I’ve been fascinated by the 1960s for a very long time. The first real ‘kick’ on this was, I think, in 1991, when I was into the late period, of 1968 to 1970. I was lucky enough then to do a great course at UC Santa Cruz, which broadened it out to include China and India etc. Later, I got really interested in the first half, the Civil Rights struggle in the Deep South. One of the best books I ever read was “And We Are Not Saved” by Debbie Louis, on this period and its aftermath.
There is SO MUCH to learn, but sadly it all often gets reduced to heroic moments (Martin, Rosa, the Freedom Riders), stripped of nuance and mobilised for silly and dangerous purposes in the here and now.
Aaaaaanyway, I just read “Dreams Die Hard: Three Men’s Journey through the Sixties” by David Harris. Harris was a Stanford student who as briefly in Mississippi in late 1964 (not for Freedom Summer). He unintentionally became Stanford’s Student President, and led draft resistance activity. He married Joan Baez, as you do, did time for draft resistance… had a career as a journalist. Died in February 2023.
This book useful for many reasons. There’s a a lovely portrait of Bob Moses, but also lots of the dilemmas groups face. Also there’s a probing psychological portrait of Allard Lowenstein and his manipulations. Lowenstein was assassinated in 1980 by a former protege, Dennis Sweeney, who worked closely with Harris on draft resistance. Sweeney was released in 2000.
Instead of doing a single review that would amount to “read this book” I will instead riff on various quotes and what I think they “mean”, can teach us.
First up. The patriarchy:
Dennis and his girlfriend of the time attended an off-campus party whose refreshments consisted of an unidentified vodka punch. Neither Sweeney nor his girlfriend had had much experience with alcohol, and at 4.30 a.m. the next morning, the Palo Alto Police found them both passed out on a nearby lawn. Both were brought up in front of the administration-controlled student judicial system.
Dennis was arraigned by the men’s council and charged with the lesser offence of having passed out on a lawn in Palo Alto. He was suspended for a quarter, and the suspension was itself suspended so that the judgement amounted to no more than a formal notation on his record.
Sweeney’s girlfriend was arraigned by the women’s council and charged with the much more serious offence of “leaving herself defenseless in the presence of a male.” she was sentenced to suspension for two quarters, and the suspension was enforced.(Harris, 1982:11)
So, the formal rules have changed in the intervening sixties years, but have the unwritten ones? A bit, sometimes, someplaces, I guess. But there’s “work to be done” as the euphemism has it…
marchudson.net 
Marc, beneath the surface the relationship between male and female has never changed and I doubt it ever will. Equality is a word that has no real meaning and this not only relate to the the sexes. Life has never been about equality, life is and always has been about domination. Should our world in all it’s facets embrace equality, what a boring and stagnant place it would be. Evolution disregards equality, rather it pursues change/development and some would say advancement.
What do you think?
Hi John,
I strongly disagree with this that you’ve said here. “Life is and always has been about domination”. Hmm, one of the thing s that makes human civilisation possible is co-operation. There have been more or less unequal, more or less domineering societies, more or less violent ones (check out Norbert Elias on “The Civilising Process”). In terms of domination and so forth as in any way “natural” – check out the experience of Robert Sapolsky who was studying a violent hierarchical troupe of baboons. They got hold of meat infected with TB and all those who ate a big share (the highest status males) died. Crucially, the “betas” who then became the leaders did not replicate the old behaviours, and the troupe changed its culture markedly.
War is very VERY good for technological developments, and has also created lots of opportunities for women to work, expand the scope of their activity. Women have a LOT more political rights than they did, and the world is pretty interesting, not boring or stagnant (that’s an unfinished process, btw). The question of what ‘evolution’ does or doesn’t demand is perhaps for another day….