Author: rsveda

Naturally, as this course has focused on “Bloody Conflict”, the theme of reconciliation is something which has arisen numerous times and something I have been intrigued by, so much so that I decided to write my final paper on it. More specifically, I’ve been fascinated by how religious/racial lines have often been used for division in the literature and how much gray area exists in reconciliation.

At the outset of this course, I did not have a good understanding of deeply the conflicts and division of 1968 ran. Particularly in Ireland, the stories of people like Eammon McCann brought up the notion that even after the Good Friday Agreement, Northern Ireland was still loaded with tension. Never before had I seriously considered the idea that even after a conflict was officially or legally deemed to be resolved that so much tension could be lurking in communities. I definitely understood the concept on a personal level, such as how friends could say they forgive each other but still have bad blood, but hadn’t made the leap in my mind to understand how this type of persistent conflict and tension could exist on a societal level. I came to understand that reconciliation at a societal level isn’t always absolute. In my essay I really focused on this, delving into how personal connection is what allows for reconciliation to occur, but how focus on characteristics like religion or race can be used to divide, break down those personal relationships, and bring conflict back. In other words, reconciliation is fragile.

While a lot of the history and literature I’ve learned over the course of the semester have been valuable to me, lessons like this one that teach lessons which transcend the moment of ’68 and are just as applicable to life today and life back then had the most power for me. The past few years have been ones of serious division and as I watch Joe Biden’s victory speech after the election, I felt hope that he really could help bring our country together after a time of so much division. What this class taught me is that even if we succeed as a country in bringing down a lot of the division in our country, the job doesn’t stop there. Maintaining unity and fighting against division is a constant process, but one worth committing to.

In class these past two weeks we’ve discussed “Voices of the Chicago Eight” and “The Trial of the Catonsville Nine”, two works with many similarities. While most of our discussions have revolved around the relatability we might feel as college students with the Chicago Eight or the differences in how the judges held the trials, we only briefly touched on the reliablity of the narratives. Importantly, neither of them is a complete transcript of the court proceedings. “Voices of the Chicago Eight” is a sampling of the most exciting moments in the courtroom (but maintaining the exact words used in the court transcript), while it appears that “The Trial of the Catonsville Nine” takes more liberties to paraphrase the court transcript and inject additional content.

I think it’s worth stressing that neither of these being unedited court transcripts should change the way we are interpreting and discussing them. In class when we have discussed Vinen, it made sense to regard everything in the book as true, and we even were willing to meet it with some degree of skepticism, acknowledging that his personal biases might have detracted from its reliability. As we have read numerous fiction works, we’ve always been heavily aware of the fact that the books are only based on historical fact, being careful to never accept them as the truth. I feel that in our reading of these two plays, we have not met them with the appropriate hesitation. The moments Tom Hayden decided to include in “Voices of the Chicago Eight” (and perhaps even more importantly, those he chose to omit) surely provide us with a different picture of history than reading the entire unedited court transcript would. The same principle can be applied to the Cantonsville Nine, except it should be met with an even greater caution due to the greater liberties taken in adjusting the court transcript

I think we have a tendency to put excessive trust in literature the closer it gets to being an exact recounting of primary source history. However, there is incredible danger in this. Even little editorial changes in the literature of this variety have the potential to sway the opinion of the reader who has let down their guard and meets the text without any skepticism. It’s very possible that Tom Hayden and Philip Berrigan have portrayed history in a very accurate way, but as we discuss this literature it is crucial to discuss it as what it is, literature and not precise history.

From all the speakers we’ve had in class who have been a part of 68, its easy to see the passion they have for their role in the movements of the time. You could literally see Geoff, Sam, and Sarah lighting up as they recounted the old days in the poster workshop. The same goes for Eammon McCann as he remembered marching in protests and feeling connected to fellow protestors across the Atlantic shouting the same rallying cries he was. At the time of the protests, I’m sure none of them imagined those moments in the poster workshop or on the streets as being some of the best of their lives. They were focused on effecting change and I would imagine that was by far the dominating component of their thoughts. However, even as they focused on achieving the social progress they yearned for, they were forming deep connections with the people around them, the movement itself, and that point in history. It seems like those connections created a consolation of sorts for 68ers and the movement of 68. Yes, 68ers are often very assertive that not enough was achieved, but because of their deep connection to their place in history, they’re still able to wistfully remember those “glory days” with fond memories. While these important social movements may not always achieve as much in society for the target populations, it’s important to acknowledge that they do have positive effects on many of their participants, giving them meaning and happiness well into the future.

In addition to the satisfaction all 4 of these 68ers exhibited, being a part of 68 also clearly caused a lifelong commitment to standing for social progress. I believe it was Sam who proudly mentioned that he was still a radical to this day, and Eammon McCann was probably the best example. He spent his entire life fighting for social justice and admits he is most proud of raiding Raytheon in Derry to protest the creation of deadly weapons in his hometown. Although he did say he grew up to politically active parents, I think its unfair to not attribute some of his future life to the way growing up and being active in 68 shaped him.

In short, I think that when judging the successes of 68, it’s important to not discount all the positive outcomes that happened on the level of the individual. Not only did many protesters find personal fulfillment through the roles they played, a clear positive, but many like Eammon McCann were motivated to devote their lives to social justice, carrying the work of 68 on many many years later.

As someone who is a huge fan of the NBA, I’ve been highly in touch with the way the NBA has reacted to and taken a part in the growing support for the Black Lives Matter Movement over this summer. While both the league and players have expressed countless times how disappointed and angry they are with the state of the nation, there seems to be one common “solution” being promoted: Voting. People like Lebron James have been particularly outspoken, creating a voting rights group and notably wearing a shirt reading “Vote or Die” just this week. Perhaps an even larger embodiment of this focus on voting was that a key bargaining piece in the negotiations for the players to end their recent three-day strike, which came in the middle of the playoffs, was to have NBA stadiums converted in polling sites (and it is fair to assume that those stadiums reside in predominantly black urban areas).

At first to me, this focus on voting seemed like a rather passive way to bring about social justice. Why was there not more focus being put on getting into the streets in protest (be it peaceful or not entirely so)? Was this course of action forced on the players by a more conservative league ownership? To answer these questions, I found it very helpful to reflect on Martin Luther King’s 1967 “Black Power Defined”. In that text, King points to the black vote, when fully participated in by the black population, as a form of Black Power. On the surface, voting seems to be a much slower and much more conservative form of Black Power than the breed supported by the likes of Malcolm X and The Panthers. However, while choosing to live out Black Power through voting as MLK advised might not be very appealing to those who want immediate change, I do believe that it is often the wisest choice in the long run. As was discussed in class on Wednesday, it seems that history idolizes and remembers the most uncontroversial parts of the Civil Rights movement. It is the nonviolent protests spearheaded by MLK that are best remembered, not the impassioned calls to fight back against white oppressors made by Malcolm X. As a result, I would argue that MLK set a framework for how we ought to most effectively stand up for social justice, an example that lives on in the countless protests of today. Perhaps, albeit on a much smaller scale, sticking to a focus on voting will make the message of the NBA more powerful in the long run.

Despite seeming more conservative, I believe that voting is not only a true form of power but also one that society will admire. This country has always prided itself upon democracy, placing a great reverence on using the individual vote to produce desired changes in society. If black voters could mobilize en masse to get high voter turnout, I feel that they could exhibit Black Power in a way that could earn the admiration of huge swaths of society, winning over people who previously may not have supported the Black Lives Matter cause.

Personally, I have really found the idea of political polarization in the 1960s to be something that today’s climate is nearing (although I would argue that the American Right has become much more radicalized than the left). It feels like my entire life I’ve been listening to my parents and those of their generation describe the present as times of unrest, of uncertainty, and of political divide; after hearing all those things said so many times, I’ve come to think of them as just something that people say all the time. However, after reading in Vinen and discussing in class how the gap between left and right slowly widened towards the extremes, I’ve come to question if, as has been discussed in class numerous times, we’re living today in a modern 68. While tensions are certainly not to that height yet, I think it’s fair to say we’re living in a time ripe with opportunity for change, and I think the growing political divide of the past years that I’ve heard so much about has likely been a necessary precursor. Without the early 1960s you never could’ve had the protests and the impact of 1968, and perhaps I should view the past 5-10 years of my life in a similar light and understand that there could be something special about this “political polarization” I’ve heard mentioned countless times.

By drawing this comparison, it also helps me to use my personal experience as a political moderate to better understand the thought processes of the people of the late 1960s. I personally grew up in a very conservative household, so it is no surprise that I would’ve considered myself a conservative (although not as conservative as my parents) as late as my high school years. However, as I’ve watched the Republican party move farther and farther right, I’ve felt alienated and have swung the other way, aligning much more with the American left than the right. Applying my experience in the reverse, I can understand how more moderate leftists in 1968 ended up swinging to the right as they sought alignment with a more moderate party that they felt represented them.