As we have seen through our studies, knowledge of events can shape one’s entire perception of movements and people. However, what occurs when people do not have this knowledge? On one hand, lack of knowledge leads to an idealistic innocence in which negative perceptions of groups do not exist. However, this “innocence” can easily be seen as ignorance, as a willing lack of engagement with pressing issues. This distinction, I believe, can be seen through the childhood innocence found in Mojo Mickybo and the accusations of ignorance given toward white moderates and non-revolutionary black actors.
Mojo Mickybo sees a Protestant boy and a Catholic boy in Belfast having a close friendship, all the while in the background the two groups they come from clash. As children, they have no problem getting along with one another because they have not yet learned they are supposed to be enemies. It is not until they get older that they begin to have a falling out, conforming to the roles society had set for them to be enemies. This friendship being ruined is obviously a bad thing, and it is reflective of how seemingly pointless this conflict was in the first place. If these two boys could get along so well, why can’t all Protestants and Catholics in Belfast? In this way, the innocence of the two boys shows that hate is taught, and the removing of oneself from cultural contexts can actually lead to people getting along better.
On the other hand, however, a lack of knowledge of cultural contexts can be seen to be a willful ignorance of pressing issues. For example, even the peace-loving MLK lamented the inaction of the white moderate, who did not fully understand the plight black people faced in America. Likewise, black revolutionaries saw their more moderate counterparts as not doing enough to protect black peoples’ interests. That is, they believed them ignorant to the fact that violence was the only solution to their problem given the cultural context America found itself in.
Together, both points lead to a complex view of innocence and ignorance. Does ignoring social contexts lead to peace, or is it necessary to find a solution that addresses said contexts? It is hard to know for sure, as both points, I believe, have merits. I think this distinction, though, is an important one to realize going forward in our studies.
Dark Mirrors
Mirrors reflect the attributes of their subjects. Dark mirrors, then, reflect the negative aspects. We saw, this week, revolutionary groups in action in both Ireland and the U.S. as they grappled with themselves and their enemies. After watching and discussing these movies I believe Uptight specifically displayed that this kind of dark mirror is present both between the movie’s black revolutionaries and the IRA, as well as between the movie’s underground government and the very governments it meant to oppose. These dark mirrors reflect not only the historical recurrence of violence between the different revolutionary groups, but it also how revolutionary groups, in their opposition to governments, begin to take the form of the very government they rebel against.
I have talked about the historical repetition of violence before, but that was in reference to ’68 and today. What Uptight shows, however, is that ’68 itself reflects violence even prior to itself. Even back in 1922, the IRA was a group that, fed up with peaceful compromises to their goals, resorted to violence to achieve them. The black revolutionaries in Uptight were exactly the same way, stealing guns and preparing for armed rebellion in response to the perceived failure of peaceful compromise. From this, we can see ’68 is an inheritor of a legacy of revolutionary violence. In this sense, a dark mirror of violence as a means for change is made between the IRA and black revolutionaries.
Perhaps most interesting is the reflection between the black revolutionary underground government, and the government it hoped to oppose. The black revolutionaries saw the American system they found themselves in as corrupt and systemically opposed to them. A kind of society where blacks were excluded as not wanted, and violence was used to suppress them. However, they respond in turn the exact same way as their oppressors. The revolutionaries start to exclude white allies, and plan to use violence to achieve their goals. They even hold mock court to try members they believe committed betrayal organizing just like a government would. Here, there exists a dark mirror between the group and the very entity it wants to oppose.
Ultimately, I think these movies have better contextualized ’68. Both in relation to other revolutionary times, as well as attitudes toward governmental authority. I am excited to further explore ’68 and find what other dark mirrors exist within it.
The Issue of Violence
Of the many parallels that can be made between ‘68 and the present day, none might be as obvious, or rather, as concerning, as the escalation of violence. It is hard to ignore the fact that the ‘68ers had plenty to be upset with. Injustice was found throughout their world, just as it is today. Protests called for political action as emotions swelled and frustration grew. It seems only natural that violence followed. But as the line between politics and violence began to blur, the coherent message of ‘68ers started to fall apart. Those who vilified the unnecessary violence carried out by governments began to cause violence themselves; those who denounced the Nazis began to become anti-Semites themselves. While this hypocrisy wasn’t uniform, the combination of intense frustration and romanticizing of the “outlaw” figure in popular culture began to sway some to abandon their just principles. Due to this, I worry about what will happen in our current times.
Last week a black man shot in the back seven times by police in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Coupled with the unrest already present in the wake of George Floyd, there is plenty to be angry about. Nothing seems to change. Indeed, we see today the same kind of rioting motivated by lack of political change that was present in ’68. But I am left worried about how this violence will evolve. We’ve seen the type of damage caused by rioting escalate, and frankly, knowing the progression of ’68, I am worried it will escalate further. The parallels are there, from growing frustrations to the reemergence of the outlaw. Yet another black man being killed by police makes people increasingly infuriated with a system that not only doesn’t listen to them, but actively oppresses them. Likewise, today’s outlaw can conceal their identity with a mask with no suspicion, emboldening people to instigate violence for fun in an otherwise peaceful protest with no repercussions.
While the growing violence is in and of itself extremely undesirable in my opinion, the even more dangerous issue is the potential harm to today’s political message. The growing anger of the ‘68ers came to a point where its direction was often unclear or too all-encompassing. Sometimes coming to the point where their message seemingly contradicted itself, such as with the treatment of Jews. The breakdown of a political stance weakens the cause greatly, and I worry that could happen today. The movement for true equality is too important to be tampered with by growing violence, but I’m afraid that is what might come to pass.