Customer Reviews

Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Looking back on one's past generally evokes one of two responses. Either a) "Wow, wasn't that a great time!" or b) "Dear God, what was I thinking?" Occasionally one can summon up a bit of both but at the very least we look back with a degree of bemusement. When self-professed "New Left radicals" Peter Collier and David Horowitz look back at the 1960s their reaction is decidedly "what was I thinking" sort. The result is that this book has essentially two speeds: bitchy and cranky.

The bitchy parts comprise some of the most enjoyable reading of the year for me.

Since this is a tale of apostasy the cranky parts are to be expected. The authors went from the New Left to embracing anti-communism in a big way, they're looking back in bitterness. Because they were insiders the perspective Collier and Horowitz aren't giving us the Woodstock and tie-dyed Sixties, they're telling stories that range from ironic ("Post-Vietnam Syndrome") to heartbreaking (Fay Stender) to verging on self-parody (The Weather Underground) to just flat out hilarious (the Berkeley City Council). The little known story of Fay Stender alone makes this book worth reading. How can the story of a nice Jewish girl who embraced every cause of the 1960s, became a major force in a prison rights, joined the feminist movement, found true love only to become the target of an assassination attempt by the very prisoners for whom she once so tireless fought have not been made into a movie yet.

The Weather Underground chapter, on the other hand, could make a fine absurdist comedy. What's more hilarious than upper middle-class white boys declaring themselves "crazy motherf*ers" devoted to "scaring the s* out of honky America"? I'll tell you what, it's an ENFORCED orgy that generates this morning after comment "I'm sure they have to do it this way in Vietnam." No dummy, they didn't. Say what you will about Ho Chi Minh, no one has accused him of directing the sex lives of the Vietnamese people like Benardine Dohrn and company. You'll hear less exhortations to arm yourself at an NRA convention than you will from a few pages of the WU. I guess polishing one's, ahem, gun helped pass the time between those required orgies. We find that, just like the Baader-Meinhof gang, the WU leadership had more in common with the Three Stooges than Marx or Lenin.

Nothing, however, prepares one for the laughs that are generated by the proceedings of the Berkeley city council. No since Eric Hobsbawm called Marie Antoinette "chicken-brained" have I laughed so hard at a serious history. The highlight is undoubtedly when the council, irked at having to tear themselves away from formulating their policy on Nicaragua, must deal with the growing issue of the homeless in the city. Those pesky homeless people just don't get the dialectic. Their rowdiness at a council meeting inspires the "radical" mayor to tell them "if we can't have order here, we'll just end the meeting and go home."

Guess what the homeless people said in response to that.

This isn't a single narrative but a collection of previously published magazine pieces (broadsides?) and essays on the author's journeys (literal and metaphorical), and as this was originally published in the 1980s quite a bit of time is spent on Nicaragua. When Collier and Horowitz are taking the humorless, gullible and inept to task, they're at their best. When they're on one of their anti-communist rants, well, it just feels dated.

What hangs most over this book is not regret, but the ghost of Betty Van Patter. An accountant that Collier and Horowitz persuaded to work with the Black Panthers as a bookkeeper in one of their community projects, Van Patter was apparently murdered by members of the group after she uncovered evidence of embezzlement. Their crushing disillusionment with their own actions and their own illusions stems from this tragedy yet the authors don't oversell this story, they don't excuse or pity themselves. These are two very talent writers who can create a compelling narrative like few others.

Yes, they have their opinions and they couldn't be more up front about them. I enjoy diverse opinions but given a choice I'd rather read a balanced history book than one slanted to any political persuasions. There are exceptions, of course. Paul M. Johnson is an enjoyable writer who isn't afraid of a bit of research and he is a man of fixed opinions but he's quite upfront about his point of view. He doesn't pretend to be unbiased or dispassionate so even though I frequently disagree with his views, I enjoy reading his work. He makes his case and dares you to disagree. He's also frequently laugh out loud funny. The same goes for Eric Hobsbawm, Christopher Hitchens and Susan Jacoby. The tell it as they see it never forgetting to inform and engage along the way.

On occasion I found myself disagreeing with the authors' too sweeping dismissiveness of the possibility that anything positive came from the Sixties. The New Left represented only a portion of the events of that decade and while Collier and Horowitz effectively dismantle any illusions that might remain about that on occasion they write as if the New Left was the only story from that time. I kept coming back to the comments one interviewee made of Fay Stender "It should count for something that she wanted to be a force for good in this world." He could be speaking of a generation.

If you like smart writing with an eye for the absurd and are willing to read and decide for yourself whether or not you agree with the author, this book is highly recommended.

This is a superbly written history of American's 60's ordeal. It is a discussion from the inside of the movement and helps explain why we can't get over that decade. I'd rank it with Chamber's Witness as a must read for those who want to know the truth about what happened.

This and others are must-reads for people who had the misfortune to be children during the 60s--- and really, the 70s/80s/90s--- because these people haven't really gone away. The reviews here tell you what you need to know---even to this day, this was all about THEM. They never (even now) consider the confusion of later 70s kids, who just had a sense they were born into a civil war. Flag burnings, scary sex practices, enforced "sex education," films of bulldozed naked bodies to understand the holocaust, and much more. The children born in 1965 are now just over forty. We are just now beginning to see the effects of what these people did to the kids. For anybody just reaching 30-40, take a look at them. At least David Horowitz tried later to go talk to school kids. So many have as first political memories home bombing and people bragging about it and burning flags and teachers pushing dope. Even now, adults will not talk about the REIGN OF TERROR---from their point of view. People still have these people for teachers in school. Now, they talk about it behind closed doors more.

Collier and Horowitz provide a passionate, detailed, meticulously researched account of the days of insanity that plagued America 40 years ago. The work is made that much more poignant by the fact that the two were willing participants in the actions they describe. While others have derided this book because they disagree with the authors' political shift, the facts speak for themselves. The book is a must read for today's youth, caught up in self-importance and blind worship of iconic, but hollow leaders. The failure of those in the sixties to use reason and logic to understand the threats of mob rule and communist ideology echoes today in those who choose to "make history" without questioning the common sense of those they follow. Hopefully, if we are still around in 40 years, today's "activists" will be able to benefit from the same soul searching and reflection that encouraged Collier and Horwitz to issue this call to arms for those who believe in America as the last hope for the world. A primer text for those who want to change the world.

If you want to know why America is in the mess it is in, read this book.


David Horowits and Peter Collier brilliantly analyse the relationship between the radical sixties and the chaos in our present world. A wake up call to America!

Written by a former radical, this criticism of 1960's radicalism describes what happens when radicals promote violent social change. The author, who converted from left wing radicalism to hard core conservatism, has his bias but the first-hand account is certainly worth reading.

The first chapter on Fay Stender and her attorney work for the Black Panthers and George Jackson, I found written very well. It showed the lack of separation from professional and social involvement and relayed a powerful moral story. However it did have the overtones that all the Black Panthers were thugs and that all the liberal attorneys were fools. So for this it was the usual Horowitz bias.

The next essay on the Weathermen was great. I've read Ayers book, Jacobs, various communiqués and Stern's personal account. As much as I believe it was accurate it was filled with dirt and gossip. I suppose you need much of this to understand the situation involved, but it was the FOX news filter you were reading it from, the bias against anything of the left. But OK, it was written well and I enjoyed it.

The next essay is Horowitz's "Empire and Revolution" all over again, but inverted to the Right wing zealot of Apostle Paul radicalism. But please, let me go to the next chapter. This chapter actually defends McCarthyism! It claims because McCarthyism became a dirty word used by leftist liberals against red baiters and neo cons, that it was preventing inquiry of subversive left wing agents against our government! What it was really preventing was civil liberties and freedom of the citizens to stop government bullying! The freedom to question the government. Here Horowitz and Collier say it also prevented us from scrutinizing our left wing politicians which deceitfully hides what it really prevents: right wing spying and illegal wire tapping of ordinary citizens who dare to disagree. And Horowitz claims that the protests of the left were manipulative and coercive but fails to mention is that the witch hunting represented the right wing ruling minority while the protesting left and civil rights fighters represented the democratic majority. And that's just it; Horowitz promotes fascism in order to stop the democratic majority which he accuses of aiding totalitarianism. What a schmuck.

Horowitz also attacks Noam Chomsky. Over and over repeatedly, he claims "the devil US made me do it," as Chomsky's illness and his "theology," which is bogus. Accusing him of hiding the murderous facts of the socialist governments and uprisings he blames on the "devil" United States. Every time he speaks of the "left" he equates it to totalitarianism. Yes the extreme left is dictatorships, but thats the radical extreme, while the moderate left represent the democratic majority for equalitarian rights and civil liberties. Instead, Horowitz open supports and advocates Ann Coulter (liberals are a mental disease) and the entire G.W. Bush administration with it's illegal wire tapping, spying, the Iraq War, and like John Snow, Bill O'Reilly, or any radical Neo Con (not a real conservative) defends any and all actions of the right wing religious extremists in the White house. And the ironic thing about it is, this right wingers are the fascist totalitarian wannabes. Horowitz has always been an unbalanced, over zealous radical extremist. I had a hard time reading through his ranting and raving rhetoric. I do not recommend this book. All I can say is, I am so grateful to be a moderate and conservative leftist, a liberal for participatory democracy and not anywhere near the extremes of both the left and the right.

Beware the extremist who leaps to the other extreme. In the Sixties they now so eloquently trash, Peter Collier and David Horowitz were student radicals and publishers of Ramparts. Far left. Far out. They have since had second thoughts, though reading this book, you wonder how much they are thinking and how much they remain rebels, this time against themselves. Rather than offer any cogent analysis of the decade, Collier and Horowitz serve up mea culpas and wholesale attacks on its extremes. Did leftists say and do silly things in the Sixties? Or course. Was it a time of excess? Sure. Does that mean that every last Sixties hope, aspiration, dream, or sincere act on behalf of social justice was idiotic, or misguided. It's easy to think so if you just leap from far left to far right, as these extremists have done. Reading "Destructive Generation" you get a good look at why American political discussion is so screwed-up these days -- because there is no middle, no compromise, no mention of the excesses and errors of one's own side. There's just one bash after another.