A little bit because I think it was– because then I think it was not as much influence only bible study, but it was, it was history, it was also Armenian history, it was– but it was some bible–some bible. 9:02 GS: Would you attend church as well as Sunday school? 9:05 SF: We usually– Sunday school, usually attended for an hour, forty minutes then yeah like you did. 9:11 GS: Same system. Okay, perfect. 9:13 SF: And we had one thing that I just want to just mention– because I think– we learned the Nicene Creed in our Sunday school assemblies. Every week we learned an article of the Nicene Creed which was twelve big long articles and so that was something that we were prepped and prepared for church. 9:35 GS: Okay, how would you describe the Armenian community in Bayside as you were growing up? 9:40 SF: It was strong. The experience that my brother who was three years younger than me and I had were that there were not too many extracurricular activities; therefore church took on a big role. It was– Oh, there was even a Boy Scout group when they were growing up. So my brother, Carl, was a Boy Scout. By the time my brother Walter came a long, who was seven years younger than me, there were other things– people went to clubs and they did boy’s club and they did baseball teams and they did other things. But it– there was less of that and so the church took on a bigger role for the two of us. Sunday school was also important. It was the only time you got out and saw your friend– you looked forward to seeing your friends. 10:30 GS: So, Sunday school and church was where the community came together mainly? 10:34 SF: Yeah, mostly. 10:35 GS: Did you attend primary school with people in the Armenian community and if so, did you guys tend to stay as a group in school? 10:44 SF: There were not any Armenians in my elementary school, and there were no Armenian teachers and nobody knew what Armenians were, nobody. And we had– I remember borrowing an Armenian costume and go– and we had an ethnic day and I did an Armenian report. But no, there was nobody. By the time– like– in Manhasset there were many Armenian kids at the schools. 11:08 GS: And Manhasset is currently you reside as a member? 11:12 SF: Yeah. 11:12 GS: What was the highest level of education you have achieved? 11:15 SF: Graduate degree– Master’s degree in Illustration. 11:19 GS: Master’s degree in Illustration, Okay wonderful. Moving on to adult life, how many children do you have? 11:25 SF: I have two. Anoush and Rafi. 11:28 GS: Anoush and Rafi, and how old are they now? 11:30 SF: Anoush is thirty-one and Rafi is twenty-four. 11:34 GS: Did they attend– how important was it for you that they speak Armenian, you continue speak Armenian? 11:42 SF: Interestingly enough, even though their father was an immigrant and it was more important for me to have her attend the Armenian day school. And she went through to sixth grade school and graduated. She totally is–reads and writes in Armenian. It was she actually received a large scholarship to Mount Holyoke because she was Armenian student who could read and write Armenian. 12:08 GS: And what is Mount Holyoke? 12:09 SF: Mount Holyoke is one of the Seven Sisters’ Colleges in Western Massachusetts. 12:16 GS: Okay, so ̶ 12:17 SF: But Rafi– I took Rafi out after– after kindergarten and so he really does not retain much Armenian. Interestingly he is attracted to Armenian music, as a musician, which I am very happy about, but Anoush is my Armenian speaking child and Rafi is my non-Armenian speaking child. 12:38 GS: Why was it important for you that Anoush attend language school for Armenian? 12:43 SF: Primarily because my mother was then recently– well she still is the superintendent in the school and I really felt that culturally it was important for her to speak–for Anoosh–to speak Armenian, for many reasons; sometimes I feel like I saddled her with the same problems I saddled myself with. The bad days, but on the good days, there were many things interestingly that she loved about it. First, when I go to church with my daughter, my daughter reads the Armenian side and I read the English transliteration side, so, that my own daughter the next generation should be able to read Armenian and write it better than I do is remarkable to me. Then the other thing was she knows more history than I do. She knows more songs than I do. This is I think very important and I think it is a great joy and a great burden but I do think that it is important. Varoujan was less important– it was less important for Varoujan that she go to Armenian school, but that was how it was. She graduated in 6th grade. She still retains her Armenian. With Rafi– no he– it just did not– it was too hard. Also, the school had changed, my mother was no longer there. My mother had died. It was hard for me. 14:04 GS: I understand. What is their level of education now and what is their occupations? 14:12 SF: Anoush is– has a BA [Bachelors of Arts] in Dramatic Writing. She has– she is a person– well let us see, she is an illustrator and a writer she blogs; she illustrates– she is sort of an entrepreneur with some beta brand materials as far as a job she works a job to fund these things it is not a career. Rafi is a graduate of– in Music. He has a BA in Music and Performing Arts, yeah. It is with some technology too. There is a technology aspect to it. He has a band. They play a lot around– he– they play in many different kinds of venues. He also was a barista at Starbucks. He has private music students and he, he is considering going back to graduate school. 15:14 GS: Wonderful. Have you ever travelled to Turkey? 15:16 SF: No. 15:16 GS: Have you ever travelled to Armenia? 15:18 SF: Yes. 15:18 GS: When, and how many times? 15:20 SF: Once in 1979. 15:23 GS: Once in 1979, what was the reason for the visit? 15:25 SF: It was a visit with my family– my brother, my mother and I went together because we had always wanted to. And so we decided to take– use the opportunity while we were able, to take the trip. 15:37 GS: Okay, how– is it important for you at all that your children marry other Armenians? 15:43 SF: It was important. My brothers and I all married Armenians which was– which we were the only family– my cousins all married outside of, of the Armenian arena. They all married Italians–[laughs] so it seems like it must be, [laughs] it must be the next choice. I have one– in all the second cousins too, really very few of them married Armenians. It seemed to be important. It was important to my brothers too, which was more surprising to me because I was felt a little more Armenian than they were because I had more background but I got the real Armenian, they got the American Armenians, you know. 16:30 GS: Is it important for you that your children marry Armenians? 16:33 SF: Yes, but they will not. They will not [laughs]. And I think that my daughter is– I think my daughter, in her being more Armenian it will be interesting, however, I think that it is– the world is different– and I think that does not happen, I think it dies out. 16:52 GS: What does it mean to you to be Armenian? 16:56 SF: I think it is a legacy, I think it is important. I think it is a job. I think it is my other full-time job. I am working on a project which, if you are interested in, I can tell you about, but, but I find that in the Armenian community I have, I have a lot of trouble fitting in because I think being– I do not know where I belong. All these years later I do not know where I belong. And so in within my family I am very Armenian, within my household, and within my extended family I am very Armenian but– and in the workplace I am Armenian. Everybody knows me as Armenian, however I do not have any– I do not really have Armenian friends or social group anymore because I have changed a lot over the years, and that group has not grown with me and I have not found my place in, in another group. So it is a– it is a love and a burden at the same time. 18:01 GS: What are some Armenian traditions that you have tried to maintain in your household and you have tried to pass on to your children? 18:07 SF: Oh, a lot of them, let us see. We made çörek this week for Easter that is very important. 18:12 GS: Can you explain for the record what çörek is? 18:14 SF: Çörek is an Armenian Easter bread made with a certain spice that you make at, at Easter and I think the significance is rising and He is risen– and this rising bread– it is something my mother made all the time. I only after– and interesting she made it with your grandmother all the time. And so ̶ 18:34 GS: Let the record show that we will not devote the secret spice, ̶ anyone steal the recipe ̶ Please continue though. 18:41 SF: And so there was something about Anoosh and I making it this year that was really very special. Let us see what else do we do. Certain things; Armenian Christmas, foods that we make or getting to church– although I get to church less and less frequently. 19:01 GS: How frequently would you say you do it now? 19:03 SF: Couple times a year, I do not know if I go anymore. Again I think part of it that I am just– my life has changed than I am far too busy to– I have a job that keeps me incredibly busy after years of not having one. 19:17 GS: So one can be– with you agree with the statement that one can be Armenian without speaking Armenian or attending the Armenian Church? 19:24 SF: Yes, yes, yes. 19:25 GS: So, would you say that there is–So would you say that there is a singular aspect that defines one’s Armenianness, would you say it is a personal identity? 19;34 SF: It is probably a personal identity. But there is a word hay sery, which is “you love of being an Armenian.” I think that people are– I know I went to Armenia with my brother, Walter, and he did not speak a word of Armenian but he was as moved as I was. So I think it is– I think it is just part of you and it is the way you brought up but I do think that certain people who have more– I think certain people who have more knowledge have more responsibility. For instance, one of the things that really bothers me is that while Eastern Armenian is the language spoken in Armenia, it is the language that people who speak Western Armenian who–that which was the language that the people who came before– during the genocide brought to America. And the Western Armenian is a different language. People understand each other sort of, the Eastern Armenian understand the Western Armenian but– 20:35 GS: Is it a dialect or– 20:36 SF: It is a dialect but it is a modernization of the language. And so what happens is when you go to Armenia its– like you say [speaking in Armenian] in Western Armenian and you say [speaking in Armenian] in Eastern Armenian. Now, Western–Eastern Armenians understand what Western Armenians say, Western Armenians do not always understand the other. And so what happens is all of–and Western Armenian is one of the languages on the UN list of disappearing languages. That kills me. Because in one generation, that will be gone. And so I am working on a preservation project, personally, where I am trying to collect unimportant things by world standard and the genocide and things ̶ but things– traditions that passed by word of mouth, that are–that will disappear because people come to me now and ask me how to do things and I realize I only know how to do some of them or say some of them. Know certain rhymes. So I am collecting them as an artist I am illustrating them. So, anyway, that is my preservation project. We will see where it goes. 21:40 GS: That is wonderful. How do you view the Armenian diaspora in America? Do you see it as an accident of history or good thing? And do you think it is a temporary entity or permanent one? 21:51 SF: Good question! I think– I think there– well, let us see– it is a permanent one because I do not think people would go back to Armenia, I think some people would but not many. I think that Americans are too American. My husband who has lived in America for thirty-five years is now too American to go back. He could not go back. He is a New Yorker, so he could not even leave and live in New Jersey. But ̶ [laughs] 22:20 GS: No one could– 22:21 SF: No, no, ugh! But [laughs] I do think that each past– each person, each elder that dies is a huge loss for all of us because what happens is a piece of history dies with them, and so by default I am the oldest now in the family on one side and the second old on the other side, isn’t that creepy? Yeah, I think it is. And so what happens is Varoundjian and I are the big Armenian experts, and we know how to do things nobody else knows how to do any of it, so I do see it needing to be recorded in some way– in some fashion and I do not know what that is. And I feel a certain desperation about that because I think it is important. 23:13 GS: Okay, what does it mean for you to be both an American and an Armenian at the same time? 23:18 SF: I am first an American. I have always been an American first. 23:21 GS: What would you identify yourself as? 23:24 SF: I would say I am an American-Armenian. Yeah. And I think that is different than an Armenian–American. I think Varoundjian is an Armenian-American because I think he came from, he is a Lebanese–Armenian-American but, but he is, you know he is from there and he went to college in Armenia so he really has lived it and, interestingly, because the Armenian world is so small, he went to college with [inaudible] relatives, so when he came to America and realized they were Dudorians he had been to college with Armenians in Armenia who were Dudorians so it is a small world and we all kind of overlap each other all the time. 24:03 GS: So, one last outlier question, what are your views on gender roles in society today? 24:12 SF: Well, in America ̶ I have always felt that Armenians– well let me go back– in an Armenian household I always saw husbands and wives as equals. That may have been in the family that I grew up in. That may have been socio-economic, that may have been because of education but I always saw women as having equal roles, not as being subservient. And especially when women started to go to work that was it– we were equals. But Armenians with lesser education, Armenians with lesser exposure and certainly Armenians in Armenia often are– women are still subservient. I guess some of that– I think a lot of that ends up being, again, socio-economic and level of education. Did I answer that? 25:16 GS: You did, you did perfectly. Alright, well thank you very much for your time. This was a wonderful interview. Hope you have a nice day. 25:22 SF: Thank you. It was lovely, lovely to work with you. (End of Interview) Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. 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 Suzanne Anoushian Froundjian https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/37780beb0a06738036a16c3228aa8723.m4a 4758487f7693caa7060f3de288cb70fd 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 Ukrainian Oral History Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright  Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Aynur de Rouen, Ph.D. Heather DeHaan, Ph.D., Associate Professor in History Description An account of the resource The Ukrainian Oral History project consists of a collection of undergraduate student interviews with immigrants from East Central Europe, particularly the lands of what is now Ukraine. Four interviews took place in New York City and record the memories of Jewish immigrants. A few interviews testify to specifically Russian identity and experiences, while the rest of the collection is comprised of interviews with members of Binghamton’s Ukrainian immigrant community. Relation A related resource <a href="https://www.binghamton.edu/libraries/about/collections/oral-histories/index.html#sustainablecommunities">Sustainable Communities Oral History Collection</a> 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. Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Jake Sperber and Zach Kolesnik Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Sveltana Kolesnik Biographical Text Svetlana Kolesnik is an immigrant from Berdichev, Ukraine. She dealt with persecution growing up due to her religion and felt the only way to feel free was to leave her home country. She immigrated to the United States in 1989 with her husband. She came to the United States in hope to provide her children a better life and a Jewish education. She now lives in New City, New York where where she is active in the Jewish community with her husband and three children. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 58:51 minutes Date of Interview 2016-03-31 Digital Publisher Binghamton University Digital Format audio/mp4 Language English Material Type Sound Collection Ukrainian Oral History Project Interview Format Video or Audio audio Subject LCSH Kolesnik, Svetlana.--Interviews; Ukrainians--United States; Diaspora, Soviet Union—History; Russian; Jews; Migrations; Persecution; Communism and culture--Soviet Union; Ethnic identity; Manors and customs; City and town life--New York (State)--New York OHMS Object URL https://omeka.binghamton.edu/viewer/viewer.php?cachefile=SvetlanaKolesnik.xml 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>. Keywords Interviews; Ukrainians; Ukrainian diaspora; Immigrants; Soviet Union; Jews Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium Ukrainian Oral History Project Interview with: Svetlana Kolesnik Interviewed by: Jake Sperber and Zach Kolesnik Transcriber: Jake Sperber and Zach Kolesnik Date of interview: 31 March 2016 at 02:40 pm Interview Setting: 31 Beaumont Drive New City, New York ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Start of Interview) Zach Kolesnik: Ok so we’ll be conducting this interview. My name is Zach Kolesnik.  Jake Sperber: And I am Jake Sperber.  Svetlana Kolesnik: And my name is Svetlana Kolesnik.  ZK: And we are doing, conducting this interview in New City, New York. It is 2:40 PM right now and we will start the interview.  JS: And it is Thursday March 31st, 2016.  ZK: All right.  JS: So you, uh, immigrated in 1989, and you were born in 1960.  SK: No, I was born in, in 1963.  JS: So, you spent 26 years under the USSR, I guess umbrella.  SK: Correct.  JS: Would you say like, what was the daily schedule for your life as a kid? SK: As a kid we have school six times a week from Monday-Saturday from 8:30-2:15. And it’s every morning I would walk to school—there is no transportation, there is no buses. You have to walk to school, no matter where you live. So usually there is few schools in town and your parents, when you’re seven years old, sign you to schools nearby and you walk. My husband lived far away but we went to the same school, but school that we went to was one of the best schools in town so there was no like, school bus.  JS: So there was no school bus, right.  SK: There was public transportation, but again public transportation is not as prompt as here, for example, you take a train here and wait five minutes and the train is coming. There it can usually be a half hour, so you usually walk to places no matter what, sunny day, snowy day, rainy day—and school never closed, we always had school. No matter how many inches of snow we had, we always had school and everybody walked. And after school, um, I had activities, I went to the school of music, so three times a week I went to different school after regular school. And eh, you can play sports or other activities, and after you went to that school you came home and did homework. What school offers you, like if you have small kids, they have after-school programs for free, and I usually stayed in this program because both of my parents would work, and I stay until 5 o'clock and after that my mother or my sister would come pick me up and bring me home. We also had a lot of variety of sports and different activities that you can do after school in a different location. If you were not busy, there was always something to do after school. And also what we have different in the Ukraine, where I grew up, uh, we had like, after school I used to come home and play with my friends outside. And it was always, unless it was heavy rain, I would always go outside and play even if it was just for a half hour or something, me and my friends would go together and we would play some games.  JS: Did you have uh, traditions that you would do as a kid? Like I guess we have Halloween and kids—I don't know, what were some of the things that— [pause] That would not happen at all?  SK: We did not have traditions as a kid, but as a country we had a tradition to go on the parade, and it was mandatory so I can't say that this was tradition.  ZK: Wait, when was the parade?  SK: Parade was twice a year, parade was on May 1st and November 7th. On November 7th, this is when the great Revolution happened in 1917, and since that every year it’s mandatory, if you're in school or even in college and if you work, you have to go to the parade. And you walk in front of your, I don't know, local government people. But I don't know if it counts as tradition, and what usually would happen after that is my family would get together and stay together and just have a nice dinner together.  ZK: And you would do that two times a year?  SK: It was two times a year where we, you know, and also big holiday in Russia is New Year. We didn't celebrate any other holidays, we didn't celebrate any Christmas or Passover or Rosh Hashanah, we didn't—only New Year we celebrate.  JS: So you’re saying that in the—religion wasn't a thing?  SK: No.  JS: Oh, because I have read that Eastern Orthodoxy was big in— SK: No, no. It was not big deal, I mean some people celebrate, but people always were afraid to go to church because they could lose their job. So if you go to church, or go to synagogue, or mosques, there is no guarantee that the government won't know about this because as a country it was, it was an atheistic country, you know atheist. Even if you believed in God you didn't say, and if you practiced this or religion even in your family, nobody else can know about it because if people find out you can go to jail.  ZK: So you practiced no religion whatsoever outside the house?  SK: Yes, even in the house it was very quiet, like my parents did not want to know that my neighbor would know that we, we didn't have like any Passover dinner. We never had Passover. I mean we always had matzos but they were always hidden in the hidden place that nobody could find them like in the closets. Except when we ate them during Passover, but we never had dinner.  ZK: So you guys wouldn't go to synagogue or church at all? Were there synagogues and churches around you?  SK: Yeah, there were synagogues and churches around, and uh, first time in my life that I went to synagogue, uh, actually I went to synagogue in Russia twice. Once when my grandma died, and I went to synagogue to bury her and carry out the dues of the Jewish religion. And second time I went to Moscow before we left Russia and we had already gotten permission from the Russian government to leave country. When we went to go buy ticket to leave the country, we went to synagogue a second time. JS: Uh, I just have a question, for the children in Russia are there very high expectations? Do their parents have very high expectations for them?  SK: Yes.  JS: Yeah, parents have very high expectations in school, and excel in after school activities like music and sports.  SK: Yes absolutely, and also every parent wants their child to succeed. And some kids are gifted and some kids are not so gifted but parents try to do as much as they can to kids this way they have better opportunity to find better job and make a better life. This is why a lot of kids go to college, and it's hard for you. There is also option, especially for boy—in Russia if you're a boy it’s mandatory, if you’re 18 years old, to go to the army unless you’re in college. If you're not accepted to college you go to army, and the army in Russia is a nightmare so you do not want to be in the army no matter what. Especially for boys.  JS: Were any of your family members in the army?  SK: My family, my cousin went to the army because he did not go to college so he went to the army. Like my husband was in the army for three months but he already graduated from college and during the college years he had like a special subject, military science, and he went as an officer. So it wasn't as bad and I mean my husband is very physically fit so it wasn't hard, it was hard for him but not as hard as it is for the rest of the people. So this is why parents spend a lot of time, they want kids and they don't their kids to have to go to the army.  ZK: Ok, so how is it like when you were immigrating to the United States?  SK: How I immigrated to the United States?  ZK: Yeah, how was the process like?  SK: The process in Russia was, uh, actually you have to apply for, and you apply to Russian/Ukraine government—Soviet Union government. You apply, saying what you want to do, “I want to leave this country and I want to give up my citizenship.” In order for me to give up my citizenship there is a few things that have to be done. First of all, if you have parents who are alive, they have to sign a paper saying that they are allowing you to leave the country. Because if one parent, even if you’re fifty years old it doesn't matter—if you have a living parent they have to sign the papers saying they allow you to leave country. Second of all, you have to pay a lot of money, because my husband and I went to college and back in Russia you didn't pay for college, college was for free, if you were a good student you didn't pay. So we have to pay a lot of money in order for us to leave country. But even after you pay this money it does not give you guarantee that Russian government will let you leave country so there is also always possibility that they will not, Russian government will not let you stay in country, I mean let you leave country because, and this is a problem because you don't have a job and nobody is going to hire you if you already have applied to leave the country, but we were lucky and in 1989 a lot of people left, and also a lot in Russia is about connections and we were lucky that the person who was in charge of this was my neighbor. The guy who let people leave the country lived in our small town, so he help us out and we waited for a few months. JS: Did you know that you wanted to leave Russia before 1989 though?  SK: Yeah but we couldn't, we couldn't because in 1988 they let first group of people leave country. Before you couldn't; before if you wanted to leave Russia you couldn't even apply, they wouldn't let anybody out of the country. The first immigration happened in 1972, from 1972-1974 where a few families were lucky to leave country and move to Israel or the United States.  JS: Wait, you just said they were lucky?  SK: Yeah, because if you apply and they close borders, you stuck in Russia with no job, with no money, with nothing.  JS: So, it sounds like you aren't too fond of Russia.  SK: I wasn't fond in Russia?  JS: Like, you don't, like, sound like you speak too highly of Russia.  SK: Listen, I can't say that I, it was, we grew up in country and we weren't allowed to go to different country. If you were to say, "You know what, I am going to go live in Australia for 6 months," then there is a process, you can go and try to apply for visa, and you either like or don't like it and you can come back. In Russia there is nothing like this. First of all in Russia there was only two Russian channels on TV, there was one in Russian and one in Ukrainian, because I lived in Ukraine, and we would listen morning to night to this Russia propaganda. You can't go to different country, you just can't buy ticket and go to different country, it was a whole process. But when we left in 1989, we applied and we wait for a few months, and after that you wait for 3 months or 4 months, and there was a problem to buy ticket too. And to get from Russia to buy ticket is also a process—I mean, I don't think it is easy for you to understand that we travel all the way to Moscow to stay, every morning, 6 o'clock in the morning my husband and I went to place to check out and we stay in a line and every day they say, "Okay we are going to sell a hundred tickets." For three weeks we went to this place until we got to the place where we could buy tickets ’cause there was limited amount of tickets, there was a lot of people and it just, everything was complicated. So we got permission and we also got permission to travel to Vienna, we got a visa from Vienna and we also went through, at that time it was Czechoslovakia, and that's it. You know, first of all when you leave Russia you aren't allowed to take money. The amount of money you're allowed to take is $146 per person. Even if you have more money you can't take this money with you, so you buy jewelry at home.  ZK: Together $146, or each person can take $146?  SK: Each person can take $146, so you go with this money, you exchange your Russian Rubles, you're allowed to take $146. You can take two bags of clothes or whatever and you start your life in a different country; if you’re young it really doesn't matter, you can start life in any new country.  ZK: So, did you just leave whatever you had behind at your parent's house?  SK: Yes, we left whatever we had. ZK: You just left all the valuables?  SK: No, I mean we took, like, we took everything: clothes, anything, whatever you, we could fit. We took even pan, I mean we took plates; we took silverware, because I had no money to buy different things in the different country. I lived, before I came to America for three months I lived in a different country so I had no money to go to the store and buy plates. So I had to bring my plates, my silverware, my cup, blankets, everything, pillow, whatever you can. We were very limited in everything, but this is how it was to live. And first we went to Austria, to Vienna, and first we stayed there.  ZK: This is when you were immigrating?  SK: Yeah, we took the train to Vienna.  ZK: Oh you did not even fly.  SK: No, no we came to Vienna, HIYAS, its an organization with the Israeli and American government, and they met us in Vienna and they made arrangements for us to stay in a hotel and uh, we went to this hotel where we stayed for two or three weeks. Then we went to the American Embassy and we asked to be a legal refugee of the country. And they said to us, “In order for us to process your paper you have to move to a different country, you have to move to Italy and you have to wait until we’ll give you permission to come to live in America.” So we took a train to live in Italy and we stayed in Italy for two months.  ZK: Did you work? How did you communicate with people? You only knew Ukrainian and Russian.  SK: Yes, we did not speak English or Italian and we did not speak any German, but luckily my husband likes languages so he learned Italian and he got a job and they paid him $1 an hour and he built parks. You know like from town to town, like spring break usually here in Rockland County, people come and play and go to the circus. So because my husband is big and strong, they hire him to build this, so he travel for, like he used to come to a town and help guide this and put it together, and guys would stay in this place for one week and then move to a different town and build another, so for us it was kind of income. And he also went on the field to collect grape.  JS: So it was very difficult to move from Russia before 1989--. SK: I am telling you it is not easy to move now also. It’s just people have a little bit more money so they people move for money in Russia.  JS: Do you know a lot of people who have successfully moved from Russia?  SK: Sure.  JS: Yeah?  SK: Absolutely, all my friends, a lot of my friends. First of all when we moved to Russia, what happened, we met a lot of—you know, when you in circumstances like this, you don't speak any language, you are alone, you meet people that become friends for all life. And people, the people that we met in Austria and in Italy, we still keep in touch with and still in a good relationship with, and I would say most of them become very successful and build families, and raise kids, and now they have grandchildren so it worked out. ZK: Did most people only try to immigrate to the United States? Was the United States your only option or did you try immigrating to, for instance Israel or another country. SK: In order for you to leave Russia, unless you have a relative or a first cousin. Only if you have a first cousin in America and invites you to go to live with him in America, you can do it. (Like Lennie Levine) The rest of the people had Israeli visa, the process was if you have Israeli visa you go directly to Russian government and say, “I want to live in Israel because I am Jewish,” or if you are not Jewish, if you are a Christian you say you want to live in a different country, but they also took Israeli visas saying you want to live in Israel. But when you come to Vienna, Austria, you can go to the Israeli consulate and say that you would like to try to live in a different country and they had no problem with whatever you wanted to do. What they did was basically help Russian people just to leave country, and this was the only one exit that would let you leave the Soviet Union if you have an Israeli visa.  JS: It was Vienna?  SK: No, no it was an Israeli visa but the reason why we went to Vienna, because Israel made arrangements with Vienna that Russian people are going to come to this country and they were going to help them out. You couldn't go to different country, you would have to go through this path.  ZK: And you had a first cousin that was in the United States?  SK: No, we did not have first cousin in the United States, we had Israeli visa. And from when we lived in Italy, we were looking for different possibilities, and one of the possibility was to go to Australia, but in order to go to Australia you have to pay $500 and you have to be approved by Australian government, and you have to have $500 and somebody that would guarantee when you come to Australia they’re going to help you out. We didn't have $500, but they really like us because my husband and I both graduated from college. We were young, we were twenty years old, so they offered us to go to this country, but because we didn't have money we decided we are going to stay in Italy and move to the United States. JS: Do you think that, um, wait I just want to shift the discussion, do you think that you raised your kids differently than you were raised in Russia?  SK: Sure I raised my kids differently than I was raised.  JS: What are some of the differences from like how a kid is raised in Russia and how a kid is raised in America? SK: My parents did not have to remind me that I have to put garbage outside. I have to remind my kids every Wednesday and every Saturday, you know what it's your time to do something in the house. Because in Russia it is different, kids do much more in the house to help parents. As a child, during the summer when I did not have school I went to market to buy fresh fruits and vegetables to bring home to save my mother a little bit of time so she doesn't have to do this. She used to do this every day all year round, before she went to work she would go to the market to buy stuff, so during the summer I would help her out. I would go with Mother to the market and get the stuff and bring it home so I could help her out. I, also what was a difference, like during the summer time, where we live, it was a nice river and all young people hung out at the beach, so I knew every day at 12:30 I would have to go and prepare lunch for my parents, because my parents had lunch from 1-2 and they came for lunch home almost every day. So as a kid I know I would have to prepare lunch for them.  ZK: There was no sleepaway camps?  SK: There was sleepaway camps. I went to sleepaway camp twice and the first time I went with my older sister and the second I went by myself and I like it. But also not every child could go, you have to pay for sleepaway camp and it's expensive so not every child could afford it. ZK: Was it in Ukraine?  SK: Yeah, yeah it was in Ukraine, and the sleepaway camp was a little bit different then it is here. Here you have a choice, if you want to go to this camp you go to this camp. In Russia you go to sleepaway camp at a base where your parents work. If your parents work on the plant and this plant has sleepaway camp, you don't have a choice of where you go to sleepaway camp. So where my parents worked, sleepaway camp was far away so I did not want to go, but I went twice or three times.  JS: Uh, are you, like, happy that you didn't live in Russia—you lived in—would it have been much harder to live in Russia than the Ukraine?  SK: Uh, Russia and the Ukraine, I think it was easier to live in the Ukraine than in Russia because, first of all it is easier because Ukraine is more like fruits and vegetables you can buy on the market; in Russia there is limitation.  JS: Oh, like rationing.  SK: Right and the quality of the product, you know what you can afford. Life in the Ukraine at that time, where I grew up, I think was better than in Russia, and it was, it was not like supermarkets, it was like small stores where you go in and buy stuff, but difference between Russia and America is there wasn't a lot of variety. If you go to stores there was two or three kinds of bread, and if you want to have fresh bread you would have to go at 6 o'clock in the morning, if you come at 11 then there is no bread. JS: Is that in the Ukraine?  SK: Yeah and the same in Russia, it's the same in Russia. The difference in Russia is that there is few big cities like Moscow or Leningrad, so in those cities you can go to store, maybe you can buy a little bit more in a government store because back in Russia or Ukraine everything belonged to the government, we did not have supermarkets that belonged to a private person.  ZK: Um to go back to schooling, how was—how was it like, did you go to—you lived in Ukraine, so did you go to a Ukraine school or did you go to a Russian where they taught the first language as Russian or Ukrainian?  SK: Ok, in the city that I lived it was two choices—I grew up in Berdychiv, Ukraine. You can go to Russian school or you can go to Ukrainian school, but like before war, it was also Polish school because a lot of Polish people lived in Ukraine too, it's close to Poland. But when I went to school it was either Russian school or Ukrainian school. I went to Russian school. But from 2nd grade I had second language as Ukrainian, but all subject were taught in Russian. Where you can go to a Ukrainian school also and all subject would be taught in Ukrainian and you have Russian as a second language. The reason why my parents sent me to a Russian school is because first of all, we spoke Russian at home, and second of all there were more chances for me to go to college to Russia, for example, because my first language was Russian. And again it was a limit on how many people can go to college, and as a Jew it was not easy to get to college even if you had all "A" marks. ZK: You would have to put it down on your transcript?  SK: Yes on my transcript, and then when you go with your passport it is written on it that I am a Jew.  JS: Was it very prejudiced? SK: Yes.  JS: Even in the Ukraine also?  SK: Yes it was in Russia, Ukraine it was everywhere. So if you go to college and they said they can take 100 kids, but we only allowed to take 3% Jew, so you have to be smarter than all Jewish kids in order for you to get to this college because they can only take 3 people. And also in Russia you can't apply to 25 schools like you apply here, here you apply to college there is no limit, you can apply to every SUNY school or any school. There is no limit on how many applications you send, it is just how much money you want to spend on the application. In Russia, you can only apply to one school and if you're not accepted you have to wait another year and you have to apply again.  JS: So those kids go to the army?  SK: For boys you go to army, for girls you work somewhere.  ZK: Wow, to go on top of that as well—as girls, if you did not get accepted into schools would you have to go to the army?  SK: No, as girl I don't have to.  ZK: Were there girls that went to the army?  SK: No.  ZK: No girls went to the army?   SK: No, no girls don't go to the army but you can work in the army if you want. Like if you want you can work in the kitchen, or if you really want maybe you can apply to be in the army but I know nobody, it was unheard of.  JS: Have you, um, since you left in 1989, have you returned?  SK: Yes.  JS: Yeah, how was going back for the first time?  SK: The first time I took all my kids to the town where I grow up, we spend like one day there and second time I went with Zachary and we went to Russia, we went to Moscow, we went to Leningrad, and Berdychiv, and I think that we had a great time, he had a little bit of a taste of Russia and a little bit of a taste of Ukraine, and we traveled, we took public transportation everywhere so for him, so I think that it was good for him.  JS: Now so I know you left legally from Russia, but if you were a person that maybe escaped would you go back still today? Would you ever think about returning?  SK: No, even now I would not want to go to Russia.  JS: Would they like, try to capture you though, if you were illegal? SK: They might. Yeah. They might. I mean I left as legal, but even if I go back to Russia, first of all I always need a visa. If I want to go to this country I have to apply for visa. And second of all, you know, you never know what happens, it is not a stable country so I would not take a chance. Especially now I will not go.  JS: But since you're legal you can take your kids.  SK: Yes, my kids can go, but we don't plan on going now.  JS: Also, now do you want to segue again, I guess?  ZK: Sure.  JS: Do you want to elaborate on the culture? In one of our classes we were talking about the differences between the US and Russia and, uh like, just the differences between Russian lifestyle and values and American values. Like for instance, one kid in our class brought up that, like, his drink a lot, and like, I do not know if that's a thing. He is Russian.  SK: It is not that they drink a lot, but it is part of the Russian culture. Where like, if there was a holiday, sometimes people drink lots. Not that you have to but they drink, and another thing, why people drink a lot is because back in Russia life is so bad. So it helps you get over all the bad things that have happened. But it's not like mandatory, it’s not like all Russian people drink. This is not true. Some people, there is a lot of alcoholics, yes, but again, it is happening maybe more than in America.  JS: What about, like, Russian values—like, America, I know we are big on, like, sports and music and entertainment, is that prevalent in Russia? I know you guys love hockey.  SK: Yeah, when I grew up it was different because all sports that you play, you play for free, you don't pay for it but if you talented, you talented, you can play sports. If you're not talented there is no way, even if you enjoy this sport nobody is going to spend time with you. So you’re out, you can do this for yourself, like here I know my Zachary and all my kids play basketball, and maybe they were not the best at this, but you know they play anyway. You go and you have fun, you enjoy, you don't have to be the best, you can just enjoy this game. In Russia competition is so bad that you have to be number one.  JS: So competition is a big part of Russian lifestyle?  SK: Absolutely. It's like saying do it no matter what you have to do. But people also like movies, they go a lot out, they like movies, they like traveling, they give kids good educations. And I sense that also in Russia people travel a lot, especially now.  ZK: You mean like travel throughout the country, I know people aren't allowed to leave the country.  SK: Yes, they travel around the country a lot, like my parents used to take me like every year to somewhere in the Ukraine. Just go to mountains resort or somewhere, just to see different areas. Also different in Russia is the difference between Ukrainian Russian kids and American kids. As a kid I would have to work on the field.  ZK: On the farm? SK: On the farm, like I grew up in a town so we didn't have any farm, but they used to pick us up on buses, drive a half hour to the farm and you would do whatever is asked of you, you would pick potatoes, pick carrots.  JS: Who were you working for?  SK: The government, it is the same in the college. You go to college mandatory in the fall. You go and then, on your free time you pick up potatoes, you pick up carrots.  ZK: Wait, this is on your free time? Like when you were away from school?  SK: Yes, so like, you have break, but we don't have break, you have to go and work on the farm. It is not only when you were a kid, when I graduated from university and I got a job also in a different town, even I had like Master in Science and I would still have to go and work for the field. So it did not matter what position you had, you had to go and work on the field. And I remember once we went to pick up carrot, and all day you go and you take those stupid carrot, and I close my eyes and the only dream I had was going to the field and picking up those carrots and I hated it, and potato also not easy because potato is small and you have to go and put it in the bucket, and then you have to go somewhere with the bucket and it’s very heavy. Also, in Russia they count how much buckets of potato you get. It is not like you are going for fun, you are going to get the most potato.  JS: So, they even make that competition?  SK: It is not competition, but you have to bring, for example, 100 buckets of potatoes a day. So you go and you work as a slave because you have to do it. As a kid can you imagine having to work in the garden? This was different, this was mandatory, and for a lot of kids it was normal but I grew up in a town, for kids that grew up in the village the mandatory work was all summer to help parents on the field. ZK: Did they get paid?  SK: No. As a kid, you never pay your kid.  JS: Do you think that this still goes on today?  SK: I am not sure, I sense that I have no idea. I do not know if this happens today. I am sure that kids help parents now too. But it depends on the family.  JS: Have you been back to the Ukraine?  SK: Yes, I went with Zachary once, we stayed for three days in Moscow also, and three days in St. Petersburg, and two in the town where I grew up. In the summer, we went to the river where there was a beautiful beach and we took a swim. It was nice, there probably was all the people at the beach stare at Zachary because he is American.  JS: How do they know?  SK: Because you can see. You can see. But when we went places I would ask people directions and he would stay far away.  JS: Do they not like Americans?  SK: I would say that they do not like Americans.  JS: Why not?  SK: You have to ask Russian people. JS: Why do you think?  SK: Because part of the Russian culture and the way that Russian propaganda works they say that Russia is the best. We have the best cars, the best people, the best product. They do not like when somebody better than they are so even if they have nothing they still see themselves as the best. But Russia also very rich. Like there are many museums and concerts where my parents would take me to.  JS: What was it like growing up in a time like the Cold War for you?  SK: I was a small kid.  JS: Did you not like the United States? Because I can imagine that Russia would try to use propaganda to turn you against us.  SK: It is also from your family, like my parents would never talk about this, but I knew that they were not a big fan of Russian government. The way how sometimes they would talk about Russian government, but they were afraid to say the truth to me, so you go to school and keep your mouth shut.  ZK: And what would they say in school?  SK: They would say that Russia is the best country in the world.  JS: So, how did you not buy into that?  SK: Because it—also, back in Russia there was a program on the radio that was illegal, it was called Voice of America. It was in Russian language. Russian government did not like people to listen, but my father would listen to this every morning. He used to wake up at 3 o'clock in the morning and for a half hour just to listen very quietly, because he does not want any neighbors to know that he listen to this radio station.  JS: What was it?  SK: It was Voice of America, voice from United States.  JS: Wait so it was at 3:30 in the morning for a half hour every day?  SK: Yes, almost everyday. But you don't hear a good connection because Russian government would try to put something to block it.  JS: What would they talk about on the radio show?  SK: On the radio show, for example, when the President of Russia died, Leonid Brezhnev, in 1980, my father woke up and told me in the morning that Brezhnev died. I say listen to Russian TV, he is still alive. And he said no I listened to Voice of America and they said that he died yesterday. They said the truth about Russia, they said the truth about America and some people believe in this more, some people believe in this less. Some people want to build life in Russia, I have relatives in Russia who still live in Ukraine and they still think that this is the best country and they will never ever leave this country and they have nothing. And it is not only financially, forget about financially, because as poor as they are in Russia not everybody is poor, they have a lot of rich people now. But they had no values, they never go to synagogue, they are afraid to practiced Judaism, they did not raise kids to be Jewish, but they do not care, they just want to live in this country. Not everybody is ready for change, for us, my husband and I, it was easy, we were young and we had no kids. For people who are a little bit older, you have to understand they already built life in Russia, they already achieved something, they have good job, they have good position, they have maybe an apartment, they have kids—when you go to a different country it is not easy. You do not speak the language, so how are you going to find a job? Who wants to hire you if you do not have any experience in America? You can be genius but you have to explain to people that you know this and that you can work better than somebody else. So it was not easy to start life in a different country but if you have this, if you want to achieve this and you stick to this you can achieve it no matter what country you go to and what you do. If you go to college and you say maybe this is not the best college or maybe this is not the best environment but I want to be an accountant or I want to be an electrician if you stick to a goal you can achieve it no matter where you are. The same comes from people in different countries, they come here; my first job was I worked in the fruit and vegetables store as a sales rep. And I did not say anybody that I had a master degree—I did not want them to know, I thought that they would not hire me—but what it gave me was the opportunity to meet new people and to talk to people about everything I needed to know, even about apples. In the place I grew up we had two types of apples, and here there is twenty types of apples so I learned a lot. I met a lot of people that helped me out with the language, talking to customers helped me with the language. And when we first got to the country I was pregnant with my first son and while my husband did not have a job he made sure that every day he would learn twenty new words. And every day, he would wake up at six o'clock in the morning and study until two o'clock in the morning every day. Just to learn how to read and how to write and just how to communicate with people to find any job to survive. And eventually he got a job as an engineer after a few years and he work a lot of different jobs in America like in the supermarket and a lot of different jobs. But one day he got a job as an engineer and then he got his license in America, he passed all tests in English to get his license and he is licensed to practice in all tri-state area now. Another difference between Russia and America, since I have children here, if you have a child here you out of work for 6 weeks. In Russia it is different; in Russia if you have a child you get paid and miss a year and a half of work. For one year they pay you full salary and for a half of a year they give you like a half salary. And if you have another child you can stay home for another year, also you have two months before you give birth, so they care about newborns because when you have a newborn it is very hard to take care of that child and put it in a daycare at six weeks old. But when your child is almost two years old it is a different story. Like my sister she has two kids and didn't work. She had her first kid and didn't work for two years and had another kid another two years later. So, this way you stay more time with your family. And you will still keep your job. JS: And you like this about Russia?  SK: Yes I like this about Russia, and another thing I like about Russia is kids do not have to make arrangements with each other. You know, “Can my son come over and play with your son tomorrow at three after school?” Where I grew up I never asked my parents if I can go to my friends' house. What I would do after school is go outside, knock on my friends' door and we would play and have fun. And my kids from my childhood are still best friends to this day, it is incredible.  JS: I thought it was surprising when you said that not many people are religious in Russia, because actually people in our class that did not have anybody to interview are actually going to an Orthodox Ukraine church in Vestal, um, is religion a big propaganda in Russia also?  SK: A lot of changes happened after I left in 1990, a lot of churches and synagogues and mosques opened and people started to pray again. Maybe 70% of Russian people go to church now, when I grew up maybe 5% of Russian people went to church and— ZK: Who went?  SK: Only older people who did not work anymore so they were not afraid to go. I'll tell you one more thing that is very different between Russia and the United States. Every year they go to school and get a new set of classmates. In Russia the classmates you get in first grade are the same classmates you are going to graduate with in the 10th grade. The class does not change. It is the same thirty kids in the school.  ZK: Even if they move?  SK: If they move then to another school it is a different story. But I went to the same school, with the same kids, and went in the same class from first grade until tenth grade. So, I made lifelong friends. JS: Would you say a lot of your friends are in Russia or elsewhere?  SK: Some still live in Russia, some in other countries, but we all keep in touch because we are so close. That is what going to school from first-tenth grade does to you. In Russia, you stick with your group, you do not get to have other classmates. This can be a good and a bad thing.  ZK: You said you went to school from first to tenth grade, not first to twelfth grade?  SK: Yes, when I went to school it was very different, I am not sure if it is the same now. When I grew up in Russia you had ten years in school. We had elementary school from first to third grade, middle school until eighth grade, and high school was nine and ten. After eighth grade people have a choice, they can go to school of engineering school or different school, you don't have to stay in school till 10th grade. But you do not have to go to college, after eighth grade you go to a high school with specialty. I went to school till tenth grade. My husband did a specialty school after tenth grade, but not after eighth grade where he did engineering. Like here we have something called books where it is a trade school and it is the same thing but it is four years here like if you want to be a registered nurse. Here you go to college, in Russia after eighth you can go to school to become a nurse. JS: How old is an eighth grader? SK: You start school when you are seven years old and graduate at seventeen—also break, there are different breaks during school year. JS: Wouldn't you go to the farm? SK: Not during full year. ZK: When would you go to school?  SK: School started September 1st and ended in June. And then in July and August you could do whatever you want. JS: When do you go to the fields? SK: And in the fall you would work in the fields because it was mandatory and that is when the harvest is.  JS: Again, we are segueing again, but how do you view Russia, like politically? Do you think they are acting as aggressors? Do you think there will be a second Cold War? Are you in favor with Putin and his policy? SK: I am not a favor of Putin, I sense he is corrupt.  JS: Did you like Gorbachev?  SK: Yes I like Gorbachev, but I do not like Putin now because he thinks that he is tsar.  JS: So you would call Putin a tsar? You think he is running Russia in an old fashion way?  SK: Yes I think he is a tsar, I do not like what he did to Ukraine, I thought that it was not fair, because so many innocent people died and I still think Russia is a corrupted country, along with Ukraine. Both are very corrupt. I do not think that Russian politics right now, I mean the government, is not nice. I do not like it. Also not a lot of people in Russia support Putin. There is opposition.  JS: It does not seem like he is being from power anytime soon though?  SK: No, no you're right, he wants to be President of Russia forever. Putin is second Stalin. Some people say he is progressive, yes some views of his are good, but at the same time you cannot trust him and you do not know what he will do and we'll see. ZK: Finally segueing back your decision to come to the United States, was it the best decision that you made?  SK: Yes, this was the best decision I made in my entire life, I have no regrets, I do not care how hard it was, it was definitely a great decision. It was a great opportunity for my husband and I to live in this country. Also I would not have three children because in Russia it is very hard to have more than one child because you cannot afford it. It was hard for parents to raise kids. But it was best decision for what happened. We have different lifestyle, yes, but I say every day it was a great decision. There is even a holiday in our family, every year on November 3rd or the day we came to America we have a nice dinner and eat dinner together. Most of my kids moved on and we are happy we left. We have a lot of friends here and I would say that as much as people complained, in the end everybody that I know that came here does not regret coming here. Sometimes people don't appreciate how good they have until they go to a different country.  JS: Is there a nice American Russian community in Rockland County? SK: Yeah, not many people in my neighborhood, there is only two of them and we just met them and we have been living here for ten years—but we have a lot of Russian friends. JS: Final thoughts? SK: Sometimes people do not appreciate what they have until they leave the country. But Russia is a very rich history and with a bunch of nice people. ZK: Not to Americans? SK: I can't say not to Americans, the Russian government is not nice to the government. But a lot of Russian people like American people. For example, me and Zachary went to St. Petersburg about seven years ago. We had plans and we only had three days to accomplish everything and one day it was going to rain so went to place number one and we had to take a boat to the second place because we were late. We asked a lady on a street and she gave us directions but we got lost again. We got lost again and she drove her car and told us to hop in her car and she will give us a ride. It was very nice and she drove us to the boat where it took us to a nice place outside of town. Also, in Russia there is a lot of history, like when you walk on the street, you can see the history and a lot monuments and a lot of nice building and museums, and people are very nice and warm. ZK: You don't really hear that often. JS: The rhetoric. SK: We went to my hometown where all my classmates who still live in this town, we came together for one night and we all got together and took us to a nice place and restaurant and we had a great dinner and great time. They are very helpful with each other. ZK: So you are saying they are very caring? SK: Very caring people. ZK: That's because that's how you guys were raised? SK: Yes, because schools and family values. ZK: Ok, so that is the concluding of this interview. JS: Thank you so much. ZK: Thank you so much. SK: My pleasure and if you have any of your questions please give me a call and I will answer your questions. ZK: We are concluding this interview at 3:39 and have a great day. JS: Thank you. (End of Interview) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Svetlana Kolesnik Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kolesnik, Svetlana ; Sperber, Jake ; Kolesnik, Zach Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 Description An account of the resource Svetlana Kolesnik is an immigrant from Berdichev, Ukraine. She dealt with persecution growing up due to her religion and felt the only way to feel free was to leave her home country. She immigrated to the United States in 1989 with her husband. She came to the United States in hope to provide her children a better life and a Jewish education. She now lives in New City, New York where where she is active in the Jewish community with her husband and three children. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2016-03-31 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Sveltana Kolesnik.m4a Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2016-04-18 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Ukrainian Oral History Project Extent The size or duration of the resource. 58:51 Subject The topic of the resource Kolesnik, Svetlana.--Interviews; Ukrainians--United States; Diaspora, Soviet Union—History; Russian; Jews; Migrations; Persecution; Communism and culture--Soviet Union; Ethnic identity; Manors and customs; City and town life--New York (State)--New York https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/505fb97444b8b4bd487e2124eec0fc2f.jpg f8f79b23c312c3c2d706cbcb7b8e6f20 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/cc318fcd316aa6c21a83934a27c479bf.MP3 8cf857bfe7087b00cc5b5ce96e7f4d59 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. <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 19 November 2021 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Ted Glick Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 1:43:31 Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Digital file Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text Ted Glick is an activist, organizer, and writer. After a year of student activism as a sophomore at Grinnell College in Iowa, he left college in 1969 to work full time against the Vietnam War. He was imprisoned for eleven months for his draft resistance activities during the Vietnam War. Glick has been active in the independent progressive political movement since 1975 and since 2003 has been a national leader in the climate justice movement. He is the author of several books including his most recent titled 21st Century Revolution. Keywords 1960s; Division; Ideology; Students for Democratic Society; Violence; American Indian Movement; Individualism; Change; Prison Issue; Activism. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Ted Glick Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Eden Lowinger Date of interview: 2 December 2021 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM: 00:01 All right. TG: 00:03 Yes. So, I have retired, started working in the, towards the end of (20)15, started working on what became eventually the "Burglar for Peace" book. I have finished the manuscript for that at the end of (20)16, I started looking for a publisher, it took two years until I found somebody willing to publish it. It took another year and a half from that point, until it finally was published. So, there was like a three-and-a-half-year period after I finished that first book. And, you know, I ended up writing, eventually, I, actually the story is that I, after I finished doing that "Burglar for Peace," when I finished that manuscript, one of the next things I did, I happened to find a bible of my father who had died about a year before. And I have never been able to read the Bible. I have been in and out of the church since I was, you know, a little kid. I have never been able to read the Bible, really, very much of it at any one time. But I decided after I looked at his Bible with like, all the markings and the underlining, maybe I should read this Bible, and I did. So, I spent four or five months reading his 2000-page Bible. And that basically got me going on further reading, eventually further writing, what eventually became another book that the title is "The 21st Century Revolution: Through Higher Love, Racial Justice and Democratic Cooperation," which that, almost half though it actually does deal with issues related to religion and spirituality, and the kind of the relationship of, you know, people coming from that perspective or perspectives with those who are essentially not religious or spiritual, or even or are even anti-religious but who also think that the world is in need of a lot of change- kind of the historical inter-relationship between kind of believers and, you know, kind of particularly people coming out of the Marxist tradition, going back to the (18)48 Communist Manifesto, and so on. So anyway, so about half the book is about that, in general terms, and the rest of it is ideas about how we can bring about changes in the world, along the lines of higher love, racial justice, democratic cooperation– SM: 02:44 Wow. TG: 02:45 -action on climate, etc. So, so I am now the author of two books published one year after the other [laughs], which is not something I would have ever thought when I retired would ever be the case, but it just kind of happened that that is the way it worked out. I actually self-published the second book, because I just did not want to spend two more years– SM: 03:07 Right-right. TG: 03:07 -or whatever finding a publisher. So anyway, that is a new development. SM: 03:12 Well, when would that book be in the bookstores? TG: 03:15 Well, I do not know about bookstores, it is probably, you know, in some bookstores right now. It is definitely available via the internet. It is the I, they did not publish it, but the same company that published burglar for peace agreed to distribute this book. So, it is available at pmpress.org. It is right there, if you just put in my name, it will come up. You can order either of my two books right there. That is the really the easiest way. And again, it may be in some bookstores, but I do not know if it is I do not know how many, probably not a lot at this point. SM: 03:57 Well you mentioned your life, you never thought you would be writing two books. But when you look at your entire life, what a life it is. TG: 04:04 Yeah. SM: 04:05 And-and I want to start out by asking this very important for first question is, what is the meaning of an activist? And-and in this definition, who are you with respect to the definition of an activist? And when you look at some of the other greats that you have mentioned in your book, like Dr. King and Gandhi and the Berrigan Brothers, what did they possess as activists that you were always aspiring to? TG: 04:36 Well, I do think, I define myself as an activist, but also as an organizer, and of course, as a person with kind of progressive political views. And so, you know, somebody who is an activist could be, you know, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, right. So, to me it is important to be clear, where, where the activism is going, what is the purpose of it, you know, what is the reason for it. So that is important. The, but also there is, to me, there is a difference between an activist and an organizer. An activist, could be somebody, and there certainly are people I know like this, who, you know, they like to do things that are, you know, that are reflective of their belief. They like to work in a soup kitchen feeding people, they maybe want to, they clean up parks, you know, whenever there is a park cleanup, trying to get garbage, try to clean up parks, there is that that to me, that is activism. And that is all good. But we need also organizers, people who really, and this definitely in terms of that Dr. King, and Ghandi, and Phil Berrigan, they were all people who knew how to bring other people together, how to inspire other people, how to give leadership, how to help other people find their own leadership qualities and to develop them develop, their-their other people's abilities to lead, you know, an organizer is somebody who really, really sees the bigger picture and understands that change does not happen because of individuals that do things, or even individual ideas, those are all, that is all very important. Ultimately, change happens when, when large numbers of people join together in movements, in social movements, political movements, movements for change of some kind, and, and are able to impact society, because they have joined together and because they have been able to, to bring to bring about change accordingly. In whatever way it happens. SM: 07:03 You bring up throughout your book in many different examples, the importance of community. That and bringing people together of like minds for a particular cause. But by having community you also find people who are, may disagree with you, but will create a dialogue with you. And-and I think that was very important to say, because when you think of the country we live in today, and what the (19)60s was all about, there was a lot of division going on. But that division was necessary in order to get the dialogue going to try to and some of the bad things that were happening. TG: 07:46 Yeah, no, that is a big issue of the question. I have actually been thinking about that for the last month or so as far as something I want to write a little bit more about. Because you are right, that there is a lot of similarities between the (19)60s and today in terms of the-the division that exists, and the divisions. But you know, not-not all divisions are bad things, right. When you, uniting a people who have the ideology, you know, of Donald Trump. I mean, their really deep ideology and who worship the guy- uniting people like that with, you know, people like me, people who believe that, you know, Black lives do matter, etc. You know, that is not really likely. People do change. I mean, there are examples of Ku Klux Klan leaders who literally have torn up their Ku Klux Klan cards and have kind of gone over to the other side, as they have come to realize what they were believing and doing was wrong. That does happen. But-but you know, in general, when-when you have that much of a gulf between what people believe in and what they do and what their-their vision of society is, it is, it is important actually for the things it for it to be clear about the differences that exists. Very important. You know, one of the things that I have experienced working politically in the United States is that a lot of other countries allow for multiple political parties. They use systems of proportional representation, where you when you are voting, or a parliament or Congress, you can vote for X individuals, but you also get to vote for a party. And parties that get a certain percentage of the vote, usually it is 5 percent. You know, if you if you show that you are organized enough and have enough of a social base that you can get 5 percent of the vote, then you then you will end up. Yeah, thing 5 percent of the seats in the parliament, which, you know, we call the Congress. That is a much more democratic system. And that, I think, is something that, you know, we need to strive for in this country. In this country, when you have only two parties, there is always this, this tendency to try to mishmash you just, to get anything done there is, there is a tendency for things to kind of be pushed towards the more-more lowest common denominator, when what is really needed is much more significant change than just kind of the lowest common denominator. And having a political system that really reflected the-the different political perspectives that do exist in this country, I think would be helpful. I mean, I do believe, again from experience, that compromise, when you are talking about legislation, certainly, but even when you are talking about building a movement, compromise is something that is real. The key the trick is that, you know, you cannot compromise principles. You can compromise on tactics- -you can compromise on, you know, the particularly, particularities of a solution to a problem. But you cannot compromise on principles. And there is, without question, a long history among people who are on the left, people who are about a different kind of society that is more just, more fair, more peaceful- getting into power, and essentially compromising principles, compromising so much that they essentially become corrupt. They become corrupt leaders. And that is a real problem. That is a real major issue that the second book that I wrote, in many ways, I wrote that book, trying to address that issue, what-what is it that leads to, you know, good causes really good causes going bad, and a lot of it has to do with-with that happening, leaders are getting divorced from the people that they are representing or trying to represent. And leaders just getting caught up in their own individual power, and losing sight of what it was that got them involved in the first place. And in this in this second book, 21st century revolution, I do put forward ideas on how we can build a very different kind of a movement today that I actually think is happening, I do not think it is something in the future. I think it actually is going on right now, a different kind of a movement that that has the kind of internal culture and goes about its whole processes of decision making, and the way it structures itself, to kind of minimize the possibilities of that, that kind of thing happening going forward. It is a huge issue. I mean, anybody who has studied history knows that this is just, you know, a lot of what history is about. Good causes going bad, good people going bad, personal corruption. That is, that is part of the human condition. And but it does not have to be that way. I really do not think it has to be that way. Right. That, it is excellent because you mentioned several times in your book, how movements for gr- for very noble causes can sometimes fall apart because of disagreements within the community. And the community I talk about, the examples you talk about is the Students for Democratic Society. Right. SM: 13:48 And the and then the, going away from non-violence toward violence, really kind of ended that particular group and turned people off. And, and you know, and that also happened somewhat in the American Indian Movement where great causes, but then all of a sudden violence took over and because of this AIM, which started in (19)68, did not live as long, although it still exists for very good causes. But you know, that when you start going from non-violence to violence, that can just ruin it right away. TG: 14:24 Yeah. Yeah. No, no question about it. I-I yeah, I mean, actually, your what you said is just-just right. I guess, the what I would deepen it though a little bit. It is definitely the issue of a commitment to a nonviolent approach versus an openness to violence. But I am actually not a pacifist. I do not own a gun, I have actually never fired a gun with the exception of a camp that I went to when I was a teenager and I would shoot a 22 at targets. And also, when I was in the boy scouts, I think I did a little bit of that then. So, I am not into guns, I am not into violence, I am very much into-into non-violence on a personal level and in terms of the movement that that I am building. But I definitely, for example, I and I referenced this person in my, definitely, in this latest book, I am not sure about Burglars for Peace. But Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Germany was a, he was a pacifist, you know, Lutheran minister, a leader in the German Lutheran Church. And because Hitler was so evil, and because of everything that was happening in Germany, eventually became part of a plot to assassinate Hitler, working with disaffected people in the military and the universities and so on. So, I am not, so in that sense, it is it, it is not necessarily in every single case, violence versus non-violence, I think, to me, it is, it is deeper, it really does have to do with this issue of, of, of personal values, and whether you are going to stick to your personal values and have. I mean, really, for some people, for religious people, it is whether you believe in God and whether you follow, whether you put God and what he, what he stands for what-what or she, this, this thing that we call God, this, this greater force in the universe- whether that is the priority, right? If that is what if that is the number one thing that you are trying every day, to live your life by, by that standard, right, that you trying to, you know, love your neighbor as yourself in a very literal way, and in the way that you interact with other people, in the way that you talk to people, in the way that you communicate, in the way that you work together in an organization to make decisions. Right, you do not, you know, you are not coming from added from an individualistic standpoint that, you know, I want to get my get things my way I want to kind of get, manipulate somebody to get them to go along with me or something along those lines, that it really is a genuine understanding of connections, right. That there are human connections, connections to the natural world, connections to people, you know, who have come before us and people who are coming after us- that those, all of those connections are really what make us, can make us the kind of people that we can be, I mean, that I know we can be, from my own experience. That there is, there are many people who do take those values seriously, whether they are religious or spiritual or-or not at all, they take values of concern for others, of trying to love other people, of trying to be just in your dealings and fair and honest. That is, that is, to me, that is, that is, that is the deeper need, that we have all of us who want to change the world that we need to, you know, not just be-be that way on an individual basis. But we need to talk about this, you know, in this book that, the second book that I wrote, in the research I did, I came across some really good stuff from Albert Einstein. I am kind of looking up right now, what I am hoping for here. You know, Einstein, what, he was not an atheist. He said he was not an atheist. But he also said he did not believe in some, in the conception of God that many people believed in. His was more what he called a kind of a cosmic religion. But one of the things he said, a great quote, it is very short here. That, here it is. And he, you know, he kind of writes more about this, but kind of, here is, here is kind of, to me, the punch line. He is talking about the necessity of a human societies having a, an ethical and a moral approach to-to, you know, to the development of society. And he, he relates that to the just the dominance of the scientific method and science as being you know, what was, back when he was alive was very much, much more of a dominant current, that science is kind of everything. That is the key on understanding being scientific. So here, this is like this couple sentences here. He said this in (19)51. He said quote, "A positive aspiration and effort for an ethical, moral configuration of our common life is of overriding importance. Here, no science can save us." And I have had definitely experience over, you know, the years that I have been active, with people who have essentially seen themselves as very scientific, everything needs to be just objective scientific, etc. But there is a dimension to life that is more than science. You know, again, Einstein talks about that. He talks about the-the mysterious, the sense of awe and grandeur that you can get when you are out in nature. That that that to him is kind of like a way that we, you know, sense this greater force that people call God that there is this greater power, greater force in the universe. And it is important that people do not lose that, do not lose that that sense of wonder, that is the I mean, Jesus talked about to enter into heaven, you need to be like a child, right. A child who is just kind of, you know, amazed at everything that he or she, you know, experiences as they are growing up. And it is just a whole, a joy, and an interest, and so on. SM: 21:34 This is what, some of those comments, there just, it can link up to your life. In the early part of your book, you talk about those early years when you were growing up with your parents. And then of course, going off to college, I looked at, you know, for any young person or trying to find his or her way in life, it is a great book, because you are a perfect example, and a role model of a person whose evolving is ongoing, yet you had a lot of uncertainties at times, but you found your way. And in life's journey, in the end, even with some of the discussions you had with your parents, it was your way, it was not their way, it was your way, you found your way. And if you could talk a little bit about those early years, growing up in Lancaster and, you know, your upbringing with your parents, and then going off to college and, and in particular, discuss what was going through your mind at college with respect to what was become- what was happening at the time on college campuses and linkage with the society in the United States and the world, linked to the Vietnam War. And of course, in our country, Civil Rights, the draft, the multiple movements that were evolving for gay and lesbian, Chicano, African American, women's movement. You know, those kinds of things. They were all happening when you were in college, and they were obviously, you were going to things, hearing speakers, talking to your peers, but you were trying to find yourself. Could you kind of describe that a little more in detail? TG: 23:18 Yeah, sure. Well, you know, growing up before I went to college, I did have the benefit of being part of a family, which was, of course, primarily my parents. It also did include aunts and uncles and grandparents. I again, I have, had the real privilege of on both sides of my family, having those connections, family reunions, that went on a lot and visits to, to, you know, my aunts and uncles and my getting to know my cousins and so on. And within that family, the two the two families, the-the Glicks on my father's side, and the Zieglers on my mother's side, you know, the things I am talking about were generally the way people viewed the world, there was a real strong strain of the importance of an ethical, and a moral life of a lot of the best of Christian principles. So that that was, I was not an activist at all, when I was in, in high school. You know, I was just, you know, doing sports, that was my big thing. You know, pretty good students. things here and there, I had my friends. But I was following things. My-my, my parents, particularly my father, was active, to some extent in the local civil rights movement in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, although for some reason he never talked very much with either me or my two sisters about it that I remember. He just, I think he had a view that essentially, I had to make my own way. And he really did not talk to me much at all about what he was doing or why he was doing it even although, again, I the values I understood were, that was what was underlining it. And I do have memories of my father explicitly saying things to me about it, there-there was one time in I think Chicago when I was maybe four or five, and we were at the at a at the beach, I guess it must have been Lake Michigan and somebody must have used the N word close to where we were. And I think I asked him, "What does that mean?" He says, "well, Ted, I do not ever want to hear you use that word." And then he kind of explained what, what, what it meant and why it was the wrong thing to say, and so on. So certainly, those-those things happen. I remember another time, my dad and I had gone up to a hockey game, I was maybe 15 or 16. And we were in Lancaster, we went to Hershey, Pennsylvania, there was a minor league hockey team there. And every once in a while, we did that. And I just remember one time, we were driving in the car, listening to the radio, and there is some story about like, you know, poverty in you know, in the world, how many people were in poverty, and so on. And my dad just made this very short comment about Ted, there is something that you could maybe do with your life. And I, that is that, that is stuck with me all these years, which has to mean that it had an impact on me. So, there were things, so there are things like that that happened that again, it was not so much politics, it was values. That, that is what I got more than anything from my parents and from my bigger family. So that then when I went off to college, and you know, there I am, you know, the whole, I mean, I had been following the Civil Rights Movement as I was kind of growing up and becoming a teenager, and I certainly was supportive of the Civil Rights Movement in a general sense, without doing anything. My dad did take me to hear Martin Luther King once, when he came to speak at a at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster. So, you know, I had some exposure to that, and was definitely sympathetic and supportive of, you know, Black people being treated equally, and having equal rights and voting rights and everything else that was not, it was not hard to support that, again, based upon how I was raised. When I have got to college, because of the Selective Service system and the necessity to register, that brought the issue of war and militarism much more, you know, it came home to me. I did decide to register. At that point, I did not even know that there was such a thing as a draft resistance movement, that was urging young men not to register as a way to protest the war. I did not know that when I when I registered in (19)67. But I did learn about it at college in my freshman year, and I increasingly, as I was learning more about the war and studying more about, you know, the history of, you know, African Americans in this country, I was definitely becoming more and more upset about all of that. Definitely upset when the TV news literally seemed like almost every day would give the body count, number of killed and it was in the hundreds every day, hundreds of people being killed. And I had done the study to realize that the United States was just wrong in what it was doing. It essentially had gone in right after French colonial colonialism in Indochina had been defeated. And the people there were in the process of trying to run their own country from, or countries. And the US had gone in to basically replace France as this colonial power in it. And everything had just gotten totally out of hand with the escalation and so many people being killed and just the devastation. So, I was torn up about that, I was really torn up. Eventually, that led me to turning in my draft card, led me to leaving college to work full time against the war primarily and that eventually led the course to the Catholic left and going into draft boards and storing draft files into prison and so on. So that was, that was kind of the that was, that was the, that was a trajec- trajectory very much based in how I was raised. Things I experienced, you know, growing up and then being exposed when I got to college to issues that I, you know, and people there in college who had views that I had had very little contact with. And that is how I changed. SM: 29:56 Well, one of the- one line in in your book that really stood out- and there are many lines- but it is this one sentence. And it is when you describe that the-the event that changed your life was the event on April 4 (19)68. TG: 30:15 Yeah, that was it. That was one of them. You know, Martin Luther King was killed. That was what finally pushed me. That turned me into an activist. That literally was the day I became an activist. And I have been going ever since I just, I was going in that direction, moving towards it. My thoughts were more and more along those lines, but I was not doing anything. I was, I guess, afraid. It was like a step into the unknown. Maybe I knew, I maybe I had some sense that if I did this, you know, who knows what would, I would become, but it just all built up that that that was the point at which I said, "Well, maybe they killed him. But you know, I can maybe do what I can." And I had, I felt I had to do something, it was like I was driven, I had to do something. So, I put up this little petition on the wall of the mail room where everybody got their mail, all the students got their mail, this was of course before the age of the internet. And about half the students signed it within a couple of days. And I sent it off to the to like Mike Mansfield, I believe, who was the Speaker of the House, and I forget who the person was in the Senate, I sent it off to them. Basically, calling upon-upon them to take action to change the conditions that Dr. King was trying to change. And then I you know, at that it just continued from there. And you-you know, I have never, I have never regretted the way for doing all of this. I have I have met people just recently, actually. Earlier this year, I was visiting my son and daughter in law and our, at that point, like three-month-old grandson. And I was talking with somebody, a friend of my son and daughter in law about, you know, my life and what I have been doing. And he, he was, you know, he had read my book, he had read my "Burglar for Peace “book. And he, you know, his, his feeling was that, you know, I had just made all these sacrifices, and I was probably alone, a lot of the time and etc. And my wife who has a kind of similar background to mine in terms of being an activist and an organizer for a long time. We said, "Well, not-not really." I mean, I said "we, when we embarked on the life that we did, we found there were other people who saw things the same way. And over time, you know, we developed friendships and connections that were very helpful and gave us support. And we joined organizations and networks." And that has been true ever since it is not, it is not as if it is not like there has not been really difficult times, times when I have had doubts, no question about that. I mean, that continues today. But in general, I feel really lucky to have had the experiences that I have that I did. And to come to this kind of a life. I I am very lucky. SM: 33:20 I know that when the funeral was on TV for Dr. King, they showed the audience and Bobby Kennedy was sitting there. And the sun was coming through at Ebenezer Baptist Church, and it was landing right on him. And when he was killed a coupl- two months later on June 5 of (19)68, you know, I thought of that. Yeah, and I know you are working for him and so that must have shocked you too. TG: 33:53 Yeah, that was definitely another big turning point that that was, you know, after Dr. King was killed. Yeah, I went to work for Bobby Kennedy. I was very much, you know, into activism. After, you know, and, and working for Bobby Kennedy was the main way that I was doing it. After he was killed two months later, I felt hopeless. I felt like, geez you cannot even like get somebody elected president who you support? I mean, what is happening to this country? You know, you had Richard Nixon spouting off all that he was spouting off, Spiro Agnew, all these really right winger, George Wallace. I mean, it was very similar to the dynamics today, it really was. The atmosphere was very similar to what is happening now with Trump and all the Trump followers and so I-I kind of look upon that as my, my summer of being radicalized. It was when I, as I said and say in my book, it was when I-I discovered Bob Dylan and I started listening to, you know, all his protest songs. And the one that I just stuck on was "Masters of War." That was someone that just really was so just right there in terms of my mood, you know. I actually, just a week or two ago, I was out riding my bike, I ride my bike kind of long-distance biking, I do that a few times a week. And, and every once in a while, something happens when I am riding my bike, something comes to mind. I mean, actually, a lot of times things come to my mind that I are kind of helpful in terms of just either my work, or just-just appreciating more about life or who I am. So, one, so one of the things that came to mind was that song Masters of War is that there was something that had happened I forget which-which particular outrage it was, it made me feel like, "Oh, my God, is there, what is happening to this country, is there any real hope?" So, you know, that next morning, I, that song just kind of reappeared it kind of came up from within me. And I just started while I am on my bike, trying to remember that versus just the anger and outrage, and they have kind of the agony of that song. And yeah, and it is, and it is, and it is still through the day, but-but the things are different today, there is, there are definitely differences between-between back then and today, and in a good way. It remains to be seen, who is going to win out right now, the forces of evil and the forces of try, trying to do things in a just way. I mean, that remains to be seen, but there are differences that are much more I would say in the favor of the good guys. That was true back then. And actually, what you said about what happened with SDS is a good example. You know, you have a you have a very strong movement among young people here, not just in the United States, but worldwide, you know, young people, particularly around the issue of a climate crisis, but not just that. They are, they are definitely in motion, they definitely see that need to take action, the need to speak out, to get organized. And there is nothing that I have seen that comes anywhere close as far as you know, the-the dynamics within that youth movement, to what happened back there, 50, 50 years ago– SM: 37:31 Right. TG: 37:31 -particular, particularly with SDS, there is nothing like it, nothing close to it. There is a more maturity, I would say among these young people, they understand the importance of community. They are not into kind of nihilistic adventuristic violent actions, because they are feeling so terrible and hopeless. You know, that is, that is, that is very important. That is very important. SM: 37:54 You know, you lost two people that were probably heroes to you in Dr. King, and Bobby, and of course, many, you know, we are the same age and the front edge boomers are certainly affected by this. But they were also affected by the assassination of the President, United States in (19)63. TG: 38:13 Right. SM: 38:14 And I have often wondered, and I do not know if you thought of this a lot, I have- what that assas- assassination did in (19)63, and the two in (19)68. And I also put in there, Malcolm X and (19)65. And there is Medgar Evers, and the list goes on and on. It, what does this say about America? TG: 38:39 Well, there is a very deep strain of white supremacy, racism, violence. You know, kind of a libertarianism kind of individualism, actually more than a libertarianism, very much individualism. There is a lot of that, for sure. And again, we see it in what exists right now. You know, this, this country has, the history of the US is a history in many ways of struggle between those who, you know, want to keep it, you know, something dominated by white men, white, rich, white men of property, right. And we see that today. The whole Republican Party. It is astounding, you know, in terms of the who is in Congress, virtually the whole Republican Party, that is their agenda. How do we maintain the rule of rich white man, [inaudible] straight men, right? That is, that is, that is what they are about. It is all about power. Principle is just in short supply. And then, you know, you have those on the left side of things who are in various different ways- there is all kinds of differences- but in various kinds of ways are trying to make a, quote, "more perfect union," trying to change the society. I mean, that is what the history of the US has been about starting with the Bill of Rights and the struggle over, you know, the Bill of Rights right after the revolution. And then, of course, the Civil War, the slavery and the women's suffrage movement and the labor movement of the (19)30s. You know, peace movements along the way, and the whole emergence of the LGBTQ movement in the late (19)60s on a on a mass scale and disability rights. I mean, just that, that is, that is the struggle in this country. And there really are, I do believe, and I think generally polls show this, there is a lot, there is definitely more people who want to move things forward, than there are people who want to basically go back to the old way of Jim Crow, and segregation And women being essentially second class citizens and gay people, you know, be trying to push them back into the closet and all those, that that whole social cultural dynamics, women not having the right to make decisions about their own bodies, in terms of children [inaudible], having children, all those things. I definitely believe that there is many more of us than there are of them. But you know, that does not necessarily mean as we can see right now with the laws that are being passed, they it is all over the country to suppress the vote when you look at the-the who is on the Supreme Court because of the machinations of Mitch McConnell– SM: 41:41 Right. TG: 41:42 -to prevent people from being nominated who should have been or who should not have been, you know, when it comes to what is, what is her name? Amy, Amy Coney Barrett, what one month before the election, all of a sudden, you know, she is put forward things like that. SM: 42:00 Right. TG: 42:01 So yeah, that is the history. And, you know, it is maybe that is the history of the world. I mean, if you look at what is happening in the world, it is just this constant battle between the forces of progress and moving forward. SM: 42:14 Yep, I agree. TG: 42:14 And those who just-just want to want to stay stuck in basically backwardness, you know, cultural and political backwardness. SM: 42:23 I always thought that in the (19)60s when we were young, and this whole kind of utopian idea that-that the future would all be steps going forward. And now we hear so many times people saying we are taking two steps forward, and then we have to take one step backward. It you know, it is amazing. I like to talk to you about the on Ultra Resistance, the Catholic left and– TG: 42:23 Right. SM: 42:25 -certainly, in your book, you talk about the two important qualities that they that united them. First off, they were, they were believed in the Catholic Church's principles. But number two, is their- their reluctance and their protests against events like the Vietnam War and the draft, that it was the draft that united them. And could you talk a little bit about your experience with your draft card? And number two, you mentioned David Harris. I have interviewed him and-and I have interviewed some other people like David [inaudible], who was in that group in New York City that burned his draft card. Could you talk about the importance of the draft in really inciting people to the activists? Come– TG: 43:39 Yeah no, no question back there in the (19)60s, the draft and the movement against the draft was-was a huge thing, in terms of eventually ending the war. And in terms of more and more people, you know, seeing, you know, the faults, and the deep-seated faults and problems of the society. And all the other movements, really the kind of, kind of emerged out of the Civil Rights Movement first, and then the peace movement and then everything else. I mean, the thing about a draft is that, you know, if you are a, back then if you are a young man, does not matter your color, your income, where you live, you have to register that to be part of the Selective Service system, and you are liable to be drafted. Of course, there, there were ways that you know, richer people like what happened with Trump and Bush, they were able to get into the either the National Guard in Bush's case or in Trump's case, you know, get a doctor to say that if he had, what was it, fallen arches or something with his feet. So, you know, there is definitely that is, that is all it was kind of part of the dynamic but in general, everybody was affected. The vast majority of people were affected by this and when there is a hot war with hundreds of people dying every day and people coming back in body bags and without arms and legs and with their minds really messed up and PTSD and everything else. You know, that can have big impacts upon a society and upon, you know, a whole generation of young people. So that is what happened. That is what happened when it came to the Vietnam War. I mean, this the Vietnam War was not World War Two, we were not fighting against Hitler and fascism. You know, we were kind of the opposite. We were fighting on behalf, on the side of really the some of the most dictatorial elements in the southern part of Vietnam, that, that is the ones who had actually collaborated with the French when it came to colonialism. So as-as the truth kind of eventually comes out, and people realize that this is an unjust war that we should not be in, and yet here is, here is so many young men who are liable to have to go and fight it. Yeah, over time, that-that, that it was, it was, it was, it was a context, it was a set of realities that definitely impacted your ability to build a big strong movement. SM: 46:15 How did you feel? How did you feel inside when you yourself were [inaudible] going in front of people, regarding your card? TG: 46:25 I am sorry, what was that about going before people? SM: 46:28 Yeah, when people saw it, when you, you, you know, if you are on stage, or mailing your card in or whatever it was, what was going through your mind? TG: 46:38 I was just so angry, and so upset. That was the dynamic that was driving me. I-I was a shy kid growing up. I mean, I really was. I mean, I was actually really shy in a lot of ways. When I was no longer a kid, for quite a while. I am less shy now, finally. But you know, I, it is like, the war consumed my life. I mean, it just consumed me, it was something that I could not forget. And it was just such a monstrous evil. That, you know, I know, I knew some people who, you know, were going to Vietnam, who were threatened with it, you know, it was just this all-consuming thing. And I was not the only one that-that was true for. Again, that is, that is why you had a direct Resistance Movement develop and why you eventually have a Catholic left develop with more militant actions. Yeah, I think- thinking. I mean, the thinking was, you know, what you did when you were trying to understand, you know, reading books and trying to write what it is all about. But then at a certain point, you know, I mean, you obviously had to keep thinking about what-what should you do, what you should do. But, you know, Bonhoeffer had a really, really good, good statement, he said, something about he was like, he was writing to a young person from prison, he said something like, "your generation..." No, it sounds like we have "We have spent too much time in thought, and, and debate, believing that, that is the way we should be about living our lives for you." He is saying, to this young person, "Your thinking will be much more related to your responsibilities in action." SM: 48:42 Yep. TG: 48:43 There was like a connection between thinking and action that he made. And that is all that stuck with me, that that quote always stuck with me. I think that is the way I am. I think I continue to be like that. I do a lot of thinking, that is for sure. But I eventually do feel it is really important for us to go somewhere and not just kind of be out there. SM: 49:04 It is the importance of deeds over dreaming. TG: 49:07 Yeah. SM: 49:08 Of what could be, let us make it by doing it through deeds. TG: 49:11 Yeah. SM: 49:11 I, your discussion of prison, and all those experiences in prison, I think are important too. Because I can remember and you, your- you really loved Dr. King, he often talked about if you are not willing to go to jail for your beliefs, then maybe you do not really have beliefs. And, and of course, the letter from Birmingham jail is one of the greatest things ever to read. And I am, I am a firm believer in that. And so, you have to take that risk. And there are too many people in this world who are indifferent and silent, fearful of losing their security and so forth. And all of that goes away when you create a deed like you have done in your life and other activists have done. Your thoughts about, you know, Dr. King, and that whole philosophy about, you must be willing to go to jail for your beliefs. TG: 49:31 Right. Yeah. I have to think where to begin. You know, jail is certainly not a fun place to be. The reality is, of course, that overwhelmingly, the people who are in jail are people who come from low income, low wealth backgrounds who are Black or indigenous or Latino. That is, that is certainly the reality in the United States. So, you know, jail can be romanticized, it is not, it is, it is, it is a hard place to be day to day for sure. But if you are unwilling to take risks of going to jail, if you are unwilling to basically voluntarily suffer. You know, fasting is another example, you know, you are, you are, you are almost taking away a very important weapon, you know, a nonviolent weapon that we need to have. There is a, there is a lot of history that shows that when people are willing to take risks, when they are willing to step out of kind of their usual kind of roles in society, when they are, when they are willing to, you know, to go to jail if necessary, for an important cause, that, that is, that is definitely a component of building a successful movement for change. If you do not, if the people who believe in something are only willing to go so far, you know, it kind of gets picked up on by others that well, yeah, your ideas are good, but it is not that important, or probably not going to happen et. cetera, you know, there is this need for, it is almost like a disruption of the routine. There is a need for something to be introduced into a dynamic that is new and different, that makes people think, you know, make people think, "Why would they, why would they do that? Why would they be willing to go to jail? Why would they get- why would they be willing to get arrested or not eat for days or weeks?" So that, that, that is, that is, it is an important component of societal change. I mean, probably the best example would be Jesus really, or one of the best examples. I mean, if he had been unwilling to, you know, stick with it, and he knew what he was getting into when he was going there to Jerusalem. He knew what the risks were, were, he may have known exactly what was going to happen if you believe certain things about Jesus, but you are cert- there is no question just historically that he was he was very smart man and he knew what he was risking, and, but he stuck with it. And he did not run. He was willing to face it. And look what has happened because of his courage. SM: 53:20 Right. TG: 53:20 His willingness to do that. SM: 53:21 Yeah. TG: 53:22 Look, what-what, what exists worldwide. You know, there is a lot of corruption. There is or there is certainly been a lot of corruption, a lot of bad dynamics within organized religion, certainly Christianity with both Catholic and Protestantism. And you have like, right wing conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists who just really distort the truth, the really certainly what Jesus was all about, the Old Testaments kind of another story, it is much more of a mixed bag. But certainly, when it comes to Jesus and his life, there is a lot of distortion of what he really was about that goes on. But-but you know, another person like that, that has been important to me is that James Connolly, who was a leader of the Irish Freedom Movement, he was also a socialist and a labor organizer in the, I guess, the late (18)00s, early (19)00s. He was part of the Easter Uprising in (19)60s, in Ireland, and he-he was not, he was captured with others, when that uprising failed, and, you know, I-I read a biography of his and, you know, he was he was a socialist, but he also was a Christian. He did have religious beliefs. He was also a feminist very interestingly, he got, in many ways he was he was kind of ahead of his time, in terms of a lot of man, a lot of people, a lot of men on the left actually. And, and he would write about and he-he felt that there, there that in terms of again, moving the process forward of social change- in his case, trying to get independence for Ireland from Britain and for a more just society- that was much more respectful of working-class people and so on, that some people were going to have to take risks and maybe die. And he ended up, he ended up being killed because of those beliefs and his willingness to act on them. You know, there is a saying, I am not sure I am going to get it quite right. But it is something like, if you do not, if you are not, if you are not willing to, if your beliefs are such that you are not willing to die for them, your beliefs, beliefs are probably not very deep. That is not quite right. But I think that is true. SM: 54:19 Oh, okay. Yeah. I know that you have talked in depth about the trials that the ultra-resistance went through, particularly the Harrisburg Nine and the Catonsville Trials, could you describe the lessons that you learned from these trials, and how important they are when trying to, you know, let the world know that the issues that you are trying to reach out to the world to get to know better? TG: 56:25 Yeah, well you know, it is really, really interesting that you are raising that now. I was just part of a trial. A one-one week ago, today, November 12, in Wilmington, Delaware, I was part of a grandparents' walk, walk for our grandchildren. We went from Scranton, Pennsylvania, to Wilmington, this was late June of this year. And you know, calling upon, you know, President Biden to be a strong leader on issue of climate and social justice. And at the end of the of this, it was like eight days of a walk and sometimes driving in between Scranton and Wilmington, 15 of us got ourselves arrested in front of a major complex of Chase Bank, at the credit card headquarters for Chase Bank and the United States. And Chase Bank happens to be the number one financer of the fossil fuel industry in the world. And they have been they have been that for the last five years, there has been reports that have come out analyzing banks and their role in financing, you know, new gas, new oil, new coal, and so on. And so, we-we had this action. And we were offered, paying 10, a $10 fine, and then that would be the end of it. And most of us decided not to take that offer we decided we wanted to have a trial, insist on our right to a trial. So, we had, we had one a week ago. And the thing that we did in that trial, that is the same as that I and others did in, in my first trial in Roches- Rochester, New York. This was in (19)70, one of the draft board raids was in Rochester, New York, and in (19)70, and seven of the eight of us defended ourselves. We were our own lawyers, and what we found during that trial, and then what we found just a week ago, was that our doing that, you know, and we were prepared, we did have a lawyer who was an advisor who was involved with us but, you know, we were our own lawyers, essentially. And in both cases, the use of that tactic of being a defendant defending themselves, really, really opened up the courtroom, it made it possible to bring in the information and kind of backed, stuff that backed up our claim that what we were doing, what we did may have broken the law but it was not a crime, or that there was or that there was a much greater crime that we were addressing. In the case of the Rochester trial, it was the Vietnam War in particular. In the case of this trial a week ago, it was climate change, climate disruption and the role of Chase Bank being a major enabler of the expansion of fossil fuels, which of course is the driver of climate change. SM: 59:34 Right. TG: 59:34 And you know, we were really very effective at getting stuff in, the judge, this kind of justice of the peace judge was a woman. We were surprised really how much we got in and it was because we were organized. We actually were respectful. We were not going in there to disrupt the courtroom. We really wanted to make our case. So, so my less- you know, it was kind of driven home again to me this lesson that the court, the court can be a place where you can, again, really have impacts, have real impacts on people where you can show, you know, really-really, it can be a platform for speaking and for putting forward your beliefs and articulating, articulating them. And that and-and that there is something behind them, you are not just kind of talking. You are there because you took an action, you were willing to do something with your belief and risk, you know, time in jail. And so, yeah, I definitely in terms of a life lesson, I do believe that people, people being willing to do a nonviolent civil disobedience, and being willing to then go to trial, and, and defend the action and get at the "why" of why the actions happened to the extent that, that is done well, that that can be a very, very effective technique and a tactic in building a movement for the kind of change we need. SM: 1:01:15 That was brilliantly said, very- I want to ask also about the sections on your prison life. What did you learn in prison? TG: 1:01:27 Well, the- you know, the number one thing I would say is, I, you know, when you are in prison, you know, you are a prisoner. Generally, you do not have a lot to do during the day, you know, most cases the jobs that are available that you are assigned to, is really not a lot of work to do, they kind of make work. So you have a lot of time just to observe. And one of the things that I observed in the prisons that I was in over the, just about a year that I was going to prison was the kind of the structure of things, how they work that you had this whole hierarchy of, you know, you had the warden at the top on the top, then you had kind of the guards with their officers, they were kind of a next level. Then, of course, you had some other staff there at the prison. But then even among the prisoners, like I particularly saw this at Danbury prison. Danbury, you had a setup where they were, the best, most of the people at Danbury, including me, lived in dormitories where there was like 50 to 100 people in one big room, with your, with your bed and your locker. Essentially, that was what you had, where you could keep stuff in your locker. And, but there were there were individual rooms, that you could say were kind of like cells, but they tend to be more like rooms, you know, they were locked at night, that kind of thing. But I noticed that those rooms which were, the better, better housing accommodations went to primarily the more white collar white, you know, people who have broken the law, the criminals, the people who were there for white collar crime, those were primarily who got those. So I saw that. And then I saw basically, the rest of the kind of the prison society of course, which was the prisoners, who in the case, of Danbury, again, you know, many Black and Latino, many work working class whites, low income, whites, in vast majority of cases. So just-just the kind of the class dynamics the kind of the structure of how the prison society worked. I just realized that it was pretty similar to how society is structured here. And in the outside world, it is different, you know, it is not as stark, of course, because you are in, you are not in prison, can tend to be hidden. But you-you, you have a similar a similar dynamic here in terms of kind of various classes. So that was, that was one that was one big thing that, for me, came out of prison. On a personal level, I would say it was very valuable in terms of particularly my interactions with-with Black people, you know, I had-had very little contact before going to prison with, you know, individuals, you know, Black-Black people where I grew up in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, it was overwhelmingly white, very, very few, very, very few Black or you know, Latino people were where I lived and where I went to school, but in prison it was different. And so I developed friendships. And, you know, I just basically came to learn that, you know, basically we are all the same ultimately you know, there are differences in culture, there is certainly differences in the way society structures things in terms of poverty and classes and so on. But underneath it all, we all are really the same in terms of our desires, our fears, our anxieties, etc. I just, I just learned that by interacting on a daily basis with people who, you know, I had not interacted with. And I guess it was kind of true also, with kind of more lower income working class whites when I, the first prison I went to in Ashland, Kentucky was a youth prison. Because I was 21 at the time, and a lot of the of the people who were there were from Appalachia, or Appalachia, and they were there for stealing a car and they had been prison, they had been sentenced to up to six years in prison for stealing a car. And they would get out, the sooner they would get out would be when they kind of became less rebellious, and basically more adjusted and so on. But, you know, I just had more day to day interactions with kind of, you know, Appalachian, you know, young white men, and kind of a similar thing, right. So that-that was, that was definitely a really very big, positive thing for me just being exposed to people from different races, different classes or cultures. And again, seeing that whatever their views, whatever their idiosyncrasies, whatever, in some cases, they are, you know, the fact that they were really kind of messed up emotionally, acted out, things like that-that, you know, there but for fortune go I, right that, that, that anyone, I could have been any one of those people if I had been just born to, you know, different parents and a different, you know, reality. It was just luck that I ended up the way I did ultimately, and that I really needed to never forget that-that underneath it all, each of us we are pretty similar, and we want many of the same things. SM: 1:07:18 For people that will be listening to this interview now and 50 years from now, who if you could describe these three individuals in your own words, who was Philip Berrigan, who was Daniel Berrigan and who was Eliza- Elizabeth McAllister? TG: 1:07:40 Well, Phil Berrigan, is pretty easy. Phil was one of the best organizers I think I have ever met. You know, he was a really, he was a tough guy in a good way. He was very strong, very determined. He knew how to talk to people in a respectful way. He knew how to build community, how to bring people together, I just experienced that particularly at Danbury prison when I was there with him and with Dan Berrigan for about six months. He you know, he had his rough edges, he talks about them in his, in his own autobiography, you know, he sometimes could definitely get impatient and try to impose really, his views. But I would not say that was the main thing about Phil at all. And, you know, he really, he really took the teachings of Christianity seriously, the best of Christianity seriously and he tried to live them out in his life, particularly, I guess, after World War Two, he was exposed to a lot in World War Two. That certainly sobered him and made him realize how war is just a such a terrible thing. Yeah, that is what I say about Phil. I actually, I would also say he was somebody I learned eventually, who, even when you did have big disagreements with them that, you know, ultimately, he was able to, as I learned and I hope that I have continued to be, was that that, that differences between people in general should not be a reason why there cannot be some connection, some relationships, some way of continuing to talk and be in contact. So that was something I think, ultimately learned from Phil and kind of my own interactions with him. As far as Dan, Dan was not so much a good organizer, I mean, he did do it. He was much more of a you know, very creative, really very brilliant big picture guy. He saw things, he saw kind of a bigger picture he, I think, had a sense of history, a sense of I do not know, just-just kind of the what, the vicissitudes of life, kind of the angst, the good things, the bad things. Either roll with it. I do not know, there was kind of a depth, a depth to Dan, I would say that was not quite the same with Phil. Dan was just really wise, very wise. Very wise person. And as far as Elizabeth-Elizabeth, she was also a very determined person, she really definitely had an inner strength. She-she got involved, I think into political activity later in life. And perhaps getting into the Cath- Catholic left what she did, it was it was not I do not think it was so much her thing at that point in time. I think I would say that, she was, she was a good organizer, but not as good as, as Phil. I do not know, I honestly, I had run ins with-with Elizabeth in a way I really did not generally with Phil and Dan and ultimately, I did have run in with Dan actually. But I had more difficulty with Liz and kind of the work that we did together. So, but the thing about her is that she is stuck with it, you know. She not doing very well right now as we are speaking. I am not sure how many more years she has. But she has just been a warrior. She has like not, she has continued to take action. She was there and prisoner for what, a year and a half I believe it was for, you know, an action against nuclear weapons in Georgia. She has refused to, to give up and has stuck with it. And her perseverance is definitely an example to learn from. She was the mother as Phil was the father of three young people. I know one of them, Frida Berrigan pretty well and Frida is great. Yeah, that those-those have been my experiences and how I would see them. SM: 1:12:51 Let me I want to, for the record, just have to Daniel Berrigan quotes here. And then I have got one quote from you. And then I will come back with another question. But this is from page 44 of your book. And this is Daniel: "A Christian can confront the law of the land. That law which protects the war makers even as it prosecutes the peacemakers. The Christians can refuse to pay taxes. They can aid and abet and harbor people like myself who are in legal jeopardy for resistance, along with AWO Wells. They can work with GIS on bases helping those young men to awaken to the truth of their condition and their society. In coffee houses or with hospitality in their homes, they can organize within their professions and neighborhoods and churches, so that a solid wall of conscience confronts the deaths makers, they can make it increasingly difficult for local draft boards to function. There are a hundred nonviolent means of resistance up to now untried, or half tried or badly tried. But the peace will not be one without such serious and constant sacrificial courageous actions on the part of large numbers of good men and women. The peace will not be won without the moral equivalent of the loss and suffering and separation, that the war itself is exacting." And then the other quote, and then I am going to have your quote as well, on page 27, and 28 here. So yeah, this is Dan again, speaking: "We say killing is disorder, life and gentleness and community and unselfishness is the only order we recognize. For the sake of that order, we risk our liberty, our good name. The time has passed when good people can remain silent, when obedience can segregate them from public risk, when the poor can die without defense. We ask our fellow Christians to consider in their hearts a question, which has tortured us night and day since the war began." The Vietnam War, "How many must die before our voices are heard? How many must be torn-tortured, dislocated, starved, maddened? How long was the world's resources be raped in the service of legalized murder? When at what point will we say no to this war? We have chosen to say, with the gift of our liberty, if necessary, our lives, the violence stops here, the death stops here, the suppression of truth stops here, this war stops here." Those are powerful words. And then, and then here is a very powerful words from you, Ted, and this is on page 21. And here it is, here: "As I as I read, and thought, the more I became first confused, then sad, then angry, and now moved to the point where I must take a stand against what I feel is ruining the lives of many young people in this country, as well as the lives of millions of people in the third world. I make this protest against death, I make this affirmation of life because I deeply believe the United States actions have caused and are causing such a high degree of suffering, and have destroyed so many lives that I must cry out against these actions, by this break, age and non-compliance with the selective service system. I do so with a feeling of inward peace now that I am no longer tied to what I consider wrong." I just want to quote these because I thought they were great thoughts from your book. Any thoughts on any of them? TG: 1:16:49 Well, yeah, you know there really is an inward piece to living out your belief, as much as possible. I mean, the reality for a lot of people in this world is they need to survive, they need to do things to, you know, put bread on the table, pay the rent, you know, clothes for your kids and yourself, etc. That definitely means sometimes you just have to do that. And you take what you can get, if you cannot get the kind of job you would really like. So, I know that reality, and I have, I have dealt with that myself over the years in terms of, you know, finding ways of paying those bills. But-but there is an inner peace that comes from your doing as much as you can, as best as you can to change the world in whatever way that you are trying to do it. You know, whatever issue or issues with whatever perspective you have on it, you know, and that can change over time, people evolve and change as they learn more. So that, yeah, in terms of the inward peace thing, I resonate with that, that is still true. You know, I sleep pretty well at night. Like I think I, my conscience is pretty, pretty clear. I feel like I have done what I could, and that does make my life better. And I have met so many people, so many good people as a result of this work. That, you know, I never would have met otherwise. In terms of what Dan said, I really was, I was saying, yeah, that is, that is kind of a good example of what I was trying to say in terms of the kind of person Dan was. Dan, he saw the bigger picture, he understood that people come in to, in this case, the peace movement against the Vietnam War at different points in their life in terms of what they are able to do or what they are willing to do. And-and it all counts, right, all of it counts. You know, that that was very reflected in, you know, in some of what was that Dan was saying there as well as obviously, the, the kind of what I was saying in terms of how if you are willing to risk something that you believe in. That is, that is really the way of the world when it comes to how it changes, you know, good things do not happen you know, without risk, they really do not. And heart risk and hard work, no question about it. You know, the thing. Just going back to your other question, Phil, pretty much from my experience when I was with him, and working with him, and afterwards when I was not working with him for many years. That was, he was not like that so much for certainly during the Vietnam War, Phil was like, you know, "You should do more. You should, you should, you should get involved with what we were doing, that if you are really serious about stopping this war, you should go into a draft board and help us destroy draft files or remove them and burn them somewhere away from the draft board, so people do not get sent to Vietnam." He was he was, he challenged people, you know, I experienced that there in Danbury prison when he organized, what was for me my first long hunger strike, he organized a group of [inaudible] to go on a hunger strike that ended up going 34 days in connection with issues there in the prison, as well as, as the war. He kind of brought him the tiger cages in Vietnam where and then I guess women were tortured in the way they were just kept in these cells and so on, it was a big issue at the time. And he-he organized this fast around prison issues and connected to the tiger cages. Yeah, he was he was the he was a really determined leader to push as much as could be pushed and willing to take these kinds of risks. Dan took risks too, no question about it. He definitely was a risk taker, but he had that big, broader perspective. And, you know, the two of them together, were a team in a lot of ways, they brought their different strengths. And they, they, they have they did a lot back then then and it is still going on in terms of the impact that they have. SM: 1:21:26 You also [inaudible] put in here, just briefly, the-the fact that when the anti-war [inaudible] Ultra resistance was really happening, the connection between the Catholic Church and Pope John, because, you know, anybody who studied the Catholic Church, about the Second Vatican Council remembers Pope John and I, and of course he, you know, so-so they were deep religious Catholics, which both Americans were. They are living the Bible, they are living what the Pope is saying, as well, which is, and I can remember a quote here and yours, "Make the church relevant to 20th century consciousness," and written with respect to the war, racism and poverty. TG: 1:22:10 Right. SM: 1:22:10 And I mean, it is so you know, and of course, the drafting, you know the draft was the other reason because of connection and the greater crime and everything, but your book is, is brilliant in so many ways, because anyone who wants to learn about the (19)60s, the anti-war movement, the Catholic Church's involvement, you put everything together, and it makes you think. And it is just tremendous. I-I just, I am, my final questions are just a few general questions. What are your thoughts on the boomer generation, the generation you belong to? These are just commentaries? So, were you positive or negative about the generation? TG: 1:22:53 Well, you know, there was variation, it is not like you can say it is one thing, I mean, you had all kinds of, different kinds of people. I mean, I think in the sweep of history, that we, we played a very important role in trying, in helping to, to move this country in the world forward, you know, the (19)60s and into the 19)70s, that whole period was a key period in terms of-of, of changing this country. And, and it was, it was what was started then is continuing today. Take the women's movement, the women's movement, kind of the, I guess, it was called the third wave, the women's, the women's movement emerged in a lot of ways at first out of the Civil Rights Movement. You know, women who went south and risked their lives, fighting for the rights for Black people and equality for Black people. You know, eventually they came back to where they lived, their communities that were, you know, white, basically white and, and they had had their consciousness raised, and their willingness to speak up and take action, and they started doing it around sexism, and, you know, male dominance and disrespect and abuse and violence against women. And that movement, continu- that-that, you know, things have just continued since that time, there is always again these efforts that are made to move, go backwards and to strip away many of those gains that have been won. But there, there are a lot of them that are here to stay. I mean, there is clearly major changes in this country. So, you know, if you just take that issue, and then you can look at other issues, and it is similar. I think that our generation that I was part of and you were part of, we had an impact that continues. I really do believe that SM: 1:24:51 In your view, when did the (19)60s begin, and when did it end if it did end? TG: 1:24:58 Well, I mean for me, that began around (19)68. But that is really just for me personally. From my reading of history, it seems like it really began. I mean, you had the Civil Rights Movement, which started in the (19)50s, right? That that was really the, really the movement that got things going. That because so much came out of the Civil Rights Movement, including the peace movement, the women's movement, and so on. I guess if you are talking about a movement of the (19)60s, mid (19)60s, I would say after Johnson was elected as the peace candidate, and then within a few months, he basically becomes the war president. That that really, in terms of the antiwar movement, I would say that is when that began. That really, it did not really exist too much. There was some people, some of the some groups that like the War Resisters League and the Fellowship of Reconciliation that had been around for a long time, and they existed, but in terms of a mass movement that really was began to change society as a whole, I would say it was not until (19)65. SM: 1:26:13 All right, one of the things that you probably heard, too, that really, of the generation, the boomer generation of 74 million, only approximately 7 percent of that group was involved in any sort of activism. I think sometimes when people mention that they, it is kind of a negative on the boomer generation, but and in respect- TG: 1:26:38 Right. SM: 1:26:38 -I think it is a positive because if 7 percent and do what-what they did, that is pretty good. TG: 1:26:44 Yeah well, you know, I have read, there are people who have studied social movements very closely. And they I am forgetting some, some of the names of the people who, who did these studies, but what has kind of come out of that is that the that if 3 percent, or maybe if three and a half percent, but three, if three to three and a half percent of a population are willing to be active, to take action, to go to demonstrations, you know, to do various other things these days, it would have to do with the internet and, you know, social media, as well as demonstrations and actions, that if you have 3 percent of a society that is, that is really out there an active, that is what you need for significant social change to happen. So, if indeed, it was 7 percent, that is double that number. SM: 1:27:37 Yeah. TG: 1:27:37 So that is not so bad. SM: 1:27:39 No, I agree. There is so many reasons why the Vietnam War ended, but what the what, in your opinion, what was the number one reason why the war ended? TG: 1:27:49 Well, if you had, the number one reason. I would say, the GIS turning against the war, who were in Vietnam. I think that was the breaking point, you know, clearly the resistance of the Vietnamese to try to keep control of their own country. Without that, of course, things would have ended up very different, but-but certainly from the standpoint of, of the United States, it was the GI resistance that made a huge difference. Everything began to change when-when that happened. Yeah, that is what I would say. SM: 1:28:34 The Vietnam memorial. Have you been there? TG: 1:28:37 I have been yeah. SM: 1:28:38 Yeah, well I know I moved back from California in (19)83. The first place I went to was the memorial, took the train down from Philly but Jan Scruggs founded the, along with some other major Vietnam veterans, the heal- and the Vietnam Memorial, and he wrote a book called The Healing of a Nation. And what role do you think that wall has done to heal the nation? I know it is healed a lot of the veterans and the families of those who died. I mean, I see it every year when I go down there. [inaudible] tremendous job, because Vietnam veterans are treated so poorly when they return home. And in (19)82, that was a mark, demarcation right there because that now there was a good feeling that they had served. Your thoughts on the importance of the wall and healing this nation from this war? TG: 1:29:36 I honestly could not really answer that with any real knowledge. I know about the wall. You know, my sense is that the way it was done with listing all of the names of everybody who died, rather than, you know, what can often be done for these kinds of things, you know, putting a general on a horse or a general, you know, in a military vehicle or just a general up on a on a statue and, you know, that kind of a memorial or a monument. That is, that is, you know, that is a very different kind of a monument. So having all the names of everybody who died, is- was-was a was a good thing to bring home, helped to bring home the reality of war and what it does, what it does for people, [inaudible] has really major impacts on lots and lots of [inaudible]. [crosstalk] I would think that has something to do with it to the extent what you are saying is true, which I just do not know. I would think that is why. SM: 1:30:51 Right. I, this is a criticism I heard from those who were against the anti-war movement in any of the activists in that era. How would you respond to the- this person's opinion, they are troublemakers who only care about their but their beliefs, not the beliefs of others? They are selfish and not selfless. Again, they only see a crisis from their own point of view. And these are critics of those people who are activists who challenge the system. And I quote this as well, that many times when people are hiring people today in the world of work, they want predictable people as opposed to unpredictable people. I feel activists are unpredictable, and they are the best people. Your thoughts on that? Yeah, the people that are a little different than are willing to challenge the system. And this mentality that is still out there. I mean, when Governor Rhodes was in charge of the people in at Kent State back in (19)70, you heard what he talked about, the brown shirts, the worst of our society. And of course, he you know, it was ridiculous. But just your thoughts on that? TG: 1:32:13 Well, there were, they were definitely a minority. There were people in, I mean, it is like this for any movement, really. There were people in the peace movement, who were more frankly into it, for not the best reasons. And who, as a result, eventually, they dropped out of it, because they really should not have been there in the first place maybe or they realized that they should move on. But that, for the vast majority of people, certainly my experiences, involvement came from, from a really good place. It came out of, I mean in some cases it came just out of real personal fear of being killed or losing your leg or your eyes or being maimed for life or going crazy from being sent to war. And that is totally understandable and legitimate. But I would, I would, I would certainly say that my experience back then, and since then, is it in general, most people who get involved in these kinds of movements, you know, they are doing it for the right reason. If-if they end up, you know, kind of going off and not being such, not being the kind of people, they should be, again, it might have something to do with the leadership of these movements. That that has to be looked at. You know, you look at today, I mean, you compare Donald Trump to Joe Biden, right. And Joe Biden's really not my guy. I supported Bernie Sanders, both in (20)16 and (20)20. Although I did actually, I did a 32 day, they asked a hunger strike to defeat Trump. I did not eat for 32 days in the month October- SM: 1:34:08 Wow. TG: 1:34:08 -last year, because I wanted to Biden to win. But you look at the difference in terms of, you know, Trump, and like the Republicans in Congress and the way so many of them are, I mean, jeez. I do not I think there is a real difference in kind of truthfulness, and the general quality of people's lives between the Republicans and the Democrats and the, and some of the progressive independents like Bernie Sanders who work with the Democrats. You know, there is, that is, you know, definitely there is Democrats who take a lot of money from, you know, big corporations, from the fossil fuel industry. And you know, I do not agree with some of that kind of an approach but in general, when it comes to movements, when it comes to people active in essentially kind of progressive movements trying to advance to a different kind of society, my experience is that you meet an awful lot of good people when you are in those movements. Not-not perfect people, but good people, good hearted people who are, who are trying, as best they can. And again, you know, I will come back to some of what I said earlier that it is our res- those of us who, you know, play leadership roles in those movements, it is our responsibility to do everything we can to have the movements, that have the organizations that are part of, that makeup those movements, that are key to those movements, be about a very different way of interacting with one another, a very different way of living our lives, of really taking building of community seriously, helping people to-to become stronger, and to develop good leadership skills themselves. You know, that-that, and we cannot be into just, you know, following individual leaders, we need to be about the importance of what is called group centered leadership. I talk about that in this new book of mine, that-that is really critical that, that if you are building an organization, you are building a movement that is about social change, if you do not have an internal culture that is all about, you know, working together, and not just putting up one person or a few people as, as the leaders, that that is this conscious process of a continual working together, growing together, developing together, trying to build that kind of a culture for the movement, if that does not happen, you know, sooner or later, things are going to go the wrong way. But they do not have to. I really think if we are conscious about that issue, that is, that is what I really tried to hit away at one of the key things in this second book of mine, then I think we, then I really do believe we can change the world. I really do. SM: 1:37:00 I have two final questions, and then we are done. Who are the heroes of the (19)60s and early (19)70s? And who are the villains of the (19)60s and early (19)70s? TG: 1:37:10 Well, the villains are easier. Certainly, Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover, off the top of my head that-that is those would be the two ones I would first think of in terms of villains definitely. LBJ, you know, certainly he, he was kind of a mixed bag, he did some good things in terms of support for the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and so on. But the war, he was totally taken in and very problematic. In terms of the heroes, I mean, again, clearly the two Berrigan brothers and you know, many other people who were active in that movement. Dave Dellinger, I think of Dave Dellinger, who was a good friend. He was a wonderful human being and wonderful nonviolent leader. Gosh, who else? I mean, there is your they are all there were all those different movements, the women's movement, right. I do not know who were some of the leaders in the women's movement, but in that movement, the American Indian Movement that you mentioned, Russell Banks, Dennis Means, Bella Cortes. Yeah, you had a lot of a lot of different leaders from the (19)60s. In terms of the peace movement, I guess I really would see Dave Dellinger here as being a really, really important in terms of what he was about what he stood for. And then of course, you know, Phil and Dan Berrigan, they-they were standouts. SM: 1:38:59 My last question is because you have been obviously most of your life an activist and organizer. And, but what frustrates you the most? Because you have been a lifelong activist and-and what inspires you the most from being that lifelong activist? TG: 1:39:21 Well, you know, I guess the frustrating thing is that so many so many days, it feels like everything is just going too slowly. You know, especially now with the climate crisis and how urgent that issue is. And there is a there is a time there is a, there is a deadline for that. I do not think we have passed it yet, but we are getting close to the tipping points, tipping points that could just lead to really horrific societal upheaval and disillusion and so on. So especially when it comes to that issue, the slowness with which change happens. That is very frustrating. I do know, one of the things that keeps me hopeful is that I do know that history does show that, you know, you have a, history usually moves through a process of social change happens, where, you know, for a long time, kind of under the surface, it seems like not much is happening, but things are happening. And then all of a sudden, you know, you never know exactly what is, what leads to it, but all of a sudden, things can change. And you can you have this kind of like a political tipping point moment, and all of a sudden, is this kind of, it is this dynamic that takes over. And that is where you can have, you know, revolutions. Sometimes a good one, sometimes they degenerate, frankly. So that, again, those are lessons we need to learn how to how to make sure that any major changes that happens stick and do not degenerate. But yeah, so and in terms of so that, so your question was about frustrations. The other was what inspires me, what inspires me is right now the young people who are coming forward, I was just on a call this morning. With two young people, I think they were both in their 20s, they are both in their 20s. We had a wonderful conversation about you know, how we can be more effective in the organizing work that we are doing. You know, there are an awful lot of really dedicated sharp young people who have learned how to work together a lot of different races and cultures involved in this kind of youth upsurge that I see that, that is definitely inspiring. You know, without-without young people being involved, it is very hard to bring about change but when young people are involved, a lot of things can change and actually much more quickly. SM: 1:41:57 Very good. Ted, I want to thank you very much for this interview. I am going to turn the tape off now and then I will give you some final comments. Hold on a second. TG: 1:42:05 Okay. SM: 1:42:05 Hold on. That was a long one. I just, make sure I got the, the recording just ended but I hit the, it is still recording here. I do not know why so I hit the stop. Still recording. (End of Interview) Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Ted Glick IIIF Item Metadata UUID f1c3eba1-d69a-4b12-ae60-ce9830a133d1 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/d77c52f464bf5f40bbd8845e1240a3d1.jpg 29ec2597b20a383fcc7d0f67091b1ffd https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/9a6d249276d05d25ea78f768d524b99d.mp3 2682f4a5da13df5a643770632b741a0d 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. <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 2010-03-07 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Thomas Powers Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Thomas Powers is an author and intelligence expert. Powers, a native of New York City, earned a Bachelor's degree in English from Yale University. He received the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting with Lucinda Franks for their articles on a Weatherman member Diana Oughton."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":7043,"3":{"1":0},"4":[null,2,5099745],"10":2,"11":4,"12":0,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Arial"}">Thomas Powers is an author and intelligence expert. Powers, a native of New York City, earned a Bachelor's degree in English from Yale University. He received the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting with Lucinda Franks for their articles on Weather Underground member Diana Oughton. 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="{"1":2,"2":"Religion; Atheist; Black and White TV; Baby boom generation; Cowboys and Indians; Huckleberry Finn; Catcher in the Rye; Yale University; Anti-War protest; Gulf and Tonkin Resolution; SDS; FBI; J. Edgar Hoover; Admiral"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":515,"3":{"1":0},"4":{"1":2,"2":16370588},"12":0}">Religion; Atheist; Black and White TV; Baby boom generation; Cowboys and Indians; Huckleberry Finn; Catcher in the Rye; Yale University; Anti-War protest; Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; SDS; FBI; J. Edgar Hoover; Admiral Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 87:47 Subject LCSH Authors; Intelligence officers; Awards—United States; Weather Underground Organization; Powers, Thomas--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 Thomas Powers Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Powers, Thomas ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 2018-03-29 Subject The topic of the resource Authors; Intelligence officers; Awards—United States; Weather Underground Organization; Powers, Thomas--Interviews Description An account of the resource Thomas Powers is an author and intelligence expert. Powers, a native of New York City, earned a Bachelor's degree in English from Yale University. He received the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting with Lucinda Franks for their articles on Weather Underground member Diana Oughton. 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 2010-03-07 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.10.2016.94 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 87:47 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/9d974e34a8e63a510140cd197c1beea4.jpg e56b04883cc878cb567f9e330846838e https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/2778e84926d7bb7309d45b8f3cc02ff1.mp3 075b42f8e2d439ab8dcb229880f590ec 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. <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. Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Tia Nelson Date of Interview 2010-03-21 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 105:02 Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Tia Nelson a conservationist, environmental activist, and politician. As a Democrat, she served as Executive Secretary of the Wisconsin Board of Commissioners of Public Lands. Nelson received the Climate Protection Award, The Environmental Lifetime Achievement Award, David Engelson Award, and the Environmental Leader Award. She was co‐chair of Wisconsin’s Task Force on Global Warming and was Executive Secretary to the Wisconsin Board of Commissioners of Public Lands. Nelson is also a graduate of UW-Madison"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":13311,"3":{"1":1},"4":[null,2,4884200],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"10":2,"11":4,"12":0,"15":"Arial","16":10}">Tia Nelson is a conservationist, environmental activist, and politician. She spent 17 years with The Nature Conservancy in government relations, as a policy advisor for Latin America, and later as the first director of the Global Climate Change Initiative. For this work, she received the EPA’s Climate Protection Award in 2000. Tia returned home to Wisconsin to serve as Executive Secretary to the Wisconsin Board of Commissioners of Public Lands, which included a gubernatorial appointment as co‐chair of Wisconsin’s Task Force on Global Warming. She directs Outrider Foundation’s climate program. Nelson is also a graduate of UW-Madison Nelson is also a graduate of UW-Madison. Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Robert F. Kennedy; Vietnam War; Environmental problems; Global warming; Earth Day; Denis Haynes; Senator Gaylord Nelson; Westchester University; Senator J. William Fulbright; Activism."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":513,"3":{"1":0},"12":0}">Robert F. Kennedy; Vietnam War; Environmental problems; Global warming; Earth Day; Denis Haynes; Senator Gaylord Nelson; Westchester University; Senator J. William Fulbright; Activism. Subject LCSH Conservationists; Politicians--United States--Wisconsin; Nelson, Tia--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 Tia Nelson Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Nelson, Tia ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Conservationists; Politicians--United States--Wisconsin; Nelson, Tia--Interviews Description An account of the resource Tia Nelson is a conservationist, environmental activist, and politician. She spent 17 years with The Nature Conservancy in government relations, as a policy advisor for Latin America, and later as the first director of the Global Climate Change Initiative. For this work, she received the EPA’s Climate Protection Award in 2000. Tia returned home to Wisconsin to serve as Executive Secretary to the Wisconsin Board of Commissioners of Public Lands, which included a gubernatorial appointment as co‐chair of Wisconsin’s Task Force on Global Warming. She directs Outrider Foundation’s climate program. Nelson is also a graduate of UW-Madison Nelson is also a graduate of UW-Madison. 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 2010-03-21 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.10.2016.141a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.141b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 105:02 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/865b94d1d82b207fb09a54bb74849eb2.jpg 3673e92aab85ac7422f80866fdc1c776 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/14d1edbfbc93f86fe9853a30be860be5.mp3 c38f7e1829afc127e8c6cf0b28b26324 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. <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. Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Toddy Puller Date of Interview 2010-05-18 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 105:11 Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Linda Todd Puller is a former Democratic member of the Virginia State Senate. Puller represented District 36 from 1999 to 2016 and served in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1992 to 2000. Before she began her political career, she married the Lewis Puller, Jr., the most decorated Marine in American history. Puller has a Bachelor's degree in Art History from Mary Washington College."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":15105,"3":{"1":0},"11":4,"12":0,"14":[null,2,3355443],"15":"Arial","16":10}">Toddy Puller is a former Democratic member of the Virginia State Senate. Puller represented District 36 from 1999 to 2016 and served in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1992 to 2000. Before she began her political career, she married Lewis Puller, Jr., the most decorated Marine in American history. Puller has a Bachelor's degree in Art History from Mary Washington College. Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Women's Rights Movement; Civil Rights Movement; Gay/Lesbian Rights movement; LGBT; Anti-War Movement; Baby boom generation; Black Panthers; Vietnam War; The nineteen-sixties; Lewis Burwell Puller Jr.; Veterans."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":513,"3":{"1":0},"12":0}">Women's Rights Movement; Civil Rights Movement; Gay/Lesbian Rights movement; LGBT; Anti-War Movement; Baby boom generation; Black Panthers; Vietnam War; The nineteen-sixties; Lewis Burwell Puller Jr.; Veterans. Subject LCSH Legislators—United States--Virginia; Democratic Party (Va.); Puller, Linda Todd--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 Toddy Puller Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Puller, Linda Todd ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Legislators—United States--Virginia; Democratic Party (Va.); Puller, Linda Todd--Interviews Description An account of the resource Linda Todd Puller is a former Democratic member of the Virginia State Senate. Puller represented District 36 from 1999 to 2016 and served in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1992 to 2000. Before she began her political career, she married Lewis Puller, Jr., the most decorated Marine in American history. Puller has a Bachelor's degree in Art History from Mary Washington 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 2010-05-18 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.10.2016.159a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.159b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 105:11 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/c709fbab0cf1bf8485686eea180220a2.jpg 30f011dfb1bfd13dc4ba9e8b553eeb16 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/66586c521a2a11fe140c7a93f849b569.mp3 d877f617cd482f65750f0bcc01b8cd87 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. <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 2003-11-14 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Tom Hayden Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data MicroCassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Thomas Hayden (1939-2016) was a social and political activist, author and politician who was best known for his major role as an anti-war, civil rights, and radical intellectual activist. He was author of the manifesto Port Huron Statement and stood trial in the Chicago Seven case. Hayden won seats on both the California Assembly and the California Senate. He was also the director of the Peace and Justice Resource Center in Los Angeles County. He received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":13311,"3":{"1":1},"4":[null,2,4884200],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"10":2,"11":4,"12":0,"15":"Arial","16":10}">Thomas Hayden (1939-2016) was a social and political activist, author and politician who was best known for his major role as an anti-war, civil rights, and radical intellectual activist. He was the author of the manifesto Port Huron Statement and stood trial in the Chicago Seven case. Hayden won seats on both the California Assembly and the California Senate. He was also the director of the Peace and Justice Resource Center in Los Angeles County. He received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan. Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Nineteen sixties; marijuana; Anti-war Movement; Anti-draft; lack of trust; Vietnam (& vietnam syndrome); Baby boom generation; Civil Rights Movement."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":769,"3":{"1":0},"11":4,"12":0}">The nineteen sixties; marijuana; Anti-war Movement; Anti-draft; Baby boom generation; Civil Rights Movement; Rorschach; Vietnam War; Draft resistance; Eugene McCarthy; Lyndon Johnson; Division; "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee"; Dee Brown; The Wall; Port Huron Statement; SNCC; Bob Moses; Jerry Adams; Kent State; Orangeburg; Integration; People’s Park; SDS; Jim Webb; Young Americans for Freedom; Jack Kerouac; Goldwater Movement; Fred Hampton; Mark Clark; Kent State; Jackson State; 1967 Newark riots; Max Cleland; Martin Luther King ; Max Faber ; COINTELPRO; Daniel Barrigan; Philip Barrigan; Direct Action Movement; Beat Generation. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 157:57 Subject LCSH Political activists--United States; Civil rights workers; Legislators—United States; Radicals--United States; Chicago Seven Trial, Chicago, Ill., 1969-1970; Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Protest movements; Hayden, Tom--Interviews Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Tom Hayden Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Carrie Blabac-Myers Date of interview: 14 November 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) 0:02 TH: Hold it. 0:06 SM: By it is already there. 0:08 TH: But I need to play. 0:11 SM: It is recording right now. 0:12 TH: Are you sure? Yeah. All right, fine. 0:15 SM: When you think of the (19)60s, a lot of these questions are basic and general, when you think of the (19)60s, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? 0:33 TH: Well, I guess I think of the (19)60s as the cradle of my identity. 0:45 SM: Could you explain a little further on that? 0:47 TH: Well, you can think of it in different ways. I always get asked about the (19)60s so it is kind of a reference point and as a subject of reflection or study. I could probably give a course on the (19)60s in my sleep and there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered and inconclusive about the (19)60s. But if I think about it, in terms of my experience, I think everybody's identity is formed when they are young. And I was, I was formed by the (19)60s I was. I grew up in the suburban apathy of Royal Oak, Michigan and was simply traveling along in this suffocating, apathetic state and then the (19)60s began in an instant and it was, it was like an electrical charge that just went right through me and a lot of other people of my generation. So, the whole experience of the decade was the experience of my twenties. And the cradle of my identity. I do not know how else to explain it. 1:47 SM: The boomer generation has been criticized by a lot of pundits in the last ten, fifteen, twenty years, as being the reason why looking at the boomer generation, and some of the things they did is the reason why our society has gone downhill in many ways. And when I say in many ways, the disrespect for authority, the drug culture, those kinds of things, what are your comments on individuals who criticize that generation as the reason why we have problems today in our society? 3:13 TH: First of all, I do not like the term 'boomer generation', it is derogatory. It makes the generation seem silly. And it has. It has no other political content. When you think of the (19)60s, yes there was; there were a variety of events that happened, you know, the journey to the moon, the election of Nixon, that happened in the (19)60s, but the core experience of the (19)60s makes people think of the assassination of Dr. King and the two Kennedy's and the Civil Rights marches, and the Vietnam War and the counterculture, that is the core. And when you say boomer, you do not really capture Martin Luther King. As far as things having gone downhill, you know, I do not know of any particular evidence of things having gone downhill in the 1960s. I mean, to the extent there was any economic problem it was the expenditures for Vietnam outpacing tax revenues, and the country going off the gold standard for the first time in history, but would that have nothing to do with the protests that had to do with the folly of the war. I think things went downhill for the country in one obvious sense, and that was the assassinations of so many of our natural, popular, elected leaders and who can say where the blame lies for that? As for drugs, I do not really understand the charge. It has to come from people who think drugs are the bane of all evil. For me, you know, I was a virtual alcoholic, my father was an alcoholic. My problem and America's problem is very much around the legalization, celebration, and promotion of alcohol, which is a drug that is associated with violence, it is associated with car crashes. It is a proven association. I do not happen to have had much experience with drugs in the 1960s. But certainly, my experience with marijuana and my observation is that marijuana is not associated with violence. It is not associated with anything antisocial unless you are a Puritan, and you believe you should work 24/7. I do not think people having used marijuana adversely impacted the country and I have always thought marijuana should be legal if alcohol is, or we need to review all of our addictive industries. The other drugs I think you want to take them one at a time and put them subject to some kind of Public Health Commission and find a way to move away from policies that criminalize to policies that legalize and control and by that I do not mean, like we do alcohol. Alcohol in some states, I do not know about Pennsylvania, but you still have alcohol outlets that are state regulated. To me, after you classify drugs based on scientific findings and epidemiological findings, you should legalize, regulate, tax, utilize the tax revenues to promote treatment, you should prohibit advertising and you should prohibit any campaign contributions whatsoever. And it is my feeling based on the research I have done on prohibition of alcohol in the (19)20s and (19)30s that the violence associated with drugs, which is a real problem, would go down drastically if an alternative policy was followed. So, the tradeoff I would make would be to legalize and regulate in exchange for the reduction of violence that I think would happen. 8:40 SM: When you look at the, I will not use the term boomer again- 8:44 TH: You can use it, I just- 8:44 SM: But when you look at the use of the boomers or the youth of the (19)60s, what were their strengths, and what were their weaknesses? 9:02 TH: It is sort of, it is hard to sort it out for everybody because you had a great variety. But I think that the strength that I would recall is the capacity to idealize the capacity to dream which is essential to regenerate a society. And the weaknesses, I think were the considerable lack of a strong legacy to stand on. The feeling that we had not received much of a heritage from our parents or our society, and that it was necessary to almost begin all over again or carry the load of all these movements and causes when we were younger than we should have been. 10:32 SM: How important were the students in the antiwar movement in terms of ending the war? I preface the statement, because a lot of people state that the war really ended or people started going really against the war when body bags came for the people who lived in the Midwest, you read this in history books. And in some sense that denigrates some of the things that students are doing on university campuses around the country, the protests. I just want your thoughts on how important were student protests in ending the Vietnam War. 11:10 TH: That needs to be studied further. That is really sort of a Rorschach question, in that the answers depend largely on what you felt, but I do not think it has been studied. The idea that people only started to care when the body bags came home has some truth to it but it is obviously you know, oversimplified. I think for instance, when students started resisting the draft, that certainly made the implementation of the war more problematic. When students started to rock campuses, that reverberated among administrators and trustees who were usually in the local or regional power structures of the political parties and the business class. And that anti-draft sentiment and anti-war sentiment constituted I think a real problem for carrying out the war among people in the establishment who valued the support of the younger generation. I think students also were pivotal in dumping Lyndon Johnson in the sense that they were the dominant troops in the Eugene McCarthy campaign in New Hampshire. So, in all those ways, students played a role as students, I think, but I do not know if I would be able to compare the weight of different factors in how it ended. 13:28 SM: When you think of the (19)60s is there a clear-cut movement that stands out above in other words, or is it a combination? 13:36 TH: I think the (19)60s are remembered as a period of upheaval and questioning and nonconformity, and revolt and then it breaks down according to where you were or what you prefer. A lot of the times, people that disparage the (19)60s leave the civil rights movement out, you notice it becomes the psychedelic experience because you know, that and that was part of it. But the Beatles, but the (19)60s was different movements and yet at the same time, the whole was greater than its parts. 14:24 SM: One of the things that comes out a lot of Boomers feel is this whole issue of trust. We all know that historic events of that period of the Gulf of Tonkin, which as history has shown was really something that shouldn't have caused the beginning of a war number one, and then lies that we are often told to the American public, by political leaders. I want to ask you, to my basic question is, do you feel that the (19)60s have really affected our nation with respect to trust? Trust in leaders? 15:08 TH: Oh, absolutely. 15:11 SM: At every level. 15:07 TH: Oh, absolutely, you have to put it in the context of what came before. Whether it was entirely true or not, people had a lot of satisfaction with Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt in terms of, you know, confidence in leaders and feeling that they were getting the whole story. And that is obviously not true. It is obviously a historical exaggeration. But it was the experience of people like my father who believed that the government would tell the truth with respect to issues where young Americans were going to be put in harm’s way. And what came between me and my father and so many people and their families was the inability of the elders to embrace the idea that the government was lying. It took a while. I mean, by the end of the decade, there was a consensus that the government lies but the turning points throughout the (19)60s usually had to do with parents refusing to believe that their children was right, children were right, and the government was lying and was wrong. 15:23 SM: Do you think that the children of the (19)60s or the boomers passes this on to their children so that they also do not trust? Or have they seen again? Have they come to their own conclusions based on the leaders of today? 17:04 TH: I think that a majority of Americans would not be surprised to find that in any given situation, the government was lying. And not simply the president, but it is government practice to lie or to distort. That is a big change in skepticism. Whether it is greater among children of (19)60s people, I do not know. 17:34 SM: In the area of healing. We all know that the Vietnam Memorial that was built in 1982 was supposed to be a non-political entity. Still going, is not it? 17:46 TH: Yeah. You are alright. 17:47 SM: And it is done a great deal with respect to healing vets. But I would like to ask you the general question again, on the healing of America. Have we healed as a nation since the (19)60s based on the unbelievable divisions that took place in that particular time? Have we healed? 18:10 TH: No, but I think we have healed, we have healed more than perhaps other countries might. It is, it is impressive, given the past divisions, it is made somewhat easier I think, because of the common recognition that Vietnam was at a minimum a mistake and at maximum, a huge lie that manipulated the whole generation, whether one fought in Vietnam or resisted Vietnam, we have the common experience of having been manipulated by the government and deceived. I do not know if it is a part of American pragmatism that leads people to shrug off what happened yesterday and move forward. You know, Bill Clinton had that campaign song, "Yesterday is Gone" and this is a useful part of American pragmatism. It also has a superficial quality to it. And so, I cannot say healing on a deep level has occurred for the nation, where it might have occurred for countless individuals or families. Because in a superficial sense, people try to forget about it. Get on with it as if you can get on with the missing leg or a father who insisted that his son go to Vietnam, where his son was killed can somehow get on with it, you know, by forgetting. So, there is a, there is an awful lot of pain and division beneath the surface of this healing in medical terms, the wound, I wish I had the phraseology, but the wound is still there, and the treatment may have been superficial. But you know, I think you see what I mean. And the failure, the failure to the extent that the failure to deeply heal exists. It means that the Vietnam syndrome perpetuates itself over and over again, and that syndrome began before Vietnam. I might add if we, if we had a deeper memory of our own history, we might not have gone into Vietnam. Vietnam was the Philippines all over again, it was Spain all over again. It was the American Indians all over again, if you think I am exaggerating, the other day as we speak now, this is November, about ten days ago, a US helicopter was shot down in Iraq. And sixteen people at this point have been determined to have been killed and others wounded. And then there was a service on the battlefield for the dead Americans and what I noticed about the service was that the American troops had bugles and they'd put on the hats and other battle garb of their predecessors in the Air Cavalry who had fought against the Indians. They had on Indian Wars outfits and if you notice the helicopter that went down, it was named a Chinook. An Indian name. You have Blackhawk helicopters; you have Apache helicopters. We have internalized the Indian Wars and trying to like to take away the strong medicine of the Indian and conferred on ourselves by naming our helicopters, you know, after the Indians and we do not even think about it. But sometimes it is the things that you do not think about that are the most serious and, and it is this. But we have never really engaged ourselves deeply in what happened in the formation of this country against the Indians. Because apparently, that would be too much for people to handle. But it also means we have a superficial sense of our own history. We have a superficial sense of why other people in the world hate us. And we pass that along from generation to generation and we repeat what we have not learned to avoid, and I think we were doing it in Iraq. We say well, Iraq, vast country of tribes, you know, and the image invoked there is that there is a lot of little gangster clans. 24:14 SM: Right. 24:16 TH: There may be some truth to that, but North America was a vast continent of tribes. And it is just assumed that tribes are backward and thuggish and bad and most of all, you know, have to get out of history's way because of Manifest Destiny. They are anachronistic groups. So, we have been fighting tribes from the very inception of the country, and if you think about that, it gives you a sensitivity to, a different sensitivity I think which was gained in the (19)60s, that people had a newfound admiration for the American Indian. They read the most profoundly altering book I read was "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown. 25:13 SM: Dee Brown. 25:14 TH: Exactly around 1968, (19)69, maybe (19)70 and what was moving about it was not just the way it was written of course, but it was the first book I had ever read on the subject, and I was already twenty-eight years old. And I think it was because there were not any books on the subject. He made it popular and there was a niche for Indian books. Now, if you go to any college bookstore, at least you will find the one hundred books on Indians and you have the Alcatraz uprising, where the Indians took back Alcatraz Island. That was part of the (19)60s. That was a profound experience. You have the formation of the American Indian Movement. In other words, the Indians reclaimed their existence, not only from the outer society but from the amnesia in which it had been buried. That to me is the heart of the (19)60s, is the recovery of all this real history. 26:18 SM: In your book "Reunion" there, submit your review with Bobby Muller. And, yes, Bobby Muller. Could you explain that first time that you went to the Wall, yourself and just your feelings. 26:34 TH: I was very, I was very moved by the wall. I approached it with some trepidation, I had to have armed guards. So, I took Bobby Muller, a wounded Vietnam veteran in a wheelchair and we decided to venture down there, at least that is what I recall. You might have been with me the first or second time, but I always went with Vietnam vet in case some argument erupted. But it is a great story I have seen the documentary on it, and I think it is so unbelievable that a Vietnamese woman would have been the design architect. Not that, not only that she was Vietnamese, but that she was a woman. I forget her name, Maya Lin. 27:24 SM: Maya Lin. 27:24 TH: But that, it is there is a God, the God placed this person on earth for this purpose. It is almost too uncanny to quite believe. And I really do not know her story. I have seen her, and I have been fascinated watching her in interviews, but she mostly talks as an architect and not as an Asian. Anyway, the whole idea of it being a scar on the ground was a genuine, artistic, original artistic inspiration. So different from monuments that are phallic or monuments that are grandiose above the ground that makes the witness seems small, kind of in the shadow of the great man who is memorialized in the statue. That it is a scar, that it is a black scar that is like it is like a wound that does not heal. Like if you have a cut, and it is still infected, it turns black. I do not know if they thought of all these things, or it is my projection, but just the entry into a scar. That is also a grave. Like it is like a grave, it is a hole in the ground. And it is like a grave in that it looks like a gravestone. All of those things are, I think they make it the most inspired monument in the country. It is so, it is an amazing, wonderful place. 29:30 SM: When history books are written about the (19)60s, the boomer generation, and usually the best history books are written 50 years after World War II books are out now. What do you think the lasting legacy would be? 29:48 TH: I do not know because I do not trust the history books. I have been trained that they may be wonderful books. But they were written by people who were not there. And then who bring their own agenda to the table. And I have not seen any books on the (19)60s that go beyond the fragments of the truth. So, I fear for what historians will say. Yeah, and I strongly believe that, that people who were there need to fight for their version of the truth, need to keep their diaries, need to do interviews, need to contribute. This should be a participatory history project. The you know, like in the (19)30s, the government sent out unemployed artists and writers in the WPA, that Works Progress Administration, and they interviewed Southern sharecroppers whose voices never would have been heard. And until recently, there were enterprising historians who developed what they call oral histories of slaves, former slaves, who are all now dead. And a lot of the history is pursued a little too late. So, with what was left of my life, I am trying to encourage what I call a participatory history. The not simply the writing and video documentaries, but the archiving of everyone's experience, because we have the technology to do that. But the will and the funding are not necessarily there for it. 31:55 SM: When you look at your life, your personal life, to me, I am biased and nothing's wrong. It is one of the most admirable lives in America, because it is a life fighting for others, but as yourself look at your life, all those major events, protests, speaking up, you are involved with the Port Huron Statement. Do you feel fulfilled? When you go to the Wall, do you feel that maybe I should have done a little bit more? Or could have done more? Just your thoughts. 32:35 TH: Well, I am a restless person, and I am sure I am besieged by all kinds of demons. What if I had done this, should I have done that. But you only get one life to live, you know, and it is not over. For all I know. There will be another (19)60s before I am done. So, I feel lucky to have been a part of something great. A lot of people have gone through many decades without, you know, much happening. And a lot has happened in the time that I have been blessed to be alive. So, in that sense, I think I am fulfilled, but the frustrations I have and the longings I have are still very raw. And I am not fulfilled. Yeah, no, not International. I am not fulfilled living under this American Empire, and never will be. It is going. 34:17 SM: Oh, it is? 34:17 TH: Yeah. 34:18 SM: As far as personalities, who are the people that you worked with, and that you admired the most during that period of the (19)60s and (19)70s people you looked up to or that were your inspirations? 34:35 TH: Well, Bob Moses in SNCC, had an overwhelming influence not only on myself and, but on many others. For his, his moral commitment and his technique, and I mean technique like a manipulator, I mean, his approach to relationships, to organizing, and he always stands out, even though it is not, it is not appropriate to single out people as being themselves you know, superior to others they may be just luckier than others. So, among movement activists, I would say, Moses, among international figures would say, my friend Jerry Adams in Ireland, who has gone through the whole thing, you know, the youth rebellions of the (19)60s, the armed struggle against the British presence in Northern Ireland's the transformation to the peace process and to political struggle and survived it all. I mean, it is he is just an extraordinary person to have managed this whole life when you think of what it was like in 1968, and what- it is like now? I do not know. 36:26 SM: My last question is, when you look at the youth of that era, I will say the boomer generation again, is there one event that you think had the greatest impact on their lives? 36:48 TH: I would say, without a survey, we do not know there should be a survey, I keep coming back to the need for our generation to speak for itself. I would, I would think that if you are black, you would say civil rights in some sense. Beyond that, you would say Vietnam. And some myself in particular, would say the assassinations were the pivotal events in the (19)60s. 37:24 SM: Where does Kent State fall in this? 37:28 TH: The assassinations as a category that would include Kent State would include Orangeburg would include People's Park would include individuals. But the constant interruption of the natural flow of history by these, these deaths, particularly the deaths of leaders. It made the (19)60s turn out the way it did. And a friend of mine, Jack Newfield put it very well he said, "Now you know, instead of being has been, we were all might have been. We became might have been" 38:51 SM: Testing 123 testing. Okay, here is my first question. And I have written them all out here. Your life has been one continuous adventure where activism is the adjective that I feel best describes your life. Number one, do you agree with this assessment? And number two, do you remember your very first time were created to speak up where courage was expressed by yourself when you were young? 39:22 TH: Well, I have been around so long my life is like an archeological dig. So, activism is one level, but I probably became most engaged as a reader and student and now late in life, that is what I do. Mainly I research, reflect, write, teach, talk. I would not say activism is entirely in the background at all, but it is not. It is not what I do. It is not what I do with my time now. As for the second question, it is hard to answer. But I will put it this way. I think, number one, when you are young, you have a certain adrenaline that gets you through dangerous situations. Just like the soldier in a war. You may also, you know, not have much of an emphasis on death, because it seems so far away when you are twenty. And also, a big factor for me was that I would never use the word courageous about myself. Maybe risk taking, because I saw people who were doing things that scared me to death, you know, that black people, black students in the south standing up to sheriffs, and that sort of thing. 41:25 SM: Could you briefly describe your upbringing? I know it is in your book Reunion and in depth but the people that are going to be reading lists are going to be reading 200 different oral histories, and they will have not read Reunion, they will be encouraged to. 41:38 TH: What is the question? 41:40 SM: Briefly, describe your upbringing. And how did you end up in Michigan? Where dd you live? Were you in any way linked to the students who talked to John Kennedy about the Peace Corps? 41:52 TH: Well, only child grew up in Royal Oak summers in Wisconsin. Father and Mother both from Wisconsin, lower middle class, first in my family to go to university, University of Michigan. My parents got divorced, which was relatively unusual in those days when I was about 10 or 11 years old. And that was quite hard on me. My father worked at Chrysler and my mother was a film librarian in Royal Oak. I did well in high school, I was sports editor and editor of the paper and got into the University of Michigan thinking I would maybe play some tennis and read a lot of books. And I got lured into the Michigan daily, which really kind of focused my life and gave me a mission and a purpose that you know, I had not had until getting to the university, and I have stayed with that. Also, you know, it was an accident of the times I do not know what I would have been like, if I was ten years older. But in 1957, when I graduated high school, Jack Kerouac was publishing On the Road, and the Beat Generation had already arisen in San Francisco. The Little Rock school integration crisis, with Eisenhower sending the troops there, all happened my senior year in high school, it must have influenced me, the climate around me, although I did not have much sense of it at the moment. But then when, you know, the students started demonstrating in the south when I was a senior at university, and I went down to see what they were willing to do about their lives and their futures. I was very moved by that. I think probably the election of Kennedy in (19)60 was also important for all of us and if you will be legitimizing in the idea that young people can take action that makes a difference. 44:27 SM: For one thing, your parents in this, over your entire career as an activist, what did your parents think of you? As you became not only one of the leaders of SDS, but as you grew older and were involved in so many things. How did your mom and dad respond to it? 44:47 TH: My parents were not happy about it all and I was not alone in this family tension. My father was a Marine who was based in San Diego, he did not go into the world wars, Second World War, he was a Republican. He came from the generation that believes that the government does no wrong and tells no lies. And he was completely unable at first to understand or respect anything that I was doing. Like I think he believed that you know that it was about him and that he was he considered himself a failure, because he had not raised a son who went higher up the pecking order. He came to change his mind but was really not till about 1970 and we enjoyed a fairly close relationship until he died in 82. And my mom was one of those Irish Catholic women who thinks the neighbors are always fine. And who knows, maybe they are but I mean she was made extremely paranoid and ashamed by the attention I was getting. And the labels that were thrown at me. The difference between them is that my father basically abandoned me for a period of about sixteen years, and he had another family and did not tell the daughter he raised that she even had a brother. 46:54 SM: Wow. 46:55 TH: My mom stuck with me, but you know, she was always acting, you know, profoundly disturbed. And she could not understand she could not follow what was going on, she kept calling Indochina, Indonesia. 47:18 SM: Wow. Yeah. What a generation gap. 47:22 TH: Typical suburban life. [Laughs] 47:24 SM: The generation gap, obviously, was your experience was the experience of so many, even in my family. But I want to get back to this business about the generation gap when the current senator of Virginia, Jim Webb, back in 1980, I believe in a symposium with Bobby Muller and Phil Caputo, was asked the question about the generation gap. He said, the generation gap to him was more within the generation as opposed to between generations. And his commentary was saying that we all get caught up in this idea that the young people in the (19)60s, you know, listen to John Kennedy "ask not what your country can do for us, but you can do for your country", yet he felt that service was serving your country, and when, when you were called to go to war, so that he would never label the (19)60s generation or the boomer generation, as a generation geared towards service. And he was very critical. And he says the divisions of a generation gap to him was between those who served and those who did not. Your thoughts on that? 48:40 TH: Well, you know, he is a, he is a rather bombastic fellow, Jim Webb erupts a lot. And he is a good writer, he is a good Irish historian, a good military historian. And I have no doubt that he was traumatized by his service in the military and is still dealing with it. And I was also traumatized without having been in the military because it is traumatic to oppose your country's war. It is traumatic to refuse to be drafted into a war that you do not believe in. Traumatic to be beaten up and to be put in jail. It is traumatic to lose your parents' support, and so on, but we could go on and on listing our comparative traumas. The fact is that the whole generation including those who went to Vietnam, and those to opposed it were deceived, and suffered a common deception by lying politicians in the Oval Office, Republican and Democrat, and spineless politicians who let it go on far too long until millions of people died, including 58,000 Americans. Now, on this specific point, you know, I think it is true that the historical recognition of the (19)60s will always be about a period of progressive social change, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the peace movement, the environmental movement, the youth culture, and so on. And what is left out of that story is the counter movement on the right. And that would be the Young Americans for Freedom. And those who followed the National Review and, you know, became the core of the Republican Party during the Goldwater movement. And I have always felt that they nurse a grudge about the (19)60s, because they really did not get recognition. And that has left them with a resentment and a hostility, which still plays out, you know, you can still hear them complaining about Clinton or permissiveness or, you know, one thing or another. That goes back to the lack of recognition, I think there was a movement and a counter movement. I am not sure that it was those who went to Vietnam versus those who did not. You know, I am not sure that anybody holds that view except Jim Webb and a few others, they are entitled to it, it was certainly a divide within our age cohort our generation. But the divide was really between SDS and Young Americans for Freedom, I think. Because if you, if you put it in Webb's terms, he continues the, the omission, because if you put his way, his framework, there is no room for Vietnam veterans against the war. There is no room for a black resistance inside the military. There is no room for those who went to serve but wound up in Briggs. There is no room for those who even shot at their officers. So, there were certainly differences within the military, within those who went to serve, that reflected the differences I am talking about in the larger society. 53:12 SM: I know that these were comments he made in (19)80 - (19)81 one at a symposium. And maybe he has changed his feelings. But another person was Colonel Summers, Harry Summers, who passed away several years back, I think it was about 10 years ago. And he came to our campus, and he said, you know, what is amazing about how the (19)60s in Vietnam is taught is the military is never presented by history teachers. And so, he said, he made an effort before he passed away, to make sure that the military perspective of the Vietnam War was taught. So that might be similar to what Jim Webb might have been saying. Any comments on Colonel Summers? 53:56 TH: So, it is another take on the same problem of perception from where you stand. I mean, obviously, for a long time, they had the megaphone at the White House, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon, the Armed Services Committee, in both houses, the editors of all the newspapers who supported the war in Vietnam, their voice was heard. Then, when things went badly, and we lost the war, a whole new movement started. People like Lewis Sorely come to mind and others who are in denial and who say we did not lose the war. It was somehow lost politically at home. And so, the war is still being played out as a kind of psychodrama. And an historical debate. 55:03 SM: Yeah, of course, you mentioned very- 55:04 TH: That is true also of the American Civil War, which many in the south refused to call the Civil War. I mean, I did not realize that until I spent some time living in the south with these, these arguments go on, especially among those who have a difficult time coping with the fact that, you know, that they did not win so they, they continue to go on and on about the causes as if they have just been misunderstood for fifty years. I would like to believe we can get beyond that. But I do not actually think we will, given the fact that it is 150 years since the Civil War, and is still debated annually in elections, including the most recent one. 56:01 SM: Yeah, well, I interviewed Jeff Wheeler III and of course, he is one of the, he graduated from West Point, he was one of the men that talked about long grey lines in the book. And he mentioned it was a great interview, and he talked about Ronald Reagan's speech at the Vietnam Memorial in 1984. And it was a great speech, because that was where he mentioned, the noble cause that you bring up in your book, that it was a noble cause. But I found it very interesting, and he did not reiterate any further. But President Reagan could have come in 1982 when the wall opened, but he said he was advised not to, because for political reasons, but was okay in 1984. So, I thought that that is interesting. 56:48 TH: It was okay. To call the war a noble cause. I mean, he never specified what exactly he meant. To die in battle is a tragedy in the first place, a human tragedy. And a lot of people, you know, define tragedy as itself noble. There is a noble quality to it. But I think Reagan meant that to perpetuate the idea that the Vietnam War in itself was right. It was the right thing to do, it was the right policy. And so, he was re-raising the divide. As for 1982, I do not remember the detail, but it does seem to me that many, many Republicans, including some veterans’ groups, and perhaps Reagan was among them, did not like the memorial. Because the Vietnam Memorial reflects exactly this theme of tragedy. It does not reflect a theme of victory. It does not say that it was ignoble, not at all. That does not, it does not use terminology like noble, because is that? I think the designer, who herself is Vietnamese was grappling with the magnitude of the human loss. Millions of people in a cause that was never clear and never, never winnable to begin with. 58:55 SM: You were in the south in the early (19)60s, very early (19)60s. And you worked with SNCC and SNCC had this participatory democracy in everything that they did. And of course, your work is very admirable down there. I am not going to ask you the first one because I think you have already responded about the courage to go south so young, and the dangers but I want to know if your Irish heritage and understanding the history of the Irish, even as a young person and how they were treated in America and how they were treated even between England and Ireland had anything to do with your sensitivity towards bad treatment toward African Americans and women and people who were minorities and people who are economically deprived. Did your heritage early on have anything to do with some of your future actions? 59:56 TH: I pondered that, and I have written a whole book about it. 59:59 SM: Yeah, I read that book too. 1:00:00 TH: Do not look to the short answer is maybe on an unconscious level, but at the time and we are talking about the narrow window of 1960 to (19)63. I was oblivious to any Irish heritage even when the subject came up. So, I was a finished product of the assimilation process. That was (19)60 was the year that John Kennedy went to the Baptists and told them that he could be president without bowing to the Pope and narrowly squeaked through. And it was a very important watershed in the history of the American Irish. But I viewed the Kennedy election as young versus old. I did not I did not relate to the Irish dimension so sealed off was I from the past. Now, over the course of the (19)60s it became clear to me by the end of the decade, when I was reevaluating my identity, who I was it appeared to me that one way to view the (19)60s was as, as an Irish Civil War. Because, you know, on my side would be priests, like the Berrigans. On the military side would be priests like father, Cardinal Spellman, Father Coglin, whose church I was raised in, Bobby Kennedy and Jack Kennedy on my side. And the most of the most of the FBI agents who tells me were on the other side, most of the cops in Chicago were Irish, and so on, it became much more apparent to me, but this is because assimilation was breaking down and wearing off and I was more open to the question of where I came from, and where did these instincts of mine you know, first emerge in my past. I am named Thomas Emmet Hayden and I did not know who Thomas Emmet was. And my mom and dad, they did not know who Thomas Emmet was, they just thought it was a good name. And somebody else in my family had been named Thomas Emmet Hayden the first, second, third and much most of your readers and listeners have no idea who Thomas Emmet was but he was a survivor of the brutal suppression of the Irish national uprising. In 1798. His brother was beheaded. Thomas Emmet came to New York is an Irish refugee. It was only possible because of Thomas Jefferson policies and Thomas Emmet then became the leader of the Irish American immigrant community in New York City. Knowing that story, of course, obviously makes you more empathetic towards today's Catholic immigrants from Central America, Mexico- 1:01:21 SM: Right. 1:01:56 TH: And immigrants in general and blacks who were forced migrants through slavery and forced immigration inside the United States, but that all came to me later. The (19)60s made me Irish. 1:03:58 SM: Now it is interesting. That was also the time when Bernadette Devlin, we all saw her on the news. 1:04:03 TH: I knew a little about her, I did not meet her on her visit here, I met her later in Northern Ireland, but not, not here in the States. 1:04:14 SM: Right, yeah. And then, of course, Thomas Merton was a very close friend. 1:04:21 TH: Yes, and I did not know Thomas Merton. I read his book from a theological standpoint. 1:04:33 SM: In your in your in your feelings. Now I know we are going to get a question. Do you do not like the term the boomer generation? That is my next question after this one. 1:04:41 TH: I never heard anyone call themselves a boomer ever. 1:04:46 SM: Let us go right to that question and then I will come to the other question, do you like to term Boomer and I think you gave a great description in your book that I had never thought of. Of course, boomers are those born between (19)46 and (19)64 and in fact, do you like even the other terms, the Greatest Generation, Generation X, Millennials, do you like these kinds of- 1:05:10 TH: I do not line any of those terms, but I have come to realize that labeling is somehow a cognitive requirement. 1:05:20 SM: Right. 1:05:21 TH: But the problem with boomers, first of all, you have to ask yourself, what does the labeling and if nobody in my generation ever walked around saying I am a boomer, you have to wonder what the purpose of the labeling cannot be authentic. It has to be externally imposed. And it has two connotations that are not helpful. One, boom connotes violence. 1:05:53 SM: Yes. 1:05:54 TH: And two, Boomer connotes democratic statistics, so we were reduced to whether you were born in a particular year. And both are very objectionable. 1:06:10 SM: Well, I have heard that you know, I interviewed Richie Havens and in fact I was just sending a letter to Father Hesburgh. I am thinking I am going to have an interview with Father Hesburgh sometime in the next month, and Richie said something that I thought was unbelievable in his interview with me and Richie said that, you know, I am born in 1941. But I am a boomer and Todd Gatlin said to me, he actually said this to me, if you mentioned the word Boomer one more time in this interview, I am going to end the interview. It is because of the fact- 1:06:43 TH: Temperamental. 1:06:44 SM: Yeah, they do not like it, they and many do not like it, every single political entity does not like it and for a lot of reasons because it is about spirit. And Richie said, I do not mind being identified with the boomers based on a certain timeframe. But I am more boomer than anybody, because I believe in the spirit of the (19)60s, and that is who I am. 1:07:11 TH: So? 1:07:12 SM: So that is what Richie feels. So, you just do not like that term. 1:07:18 TH: I never heard it used. It is a label. 1:07:25 SM: Higher education is responsible for this because they have to have labels on everything. 1:07:31 TH: No, I do not think so. Now, it is the human desire to stereotype and especially stereotypes that carry a coded hidden meaning they are not overt stereotype, like calling an Irish person a "spick." But a boomer is inherently derogatory, and dismissive. It is not neutral. It is an external label applied to people. Always applied by people who were not there. 1:08:13 SM: What would be a better term? If we were to? The people born prior to World War II, during the war, and say, ten to fifteen years after who really experienced the (19)50s (19)60s and (19)70s. Was there a term that you can? 1:08:30 TH: I do not know why we need terms, but that seems to be the correct term would be the, the (19)60s social movement generation, (19)60s social movements, (19)60s protest generation, any of those labels would be more fair, if you say the (19)60s generation then you have a problem with the right because they were excluded. 1:08:58 SM: Right? Yes. 1:08:59 TH: So, I do not say that (19)60s generation, very much at all anymore. But the (19)60s movement is what we called ourselves. Actually, that is not even true. We call ourselves The Movement. Because nobody was going around. nobody in their right mind was going around saying: hey, we are the (19)60s generation never heard anybody say that. That was later. 1:09:26 SM: When you talk about- 1:09:28 TH: I am in SDS or I am in SNCC or I am in a commune or you know, I if you go back and you read the papers of Jack Kerouac he cannot stand the label Beat Generation. He wrote beat as part of you know, his writing or beatific or beat down he used the word but it was New York Times or Time magazine that labeled them the Beat Generation after their words became famous or well known. 1:10:14 SM: You bring up in one of several sections of your new book. And you have also talked about in some of your own books, too, but the critics of the (19)60s are that group of people. But David, I have some names here of people that well, you mentioned David Horowitz, of course Newt Gingrich in (19)94, his commentaries. Currently, Mike Huckabee, on this TV show George Will, throughout the years on his articles, and in his books, Harvey Mansfield, who I well know, Glenn Beck, who seems to try to be trying to become a cultural phenomenon right now. And even John McCain, during the campaign, made some commentary toward Hillary Clinton about her links to the (19)60s. What was it? I have a two-part question. What was it that made the young people and older people who inspired the young like Dave Dellinger, you know, Dalton Lin, people like that, that made them so special that the (19)50s and (19)60s and then at the same time why are people who did so much movement-wise, so reviled today by their opponents on the right? 1:11:39 TH: Two or three reasons, one, radicals and reformers won the battles of the (19)60s and so the first reason for continued resentment, even hatred, is the grievance of having lost. I am talking about the people who lived rather well, in the comforts of the white segregationist south talking about the generals in Vietnam. I am talking about the people that went to work for industry and found themselves staring at 20 million people during Earth Day. Those men who had to feel the, you know, the reversal of the relationship with the women individually and collectively as women gained power, women gained voice. It is easy to see what the argument is. Because when it is when all is said and done and when movements come and go and when society has been changed, I would say for the better, the people on the other side, never stop trying to take it all back through counter movements. And, you know, that, that gave a lot of the energy to the anti-Obama movement certainly animates McCain, who was in Vietnam, Palin who was not even there, but you know, you started to see in Palin it is quite interesting, she is now trying to co-opt the label of feminist because she is feisty. And she blames the feminist movement for having twisted and distorted the label. 1:14:05 SM: Right. 1:14:06 TH: That is what she said, literally. Beck you know, I do not believe in a million years that Beck was unaware that he was trying to appropriate the symbol of the civil rights movement by standing at the Lincoln Memorial, and carrying on what I think is a thinly disguised resentment of Martin Luther King. I could go on but 1:14:38 SM: Do you also believe- 1:14:41 TH: It'll never end. Remember, in the 1960s somebody said, "a new movement is beginning" and I said, I think so too, why do you think so he says, the last Civil War vet just died. 1:14:54 SM: Hmm. Oh my gosh. 1:15:00 TH: Until we are all dead of natural causes, I think. SM: Yeah Tom, I think- TH: Even Obama, he was not there, he is only forty-nine years old. He spent the whole campaign talking about the (19)60s, going to the Selma bridge to prove a civil rights credentials, reminding people he was only five years old. You know, when there was when there were relevant bombings, and getting accused of palling around was all these (19)60s people that are that are like twenty-five years older than him, even his minister, his minister is only understandable as a figure out of black liberation theology. Well, the black liberation theology school is an angry school of prophecy and coming out of the (19)60s in the black community, they built big church congregations. There's nothing unusual for Obama and many other people, far less political to be members of that church in Chicago, but the, the right could not get over it is thinking that, you know, he was the same as his minister, when he was a generation, after and he finally had to break away from his own church and from his own minister, in order to declare his independence. 1:16:29 SM: I think- 1:16:31 TH: It would be like if Kennedy in 1960, quit the Catholic Church and became a Baptist, in order to prove to the Baptists that he was legitimate. I am laughing about it, but it was very painful for people, horribly painful. And I have no doubt that this will go on until we are all dead. 1:16:49 SM: I think if there is one other quality here, too, and your thoughts on this, then jealousy. I have always been taught by my parents and from others that sometimes people who admire what others have done, who dislike people who have done things, oftentimes think, jeez, I wish I could have done that, or I had the freedom to do that because I did not have the freedom to do that, or the initiative or drive, you know that I am going to attack them. You think that there is a jealousy conflict here within the other side, too, you already talked about the Young Americans for Freedom. 1:17:22 TH: I do not think it can be psychoanalyzed that way, but certainly, there is a grievance, as I have said, it is a loser grievance number one, and I know even in saying that I will antagonize people further but let us be frank about it. It has all the characteristics of know, the grievance of the losing side and, and a resentment that becomes fuel and motivation to fight back. To recover ground after you know you have lost. Some in the south never ended the Civil War, some say it still is not over, they do not even call it the Civil War. So that is a little different than what you are describing, I think. I do not think they want to be like us at all, I think that they think they are better than us and they are, they have, you know, a lot of capacity to blame everybody starting with the media for they are not being understood. And it is strange, because even when they have the White House and majority in the Supreme Court, they still have the mentality of Young Americans for Freedom fifty years ago, who felt that they were they were the real Americans, and they were being bypassed by the emergence of the student movement, and kind of written out of the history of the (19)60s and I am not exaggerating, I mean, these people go back that far. Karl Rove was a president of Young Republicans, I believe, in (19)68 - (19)70, somewhere in that era, and was ranting about SDS and myself, even in those days and was they are very involved with Young Americans for Freedom, which became the Goldwater movement, which became the modern republican party so their grievance goes back it is nothing seems to soothes it and I expect it to go on until you know, we all are pulled into our graves. 1:17:26 SM: Here is a couple of quotes. 1:19:57 TH: By the way, I do not spend much time on this subject. 1:20:01 SM: I know you are involved in a lot of other things; you have got your book. 1:20:05 TH: I live my life, but it is the nature of this interview its locking me into a discussion of the (19)60s and it is not new terrain for me. But I just want to remind you, I do not spend much of my time write about the past, I am interested in how the (19)60s influences the perceptions of people in the present. 1:20:35 SM: There is two quotes- 1:20:36 TH: Its long lasting the (19)60s, continues to be. 1:20:42 SM: Two quotes here, I want to put it in the record from your book, The Long (19)60s and that is, there is so many of them, but "The paradox is that what is won in real history can be lost in later telling." And the second one is, "It is no accident that the fight over memory began with the challenge to the dominant curriculum in the schools and colleges in the (19)60s and continued as a so-called culture wars up to the present more than forty years later." And being a college administrator for my whole life; you are right on there. 1:21:17 TH: Yeah, I know I think that is true. Yep. 1:21:20 SM: And I think one thing you talk about here, you already mentioned about the counter movement. And you so we do not talk about that again. But you talk also about the complacency of former radicals and reformers now in their twilight period. Have you been disappointed in some of the other activists who, as they have aged, have just gone on to make money? Is that what you are saying? 1:21:44 TH: I think I overgeneralized there. I do not mean complacency in the sense of, you know, consciously changing their beliefs or selling out or something like that. I mean, there is an inevitability to complacency as you become older, and you have families and, and other obligations and your, your, your time becomes your time for new ideas or new ventures becomes limited. For example, no one in their right mind would want their kid to go to a bad school. Most people I am talking about now had kids, for example. And you see, in this generation, just as saw in the past, and we will see in the future, that people can if they can afford it, to put their kid into a private school, because they think and they may be right that with spending money, they can get little educational advantage for their kid, and I have not met any parents that would not do everything for that purpose. So that, you know, they find themselves as you know, in effect, making a choice to abandon public schools, as far as their own children are concerned. And in order to offset that bill, if they are liberals, they will support taxes for schools, for other people. It is similar with public hospitals, if they can help it, they are not going to give it to the public hospital. It is similar with in any other ways, our society is already stratified or segregated. We find ourselves you know, caught up in the system that once we would have, you know, try to avoid at any cost see what I mean? 1:24:20 SM: The convention in Chicago in 1968 is very historic and a lot of my questions are geared toward when young, the boomer generation or the I do not like the term either, so when they were young, but the Chicago convention in 1968, what did those days in Chicago say about America, in your view? And secondly, the trial itself. What did the trial say about the American justice system? 1:24:49 TH: Here is another example of perception versus historical realities, the right will have a grievance forever and somehow, this motley group of revolutionaries were put on trial, and one and became famous as a result. You know, we are, we are the ones that got away and I am not kidding these people, and I have met with them have civil relationships and they think to this day that we are guilty, and they have a deep grudge about our, our having gotten off the charges and they will not stop. And on the other hand, filmmakers like Spielberg and countless others, who were teenagers then, still tell the story they want to tell the story. They think it is the perfect showcase drama of our generation and I have seen four or five versions on stage and on television and film, and each of them is different in its own way and I suspect that the transcripts of the Chicago trial will be played theatrically again and again, decade after decade. Why? God knows. Maybe it was an understandable morality play with all the forces of freedom versus law and order dramatized and individuals, kind of a historian or journalists or screenwriter’s dream. Others will say, no, it is genuinely captured. The time and I do not go farther than that, I will just say that it is going to be, the trial is going to be replayed over and over for decades. And what it was actually about is hard to discern from the drama. 1:27:14 SM: Could you comment on what this is something that not too many people talk about. I have not gotten a whole lot of feedback on this question from some of the people I have interviewed, I do not ask everybody this question. But please comment on what activists in the movement in all the movements of that period, had to go through as a price for their beliefs. We hear the horror stories and COINTELPRO, the infiltration within groups where spies came in. Do you have any anecdotes or stories of efforts to destroy life simply for speaking up? You probably had many, but- 1:27:55 TH: The truth is we do not know enough. We do not know what happened in a lot of incidents that occurred overseas in Vietnam. We do not know what happened with those young people that were killed in Mexico City at about the same time as the Chicago demonstration in (19)68. In many cities, and in many countries, records have been declassified, disclosed. And some of them even in this country, are still kept secret. So, it is a big subject, and I am not quite sure. From what point of view, you think the question should be answered. 1:28:46 SM: But I am interested in the effort to destroy the lives after, you know, they can infiltrate a group like SDS but the ongoing desire to destroy lives and future careers, just because you spoke up. 1:29:06 TH: I do not know if anybody goes around, consciously wanting to destroy somebody's life. There is all kinds of filters and defenses, you know that you might think, instead that we brought it on ourselves if you behave differently, it would not be necessary to apply the screws as tightly and so on. So, I think that there are many distinctions to be made here and we do not have infinite time to make them but one of the most important is between targeted individuals or groups like the, the shooting of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark of the Black Panther Party Chicago chapter, December 1969. There are a number of cases like that where somebody was shot and killed or wounded or, or put away for no understandable reason and so on, then there is you know, the kind of collateral damage, which is usually excused as you know, shit happens, you know, it is accidental sorry. But it really never is. I am thinking of Kent State in Jackson State. There it is hard; it is hard to deny that the shooting by the guards’ troopers was not deliberate. And they had live ammunition. But you see who is killed and wounded. These were individuals chosen by faith. They were, they were random. Nearly all of them, for example, were shot in the back. Some of them were going to meet their boyfriend and were killed are, if you look at the people, person who was killed in People's Park in Berkeley accused of I do not know being a rioter. But in actuality he is sitting on a rooftop, and he got hit with live ammunition and fell off the roof and the guy sitting next to him, who I know, was blinded. And they were just sitting there or in Newark, twenty-six people were killed. And I did a case-by-case study of how they died and shot for the way they looked or shot because they were carrying a six back of beer out of a store. Shot because they are looking out a window. Shot because you are crossing the street just most of the people who were shot and killed by police in the urban disorders or riots or rebellions, whatever you may want to call them. It had to be in the hundreds and hundreds of people were shot at random. And so that is another category. 1:33:21 SM: Right. Right. 1:33:24 TH: And then the final category that I would include for your examination is well, I have two more. One is people who were singled out to have their, you know, careers destroyed. For no good human reason. What is his name? The disabled Ron Covid? No, you are going to include him no, the fellow in Georgia who was in the United States Senate. 1:34:11 SM: Max Cleland. 1:34:11 TH: Max. Good man. Came back from a war with limbs missing and taken out, not by Vietcong bullets but by Republican hate mail arguing that he was not a patriot. That is what I mean by- 1:34:44 SM: Right. 1:34:45 TH: Conscious attempts to destroy somebody's reputation. And then I think the final thing is in any conflict, like the (19)60s There are casualties, where it is very difficult to define a line of causality. You know, I am just talking about all the people whose lives were lessened or wasted or diminished. Because burnout, or because of incarceration, or because of mental illness that they would not have suffered, if it were not for traumas, they went through people who endure serious sacrifices and losses, who will never be compensated or recognized, but they were all part of the, you know, the great collision that occurred. Certainly, like this all the time, you know, because I am, you know, an open public figure, and people like me do not like me, they email me all the time I run into somebody every day with a story. So, I think I get, I do not get all of it, nobody can, but I get a lot of it. 1:36:32 SM: I do not think a book has ever been written about the number of college presidents who lost their jobs because of the student protests and actually the number of college presidents and administrators who actually died of heart attack and all other kinds of things, during this. 1:36:45 TH: Oh yeah, I would love to know, know the numbers at least. 1:36:49 SM: How did you survive financially in the (19)60s and (19)70s? 1:36:53 TH: I do not know! Let us just say the standard of living was very cheap. And the lesson learned was the best way to prevent social protest, or containment is to through unemployment and inflation of college fees and housing and rents and the rest of it. I mean, University of Michigan was one hundred bucks as semesters I recall. 1:37:26 SM: You know, I am a Buckeye. 1:37:27 TH: It was probably one hundred bucks at Ohio State. Rent was, I do not know, one hundred bucks a month if you had six or eight roommates. Food was cheap and plentiful, at least as I recall. So, this first question that comes to a lot of people's minds, either because they themselves, you know, we are seeking affluence as a primary goal in life. Or they look through the filter of today's world and they just cannot imagine where the money came from. No, it came from all over the place from parents from odd jobs from part time jobs, but basically there was enough money to pay for everything if you believed in living with dignity. 1:38:43 SM: Hold on one second. Tom. One of the things that by the way, I did meet you and Jane Fonda at Kent State. I think when you came to West Chester, I was there when you came there at the fourth remembrance. 1:39:04 TH: It was (19)74 but I would be, I could be wrong. 1:39:06 SM: Yeah, it was (19)74. Julian Bond was there, and Dean Kahler obviously, that is when he was a lot younger. 1:39:12 TH: I have seen Dean since. 1:39:11 SM: And Holly Near performed. 1:39:13 TH: Yeah, I see her. 1:39:17 SM: Yeah, but it was great. We were in that room with you and Jane, you went into a you were there, and you went into a room and that was a time, and you were there for about an hour, hour and a half just talking with us. And it was fantastic. The room was packed. You had been married to some very powerful females. Some very powerful female activists in Casey Hayden and Jane Fonda. What made them special in your eyes and how will history treat them legacy wise? 1:39:54 TH: You know, they are almost opposites because Casey who I am in reasonably close touch with is living in Arizona. And she is like an invisible heroine of the (19)60s protest generation. People read her writings, they tell stories about her, they ask about her. You know, in her own right, she claimed to have, you know, started the women's liberation movement, not that anybody actually does any of these things. But her writings with Mary King, circulating around the South electric effect going around the country when women were forming small consciousness, raising groups, and so on. So, she is kind of adored. And at the same time, invisible in most histories, not all. Whereas Jane is visible, if she scratches her ear, you know. She gets credit and blame for things that she had nothing to do with. She is one of the most well-known people in the world and cannot live a private life, does not live a private life. So, it is not that we can choose these things, but you know, start to measure how, I mean, evaluate how either of them would be remembered or evaluate or where they would fit into things depends on who tells the story. And I think a lot of (19)60s people are telling their own stories now in this kind of alternative narrative that has developed, triggered by our old friend Howard Zinn's writings, but everybody's writing their memoirs and blogging, and I was at a SNCC reunion this year was fiftieth reunion. 1:42:29 SM: Yeah, I wanted to go to that. 1:42:31 TH: There were a thousand people there and they were fit and healthy and ready to go. 1:42:36 SM: Wow. 1:42:37 TH: Interesting. 1:42:38 SM: Yeah, Julian was a master of ceremonies, was not he? Or something like that? 1:42:41 TH: For one of them, uh huh. SM: 1:42:45 What is interesting about is I saw Phil Donahue interview Jane Fonda well, you have probably seen this too, when she came back from Europe. And she was on the Donahue show, you can see it on YouTube, and I think it is the best thing that people that do not like Jane should watch this. Because I think you understand her more because she really felt that she was away from what was happening in the world. And she came back to the United States. And I think what is great about it is, it was the time that the women's movement was becoming strong. And that she did not want to always be looked upon as some pretty woman she wanted to be. She had a mind too. And I wish more people would understand that about her. My gosh. 1:43:34 TH: Well, the intersection of the personal and historical you know, the moment that you come of age is extremely important. I will give you one story and then we can move on but in the early to mid (19)60s, when she was the budding actress, daughter of Henry Fonda living in Los Angeles. The Civil Rights Movement was breaking out in the south Netcat offices around the country that were mainly fundraising, and Jane was inspired by the early movement, and she went down to the SNCC office knocked the door nobody was there, of course, and she left a letter in an envelope under the door, volunteering to join that cause. She never heard back. So, you can imagine what might have happened if somebody had opened the letter and seeing the name and made a phone call and set up an appointment. Organizers beware! Do not lose emails! Keep all the cards that you collect. One of the things I have learned over fifty years is how hard it is, for sociological reasons, organizational sociological reasons for people to actually join groups, because the tendency once a group is viable, and it is humming along, for it to be content with its size and its dynamic, and it becomes a little fluffy on the inside and newcomers are not. It is not so easy for newcomers to break the circle. Hold on a second. Yeah. Hello. Okay. Yeah. 1:46:11 SM: Okay. I actually am going to be interviewing Casey. And then sometime in the next hopefully month- 1:46:20 TH: Good for you. 1:46:21 SM: And, of course, I had tried to get hold of Jane a long time ago, but I know he is not doing interviews on this. But I know that Jerry Lemke just written a book on her I do not know if you have seen it. 1:46:32 TH: I have. 1:46:32 SM: Yeah. And actually, she was up at Harvard. And she called Jerry to talk to him about some of the commentaries in the book. And I interviewed Jerry up at Harvard, about a month ago. 1:46:46 TH: I encouraged her to talk to him. It is pretty good, I think it is a little sensationalistic, and she does not need it. But the evidence he compiled about the mythology of splitting, I thought was one of the more important historical discoveries or confirmations, about the (19)60s that I have ever seen. Because that had everybody completely brainwashed. And I still run into it, but the value of doing very hard, hard core systemic research. I can do without the psycho analytic construction of her as a feminist movie star, but I liked the research, and I liked the data. 1:47:45 SM: No, I think I read her book. And I think more people need to understand her more in the area of why she became who she became. And she is not just an entertainer and I hope more people try to understand her better as time goes on. 1:48:06 TH: Well, she has the means to communicate. There is no question about that. 1:48:09 SM: Right? Around the time of Kent State, African American students and white students were splitting this is around 1970 one concentrating on racism and black power and the other white students on the Vietnam War. What are your thoughts on the split? Did it hurt the civil rights movement or especially, or just, you know, the antiwar movement because you know, Kent State was really a barometer normal expected that to happen there? But at Ohio State and other universities, there was a big strong split going on between those two groups. 1:48:48 TH: It began in the mid (19)60s, after the perceived failure of the Mississippi Freedom Summer. And this was, as the years go by, I have to look on it more as a sociologist and historian, like since it happened, and it happened everywhere. It happened locally. There is a sense in which it was inevitable. Maybe inevitable in the Shakespearean way but inevitable. There is no going back or undoing it or reversing it. A lot of people think this was a mistake, that was a mistake, but what has done is done and you know, I think what to generalize. White America's power structure was not ready, or willing to mobilize for desegregation and equal opportunity rapidly enough. And to make matters worse, they invaded Vietnam and escalated a war that they promised they would not enter into in the 1964 election, but by (19)65, they were in so to me, those things kind of guaranteed that, that black and white would be driven down different paths, because there was a reinforcement of the stratification, you know, whites were just generally always going to be better off. And in, you know, without any particular qualification to lead movement of black people, which, which it was in the early (19)60s, there could be co-equal leadership of a struggle that became apparent to all. And I know, there been a long history of white people trying to lead other people's causes. 1:51:28 SM: Right. 1:51:29 TH: God bless them. But, but at a certain point, it just became completely unworkable. I headed up a project in Newark, that was mainly white community organizers in a black community. We did not know what we were getting into, we thought that there were there was there were the prospects for an interracial organizing project in Newark, but the white, black disparity and antagonism was so great, that was impossible. But we did very well from (19)64, (19)65, (19)66. But you know, you can just feel it coming, that by the time Black Power emerged. It did not, it just made less and less sense for us to be heading up an organization composed of black people in the ghetto. I am not saying it was immoral. Just since society was heading into deeper and deeper division, as the Kerner Report pointed out. We were like relics of the early optimism of the (19)60s, at a time when that optimism, you know, had a declining basis. 1:52:59 SM: It is interesting when I read James Mitchner's book Kent State and I know the students that can state that we are like Allen and others, they, they do not like they hate the book. But there is one, there is one area that is truthful in the book and that is that what I talked about here that he made a commentary about African American students were not supposed to be seen on the quad or anyplace and there was one student that was out there in the summer, and one of the other African American students took him away. And I thought it is ironic. You look at the pictures, you do not see African American students yet the president of student government at Kent State at that time was African American. 1:53:41 TH: Oh no there was a very active Black Student Union or BSA, BSU. 1:53:46 SM: Right. 1:53:47 TH: Very active, sort of marginalized in history. But if you look at the footage of the documentary that is out about can state it completes the story is quite fast. And the same with Colombia. There is a very strong Black Student Union, if you look at the Columbia footage, you suddenly get a rebalancing of the image of the reality of what was going on. 1:54:17 SM: James said. 1:54:18 TH: I see that as a reflection of what they call institutional racism that is, in every way we live in a stratified world and it also includes our own brains wiring our consciousness, and it takes a very dedicated and trained person to be mindful of this at all times. For example, very few people I know practice affirmative action in life. In other words, I do not go to any, you know, party in the west side of LA and it is always all white people. You go to a dinner; it is all white people. I have been to dinners, birthday parties, for people who have been through all these movements, all white people. But you could say I am not having a party unless it is, it is mixed. And you know, make a list of friends, if you do not have enough friends of all backgrounds, you should learn to make those friends. It is not so difficult. As what I was saying earlier about how you get caught up in the silos of stratification, and it becomes extremely difficult to, to integrate any room on the natural. It has to be a commitment. It has to be willed, and that is, that is not common. 1:55:59 SM: James Thal I interviewed him, the writer. 1:56:02 TH: Who? 1:56:03 SM: James Thal. 1:56:05 TH: Yup, Yeah, yeah. 1:56:06 SM: He gave me a great interview. And he mentioned that when he was at Harvard, that he evaded the draft, like many of the students that were at Harvard, yet he at the very, within a year's time, or within a short period of time, wrote a piece where he criticized himself. Yeah. And he criticizes fellow students, because he said, if you really were against the draft, you should protest against the draft, he did not just should not evade the draft. So, he was very critical of those who evaded the draft. Your thoughts on that? 1:56:44 TH: Well, I think Jim is a good man, and an old friend. And I think he is a bit obsessed with this point. Because you know, in any situation only a few will stand up to the powers that be where, you know, the risk is that you go to jail and also have your reputation damaged and done. And you know, there is different degrees of evasion. You can, you can evade because he did not want to spend time in jail, you can evade and still belong to the antiwar movement. You can evade and help create an underground railroad for more evaders. You can live your life consciously knowing that as evasion grows, it is definitely an obstruction to the continuation of the war. I mean, there were 50,000 people went to Canada, a lot of them to British Columbia where my wife is from and, you know, I see them all the time. Naomi Klein's dad. Does Jim think that Naomi's Naomi Klein's dad, you know, is morally weak because he refused to go to Vietnam and refuse to go to jail? That is just rhetoric. But I mean, when I say these people, I say to myself, who is you know, who is the judge? That it is, it is, it is not a bad thing, that many people feel a certain moral ambiguity about having gotten out of the draft, out of the army, by whatever means getting a deferment, which meant, inevitably, that somebody with fewer connections would serve and possibly die or be wounded. Oh, that is a, that is something that a lot of people should carry on their conscience. But not so heavily as not so heavily as he seems to your conscience. That means for the rest of your life, you try to do little things to you know, to make a difference to prevent future wars, for example. 1:59:55 SM: Yeah, I think he has moved on from it. Because I was, he was also in that symposium that I mentioned that add one that had so many things. And he was really against those who did not protest he feel if you are really going to evade then you get up there and protest too. People admire you for your lifetime of activism, and your writing and all the other things you have done. And of course, we have your critics too. But who do you admire for their longevity and staying the course like you? I mean, who were the writers? I know, you have Howard Zinn is someone we all love. 2:00:35 TH: Howard, I knew back in 1960, I mean, he and Roz had actually made a commitment that I never would have imagined least as far as I can imagine, now, to go on a venture of reverse integration. In other words, they were white couple that joined the community at a historically black college in Atlanta during a time of segregation. So that is an indicator of a person who is very strong willed, and very, very confident that he can make a life by going against the wind, Scott Lind met him at the same time, same, same thing. But I think we have enough heroes. And I am, I am sort of antihero, but it is, it is just, I think it is the wrong way to look at things. Everybody has some little heroism in themselves and that should be cultivated. Everybody has a little nonconformity that should be cultivated, to be appreciated, should be congratulated. And to see since the test since the (19)60s, I think, because of the assassinations and because of the wreckage of many movement organizations, we do not we do not see people hero-worshipping as a method of building a social movement anymore. Sure, during the Obama campaign, there was a resurgence of it and electoral politics lends itself to a worshipful attitude towards an individual. But for the most part, you know, the movements that are happening today. They are not leaderless; they are not anarchistic. They are not unorganized, but they seem to have learned from the past, that building the social movement is the essential thing. And that leadership may be tactically necessary. For instance, somebody has to speak at a press conference, but I think people are wary of it, and they prefer leadership that is accountable. And that is rotational. And some of this is because of the defense mechanisms that grow when you see so many people get killed or go astray. and everything in between some of it is just a learning experience that becomes greater with the development of the online technology that you know; the, the idea of a participatory democratic method becomes more attainable. And leadership can quickly evolve into celebrity culture you write with little result of it. Now, Glenn Beck would not agree with that. But you know, I do not think Glenn Beck has far to go. He will run into the contradictions on the right. Whatever happened to Jerry Falwell bless his soul, but I mean, he was an early Glenn Beck, Pat Robertson, I mean, there are these Sarah Palin now is flying high, but I would not want to be her, and her family facing the, the stuff that they have already had to take and the more her celebrity increases, the more she will be attacked. And it'll become more and more about her. And you raise where is the movement? I might ask, 2:05:14 SM: Tom- 2:05:14 TH: A lot of little Palin-ites palling around with Palin, it does not do it for me. 2:05:24 SM: Yeah. Dr. King used to always say when he gave his sermons that it is about we are not me or I, and I think you would be very sensitive today about Martin Luther King Day. He certainly earned it. But- 2:05:36 TH: I am not sure I am not sure that he could, I am not sure that there could be a Martin Luther King today. 2:05:41 SM: You are probably right. But he always talked about the fact that he looked out in his congregation, he was said you can all be will not do the things that I am doing me. It is the young unheralded people that who lived and died, who were involved in that movement, people will never know. 2:05:57 TH: Well, he was quite eloquent about that. But still, the organization that he headed, was built around the promotion of his identity and fame and power. And others resented it and maybe because they had egos too. And it is after his assassination it foundered and splintered, and you know, many other leaders from Andy Young to Jesse Jackson, you know, came out of it and built their own organizations but, you know, it is not. I do not know if it is a model that we want to adhere to. 2:06:47 SM: I know was Vietnam speech in (19)67, drew criticism from within the ranks of the church, but he was going global. He was not just local, as they say. 2:06:59 TH: Well, no, that was a great speech. And we all appreciate it. But God, I mean, it was. It was very strange that the media and the power structure paid so much attention to so much emphasis on that speech, and how important it was, and how negative it was. And some said it was positive. But the reason he gave the speech is because he was responding to the disproportionate number of voiceless African Americans who were being drafted, dying on the front lines in Vietnam. You have to give the speech because of the constituency. It is like what Gandhi said, “They are going my people, I have to, I have to lead them.” 2:08:03 SM: What? 2:08:04 TH: So, I do not know that it is a model. 2:08:07 SM: Very good. What did it mean to you to work within the system as a California State politician? Since early on, you were perceived as a person who attacked the system, or the system did not work, as an activist? Was this move more about growing and evolving as a person? Or did you see that being outside of the system takes more effort, with fewer, positive results? 2:08:37 TH: No, none of that the (19)60s had ended and we had succeeded beyond what some of us expected. And so, a number of us who were old friends sat down to try to figure out our future by now we were all in our early (19)30s. And I remember, some people said they wanted to go into the labor movement, and they wanted to organize working women, office workers, clerical workers, immigrants, etc. Other people were kind of interested in the consumer and environmental movements that Ralph Nader, speaking of other celebrities, got sparked and they wanted to build what was known as citizen action organizations. Others wanted to go into solidarity work with movements in Central America who were opposing United States intervention. And there was a fourth category, which was electoral politics, and very few people who were deeply involved in the social movement, the way I was, chose that path because it was so antithetical to the way we believe that social change should take place. However, there was a perception that we had sort of banged on the door and broken the system open. And it would be somewhat folly to not try to go through the door. Knowing full well, that would, it would lead us into temptation into opportunism, and so on. And that might actually be a dead end for movement building. But the alternative would be to, to reject the space that we had created. Right? So, for some of us, was an experimental venture. And that is why I ran for a big office, the US Senate as opposed to city council, because we wanted to build a movement, there was a base in California, we wanted to mobilize thousands and thousands of people and win or lose and frankly, you know, we knew that the chance of winning was, was, was highly doubtful, we would build chapters around the state networks around the state and out of it would come and ongoing movement that had used the political process, to bring in a whole new generation of activists, not leaving movements behind, but bringing a movement presence into politics. And I think we were very, very successful for five or ten years. But, you know, the limits began to be reached, because you had the Reagan counter revolution against the (19)60s. And, you know, a trough not much going on in the period (19)79, (19)89, (19)99 and those were the years I spent eighteen years in California Legislature. Sixteen of those years under Republican governors. And I am not saying that the two years under a democratic governor were any better. But I found that, you know, I do not think people out there in America know this. It is not a small thing to California Legislature later, it is full time year-round. I had a staff budget of six or seven hundred thousand dollars, I had offices in Santa Monica and in Sacramento, I chaired committees that were very important to the welfare of the state, the Labor Committee, the environmental committee, the Higher Education Committee. And there was an opportunity to bring protest and outsider consciousness into the inside. And I recommended but I do not think I was very unusual because I had this twenty-year background of really hardcore radical activism and you know, I had a following, I had plenty of enemies too, but sometimes your enemies help contribute to the cause by, by bringing more of a spotlight on what you are actually proposing. So, it is not for everybody. And I can understand how few people you know, John Lewis, comes to mind a few people went into electoral politics because it is so unnatural to come from a social movement background. 2:14:06 SM: Bobby Rush is another one. Bobby Rush. 2:14:10 TH: Bobby Rush? Yes. The numbers are so small that if you can draw your own conclusion, it is pretty obvious. 2:14:17 SM: You know, when I used to read about you and your work in Sacramento, the first thing that I remember reading was that you were respected across the aisle. And that does not happen a whole lot to a lot of people. So, my next question is really about higher education. Listen to this for a minute and then when done your response, I would like your thoughts on today's universities and what they learned from the students of the (19)60s and (19)70s. My perception, this is me, is that universities today frown on the term activism because it brings back memories of one real student power to student demands that cannot be met three, participation in a major decision-making process of where funds go and what funds are accepted in the university in other words, money's not going to our war effort. Number four, the disruption of classes and number five, the constant fear by leaders, by leaders of being let go. I mentioned earlier about so many presidents who were fired. That is what I am going to interview Father Hesburgh about due to protests and the teach-ins on the tough issues of the day. And finally, the strong faculty-student alliances, the challenge administrations at the time, including the no ROTCs on campus. What I am basically saying is that the activism at that time seemed to be 24/7 on the parts of many of the students. Yet today. volunteerism is very important and a term that is accepted, but activism is not. And because it is not 24 to 7 is a great quality, but it is required by many of the departments, many of the schools, and many of the student organizations that people belong to. And today's youth does not seem to have that activist mentality, and the challenging attitudes that the students of the (19)60s and (19)70s had. And finally, my commentary here is that colleges are run by boomers today, who experienced the (19)60s and then some of the Generation X people that followed the boomers who were the up-and-coming leaders of universities oftentimes did not get along with boomers. So, what I am saying is and I'd like your thoughts, is that the universities today are really afraid of even using the term activism. 2:16:58 TH: I hear you. 2:16:59 SM: Volunteerism is okay. 2:17:02 TH: You are reading from your remarks. 2:17:04 SM: Yeah, well, yeah, but what is interesting is that when you came to the University as part of our series, we had Daniel Barrigan we had Philip Barrigan. We had you, Tori Osborn we had to end the series because they said that that is not really what our students want. It is not what our campuses have. So- 2:17:25 TH: There is a lot there to unpack. Some I agree with, some I do not. I do not even know what the question is. 2:17:33 SM: The question is, are universities afraid of activism? Did they learn anything from the (19)60s and (19)70s? 2:17:43 TH: You know, I think I think SDS was prophetic in the sense that, you know, many prophets do not even realize that they are being prophetic. They are almost channeling. And the prophecy of the Port Huron Statement was that, unlike other progressive eras, the university itself would be a pivot for the transformation of American society that is in coalition with other forces. And the mistake that was made, which often happens with prophecy, is that you know, we did not think of the university as a permanent institution, similar to all other institutions in the sense that Max Faber described. We were confusing our ranks, student hood and faculty, with the university as an institution. But what was prophetic was the carrying out the idea that 1960 was the dawn of a youth movement that would face increasingly an economy that was high tech and based on information that is based on the stuff of intellectualism. I remember a fellow in 1964 showed me my first computer, and it was in a room that was the size of not a warehouse but a very large room. It was this gigantic IBM machine that spit on all these cards, the very cards that students at Berkeley objected to being compared to, and he said, Tom someday, you know, pointing to his wristwatch, they are going to be computers this size. And I did not take it seriously because I was unable to my mind could not wrap around this thought. But it was people like that that created the web. And so, the students were the forerunners of the, the C.E.R.F not surf or CERFing surfs in the information economy, you know, whether you were working class, middle class, upper you. That was the discovery. The Port Huron Statement was kind of like discovering gold in California, it was an accident and then people said Eureka! You know, this is a sudden insight. And that is always stayed with me. So that is still the case. Now I think where we were not wrong, but you know, utopian in the belief that we could transform the university, to make it an institution that would be an institution of resistance against the matrix of other institutions in our society, military industrial complex, corporate finance and law, etc. That we could not do. But we swiftly understood that because by the late (19)60s, there was, there was a huge rush of materials about how universities like Columbia, viewed from their board of trustees, were actually part of the system that we were opposed to, and would never reform without some combination of serious confrontation on the outside and inside, which is what happened, you know, parallel to the eighteen-year-old vote. Suddenly students could read Noam Chomsky without getting kicked out of school. Suddenly, African Americans, Latinos, women, found themselves recognized in the curriculum. Suddenly, there was a whole new field of environmental studies that simply did not exist, except as biology until Earth Day came along. And those reforms were very real, and they were won through painful confrontation. And they opened the door of the university, to a flood of a more diverse student body who the same time came to believe that social change was easier than it had been for Abbie Hoffman, or Bobby Seale. That it could be done from within. Some say that generation was co-opted. I think it is the same as my running for elected office. If you bang on the door, and the door gets knocked down, or opened up, or you are invited in, you know, it would be bizarre to say no thanks, we did not intend to do that anyway. So, the left may not understand this, although I think to some extent, they do but certainly the right does and there has been a torrential countercurrent of abuse and attack on eggheads, intellectuals, universities. You know, it is almost, you know, a strike against you if you are running for office and you have been to one of these places. They still have not defeated the universities threat as they, as they perceive it. And I do not think that they will. I think that what you will have is a standoff with the university divided between the you know, the fundraising apparatus, the representative of finance capital, like Larry Summers at Harvard, the representatives of the Pentagon who need the information technology. And on the other hand, you know, departments that are filled with women and people of color who never were employed before. I do not think it is over. I think it is at a stalemate. 2:25:27 SM: It is interesting, because when I interviewed Arthur Chickering, the great educator who wrote Education Identity. At the very end, I asked him one final question, because he is into Student Development Theory. And the question was whether- 2:25:41 TH: He is a college guy. 2:25:42 SM: Does he have any criticism of the university today? And he says, yes, the corporations have taken over again. And I thought that was a very prophetic comment because when you think of Mario Savio, you bring his name on many times in your books and, you know, his challenge, and his words were the universities about ideas, the university students come to a university because it is a place where ideas and flow, not only in the classroom, but outside the classroom. And yet we are not just some corporate cogs. And yet, you hear Arthur Chickering say that, you know, he is disappointed today that the universities are the bottom line is what is important. He may be even over ideas. 2:26:27 TH: So, I think it goes in waves and particles, I think anybody is wrong who thinks that the battle is ever over and if you look at my book, my model would predict this temporary outcome. 2:26:41 SM: Right. 2:26:44 TH: What you know, the university is not safe from dissent, it cannot be preserved from protest. It is true that administrators, by the very nature of being administrators of an institution, inherit an institutional memory of protests, and so they invent ways to prepare for it, to contain it to channel that, as you said into service, but not protest. And students are always turning over so there is always a new group of, you know, eighteen-year-old on the incoming who have to have to learn what they can by doing by improvising. But you know I speak everywhere at universities, and I think I have a much more complicated view of students then, you know, than the stereotype I think, any campus you go to, you can find a percentage who are in the forerunners of social change a lot about sweatshops, you can find an extraordinary base of environmentalism and so on. 2:28:02 SM: We are down to our final three questions, actually, there is four here so I may have to choose a tape here in a minute. What do the following quotes from the (19)60s and (19)70s mean to you just in a few words, you do not have to get into much detail. 2:28:15 TH: Yeah, no, you are not going to get much of a response on this but go ahead. 2:28:18 SM: As an activist, when you hear of the "I Have a Dream" of Martin Luther King, what does that, what does that mean to you? 2:28:30 TH: Well, that is almost the holy incantation because I was there. 2:28:37 SM: You witnessed it? 2:28:39 TH: I was standing there. Yeah. 2:28:40 SM: Oh, wow. 2:28:41 TH: Yeah. So, I put it in another category. I actually, you know, was there, I was standing under a tree. 2:28:52 SM: John Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you as what you can do for your country." 2:28:58 TH: I watched that on television and I immediately; it sent me into a scramble to try to deconstruct it. It did not know if that was good for us or not that. I did not know what he was saying. 2:29:14 SM: How about the National Organization for Women and when they started, they were prophetic in their statement "The personal is political." 2:29:25 TH: Yeah, I found that very challenging. 2:29:33 SM: Malcolm X, "By any means necessary." 2:29:41 TH: Another challenge. 2:29:45 SM: Timothy Leary's, "Tune in, turn on and drop out." 2:29:51 TH: My response to that? 2:29:52 SM: Yes. 2:29:52 TH: Uh oh. 2:29:56 SM: Very good. Martin Luther King also had another one, "Judge not by the color of one's skin, but by the content of one's character." 2:30:15 TH: I thought it was, at the time, a little utopian. I understood where he was coming from. And I think it anticipated and foreshadowed the appeal of Obama, who then was five we have to remind ourselves. 2:30:38 SM: Right. Bobby Muller is pretty well known for, well other people said this too, but he was very much in the forefront when he came back from Vietnam and went through the experience. "I realized for the first time that the US is not always a good guy." 2:30:58 TH: Yeah, well, that was the experience of a whole generation. 2:31:02 SM: And then Kim Phuc, the girl in the picture from the Vietnam War, I actually know her. I am actually going to interview her in a couple of weeks. We had her on campus. And just a simple thing. "I forgive." 2:31:22 TH: Powerful. 2:31:23 SM: Yeah. One of the questions here I have about the Port Huron Statement. How long did it take to write it? I know you co-wrote it with another person because I believe his name, Richard Flax. 2:31:43 TH: This is the last question. 2:31:47 SM: Oh, okay. What was anyway? Basically, how long did it take? Do you remember the experience of starting it? And 2:31:59 TH: Yeah, I can give you a very specific answer. In steps. I was, I was in jail on my birthday in 1961, in Albany, Georgia and I knew that I was going to a meeting of SDS in the north quite soon and I sent a letter from jail saying that we had to, we had to formally organize this group SDS with a vision that was based on the Direct-Action Movement among students in the south. So, then I went to Ann Arbor, very soon after, long meeting fifty-sixty people and they said, we are going to have this founding conference and you know, Sharon Jeffrey's going to try to get her mom to get us a UAW Center to have the meeting in. It is going to be. When is it going to be? It is going to be in June when school's out, and what are we going to do there? We are going to formally adopt organizational rules and we have to have this vision statement. So, I was delegated to write the vision statement. There were very few parameters or details. I went to, I forget the exact details, but it was in the south and then I went to New York, and I holed myself up in an apartment in New York City with books and it seemed like months, it must have been weeks but I you know I pounded out this long statement that was ten times longer than what anybody had in mind. I think it was sixty or sixty-five pages single spaced and mimeographed it. I do not know if you know, if you remember mimeographs. And off it went in manila envelopes and boxes to people that were coming to the conference, and they just got it in time for the conference. And the first reaction is, you know, throw it out this, we cannot deal with this. And it was kind of a force of will, on my part, insisted that people deal with it. I was sorry that it was so late and so long. But there was a lot at stake here and we could not just go home with it was nothing and somewhere along the way Dick Flax who was a graduate student friend of mine in Ann Arbor, got into the writing, he'll have to tell you when I do not I do not remember, but we broke into small groups that dealt with each section like the economy and foreign policy and civil rights, and everybody in a small group would read the draft, and then they would discuss whether they agreed with it in substance, if they did, that was fine, if they did not, that had to be debated and voted on and then they discussed smaller changes, technical changes, stylistic changes. And then each of these groups, which were, you know, functioned as committees, having met 2,3 or 4 days, I do not remember’ would come back to the body as a whole, report their recommendations, and people would vote yes or not to accept it. And it actually got done! And it had this participatory element to it, like people were involved in birthing their own creation, not only of the structure of the organization but the actual founding document, and then I was delegated at the end, to go back with all of the suggestions, recommendations, and rewrite the whole thing in one clean writing. And then to get around the question of, how would it ever be fully approved, since we were all going home, we agreed, this interesting formulation, that it was to be seen as a living document, a provisional document open to changes in the future. And it was issued as kind of a statement to our generation of activists, which is quite different from the usual political platform or Manifesto, you know, that goes through formal adoption and so on. Off we went, in the summer of (19)62, we stopped in June of (19)62. We had no idea what you know what the reception would be and the thought that we would be discussing it 50 years later was beyond our- 2:37:14 SM: I have two original copies. 2:37:16 TH: Yeah, I got a couple also, and it has been reprinted a couple of times, if you want to copy, I can resend it to you. You could spend a whole semester or weekend talking about this, and you never quite understand where this came from and how it came about. It is one of those mysteries of social change. 2:37:45 SM: Well, I think it is a great document. And I just have one more question if it is okay. 2:37:54 TH: No. (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 Tom Hayden Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Hayden, Tom ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Political activists--United States; Civil rights workers; Legislators—United States; Radicals--United States; Chicago Seven Trial, Chicago, Ill., 1969-1970; Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Protest movements; Hayden, Tom--Interviews Description An account of the resource Thomas Hayden (1939-2016) was a social and political activist, author and politician who was best known for his major role as an anti-war, civil rights, and radical intellectual activist. He was the author of the manifesto Port Huron Statement and stood trial in the Chicago Seven case. Hayden won seats on both the California Assembly and the California Senate. He was also the director of the Peace and Justice Resource Center in Los Angeles County. He received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003-11-14 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.10.2016.197a; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.197b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 157:57 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/7ee00fe4b58780b0c440ccdfd0650699.jpg 3e20d2cc300dedb615071f4480db2b98 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/7db441c95503d621e49717b233272b9c.mp3 ef003ddb6cc3a3f03dafc547c567e8c9 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. <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. Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Tom Pauken Date of Interview 2009-12-21 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 109:57 Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Tom Pauken is a businessman, lawyer, politician, member of the Republican Party, and the author of two books. He is a former member and chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission. Additionally, Pauken served as chairman on the Texas Republican Party and the Texas Task Force on Appraisal Reform. He received his Bachelor’s degree in political science from Georgetown University and his Juris Doctor degree from Southern Methodist University."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":13311,"3":{"1":1},"4":[null,2,4884200],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"10":2,"11":4,"12":0,"15":"Arial","16":10}">Tom Pauken is a businessman, lawyer, politician, member of the Republican Party, and the author of two books. He is a former member and chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission. Additionally, Pauken served as chairman on the Texas Republican Party and the Texas Task Force on Appraisal Reform. He received his Bachelor’s degree in political science from Georgetown University and his Juris Doctor degree from Southern Methodist University. Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"intellectual movement; Modern Conservatism; Baby boom generation; Vietnam War; Cambodia invasion; Young Americans for Freedom; Newt Gingrich; George W. Bush; Bill Clinton; Goldwater."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":513,"3":{"1":0},"12":0}">Intellectual movement; Modern Conservatism; Baby boom generation; Vietnam War; Cambodia invasion; Young Americans for Freedom; Newt Gingrich; George W. Bush; Bill Clinton; Goldwater. Subject LCSH Lawyers; Politicians--United States--Texas; Republican Party (Tex.); Pauken, Tom--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 Tom Pauken Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Pauken, Tom ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Lawyers; Politicians--United States--Texas; Republican Party (Tex.); Pauken, Tom--Interviews Description An account of the resource Tom Pauken is a businessman, lawyer, politician, member of the Republican Party, and the author of two books. He is a former member and chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission. Additionally, Pauken served as chairman on the Texas Republican Party and the Texas Task Force on Appraisal Reform. He received his Bachelor’s degree in political science from Georgetown University and his Juris Doctor degree from Southern Methodist 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 2009-12-21 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.10.2016.160a: McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.160b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 109:57 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/c744ac236e81e9f9548fce1f078fbe08.jpg a9cee511d808117188ba99977924f6da https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/60b7bb560ba33744a31a118b1a5f539c.mp3 565bafcf3e12460be5053f77187ded3d 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. <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 2008-07-12 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Thomas J. Scanlon Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text Thomas J. Scanlon, Benchmark's founder, and the president was among the first young Americans to serve overseas in President John F. Kennedy's Peace Corps. He published a memoir of his Peace Corps experiences in Chile entitled Waiting for the Snow. Scanlon graduated magna cum laude from Notre Dame. He has a Master's degree in Philosophy from the University of Toronto and a Master's degree in Public Law and Government from Columbia University. Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Roosevelt Era; Baby boom generation; Red Scare; Activism; Vietnam War; Universal Health Care; Senator Edmund Muskies; Slavery; Beat generation; John Coltrane; Lester Young; Jazz; Neal Cassidy; Silent Generation."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":515,"3":{"1":0},"4":{"1":2,"2":16370588},"12":0}">Roosevelt Era; Baby boom generation; Red Scare; Activism; Vietnam War; Universal Health Care; Senator Edmund Muskie; Slavery; Beat generation; John Coltrane; Lester Young; Jazz; Neal Cassady; Silent Generation. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 56:07 Subject LCSH Peace Corps (U.S.); Scanlon, Thomas J.--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Tom Scanlon Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Scanlon, Thomas J. ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Peace Corps (U.S.); Scanlon, Thomas J.--Interviews Description An account of the resource Thomas J. Scanlon, Benchmark's founder, and the president was among the first young Americans to serve overseas in President John F. Kennedy's Peace Corps. He published a memoir of his Peace Corps experiences in Chile entitled Waiting for the Snow. Scanlon graduated magna cum laude from Notre Dame. He has a Master's degree in Philosophy from the University of Toronto and a Master's degree in Public Law and Government from 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 2008-07-12 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.10.2016.110 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 56:07 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/bb1c66b9b4f27dc2a5b9b69e0c3cb5f8.jpg c25897177249e1c126d8a292ba47a827 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/b2cc6c25e0a47d6406dd55bf3b33b6d2.mp3 15810a57710ab3d32b8c38dd39096fa9 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. <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-08-19 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Tom Wells Language English Biographical Text Dr. Tom Wells is an editor, historian, and author. Dr. Wells wrote several books and contributed articles to multiple books on the Vietnam War and the 1960s. He has also received dozens of fellowships and grants from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, among other institutions. He has a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Berkeley. 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 Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 216:23 Keywords Activism; Women Strike for Peace; Nineteen sixties; Anti-War Movement; SDS; Weathermen; Baby boom generation; Counterculture; Radicals; New left. Subject LCSH Editors; Historians; Authors; United States—History—1961-1969;Wells, Tom--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: Tom Wells Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 19 August 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:04): Very good. Yeah. My questions are going to be specific questions. Some of them not directly linked to your book, but a lot of them are. I just, first off, I want to say your book is excellent. TW (00:00:16): Oh, well, thank you. SM (00:00:16): Yeah, because I lived it. I was a college student from (19)66 to (19)70, as an undergrad and I went off to Ohio State in 1970. So, I was on SUNY Binghamton campus and then Ohio State, and then I went right off to Ohio University that had purged a lot of the students out of their campus after Kent State. So, a lot of the stuff that you talk about just brings back all these memories. And we will get to the interview here in a second, but I am going to ask a question later on about Father Hesburgh and what he said about university presidents, which was really tremendous. But first question I have for you, you are a little bit younger, and I know you state this at the beginning of your book but tell me a little bit about yourself. How you became a history professor, kind of what the influences on your life, that drove you to become a history professor and your interest in the (19)60s. TW (00:01:14): Well, I am not actually a history professor. I am... SM (00:01:16): Sociology. TW (00:01:17): Independent. Yeah. I taught sociology individual courses for a while in the early (19)90s, the Bay Area at University of San Francisco, San Jose State in Mills College. But I was raised in Oregon and was not very political or scared, but I was part of the counterculture during particularly the early steps that belong, smoked a lot of pot, done a lot of drugs. And let us edit that to say, "took some drugs." But I was not very political. And I got to University of Oregon in, I was an undergraduate in 1970. 1974 was when I started because I took a year off after high school and I graduated high school. So, (19)74, and I took a class called Crisis in a Capitalist World, from Sir Marcus Gray. That and a bunch of other courses as a sociology major at University of Oregon, had a big impact on me and radicalized me politically. And I have been on the left since then. This was the (19)70s. And University of Oregon had a very political sociology department and a radical sociology department. So, the courses I took there had a big impact on my political views. And like I said, I have been pretty much on the left since then. Have not moved right. Well, let us take a step back. I mean, for a while I considered myself a sexist. SM (00:02:46): You consider yourself a what? TW (00:02:49): I considered myself a Marxist for a while. And this was the (19)70s, right? SM (00:02:53): Yes. TW (00:02:53): And mid-(19)70s and Red Lennon, et cetera. So, in that sense I would certainly, I would no longer consider myself a Marxist, but I am still on the left. So, in that sense, I have not the right word. And then when I was at Berkeley, so I went to Columbia two years as a graduate student and then I went to Berkeley after that, transferred. And when I went to Berkeley, I started getting interested in the anti-Vietnam war movement because I basically missed it, I did not participate. Like I said, I was not paying a lot of attention to it. I see some of the images on TV, but my parents, at least my father was Republican. Remember I mentioned in the book, I remember thinking George Govern was the one who was buying at 72, which is bizarre, because up to retrospect of everything I know about George Govern. He is a very decent man. And Richard Nixon is not, was not, but that is the perception I had. But then I got in at Berkeley, I got interested in the Vietnam War movement and I went to this conference at USC, in roughly (19)83 on the Vietnam board. It was a big conference and they had a lot of people, a lot of journalists, [inaudible], anti-war activist. And it was about some people from the government, I think. And it really had a huge impact to me, in getting me interested in Vietnam because I was just remember coming away from that thinking, "God, how did they get away with it?" Because I was just overwhelmed by the horror in the front and the fact that they did it. And so that really keeps... SM (00:04:26): In your opinion, when you look at the generation born between 1946 and (19)64, better known as the boomer generation, and I prefaced this by saying that I realize after my interview process, that both born between maybe (19)39 and (19)45 had the spirit of the (19)60s because many of them were the leaders. So, even though they were not listed within the boomers but what do you feel are some of the misperceptions that have been leveled at this generation by the media and the critics? TW (00:04:56): I do not know. Some of the perceptions that they are very self-historic and self-indulgent, have all sold out. I think one of the stereotypes, it is kind of partly a looking at Bill Queen, the hysterical helping son of baby boomers, and that sincerity he put forward there. This is the general idea that everybody became totally a naval gazer and then essentially sold out and sent started devalue. I know I think a lot of people did move to the right is my understanding. I do not know the date on the [inaudible] well all, but a lot of people have moved to the right. I think general consensus... SM (00:05:39): Kind of as a shoot off of that question is what are some of the facts that are often left out when criticism is sent toward the generation? Little known facts or deeds with respect to how important young people were in the anti-war movement. I have had people that I have interviewed that say very important without, and then I have had some people saying of minimal importance. Of course. TW (00:06:01): Well, student protest was central to the whole thing. I mean, what was happening on the Campus Central? They were a big part of the sense of a country coming apart at the seams, that a lot of people in the government, public. In some sense, they were a driving force. I mean there were just a lot of young people, activists, a lot of creative ideas and a lot of very artistic. I learned a lot about get some forest. A lot of younger people. I mean, some of the veteran leaders in the anti-war were older. People like Dave [inaudible]. SM (00:06:37): You are cutting off a little bit there. TW (00:06:41): Oh, they were older. But on the other hand, there were an awful lot of young people, very active and very determined. Some of them maybe went a little too far in terms of their tactics and their movement toward believing, that we needed to make a revolution to change things or where in fact we were headed towards the revolution. But nonetheless, a lot of people were very active, young people were very active and very important to the anti-war movement. I mean, I admire tremendously, a lot of people who were the younger people who were engaged by the way, but admired them for what they did, it is not easy. So, all right. Hard to follow. SM (00:07:19): In the same breath. I also ask what are some of the exaggerations on the part of the activists that are listed, as important to them? TW (00:07:29): I think there was too much, some of them... And I think to us, I think the number of people who were carrying NLS flagged by the number of people who were explicitly supporting [inaudible], but they were counterproductive in that sense. They turned off a lot of merits. I think that is exaggerated. SM (00:07:54): Right. TW (00:07:54): But I also think that a lot of this was maybe somewhat crazy, that people did. Some of them were ultra-left. It also played a role and it contributed to this fence in the government, which is a very real stance and worried them across quite a bit. The society was falling apart at the seam and things could get even worse. I mean that this thing could get, that the amount of turmoil could grow and really partake in. They did not like it when there were all these, what they saw as mobs surrounding the Pentagon, or just large mobs marching in the street. They were concerned and they were very concerned that the turmoils, will just get worse. And they did not like the sense that they were in dubious commands, that they knew that some Americans were getting tired of all the turmoil. The war was rising in the streets, and that was feeding into declining public support for the war. So, even some of the ultra-left stuff that people did that is certainly questionable and even somewhat crazy, it did feed into this general sense of society with some sense breaking apart at the seam. Officials did not like that at all. SM (00:09:02): Who were more important in the anti-war movement? We know the big names, the political leaders, the activists, the students who came to the forefront. Many of the Freedom Summer people became leaders later on in the late (19)60s, in many different movements and groups. But the well-known activists and leaders of the time, or the everyday activists who were no names in the movement. I bring this up because Benjamin Barber, Dr. Benjamin Barber has written about citizenry, what makes a strong nation. And his belief is that the stronger the citizenry and the less of a need for a leader, the better the nation is. But we do need strong leaders, but we also need strong citizens. Would you say that the anti-war movement or the war within, is really what Dr. Barber is saying, it is citizens who are really standing up? And Dr. King used to talk about this too, about the importance of we, and it is not just me. We all have the capability within us to be the change for the better in our society. And he talked about it all the time and in the civil rights movement to the, we know that the movement was made up of so many no names, that it would not have been a success without them. So, what I am really getting at here is how important were the people that were not known, as opposed to the people that were on the front pages? With respect to the importance in the anti-war movement? TW (00:10:32): Well, certainly the people who known were more numerous than people who were known. So, in that sense they were very important. But there was a lot of grassroots, anti-war activity that took place, by just everyday people that may in some book has not been covered as much as a more dramatic event. And I tried to convey that in my book. Things like the Quakers. A lot of the Quakers were doing a grassroots anti-activity very early on, before the war began in earnest. And they were lobbying Congress, they were just talking to their neighbors. They were doing very fun for local organizing and a group, I am thinking about when I say the Quakers, the French City on National Service Committee, and then also groups like Women's Strike for Peace, which they had a lot of meetings with their neighbors and I just sat and talked to people and maybe smaller events in their communities. But there was an awful lot of that and an awful lot of ordinary citizens got involved through those sorts of activities. And some of the people got involved with those sorts of local activities, were not particularly inclined to go to Washington for large national demonstrations. But there was a lot of that. And I think in some sense, in some accounts that sort of local grassroots activity by everyday people, have not been covered as much as it might be. SM (00:12:01): You have seen, you have taught college students over the last 20 some years. And I first asked this question back when I interviewed Senator McCartney in (19)96 because the Generation Xers were the group that made up the campus. Now it is millennials. TW (00:12:17): Yes. SM (00:12:19): But you have seen young people over the past 20 years who have either no feelings toward this period, or knowledge, or even interest in a time when boomers were young. In fact, in the early (19)90s there seemed to be two camps of college students. And I noticed this when we did programs at the university where I worked, between boomers and generation Xers. There seemed to be two camps. One camp was, "I am tired of hearing about this, you guys from the (19)60s, all you talk about is nostalgia and what it was like back then. It has no relevance to today." And generation Xers were pretty strong on that. And yet there were others who said, "Gee, I wish I lived then. I wish there were causes today like there were causes back then." So, there were kind of two camps. Am I right on there from your experiences too? These were... TW (00:13:08): What I found in my experience is, going through the (19)80s through to (19)90s is, a lot of the people that do not know much about the (19)60s, if they get interested and they start reading about it, a lot of them are very interested and very kind of taken aback by it and almost want to replicate it. I have seen people, I remember there was a guy, I was involved in an anti-intervention in US intervention in Central America Group at Berkeley, when I was a graduate student. And I remember there was another graduate student who was reading the book, [inaudible]. SM (00:13:40): Oh yeah, I have got a first edition. TW (00:13:42): Yeah, a very good book. And I remember he got really psyched up. I mean, he was ready to... It seemed to me that he was getting more militant as he was reading that book. But I feel that, yeah, there are students that I have talked to that, the ones that are curious about it and they start reading about it, they really find it quite interesting. And it is something to talk about. SM (00:14:08): Did you feel, and this is a strong feeling, that there was animosity between the Boomer generation and generation X? TW (00:14:18): I have never noticed that. I have not seen that. And unless it is just talking about generational conflict than their children, but I have not noticed that just more generally. I think in the way it is innocent, you are talking about. No, I have not noticed it. It is not to say it did not take place. I have not. SM (00:14:41): Right. I know that one of the things when President Nixon came into office, he said that he had a plan to end the war in six in (19)68, yet he kept saying, "We need PE." And then in the very end when the Paris Peace accords were taking place, he used these words that really infuriated Vietnam vets and many who had fought against the war for years, "Peace with honor." TW (00:15:04): Yeah. SM (00:15:04): The exact, and I say here, the exact words used after the Paris Peace Accords were signed. I prefaced this question with the fact that, his overall plan failed because his actions doubled the names on the wall in Washington, if you really look at it. TW (00:15:23): Yeah. I think his plan was to get out as slowly as possible and with his, as he put it, with his teeth going out last. He was still trying to win, but he was very constricted by opposition of the Vietnam War. I mean, he knew he could only take the desolation so far and he could not do everything he wanted to do militarily. And he was also concerned by whether he actually, some of the stuff had actually worked, if affectively Vietnam see enough. But he was going to go out slowly and he was going to [inaudible], but he could not do it. I mean, he got undercut. He was really undermined at the end. He was undercut all the time, I think. I mean, he was certainly inhibited, constricted by the anti-movement all the time. But at the end I think he was really undercut by his declining and authority in Congress as a result of the Watergate. They were going to give him as much as they were to give him if his credibility and his authority had to define his local war. SM (00:16:18): You talk about credibility with President Johnson winning in 1964, that, and as he said very early on, you bring it up in the book, "We are not going to send our boys to fight a war that Asian boys can fight." And obviously that was a big lie. And many people thought that he had betrayed the people that worked for his campaign and many of them were young people. Could you talk a little bit about that? Because that period, (19)64, (19)65 that you bring up in the book, it is like really the beginning of all these, the anti-war movement and with that is very strong. TW (00:16:54): Well, I think a lot of people felt betrayed by him after he escalated the war. And I mean he certainly was not being honest. And at a certain point he decided under the advice of the advisors that he had to escalate, basically because South Vietnam was going to hell. And he faced a real possibility of the South Vietnamese government crumbling and South Vietnamese army crumbling. So, he had to go in there. He was forced to go in there if he wanted to prevent South Vietnam from falling. So, he did. And I think a lot of people that supported him, felt afraid by that, felt betrayed by that. And I think a lot of people were probably fed into people's weariness of Huber Humphrey later in 19... SM (00:17:38): Right. TW (00:17:39): ... days. I think Humphrey had a hard time. And I think he had a hard time distinguishing his sufficiency, John. And I think Nelson did not want him to go too far out. John basically had up on a leash of his fence. But I think that people's feelings, failed by John probably fed in to some extent what Humphrey to do. And I think, so on the other hand, I mean Paul Warnke, who was in the Pentagon at the time, he said that Humphrey was not going to appoint Clifford. I forgot the positions. He said Humphrey was going to appoint him and Clark Clifford and I think more account, I am not sure, but definitely him and Clark Clifford, who were double figures. Later on, he said Humphrey's going to appoint him and Clifford to these high-level positions and they would have gotten out of Vietnam with him. Well, short ordered. Whether that is true or not, I am not sure. But if that is true, then we could have moved quite a bit. SM (00:18:33): You all speculate what? Because she cannot do this because you have to live history. You cannot just guess what might have been. But when President Kennedy was assassinated, depending on, I have read so much in preparation for the book that we have people that believe, well, because he was a cold warrior, he would have proceeded just like Lyndon Johnson in the end. And others who say, I think Sorenson, thinks that he would not have escalated. So, any thoughts on whether, how important... TW (00:19:05): I am not-not a Kennedy fan. I have never liked any of the Kennedy's. I mean Kennedy, like you said, was a cold warrior. So, I have never been particularly optimistic about Kennedy, what Kennedy would have done. He would not have fascinated there. My sense that he was the best swayed, well more like John, but I do not. But just generally, I am not a fan. I mean, he was a cold warrior. SM (00:19:28): When you look at all the personalities on both sides in America's battle over Vietnam, is there one or two on each side that truly defines the best they had to offer, opposition wise? TW (00:19:41): Well, there were a lot of them. The anti-war woman who, I mean talk people. I thought, what if you asked me, do I have any heroes? It is one of my heroes. Anybody who was active in the anti-war, particularly people who are very persistent in... SM (00:19:59): Well, and also, please speak up because somehow it cuts off here. TW (00:20:01): Oh, okay. SM (00:20:01): Yep. TW (00:20:04): I have tremendous admiration for anybody who was active in that movement, and particularly people who really stuck it out and just really dedicated, who were activists. And there were some people, but the problem is, I am probably going to mention some of the leaders who were more visible and maybe got a little more publicity, but some of the leaders were extremely dedicated people. Like I mentioned, Norma Becker earlier from the Fifth Avenue East Grade committee, who played such an important role in New York and also in some of the national mobilization committees. And people like Dave Ballinger, who was very important and very dedicated. And he was someone who had a connection to a lot of the more militant youth. And he was able to maintain, to bring some of the more radical youth into some of the actions that they were involved in organizing. And somebody like Sydney Peck, who was a very-very impressive guy. He was a professor, I think the case, Western Reserve University of Cleveland at the time. He was a sociology professor, and he was one of the main people in the National Mobilization Committee and extremely, extremely impressive guy. But there is so many people like that. I mean, David Hark, who was a Quaker activist and doing a lot of congressional lobbying, but also a lot of kind of Quaker style civil disobedience, a lot of that he was, and he is still active. And then on the government side, I do not know, I mentioned Paul Warnky, who was, I believe he was the assistant secretary of Defense for ISA, I believe. He played an important role in turning Clark Clifford against the war. And Clark Clifford played an important role in convincing Johnson that he had to do something in 1968. That he could not continue on the way they were going, and he certainly could not give, I think, attorney general, earl Wheeler was the chairman of the JF at the time, and he was asking for 200,000 more troops and Clifford and Johnson said, "That is politically impossible." And Johnson, eventually he did a partial farming hold and basically stabilized the ground war and decided that he was not going to run through re-election. So, warranty played a big role in turning Clifford, I think convincing Clifford, but just the war was not politically sustainable. So, somebody like Paul Warren fire a lot. And I know Paul Warnke was active later, I believe in the nuclear. And he is a nice guy. I mean, he is a genuinely nice guy too. He is somebody that stands out. SM (00:22:40): What is really interesting, if people like McGeorge Bundy that you talk about in the 1965 section of your book, when he came back from Plaku and his observations, if he had gone into the president and really pushed those observations on him, that would have been a lot. And also, the thoughts of Maxwell Taylor, who were their ambassador at that time. To me, if Taylor and Bundy, and I would like your thoughts on this, is that they had been more forceful and McNamara later on, that this thing just is not going to work. Do you think they had the ability to persuade that president? TW (00:23:16): Yeah, I do. If they were all taken up that campaign and really press at him. I think your question is a very good question because a lot, well, let us say several of the key players, they certainly noticed very early on this thing with him. And at best it was going to be a very long bloody affair. Very early on, I am talking, McNamara was one of the people I am thinking of, if they were to just went to Johnson and said, "Listen, it is pretty clear that the Vietnamese have enormous staying power and we can continue to escalate it, but this is going to be a long time before we have really a chance to turn this thing around. We may never be able to turn it around." If you had somebody like Rick George, very articulate, very intelligent guy, credentials, McNamara goes in there, McNamara is becoming very emotional about the war by this time. Very emotional. He goes down there and pleads his case to Johnson, some of these other folks. Yeah, I mean that is a very good point. Do not know why they did not do it. SM (00:24:17): See. TW (00:24:18): I do not know, but I think your question is an excellent question. SM (00:24:21): Well, you know what, I will add on to that question because if the anti-war movement knew in this very beginning stage, the feelings that those two men have, and you bring up very well that one of the issues is that they tried to hide a lot of things from the media and the public in general, that if that was known by the Ton Haydens of the world, or the Dave Dellinger's of the world and reach college campuses that were starting to protest, maybe that could have been a major, major influence to put pressure on the president to stop this. TW (00:24:52): Well, it could have also been a major influence on the public. SM (00:24:55): Right. TW (00:24:56): That is incredible ammunition that you could use to convince the public, that this thing is worth right. Saying, "Look, here is what these guys in private are saying about this." SM (00:25:08): Yeah, it is... TW (00:25:08): There is a terrible situation we are in here and the prognosis is horrible. That is what these guys are saying in public. So, I think that could have a tremendous influence on everything. SM (00:25:20): And we talk about as Schlesinger did, about the best and the brightest, and well, they may have been the brightest, but I do not think they were the best, that they did not do these kinds of things. On a scale of one to 10, and this is just, where would you place these groups in terms of helping and not hurting the anti-war protests? Or you could say whether they helped or hurt students for democratic society, before the weather? TW (00:25:45): Hey, very important, very important. I mean, like I said, students generally, were an engine for the anti-war movement and all this activity on college campuses. I mean, I think the younger people had a big influence on their parents and on the public in general. I mean, they were one of the things that led people to start to question the war. And a lot of students were in fact very articulate, very smart, and they learned a lot about Vietnam. And I think the fact that so many young people were protesting the war and were at least questioning the war, had a significant influence on other people generally. And again, they helped create this sense that politically the war was not, I mean, the country was going to hell in it. SM (00:26:30): Right. TW (00:26:30): Going to hell. SM (00:26:32): And also, the participatory democracy. I would like your definition of what participatory democracy is, because also, correct me if I am wrong, the Southern SNCC was based on participatory democracy. So, in reality, some of those people that were involved in going south, brought those ideas even back to SDS. Is that correct? TW (00:26:54): Yeah-yeah, that is true. Because there were a number of people in SDS, including in the leadership within South, the Civil rights department before. SM (00:27:01): Right. TW (00:27:02): So, you are right. That had a big impact. And I think what they were doing in SDS, I guess I would just call participatory democracy, democratic decision making at the grassroots level. Where everybody input at the [inaudible]. SM (00:27:18): The next group was the weatherman. TW (00:27:21): Well, even the weatherman, they did some crazy things. They were fairly nutty. I mean, they lost it, but on the other hand, they were tremendously affected by the war. I think they were extremely angered by what Nixon was doing and looked like John had done before. They were very frustrated that Nixon was still escalating the war at various points. They were very frustrated before that. During the Johnson administration, when the war steadily escalated, they were very angered and frustrated by the bombing of innocent people in Vietnam. Just tremendously torn emotionally about that. They just, again, tremendously frustrated that they did not seem to be having that great an impact in the government because the work continued to escalate. John's administration and Nixon administration first times escalated the conflict, and he was not withdrawing troop nearly as fast they wanted. So, they felt they had to up the ante. And a lot of the stuff they did was absolutely nutty. But on the other hand, the Nixon administration did not like this stuff at all. They did not like the militant protest any more than they liked the large demonstrations in Washington because they created the sense that the country was, that they were in doubtful command, that the country was falling apart. And again, they knew this was affecting other people. They were concerned about how much this would grow. They were concerned about terrorism generally but concerned that the White House could be the next target. They were concerned for their personal safety, and they were concerned for their personal safety during some of these demonstrations in Washington. We had large crowds outside the White House. So, they did not like the militants. They did not like the militants a bit. I mean, I think they liked it when people looked little. I think they thought it was better for them, when some of the protestors looked unsavory and maybe some of the long hairs. I think it was better for them, if you had long hairs, tanning some crazy things, and if you had more mainstream looking people out there, but on the other hand, they did not like it. They did not like it, they did not like these mobs, and they did not like the nortons and they were concerned it was going to get worse and they were concerned it was, for the government and for themselves. SM (00:29:23): How about the Black Panthers and the Young Bloods? I put the Young Bloods in there, the Puerto Rican group. Because they kind of looked up for the Black Panthers and kind of did about the same thing. Were they violent? TW (00:29:34): Well, I mean, I think the Panthers whole thing was in the self-defense and they were going to arm themselves and that they were going to respond at the fact. I think they were certainly part of this current stuff, that we were moving towards a revolution, and they were going to play a role in it. But certainly, my knowledge of the Panthers is not great. But I think they also have a lot of social service programs that they were involved in, local levels in their communities that were valuable activities. But some of their rhetoric I think, was a little nut though. SM (00:30:13): How about the American Indian movement, which was a (19)69 to (19)73 whirlwind? TW (00:30:20): Yeah, well that was certainly part of this old current of National Liberation Movement, ethnic protests and just a lot of people. I mean, a lot of people were learning about the history of this country and the history of their racial oppression in this country. And a lot of people involved in the anti-war movement through the process of being radicalized, or through the process of participating in the Civil Rights movement, felt they should also involve supporting Black people and Native American [inaudible]. So, I think there is part of this whole political way thing, as invited support nationally. SM (00:31:01): How about the Vietnam veterans against the war? SM (00:31:02): How about the Vietnam veterans against the war? TW (00:31:04): Well, I think they had a credibility that maybe some other people did not, because they had actually fought the war. And they had more than one fairly dramatic protest where they were trying to basically bring the war home in a dramatic way, but not in an ultra-left way, where they were doing very specific guerilla theater. They had a very dramatic protest in, I think it was April or May 1971, where they had a series of activities in Washington at the same time there were other protests going on. But they had a very dramatic event where they returned their metals, their war medals to the government. And I think that was a very emotional experience for a lot of vets who return their war medals. And I think that they had a credibility with some people that maybe the other people in the anti-war movement did not. And I know that it was very gratifying to some anti-war activists that finally vets were really coming out, were in full force, because there was a lot of effort in the anti-war movement to organize active-duty service persons. SM (00:32:14): Yeah, they were not treated very well on college campuses upon their return. TW (00:32:21): Veterans? SM (00:32:22): Yeah, veterans. And Ron Kovic comes to mind as a very vocal member of that particular group. I think Bobby Muller was in that group as well. TW (00:32:31): Yeah, he was. SM (00:32:33): But boy, Kovic was a national person regarding the efforts of VVAW. How about the Young Americans for Freedom? A group that has not really talked about that much. A conservative group that was against the war, but their influence as conservative activists. TW (00:32:52): Oh, I did not know the Young Americans for Freedom were against the war. I thought they supported the war and I thought that... I must be wrong. But I thought that that is one of the conservative youth groups that the Nixon administration was supporting and fostering their activity. I know the Nixon administration was working with the College Republicans and the Young Republicans and other conservative youth groups in Detroit as part of its effort to basically surface pro-war sentiment, try to politically isolate the anti-war movement. And I thought Young Americans for Freedom was one of the sort of groups that supported it. SM (00:33:35): Think that Tom Hawkins was one of the leaders of that group. TW (00:33:38): Yeah, I remember the name. SM (00:33:40): And I interviewed him. He has got another book coming out. He wrote a book about the Vietnam War. But that is Buckley's group, and they started basically at his home, I think. But when I interviewed Lee Edwards, Lee Edwards said that people who write about the anti-war movement always exclude the YAF, because they were against the Vietnam War. TW (00:34:06): I did not know that. And there was an organization, Tom Huston, who was a Nixon aide, an ultra-conservative Nixon aide, and was pushing for the more oppressive stuff the Nixon administration talked about. I thought, "Who was that?" I thought Young Americans... I may be getting mixed up with another group. SM (00:34:22): Well, I think there is a book coming out on them. So actually, it is, Ron Robinson is writing a book on the Young Americans for Freedom. TW (00:34:29): Oh, are you are sure that they opposed the Vietnam War? SM (00:34:34): According to Lee Edwards. The other ones did not. Tom Hawkins, he was just in the group. But Lee Edwards is the historian in Washington, and I believe he is at the American Enterprise Institute, and I believe he is the one that says when they talk about the Vietnam War, they always exclude the YAF. And then he said, I have it on the interview, that they did not support that war. TW (00:34:58): I did not know that. SM (00:35:00): So, the other two groups are the National Organization for Women and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Those two groups. TW (00:35:07): Yeah, I probably would not be your best source on either of those. I know something about them. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference was not [inaudible] involved in that? SM (00:35:20): Yes. TW (00:35:22): Yes. And I think James Bevel was involved in that. And I think there were other leaders from that organization that were active in the anti-war movement. And of course, it was such a big thing when Martin Luther King came out against the war in 1967. That was a big step for the anti-war movement. SM (00:35:39): You bring up in your book a really good quote that I had never heard before. It was about H. R. Haldeman's thoughts on protestors. And if you could explain a little bit more about it, here is the quote, in your book, "H. R. Haldeman thought of protestors as people who want to get excited about something and they really do not give a darn what it is they are excited about." But then you bring up, or someone else brings up, I have got a quote here, that "Haldeman failed to grasp the essence of a working democracy. That a good many people do indeed want to get excited about something because they have the audacity to think that the government is theirs." TW (00:36:18): Yeah, I think that might have been Todd Gitlin's quote from the introduction. SM (00:36:20): Yes. TW (00:36:23): See, the Nixon administration, like the Johnson administration was very concerned about the anti-war movement and very concerned about student protests. And they were putting their heads together, so to speak, and trying to figure out what was going on and what were the sources of all this protest. And they came up with various theories. And they really misread the roots of protests. I mean, they had various theories, like Haldeman, they just want to get excited about something and they do not care what it is. Or Waskow had a theory that a lot of the protestors came out for what he called the soft subjects. And then these people in the hard subject of sciences, they did not have the same trouble fitting in, but a lot of people in the soft subjects were having hard time fitting into society, were challenged by it. So, they felt challenged by the complexity of society. And because they could not handle it, they were rebelled. And a lot of people felt that this whole movement was being supported, funded, and in some cases even orchestrated by communists, so to speak. And they felt that Moscow was behind a lot of student protests. But they had a lot of theories about protests, Kissinger had theories that permissive child-rearing practices were partly responsible for the protests. That they were self-indulged and that they had been raised by overly permissive parents. SM (00:37:56): Dr. Spock. TW (00:37:58): Yeah. And so, they had a lot of different theories about it, and partly because they spent an awful lot of time discussing this and sending memos back and forth about what people in the Nixon administration called the youth problem. And they came up with these theories. And a lot of people thought it was strictly draft protests, that basically kids were protesting because they're afraid of dying in Vietnam. They did not want to go to Vietnam. So, they had a lot of theories. But the fact is that the motive force of the anti-war movement was potentially oral opposition to what the government was doing in Vietnam. And because the government felt that what they were doing was right, that is not an explanation that is going to resonate to them. It is not the kind of explanation they're going to embrace over some of these others. SM (00:38:46): The one word that always comes out when I see these things and throughout your book, and all the other books I have read about the anti-war movement, is somehow on the side of the politicians or the government or whatever, is they just cannot believe that people were genuine. I use that word. I mean, that is really them. They really believe the war is unjust. And so, is this part of the problem here that they always thought that there must be another motive, that these people were not truly genuine when they were protesting the war? TW (00:39:23): I think they were maybe too eager to look for sinister and unsavory and unattractive impulses. And I think you are right. The fact that they were so convinced it was a just cause. And Nixon felt, "I am getting out of here, I am getting out of Vietnam. Do not they understand that? What is wrong with these people? Do they take too many drugs?" I think there was a real generation gap there between people in the government and the people outside, the young people. And I think Nixon had his aides feed him articles on student protests and even on deadly arms used on student protest. He wanted to read about this stuff, and he did not understand it. But I think he was frustrated by the fact that there was this big gap, that so many young people did not like him. I think he was very frustrated by that. And that was probably one of the reasons he went out that one time in the early morning hours before one of the protests in Washington, he cannot sleep at night. He goes out there to the Lincoln Memorial where the protesters gather, and he tries to relate to these young kids. And I got this one picture in the book... SM (00:40:43): Yeah, I saw, and he looked... TW (00:40:44): See them looking at him like, "Who is this asshole?" SM (00:40:49): His facial expression is pretty bad too. TW (00:40:51): Yeah, he looks... But I think he was frustrated by that, at least according to some of his aides, that he was not able to connect with young people. But at a certain point he concluded. But it is amazing how much attention they did pay to what they called the youth problem. And how much effort they put into trying to understand the roots of it and why students were protesting, what was behind all the following. SM (00:41:19): I have always thought, and I would like your thoughts too, that here we had a president in Johnson that had two daughters who were boomers. Or one might have been a little older than a boomer. And then we had Nixon who had two daughters and a son-in-law who were boomers. Did they ever talk to any of those five about their thoughts on the war, and it is like they are in the shadows? TW (00:41:47): It is funny. That is true. Because I do not remember hearing anything, really. I remember hearing about Nixon's daughter and certainly associating them with not protesting, not being countercultural in any way at all. It has been projected from the photos of them. And then Johnson, I do not remember anything about his kids, but there were a lot of government officials, in both administrations, Johnson's and Nixon's, who had kids who opposed the war and went out for protests. A lot of them did. That was a problem. I mean, to have their kids questioning the war. And Robert McNamara's son was strongly opposed to the war. SM (00:42:29): Yeah, I am trying to interview him. I just sent him an email. TW (00:42:33): Oh, well you should because he is good. It is amazing to me in retrospect that Craig McNamara, he was in prep school, I think he was 15, say in (19)65. And so, he was not that old. So, I think his father could probably, might have, to some extent written him off. Because he was too young to know better, so to speak. But I think it was also very painful for Robert McNamara that his son, his only son, was so strongly disapproving it what his father was doing in Vietnam. And I remember later, Craig McNamara... You really should talk to him, at this point. SM (00:43:17): I sent him an email to him and to Michael Fervor. I have not heard from him. TW (00:43:20): Oh, well he is good too. And they are both nice guys. So, he will probably... I do not know what, they are both nice guys and I hope you can talk to both of them. But Craig McNamara, Robert McNamara is going crazy there because the thing is it is not working out. And he had no idea that the Vietnamese were going to beat his plan, and all this bombing did not seem be doing anything. And he is getting criticized left and right for all the people who are getting killed as a result of his policy. He has got various liberal friends have turned against the war and are disapproving. And his own son. And not only his own son, but he had one or more daughters who were opposed to the war too. So, talk about a sense of speech. But there were a lot of other government officials, I mean a lot of them, who had kids opposed to the war and would come out and protest, that were active in protest. I remember Paul Nitze was a senior Pentagon administration official, pretty conservative. SM (00:44:19): Correct. TW (00:44:20): Real cold warrior. A quintessential cold warrior. Right. Paul Nitze. And he told me he was the mastermind for the planning of the defense of the Pentagon during the big protest at the Pentagon October of 1967. He had three or three of his kids out there, Nitze's up in the Pentagon. He has got three of his kids out there in that crowd protesting. But there were a lot of kids. I remember I was really struck by a guy named, just briefly, Marshall Green. He was a senior State Department official guy during the Nixon administration. And he was very emotional talking about his kids, his son, being opposed to the war. And after the invasion of Cambodia in 1970, his son, Green's, comes back from something. He comes back from Oregon, Green's son just condemns him and condemns his government's policy, administration's policy. He says, "I do not want to see you again." He just took off, and to think that he was literally driven to the brink of suicide. You really were. So, he was really emotionally wrought up over what the war was doing to his side of the camp. SM (00:45:29): Yeah. He is involved in the environment in California too, I think. Craig, he has got a really nice farm. Walnuts and vegetables and educating people about quality food. And I am not trying to link up with him. Maybe some people just do not want to talk about it anymore, but... TW (00:45:51): I just remember when I contacted him, he is the kind of person that is worth pursuing and he is a decent guy. And I remember he did not respond the first time. I sent him a letter and he did not respond. And I called him, and then once I got him on the phone, he was fine. And then I went out and interviewed him. But he was one of the people I had to call. If memory serves right, and I did not know about your experiences, but my experience with interviewing people for books, with a huge number of people. You got to call them, they do not respond to letters, and you get them on the phone. SM (00:46:20): Yeah-yeah. I have got some that respond. I do all mine in emails, but some respond. But they all say, "Well, geez, I just happened to see your email. I only look at it once every six months." Oh, my goodness. And then you cannot get ahold of them again after they have read it the one time, they say yes. I have got something here. Really what you have been talking about here is that Nixon and Johnson both misunderstood the antagonist, really. TW (00:46:46): Right. SM (00:46:47): But I remember that from the book. And they attributed the anti-war people to sinister external forces like the Communist Party, I think. TW (00:47:00): Yeah. SM (00:47:01): And character flaws. I remember that you said too. TW (00:47:04): Well, I remember Johnson one time said, he referred to some FBI reports that a lot of protestors had previously spent time in mental institutions or something like that. Yeah, how seriously can you take something like that. But they had some pretty wild ideas, but they were just very reluctant, I think, to acknowledge the primary motivation behind it. SM (00:47:27): Well... TW (00:47:27): The protest was simply moral opposition. SM (00:47:30): I want to ask a question to you because I think, again, you bring it up in the 1965 chapter. But the importance of the (19)50s played in shaping a lot of the boomer kids, or I would say young adults, particularly a quote here, and I want to put this on the record, if it is okay? And whenever I do this, I make sure you are going to see the transcript, as everybody will, that I interviewed, but you are talking, and his name is Doug Dowry, a Cornell University professor? TW (00:48:02): Yeah, he was great. SM (00:48:03): Yeah. And I want to read this, just for the quote, "Like other radical organizers who had gone through the political deep freeze of McCarthyism, he was basking in the warmer political climate." And I am just reading this for the record, if it is okay." All of a sudden it seemed to me that what I always thought would be impossible, namely a large-scale movement against a war that your country was in, began obviously to take hold. It seemed to me that was absolutely amazing. I was teaching at Berkeley during the Korean War. Jesus Christ, you could not get anybody to say anything against the Korean War. Everybody was scared shitless to identify themselves as being against the war because it meant quite obviously that you must be a ranking member of the Communist Party. In fact, I was accused of exactly that. So, to me, 10, 12 years later and the anti-Vietnam thing, all of a sudden it just seemed obvious that something was happening that was absolutely brand new. And I began to feel very different about the possibilities of the politics of the mid (19)60s. I really can remember that it was though spring had arrived after a very, very long fucking winter." TW (00:49:10): Yeah. I think that would certainly be true of a lot of the older activists, that had gone through the (19)50s. But I think it was very inspiring, invigorating to suddenly be part of something so big. And I think Doug there was partly talking about the spring of 1965, where protests and the teaching movement just spread, mushroomed, spread from campus to campus. And basically, the whole of campuses across the country were just alive with debate on Vietnam. And I think then the first national demonstration against the war, of course, at the same time, and SDS organized it. So, I think it was very invigorating and very just overwhelming for a lot of people. That when they saw the anti-war would take off like that, that so many people suddenly getting active. I think a lot of people saw a lot of potential at that point. Very exciting. SM (00:50:07): He also said, "So all of a sudden you get all these young guys, and a lot of it was fraudulent and a lot of it was in fact self-defeating. Nevertheless, their exuberance got sucked into everybody's spirit. It was a time of real anger, but also real hope." And I would like your thoughts on this, because I think even today, and people that have been outspoken against the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan, particularly when they make references to the Vietnam era, are really criticized. And this is something that again, he says about when he was a professor, "By the time when the mid-(19)60s came along, I had been at Cornell for a dozen years or more and had been very, very unpopular there because I was sort of outspoken. I used to give a lecture on why socialism was necessary in the United States every year, and everybody thought it was kind of loony. All of a sudden at Cornell in the mid-(19)60s, I was no longer a strange person. I was either someone who was being involved with a lot of other people moving in that direction, or I was a hated person." Do you feel that people that have been speaking up, because you have not only written about the (19)60s, but you are a professor in a university. And you have taught that today, people that were speaking up during the Bush years against the Iraq war early on, felt like that? TW (00:51:28): See, there were some tremendously large demonstrations that began. The first Iraq war, and we could go back to the Gulf War in (19)91. There were huge demonstrations. And a number of these, very large demonstrations, that I think people tend to forget that. And I am sure that was just tremendously satisfying, invigorating, and exciting for a lot of people involved in that. I think part of it was that in Iraq, first off, it did not drag on. It was over quickly. The first call for it was basically bomb the shit out them, then go in there and mop up. And Americans of course did not die in anything close to the numbers they died in Vietnam. So, I think it is different situations than Vietnam. And I think the second Iraq war, which is still going on, but also has not involved American deaths on anywhere near scale. SM (00:52:35): 4,000 plus. TW (00:52:39): Not the scale of what took place in Vietnam. And I think it is as much there is no draft, right? SM (00:52:47): Um-hmm. TW (00:52:48): No draft. So, I think it is a much more difficult situation to sustain that kind of movement. Plus, you are talking about all these factors that fed into the student protests during the 1960s. But you're probably much more well versed than I am at this point. But all these different factors that could say, I mean, wait a second. Just like the fact we had a baby boomer generation and all these people in institutions of higher education. And all these people in a place where they can learn stuff which would lead them to protest. So, you did not have that demographic later on, too. SM (00:53:21): It seems to me, one of the questions that I asked Jack Wheeler III, who wrote Touched with Fire, he is one of the veterans that was written about in the Long Gray Line book, the class of (19)66 at West Point. Let us see, I just lost my train of thought here. It was a question. Oh, Steve, what were you thinking? I will get back to it. I lost my train of thought. I do not usually do that. I got off my questions here and I am got an order here and I do not know.... TW (00:53:55): It has come to me recently; it is kind of like... SM (00:53:57): Yeah, I have my questions here, but I was thinking of Jack Wheeler and... TW (00:54:01): Is something about it wrong? SM (00:54:05): No, oh, it was about the generation gap. And the fact is that there is a book called, it was a book that came out around 1980, and they had a symposium in which Phil Caputo, Jack Wheeler, James Fallows, Susan Jacoby, they were all involved in this panel. And they talked about the generation gap. And I would like your thoughts on this. The generation gap was not as strong as people said between the parents, the World War II people, and their kids. And they brought up, I think it was Senator Webb, he was not a Senator then, Jim Webb, who said that the real generation gap was within the generation, it was between those who served in the war and those who did not. TW (00:54:59): There is both, I would think it would have been very depressing for a lot of parents when their kids are suddenly growing their hair long and are criticizing their government's policies and experimenting with drugs. And then there is some music that their parents are not into, I think that would be, I am sure it was very perplexing for a lot of parents. And somewhat frightening for some parents. And probably contributed to a lot of distance between parents and their children at that time. But I am sure there were also plenty of relationships between parents and their kids. But they just had close relationships. But they were able to talk through a lot of this stuff. And a lot of the parents, I mean, I say a lot, but certainly some of the parents were influenced by their kids and maybe participated to some extent themselves in various alternative lifestyles. So certainly, some of those, one of the themes among younger militant youth was questioning your parents, maybe rejecting your parents, and rejecting the whole establishment. So, there were a lot of divisions and a lot of distance, a lot of perplexity. SM (00:56:19): What are your thoughts though, of the generation gap, as Jim Webb said. That the (19)60s’ generation is often defined by what John Kennedy used to talk about, "Ask, not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." So thus, there is an expectation amongst many who served in Vietnam that one of your duties is to serve. When you are called to war, you serve. And then there is also the Peace Corps and Vista and alternative service. If you did not believe, if you are a conscientious objector, you still did alternative service. And he said he believes that when you talk about the (19)60s' generation, you are really talking about a generation that really did not believe in service. And history books will say, well, it was a very service-oriented generation because of the Peace Corps and all the things Kennedy was talking about. Your thoughts on that? TW (00:57:12): Well, I do not think the government ever had a problem in getting enough young people to serve in Vietnam. So, there is certainly plenty of people who were willing to serve. But I think if you think that what we are doing in Vietnam is a moral abomination, the idea of serving your country... SM (00:57:28): Hold on one second, I have got 30 more minutes here. I am going to turn my tape, there you go. All right, go right ahead. TW (00:57:48): Well, like I said, the government never had a problem getting enough young people to serve in the military during Vietnam. The protests never prevented them from having enough folks. But on the other hand, if you think that what we are doing in Vietnam is a simple mass murder, and is a moral abomination, then the idea of serving your country in the military is ludicrous. So, the idea that the younger generation during the (19)60s, there were none who were willing to serve their country. It was flat out wrong because there were plenty of young people, there were a lot of them, who supported that war. And a lot of people who entered the military service. So, there were quite a large number who believed in military service, [inaudible] the troops. And of course, you have people who joined the Peace Corps, who maybe you were talking about a different type of young person who's probably [inaudible]. SM (00:58:51): One thing that I did not realize, there was a great anecdote, when you talked about Robert Lowell, the poet, who actually Senator McCarthy always looked up to. I think Senator McCarthy always wanted to be a poet. And when I interviewed him, he kept talking about Robert Lowell a lot. But you bring up the fact, in this little section, a very small section though, about artists against the war. You talk about Robert Lowell boycotting the White House Festival of the Arts. And how Johnson called them "Those sons of bitches who were boycotting and who had turned the culture of celebration into a platform on Vietnam." And then you had the Dwight McDonald situation, I forget who was really upset with him, somebody in the cabinet. But in the end, there was an FBI clearance after this for anybody who got involved or came to the White House. Just your thoughts, and the fact that artists are oftentimes attacked. That is writers, entertainers, are often, sometimes, are attacked for doing protests against war. Sean Penn comes to mind. And people are very critical of them saying, "Just go back to what you are doing. You have no right to make commentary here." TW (01:00:17): Yeah, I have never agreed with that at all. I do not see why just because they are an actor or an actress or a well-known artist, why that should prohibit them from speaking out on political issues. I disagree with that completely. And I think one of the things that the Johnson administration people were concerned about with somebody like Robert Lowell, they were well aware that when prominent people like that came out against the war, that those prominent people could easily influence other people. And I think that made them very nervous. So, they did not like that at all. SM (01:00:54): Of course, the most obvious one is Jane Fonda. Your thoughts on her? TW (01:01:03): I admire the fact that she played a role in opposing the Vietnam War. Now all I know is when she went to North Vietnam, the media really focused on, I believe she probably made a foolish judgment to pose next to a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery. But a lot of people went to the North, not a lot, but there were a number of people in the anti-war movement, particularly leaders who traveled to North Vietnam during that war to see what was going on, to get a firsthand sense of the war in North Vietnam. And I do not criticize her for going to North Vietnam. She had a right to go there. I think any American had a right to go there to try to get a better sense of what was going on there. I do not think she should be criticized for that. And she was also active in... I admire what she did. And she was also active later on in, I believe, when she was with Tom Hayden... I believe when she was with Tom Hayden in a group called the Indochina Peace Campaign that was involved in a lot of congressional laws towards the end of the war to get Congress to cut off US funds for the war, US supports for Thieu in South Vietnam and Lon Nol in Cambodia, and to pressure South Vietnam to release their political prisoners. I believe she was involved in that with Hayden and then everybody else in the Indochina Peace Campaign and other groups that were doing that the later part of the war. So, I admire her. I admire her. SM (01:02:34): Yeah, the musicians, they were all, well, not all of them, many of them were, in their songs, talking about the war and about civil rights and women's rights. TW (01:02:46): That is all part of the insight. That is all part of the movement. SM (01:02:56): Yeah. Part of the counterculture. The importance of teach-ins is... Teach-ins were very big when I was in college, but I did not realize that the very first teach-in was at Michigan. TW (01:03:02): Yeah. SM (01:03:03): And Carl Oglesby, you bring up his name, and he has written some pretty good books. And then they had the big one at Berkeley with Jerry Rubin and one other person when they were grad students there. Could you talk to how important teach-ins were? Because many people were really involved in them and historically the teach-ins' link to Earth Day is also very important. TW (01:03:29): Well, I think what they did, I mean once... You first had that teach-in in Michigan, and you had the big one at Berkeley, and there were teach-ins at campuses all over the country. And I think what they did is they got a lot of people interested, focused on Vietnam and the Vietnam War. They educated a lot of people to the history of US involvement in Vietnam, how we got involved and what we were doing there. And I think they mobilized a lot of younger people, and faculty members, professors against the war. And I think they were just a tremendous impetus to the growth of the anti-war... The debate about Vietnam just spread like wildfire during that period. And I think they were, well, they were a great source of concern inside the Johnson administration. Because Johnson wanted a quieter war. He did not want all these people out there talking about the war and protesting them on campuses. And they knew very well that this was a bad situation. And suddenly the campuses, all these students were talking about the war, and turning against the war as a result of participating in teach-ins and other people. So, they were very concerned about it. And initially, they sent some government officials out there to the campuses to participate in the teach-ins to have debates. But the government officials did not do so well at the teach-ins. They did not convince so many students of what the government was doing in Vietnam. So, they eventually withdrew them. They stopped sending people out to campuses because they realized [inaudible]. And there were some cases where high-level officials like [inaudible] participated in teach-ins, but they said a whole bunch of [inaudible]. They were not willing to go out there and get [inaudible] SM (01:05:29): Yeah. And I interviewed Senator Nelson many years ago, and if you read on the background on the preparations for Earth Day, he sat down with the... He and other organizers, I think Dennis Hayes, they made sure that it was okay to go ahead with Earth Day. They did not want to spend the anti-war movement. And they actually consulted with them in preparation for Earth Day. And they were very impressed with teach-ins. TW (01:05:52): Oh, for this 1970s? SM (01:05:53): That was 1970. The SNCC, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, those early activities from (19)60 to (19)64. Then you got Freedom Summer in (19)64. And then you had the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in (19)64 and (19)65. Could you say how important they were as events, in terms of shaping the leadership of the anti-war movement? TW (01:06:22): Well, I think that a lot of people got part of their political education from the civil rights movement, and learning about grassroots organizing and talking to people, going out and talking to people. And I think that was also just the general part of people's political education, in terms of learning about American society and the injustices in American society and probably radicalizing a number of people too. So, more than a few of the early anti-war leaders had been active in the civil rights movement beforehand, and in the Bay, Area were active in the free speech movement. So, you had a lot of leaders, even leaders early on involved in the anti-war movement. I think they learned a lot from their prior experiences. I think it helped the anti-war movement quite a bit, to have those sorts of people with those sorts of experiences getting involved. SM (01:07:23): Would you say those experiences, particularly of SNCC and Freedom Summer, where they went after voter registration after they were trying to have equal housing and all the other things, would you say that this is the epitome of what Dr. Barber was saying about the stronger the citizenry, the lesser need for a strong leader? Because here we had citizens who not only were not known to the public, but they just felt it was their duty to go south to help those who were in need of help at their own risks, and they were not after a lot of publicity. TW (01:08:04): No, I could not put it any better than you just put it. In the Barber quote I think that is exactly what he is talking about. SM (01:08:13): How did the new Left differ from the old Left? And what separated them and what united them? TW (01:08:20): Partly, it was cultural. The new Left was countercultural, much more likely to... The new Left was more likely to be countercultural, far more likely to be countercultural than the old Left. They were more likely to be militant tactically. The old communist party and the Socialist Workers Party, probably the two most prominent old Left groups were fairly conservative tactically in the anti-war movement. They were not into militant civil obedience, anything approaching "mobile tactics". But people in the new Left were much more open to that sort of thing, and much more, in terms of lifestyle, were inclined to be countercultural in all the various facets of countercultural lifestyle, participate in those. The new Left was much straighter, probably the organizations, much more intellectual, self-disciplined organizations. I do not know if they were talking about practicing democratic centralism, but probably, I guess. But in both of those two groups, they'd come up with a line, the Social Workers Party or the CP, which, by the way, hated each other, they would develop a line, they'd have a political line in the group, and members of those groups were expected to promote that line in the anti-war movement. New Left was more decentralized, much looser, younger, generally, and again, more countercultural. SM (01:10:04): We made reference to this earlier on because William Buckley, I guess, was the founder of the Young Americans for Freedom. They met at his house. How important were conservative student groups in the (19)60s and (19)70s? Because we do not hear a whole lot about them. TW (01:10:21): They were not nearly as important as the anti-war [inaudible]. When they turned out at protests, say as a counter protest or a pro-war protest, generally, which both governments, Johnson and Nixon administrations were involved in organizing and fostering at various points. They were much smaller. Their numbers were much smaller. Their active visible presences were much less significant than the public presence of the anti-war students. There were an awful lot of young people who supported the war, but in terms of the activists, the active conservative young people were, they were insignificant compared to the protests. SM (01:11:13): One thing that is not discussed very much is the friction between what we call the intellectual students and the fraternities and sororities on campus. There was a lot of tension. And so, many times when there was an anti-war protest or students would block recruiters from coming on campus, the ones that were on the other side were mostly fraternity and sororities and sometimes athletes. How serious was that division on college campuses, say in the mid (19)60s to late (19)60s, between fraternities and what I call the more... And do not forget, I advised a fraternity, and there is a lot of smart intellectuals in fraternities and sororities, but there was a perception that was written at that time, it was called the non-conformist intellectual as opposed to the conformist fraternity and sorority brothers and sisters and athletes. How serious was that? TW (01:12:16): Well, my guess is you know more about that than I do at this point. And I would think there was a lot of shouting matches, but I do not know at what point the anti-war organizers and activists generally just decided to write those people off, to talk to other people. I am sure in 1965, the [inaudible] movement was taking off, they were trying to reach everybody they could. I am talking about the anti-war activists and organizers. They were trying to reach their fellow students generally. And there has been a huge amount of, a lot of debate and a lot of arguments, a lot of animosity, and probably a certain amount of fights between the two sides. But I would imagine at certain points, and again, I am sure more about this than I do by this point, that they said, the anti-war people said, "We are going to talk to other people. We are not going to waste [inaudible]." SM (01:13:15): Well, the anti-war people had a tremendous influence on a lot of presidents and administrations in terms of banning recruiters on campus. That was somewhat successful. And now you read that it is so popular to have recruiters on campus. It is a difference of night and day. TW (01:13:34): Yeah, that is my understanding too. I think, actually my son, he is just starting high school, but I think we had to sign something to say we did not want... Yeah, I agree that there's much more access, but I think they can call people and I think they [inaudible]. SM (01:14:00): The part here on statement, I made reference to it earlier, is about participatory democracy. And they inferred someplace within the document that they feared that this generation would be the last generation on earth. Would you say that was more of a fatalistic approach to take regarding democracy and liberty in the future, or were they just expressing the fears of many of the youth of that era based on what they learned in the (19)50s and early (19)60s because of the society they grew up in, which was with the bomb, the threat of nuclear war, the fear of speaking up a la McCarthyism, the hidden realities of race and poverty in America that were exposed in Freedom Summer and the SCLC experiences? Just your thoughts on that. TW (01:14:50): Well, I think there were a number of people who were involved in the (19)60s who had been active against the bomb, like you said earlier, which would have fed into some of that. And I think a lot of people were very, during the Vietnam War, a lot of activists were very concerned that this wound really get out of hand. They did not know how far the government would take this. And they were pretty cynical about the people in the government. So, they were concerned that this could lead the World War III. And there was a certain amount of apocalyptic thinking, I think, which took place. It was a heady time. A lot of stuff was going on, and not only in the United States, but in other countries. And there was a certain amount of apocalyptic thinking, and so there were certainly people who were concerned that this could really bad [inaudible] nuclear conflict. SM (01:15:53): One of the things I try to... I have not asked too many people, but I wanted to ask you in more detail is what was the impact of the war within or on the university campuses in the (19)60s and (19)70s? Bear with me, I am going to throw these all out, and then you can answer as you want to. The questions are this: how did universities change due to dissent? Number two, were the changes permanent? Number three, students challenged the multi diversity and the knowledge factory mentality, were they successful? And have universities today forgotten the lessons learned via what I consider amnesia about what happened back in the (19)60s and (19)70s? And I think we learned a lot because of the experience of Tiananmen Square in 1989, that when school started in the fall of (19)89, no one was hardly talking about that event. TW (01:16:52): Well, I think in terms of the universities changing, that probably affected the course offerings quite a bit. More critical courses on American society and various aspects of American society. And I think there were more much student-led courses, student [inaudible]. I think a lot of university, like you mentioned Ted Hesburgh earlier, there were a lot of university presidents who got pretty nervous and concerned that there is building occupations and other form of student developments were just going to get worse and they were going to lose control of their place. And I do not know how that played out in terms of policy for its students, but my guess is it led to certain [inaudible], they were really going to lose the control of the place. SM (01:17:47): Yeah. I think when the Free Speech Movement, when Mario Savio spoke, he talked about, the issue was ideas. The university is about ideas, not about the corporate mentality in our society. And I interviewed Arthur Chickering, one of the educators who wrote the book Education and Identity in the (19)70s that I studied in graduate school. And he is a conservative, but he said at the very end, I said, "Is there any criticism you have of today's universities?" And he says, "Yes, the corporations have taken control again." And that is what the students fought against in the (19)60s, is the corporate mentality, the knowledge of... Knowledge is important, I am not talking about that. But when they talk about the knowledge factory, the assembly line, everybody come out the same, no questioning, just accept everything. I am starting to see, and I do not know if you see it, some trends that, as if the (19)60s never happened. TW (01:18:57): Well, you probably know, but my guess is there were a lot fewer people decided who were business majors at that time and a lot more people [inaudible] liberal arts. So, I am guessing it had a big effect in the curriculum at universities. But I do not know that. SM (01:19:17): Could you talk a little bit about, I brought up Father Hesburgh, and to me, it's one of the best six to eight pages in your book, when you talk about what happened, his revelations that he did not think (19)64 was... He thought it was an isolated incident at Berkeley, and that the Columbia Rebellion really turned his head. And then he said he looked at the pad and in the pad over 100 presidents had been fired for one reason or another. TW (01:19:54): He was the president of Notre Dame, and he had, earlier in the war, had been a war supporter. And he was very upset by student protests on his campus, and how far they were taking things. And he was not just upset, he was unsettled by it. And he noticed that a lot of his fellow university presidents were basically fighting with that. They were being forced out. They were either being forced out because of whatever they did to respond to student protests, or they were resigning. And he felt he was one of the few of his colleagues who was still there. But he just said that the anti-war youth really had a big influence on him in terms of leading him to question the war a lot more. And my understanding is he initially took a fairly hard line toward student protests. And he spent a lot of time talking to the students. He was out there with the kids. And they had a big impact on his attitude towards the Vietnam War. I believe he said something to the effect of, the young people really turned the tide on this one. They influenced from [inaudible]. He was very upfront about the fact that the youth had a big impact on his views on Vietnam and played a big impact on the clinic and the war. He is one of many influential people who were affected by younger protestors, by the end, and leading them to question the war more. There are a lot of other people. John Oakes at the New York Times was the editor of the editorial pages of the New York Times. He was very forthcoming [inaudible] that the protests had a big impact on him and on the New York Times editorials before and getting him to question the war more. And the clinics were also concerned again about what protests was doing for American society and causing society to fall apart. So, Hesburgh was one among many influential people who were affected to some degree by anti-war protests. SM (01:22:15): Do you think those students, and again, I was on [inaudible] campus, I saw this, they would have demands, and then if those demands were met, they would come up with more demands, knowing that none of these demands could totally be okayed by them. It was a strategy they were using just because they were frustrated with anybody in any role of leadership anywhere. There did not seem to be any trust in any person of responsibility back then. And whether you were a president, or even the vice president of student affairs, or the mayor of the city, or the congressperson, or senator, or even your rabbi, or your minister, or priest. Anybody in a position of responsibility was looked down upon for a variety of reasons. Do you think that is why the attacks on this generation at times, I use this word genuine, many of the them continue to be genuine, like Tom Hayden was genuine, but those that win into these tactics really hurt the image of the movement overall, and thus people nowadays, when they look back, they can criticize the entire group based on the antics of a few. TW (01:23:28): Yeah, I think that is true, that some of the more, we say the more way-out youthful protestors, it hurt the overall protesters public image. That is undeniable. But on the other hand, again, I do not know that the people in the government made a lot of distinctions between these different forms of protests. I think to them it was really just part of one ball of wax. And all of that stuff fed into the government's perceptions that the Vietnam War was not sustainable, and this could even get worse. All of that stuff played a part turning around [inaudible]. But on the other hand, yeah, they... But some of the stuff, people might have been turned off by some of the more outlandish public displays of some of these protesters, but again, with the public too, it's all part of that phenomenon out there, which is causing a lot of people to start to think about Vietnam, whereas they would not have otherwise. SM (01:24:31): Right. Do you believe Black Power was a good thing? TW (01:24:35): Yeah, I do. Because why should Black people have more control over their lives? SM (01:24:46): What are some of the myths of the Vietnam War, the myths that are out there about, as you call the war within, and the myths of the war from without or outside the war? TW (01:25:03): I do not know. As we were talking about earlier, I think a lot of people are not aware of just how early on senior people in the Johnson administration realized that they were up against it, and that the war was maybe unwinnable, just how early they were coming to that conclusion. I think a lot of people are unaware of that. Other myths about the Vietnam War, that it was a good cause. SM (01:25:45): That is a myth. How about Ron Reagan says it was a noble cause. Is that a myth? TW (01:25:48): Yeah. I do not think we had any business being there in the first... No, I think that was not a noble cause. I think we just did not have any business... I am just generally of the view that we should stay out of other country's affairs. SM (01:26:03): Right. Can you go a couple more minutes here? TW (01:26:08): Yeah. I am going to meet a friend for a beer at 4:00. That is okay. I can call. I will get off the phone. I can call. SM (01:26:15): Yeah. I think about 30 more minutes. Is that okay? TW (01:26:19): Geez. God. Steven, can... Let us see, I have got about... I would probably have to leave here no later than a quarter till. SM (01:26:33): Oh, that is only 12 minutes from now. Okay. I bring up- TW (01:26:34): I am sorry. I just already set it up. SM (01:26:35): That is okay. We all know about things like the enemy's list of President Nixon and the COINTELPRO and McCarthyism, the rise from leaders, the infiltration within organizations that were against the war, where they tried to destroy character and careers. Speaking up, why is it that in a country that claims that we are a democracy and we go to war and die for liberty, which is all the freedoms that we know, but people who speak up, people who we do not become a yes man, people who challenge the system, people who see wrongs and try to right them, people who believe everyone is equal, and people who have the belief that we are all somebody, why is it that these people oftentimes are hurt the most? TW (01:27:37): Because the government does not like the spin against their policies, particularly when that dissent seems to threaten the policies, and because the government is often hypocritical. Government officials are often very hypocritical when they talk about, we are fighting, or we are fighting for freedom. It is so much empty sloganeering. It does not really mean that, unfortunately. So, it is not surprising that they will try to undercut their [inaudible] SM (01:28:18): Yeah. As I hear, what do these realities say about America, that Boomer youth experience, is this typical of the American way? Big Brother is watching us, especially if we are dissenters? TW (01:28:35): Well, I think it might have been of a larger scale during the Vietnam period than it has been fair in terms of the amount of government attempts to undermine the protest movement in all the different ways. They would send in undercover agents or try to stimulate infighting among the protestors through various means, [inaudible] pen letters or whatnot, and tapping telephones, and even breaking into some protest groups' offices. I think it was on a larger scale then, because of scales of dissent was a lot larger and quite a bit seemed to be at stake at that time, because, again, they were not sure how far this was going to go. Some people in the government were pretty concerned that this was going to grow to such an extent, you are talking about the threat of something really major, like insurrection or something. So, I think the stakes were higher at that time, and again, the scale of dissent with a lot greater. And I think that people are more aware of that now too, those [inaudible]. People learn how far the government will go to try to undermine the dissent during that period. So, people are more aware of it now. SM (01:29:54): Do you think we as a nation now, now this is two main questions I had for everybody since Senator McCarthy in (19)96, that we are a nation that has a problem with healing, particularly the Boomer generation? I took a group of students to Washington (19)95 and we met Senator Muskie, and the students came up with a question, because he had been the vice-presidential candidate in 1968, and they saw the videos of other disruptions, they knew about the assassinations and the so forth. So, this was their question. Due to the divisions that took place in the Boomer generation when they were young, divisions between Black and white, male and female, gay and straight, those who supported the war, those who were against it, those who supported the troops and those who were against them, that this may generation is going to go to its grave like the Civil war generation did, not truly healing. TW (01:30:48): I do not think that is true. I think a lot of people who were involved... I can just speak for myself. I am much less inclined to, I do not want to contest somebody's political views that I disagree with now than I was back in the (19)70s, (19)80s. I am much more accepting of other people's political views and just basically of the feeling that this friendship is not worth getting [inaudible]. Whereas in the (19)70s, I would not have said that at all. I would have wanted to argue it out almost all the time. And I think a lot of other Baby Boomers would probably have the same sentiment, that they are much more accepting and honor other people's political views. And again, a lot of those people, of course, they are more [inaudible] anyway. But I have changed a lot in that regard, and I am quite sure that is true of a lot of other [inaudible] SM (01:31:50): Well, Senator Muskie, they thought he was going to talk about 1968, he did not even mention it. He said, we have not healed since the Civil War and the issue of race, and that is what he- TW (01:32:00): Oh, race, that is a whole different animal. SM (01:32:03): Yeah, that is what he talked about. Honestly, you are well-read, and you read a lot of books that came out in the (19)60s and the (19)70s, what were the books that you liked the most, the books that were written about the period of the (19)60s and (19)70s? TW (01:32:19): Well, I loved because Patrick Sale's book on SDS. That was really inspiring. I am looking at my bookshelf here. I like this collection of Greetings on the Weatherman, was interesting. There was another earlier book, early SDS, Democracy is in the Streets by James Miller, which you have probably read. I read a lot of various stuff on student protests, some of which is good and some of it is not. I am trying to get down to look at... I basically read everything I could get my hands on, on student protests. I cannot see half of my bookshelf. SM (01:33:03): Did you- TW (01:33:03): And that is where... I am afraid I cannot see how [inaudible 01:33:03] my books though. SM (01:33:03): Did you think that The Greening of America by Charles Reich and The Making of a Counterculture by Roszak were good books? TW (01:33:11): I did not read the first one. And the second one, I remember I read. I am hesitant to even say anything, but I did not really like Roszak's book. I do not remember. SM (01:33:19): Erik Erickson wrote some pretty good books too, and so did Kenneth Keniston. TW (01:33:23): Yeah, I have got several of Keniston's books. Those are some of the ones I read. But I have basically got four bookshelves full books. SM (01:33:26): Yeah. Strawberry Statement by James Kunen and- TW (01:33:34): [inaudible]. SM (01:33:34): ...The Student as Nigger by Jerry Ferber. Or Farber I think. TW (01:33:38): Yeah. SM (01:33:40): And Harry Edwards' Black Students was a great one. There is a lot of good ones. Do you like the term, Boomer? TW (01:33:50): It does... It is never bothered me. It is the biggest generation in history. American [inaudible]. Boomer and it was a boom. Boom and burst, right? SM (01:34:01): Yep. TW (01:34:01): Is that what we are talking about? SM (01:34:05): Yeah. Some people have had a problem. That do not like the term. And they do not like any terms that define a generation. TW (01:34:11): Oh. Well, that does not bother me. SM (01:34:17): Do you... I am looking here before my last question here. How important were the Beats in the... For the (19)60s? TW (01:34:27): You had some. I think they were... Were they not a precursor to the later counterculture? SM (01:34:34): I think so. Yes. TW (01:34:35): Yeah. And you had... They were a literary group, right? A literary countercultural group and a bunch of pretty smart guys. So, they were certainly a precursor for later counterculture. I am not sure how much they influenced the later counterculture. SM (01:34:54): When I took sociology class in the '60s. Well, I took it in (19)67 from Dr. Lee. I still remember we had to read See Right Now, The Organization Man- TW (01:35:03): Right. SM (01:35:04): ...and some of those books. The Lonely Crowd by David Reisman. They really talked about the (19)50s and... Or post World War America leading up to 1960. And you learned a lot about the era and why the (19)60s may have come about. The last thing is... TW (01:35:24): I am sorry. Go ahead. SM (01:35:24): Yeah, go ahead. You are sociologists. Are those important books to you? TW (01:35:33): Mills was read by a lot of the student activists at the time. And Marcuse. Herbert Marcuse. Go ahead. SM (01:35:38): Yeah, this is... Since you only got a couple minutes here. Just what do these mean to you? These are real fast responses. What does the Vietnam Memorial mean to you? TW (01:35:50): Recognition of all the people who lost their lives in an immoral and senseless war. SM (01:35:57): What does Watergate mean to you? TW (01:36:03): The lunacy of the underside of the Nixon administration. SM (01:36:06): What does Woodstock mean to you? TW (01:36:12): Counterculture. SM (01:36:12): Yeah. And what does counterculture mean to you? TW (01:36:14): Long hair, music, and a more liberated lifestyle. SM (01:36:18): What do the hippies and the yippies mean to you? TW (01:36:22): Well, the hippies are somewhat different because the hippies generally I think were more politically active. And they were politically active in a creative way. In some ways it maybe was not always that productive, but I associated a good sense of humor with the Yip. Yeah. Funny. SM (01:36:38): How about 1968? The year? TW (01:36:42): Well, a lot of stuff seemed to be coming to a head at that time for a lot of people back. SM (01:36:47): The free speech movement. Berkeley (19)64, (19)65. TW (01:36:51): Well, I think a lot of people at Berkeley found their voice. SM (01:36:56): Kent State and Jackson State in 1970. TW (01:37:05): Pouring fuel on the fire. SM (01:37:06): [inaudible]. TW (01:37:12): No. Illuminating. Horribly illuminating. SM (01:37:15): Tet. TW (01:37:19): Turn around. SM (01:37:21): Earth Day. TW (01:37:21): That was a whole different scene. SM (01:37:26): The Black Panthers. TW (01:37:26): Militant. SM (01:37:31): Yeah. And of course, one thing I have had someone... Several people have said, "You cannot use the term straight Black Panthers. You got to talk about the personalities." And of course, they are referring to Huey Newton, Bobby Seal, Eldridge Cleaver, Kathleen Cleaver, H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael. They are... He said they are all unique personalities. TW (01:37:54): Well, I think you might find some people, probably including myself even, are hesitant to criticize the Black Panthers. Which was true at the time because you were concerned about other people perceiving you as racist. I think there was a lot of that going on at that time. A lot of it. Some of it still. SM (01:38:10): Stonewall. TW (01:38:12): Gay liberation. SM (01:38:13): American Indian movement. TW (01:38:18): Russell Means and what is the guy? Banks? SM (01:38:20): Yes. TW (01:38:21): Yeah. SM (01:38:22): The National Organization for Women, which is Betty Freidan and- TW (01:38:25): Gloria Steinem. SM (01:38:25): ...Gloria Steinem. TW (01:38:25): Yeah. SM (01:38:34): And why do you feel... I will end with this. Why do you feel of all... Of the people in the... These are the people that I think when you think of the (19)60s and the (19)70s were the most disliked by the anti-war people or anybody on the left or anybody in the end. These are the ones that really set fires going. Left or right. And these were the names. Jane Fonda, Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger, Spiro Agnew, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and William Westmoreland. There is something about them that really stirs people when you mention their names. TW (01:39:14): Well, I went... When you say both on the left and the right, I do not know if the main premise says everybody on the left. But I would just pick out the most visible architects and prosecutors of the war. Most inclined stuff to elicit that kind of reaction. SM (01:39:36): Are there... My last question. Are there any character? I know one of the things that they said. Only 15 percent of the Boomer generation was involved in any kind of activism. TW (01:39:46): Oh. Huh. SM (01:39:46): Some people felt that is even high. It is really more 5 percent. TW (01:39:51): Oh, really? Yeah, I do not know. SM (01:39:52): Yeah. See... TW (01:39:52): I am curious. SM (01:39:54): Huh? TW (01:39:55): I would be curious. Because I know it was always a minority and there were plenty of conservative students out there. But again, it was both. Conservative students. Because they act just the same. SM (01:40:09): Well, sometimes people used that to lessen the impact of a generation. That it was a minority. But it was a large minority, if you consider there was 74 million people. TW (01:40:23): Activists were always a minority. SM (01:40:23): Right. TW (01:40:23): In fact, I just... Briefly, I will tell you before I leave. When I got a bunch of these government officials to talk to me for that book, I spent a lot of time trying to phrase out my letters to them. And I decided I had better describe the anti-war movement as a vocal anti-war minority. SM (01:40:35): Say that again? TW (01:40:38): I decided after talking to several people that I better describe the anti-war movement as the vocal, anti-war minority. To try to get the government officials from Johnson and Nixon administration to talk to me. Particularly because I was a graduate student at first. SM (01:40:52): Right. TW (01:40:52): I was trying to come up with a way that would make them less likely to perceive me as a just Berkeley guy. SM (01:40:59): Wow. Yeah. And when you were trying to get people to be interviewed, were you getting one Yes and one No. Was it 50-50? TW (01:41:09): No, I was astounded in that. You mean the government people? SM (01:41:12): Oh, no. All the people you tried to reach for the book. TW (01:41:16): No, it was a definite majority. A substantial majority. I was... Yeah, it was a small minority that would not talk but it was... It was one of the most exciting times in my life. Getting responses from the Johnson and the Nixon people. That was exciting. I remember one day I got a positive response from Richard Helms, Dean Russ and somebody else like [inaudible]. Same day. That was exciting. SM (01:41:41): How would you even reach those people? TW (01:41:42): Oh, I tracked them down through Who's Who in America mostly. Now it is a lot easier with the internet, but it was mostly Who's Who in America. And then the anti-war activists, I called them all by phone. I just screwed up my courage, and I would get on a roll and call a bunch of people at once. SM (01:41:57): Well, so you were calling them. And so sometimes they did not respond to letters, but they responded to calls. TW (01:42:04): Well, I am talking... Actually, I am thinking more about my other two books in terms of not getting a letter. Not responding to a letter then having to call them. Because I was sending letters to almost everybody later. But yeah, I just found a huge number. In terms of what you are going through now, I think you are probably going to have to call a bunch of people and even keep pestering them. Not in a... In a nice way. But there were people I had to leave messages a bunch of times before I would find them. But I just did not give up. It is kind of the way I am. SM (01:42:32): Yeah. Well, I was getting just about everybody in the beginning. And now that I am almost completed, I have all these names. I do not know. They know who I have interviewed, and I am not getting as much of a response to some of these. TW (01:42:46): Oh, really? SM (01:42:47): Yeah, because I... TW (01:42:48): I think email is bad. I think email generally is probably not the best because some people get... There are people out there, maybe you are one of them, they get a huge amount of email. SM (01:42:56): Right. TW (01:42:57): And I think it just gets scary. And they are dealing with so much that I think it is much easier... I think you are going to have to call and maybe write letters and then it's... I know it is time consuming, but it is... I give up sometimes just because I do not feel like screwing my courage up to get on the phone. Keep the contact to somebody through a letter or email first. But third point, it is like, "Okay. If I really want to talk to this person, I got to try." SM (01:43:17): I am surprised how many people have never seen the email. TW (01:43:21): Oh, really? SM (01:43:22): Yeah, they get the email, but... TW (01:43:24): Well, that is... SM (01:43:25): Yeah. Some people do not even read their emails very often. TW (01:43:29): Yeah. SM (01:43:29): So, there is a lot of that. So probably the phone call is important. TW (01:43:34): Yeah, I think it is. I think there is probably... You will probably have to do more of that. SM (01:43:35): Yeah. All right. TW (01:43:35): I better go. SM (01:43:42): Yeah. The last. What do you think the lasting legacy will be of the Boomer generation, when the best sociology and history books are written 50 years from now? TW (01:43:49): The (19)60s. SM (01:43:56): The (19)60s will be the legacy? TW (01:44:00): Well, I see... Like I said, I am not really a student of the Baby Boom generation. When I think about the Baby Boom generation, I think about the (19)60s. About that- SM (01:44:09): You are part of it, though. TW (01:44:11): ...and the universities. SM (01:44:11): Yeah. You are part of it though. Because you were born in what? (19)55? TW (01:44:17): Yeah, but I do... I was in the middle of the... Essentially the middle of that demographic. SM (01:44:19): Right. TW (01:44:20): On the other hand, I really was not part of the (19)60s protest. When I graduated from high school... I am 73. SM (01:44:27): Right. TW (01:44:28): So, I was not part of it. SM (01:44:29): So, any other things you want to say or basically that is it? TW (01:44:33): No, I actually better go. In fact, I got to call my friend and tell him. SM (01:44:36): Okay. TW (01:44:38): Hey, thanks very much Stephen. I enjoyed it. SM (01:44:39): Yeah, somehow, I got to get two pictures of you. TW (01:44:42): Okay. Two? SM (01:44:44): Two pictures. You can mail them to me. That is the best thing. TW (01:44:46): Can I take one on my computer? SM (01:44:48): Yep, you can do that as well. TW (01:44:50): Okay. SM (01:44:51): Thanks. Have a good day. TW (01:44:51): Yeah. Nice talking to you. SM (01:44:53): Same here. Bye. (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 Tom Wells Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Wells, Tom ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Editors; Historians; Authors; United States—History—1961-1969;Wells, Tom--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Tom Wells is an editor, historian, and author. Dr. Wells wrote several books and contributed articles to multiple books on the Vietnam War and the 1960s. He has also received dozens of fellowships and grants from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, among other institutions. He has a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Berkeley. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-08-19 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.10.2016.121a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.121b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 216:23