Subscription 790/year or 190/quarter

Sixties without filter

1968 must be demythologized. It was in fact a terrible year.





(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)

[Rebellion] The 1960s and 1968, the single year that symbolizes the whole decade, have generally been given an exceptional and distinctive status, regardless of what one might think of the events of the decade and their consequences: a time of rebellion, wrestling and transformation – political, cultural and personal. This has also been the basic view of most historians who have considered the period. In the book The Sixties Unplugged. A Kaleidoscopic History of a Disorderly Decade challenges the American-British history professor Gerard J. DeGroot such a holistic view, at the same time as he wants to dispel a number of larger and smaller myths about and from the 60s.

One myth DeGroot will reject is that it is meaningful to consider the sixties as a whole, and this is reflected in the way the book is structured. Through 67 standalone stories under 15 resolved thematic chapters he tells about and evaluates the significance of events and personalities of the decade. According to DeGroot, if anything is the sixties, there is disorder and a lack of inner meaning and context – not a movement towards a new and better or worse society. 1968 refers to DeGroot as "that dreadful year" – not because he thinks the Sixties ruined society or failed a beneficial project, but because this year's events and actions were tragic, meaningless and futile.

Degraded students and hippies

DeGroot's topic selection shows what he thinks is important to point out from the 60s, and what he believes should be demystified and devalued. International politics, the rise of consumerism and social movements are among the important, but should in many ways be re-evaluated. Student revolts and the emergence of youth and counterculture should be downgraded when mentality and societal changes are to be explained. Especially on the last point, DeGroot challenges much of the sixties research.

The left-wing student movements, hippies and other countercultures are criticized in several chapters – both the actors themselves and their notions. Leading the way, DeGroot believes that neither student nor lifestyle rebels succeeded in bringing about anything, since they had no reasonable or coherent ideology or ability to build stable organizations. As an explanation for this, he shows in crushing layers of naivety, self-esteem, thirst for violence and other negative traits that characterize young adults who have not had to take responsibility for anyone but themselves.

Many of the myths DeGroot wants to kill have already been killed, but tenacious delusions need to be refuted repeatedly. One is the myth of Mao and the Cultural Revolution, which in reality was an unbelievably tragic carnage. Another is the myth of the unity of the American civil rights movement symbolized by the demonstration train in Washington in 1963, where Martin Luther King gave his "I have a dream" speech. In mythology, a model demonstration with full support for King's pacifism, but beneath the surface, conflicts simmered and the movement soon took a more violent direction.

Alternate heroes and stories

DeGroot will also tell hidden stories and highlight some he believes are more entitled to status as sixties heroes. Among DeGroot's heroes are those who helped create social change without political dogmatism, and those who consistently questioned what happened around them and went their own way – such as the Dutch Provo movement and Bob Dylan. Others he highlights are union leader and civil rights activist Cesar Chavez who organized farm workers in the southwestern United States, and zoologist and author Rachel Carson who challenged the agrochemical industry to create awareness about environmental damage.
An important hidden story is how the conservative student movement in the US and the Young Americans for Freedom organization were more successful in both the short and long term than their far more talked about counterpart on the left, Students for a Democratic Society (YAF still exists, SDS collapsed at the beginning of the 1970s). Furthermore, he shows how both Nixon and Reagan deliberately played on the skepticism of large groups of voters against left-wing radical students and countercultural and twisted the United States in a conservative direction. The Leftists 'revolutionaries were the reactionaries' best friends.
A quarter of the chapters deal with events in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Several of these put Western sixties tales into perspective. The bloody repression of the student uprising in Mexico in 1968, and the authorities' subsequent darkening of the abuses, make Paris ´68 appear in a different light. Suharto's CIA-backed coup in Indonesia, in which between 500.000 and one million were killed, is an example of atrocities that took place under the radar of the West's Vietnam-focused anti-war movements.

Excessive undressing

DeGroot's stories are well written, and often work well as brief introductions to the various topics. However, many are characterized more by sharp formulations than by discussion, and not all the myth-breaking is equally convincing. DeGroot's descriptions of individuals and groups who did not live up to his ideals can be so ragged and simplistic that they arouse more skepticism than a sense of understanding.

The perceptions of the 60s are undoubtedly characterized by symbols, myths and myth-makers who deserve to be challenged and examined. DeGroot has chosen the title The Sixties Unplugged – an allusion to the 90's MTV program where the great artists of the time played their hits acoustically – to signal that he will write a story about the decade "free of amplifiers, synthesizers and filters that hide imperfections and obscures opinion". Some artists got a boost from the "honest" acoustic expression, while others sounded awful. What is always decisive, however, is how the various elements are mixed, a process with great possibilities for manipulation. DeGroot's mix is ​​interesting and fresh, but it should have been possible to make it more balanced.

Reviewed by Dag F. Gravem

You may also like