 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.196.176.121
A documentary about the Weathermen, a group of 60's radicals intent on violent protest and overthrow of the United States Government. They were a subset of the S.D.S. movement in the early 60's which grew to number approximately 100,000 by the end of that decade. The S.D.S apparently believed in non-violent change, and were against communism. The Weathermen, on the other hand, believed in violence and some of their numbers were communists.Towards the end of the 60's, the Weathermen were able to take over leadership of the S.D.S. Using the opposition to the war against Vietnam as their motivation, they began staging a "day of rage" in Chicago, whereby they would run through the streets, breaking windows, and generally destroying property. To their chagrin, only about 100 students showed up. They expected subtantially more.
Soon, they moved onto bigger targets. Over a period of five years or so, they bombed Congressional buildings, the Pentagon, various corporate headquarters, etc. After the bombings began, they went "underground", which means that they hid, family did not know where they were, they were disguised, they lived in small pods, not knowing the locations of other members.
As all good radicals bent on overthrowing the United States Government, they also took on other causes such as racism, and woman's rights. They also bombed to protest things. When a prominent Black Panther was murdered, they bombed a police station. When Chile's democratically elected government was overthrown by the military, presumably with U.S. assistance, they bombed the headquarters of a corporation that had strong financial ties to the newly empowered government. They broke Timothy Leary out of jail for $20,000.00.
With the ending of the Vietnam war in 1975, much of the incentive for many members of the Weathermen to continue their violent protest was over. They turned themselves in. One of the leaders recounts how much it hurt for her to do so, but she had two children and needed to support them, which, after the Vietnam war ended, and so did a lot of their funding, causing her to make an honest living. Which I suspect is hard to do when you are on the lam.
I was unaware of the Weathermen before this film. The film contains interviews or approximately thirteen members spread though it's one and a half hour running time. There are also interviews with a former F.B.I. agent assigned to track them down, and a former leader of the S.D.S. movement, and a former Black Panther leader.
The film: it does not overtly take a side. Until you stop to realize that there is very little material with police agents. The most visible opponent of the violence that is given screen time is President Nixon. If that is not an intentional editorial choice, I am not sure what is. A fair amount of time is given to the S.D.S. leader, who still seems aggrieved that the Weathermen were able to hi-jack his organization.
The film also spends a fair amount of time covering the group's racial views. Ironically, they thought more of the Black Panthers than the Black Panthers thought of them. I chuckled to listen to Black Panther leader denigrate the group and it's efforts to help their racial cause.
But the fact is that these people destroyed property. And while they tried to make sure that nobody was hurt, their actions could have caused death, which seems lost on them. The film does not call them on this. A couple regret their actions, but most apparently still feel they were justified.
Minor critisms aside, I think that the film does a very good job of presenting their story, given the complexities involved. A largely secretive group, spread all over the country, with multiple leaders, and with multiple issues, over approximately ten years. Over the ten years, there was internal power struggles that changed the group. I also think that the film does a good job of showing how much society was radically different at that time, and how many groups were motivated to change society, some violently, and were willing to give their lives for their beliefs. These things are lost on those us a little younger.
The people: They called themselves "revolutionaries". And they believed it. And this is where I may be a little cynical. To see people in their fifties and sixties talking about how they were revolutionaries, and honestly believed that they could violently overthrow the government left me wandering about so of their sanity. That some believed that but for a few mistakes they would have succeeded left me questioning them more.
My take was they these were priviledged kids, not knowing much about the world, and whose opinions were formed not from personal experience, but from what they read in the newspapers, and from other people. Every corporation is bad. The Government is always bad. These are views not held from rational thought, but from reactionary thought.
Most of the subjects went onto to professional careers. One teaches at the University of Illinois, another is a law professor at Northwestern, another owns a bar, and happened to win a sizeable sum of money on jeopardy, one is a community college teacher in math. Some seemed to morph pretty successfully into a society which they despised, and, at least in words, still despise. Two maintained their radical ideals, one spending 14 years in prison, one spending a life sentence in New York for being a participant in a robbery in which two security guards were killed.
The film moves at a brisk pace, and is far from boring. Not perfect. But I felt I learned something about a subject I knew nothing about, which served it's purpose for me.
The extras on the D.V.D. contain a segment with radio "communiques", a short film from 1975 about the group. There is a very interesting interview from the group's member who is currently serving a life sentence. He recounted how they stood for women's rights, but that they were hypocritical in that respect, because the women in the group were expected to be sexually available to the men. He considers himself a political prisoner. That view, I think, highlights for me the arrogance of some of that movement. Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner because he was jailed for a political and moral belief. This gentleman was in jail not for a belief or an opinion, but because he was involved in a killing. A killing of a security guard, someone who was not in any way involved in the social travesties against who they were fighting. I would have enjoyed seeing an interview with the guard's family to hear their view, but alas, no such interview was provided.
Follow Ups:
... ah you thought I would say denigrate the USA, but ... to play devil's advocate... if they tried to use violence to overthrow an elected government, how is that diferent from the US funded Teoorrist military overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile on the ORIGINAL 11th September attack?
Perhps an interesting doco would be on the number of US CIA/FBI/whatever fiunded agents provocateur who operated inside organisations such as the SDS specifically to move it to a more extreme position in order to undermine its popularity.
It is the same. Two wrongs do not make a right. The Weathermen apparently believed that because revolutions were taking place in Nicaragua, Cuba, etc., that they could spark the same here. I argue that if they have actually been to Nicaragua, knew anything of it's history, culture, and poverty, they would have known that what applies there does not apply here. Completely different situations. But I never suggested that what the U.S. Government did in Chile, Vietnam, or any other country was justified.
... I wasn't clear... I didn't mean to suggest you DID state the USA was was justified. I was just posing the question.
This is a HUGE problem of morality all over the world and leaves the question of what resort (if any is justified) poor people have against the rich and powerful apart from suicide bombers.
known to anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of American history at that time.
You, of course, are injecting the "establishment" view of insurrectionaries, i.e. they're all spoiled kids.
You may be surprised to know the background of other "spoiled kids" such as Castro, Che, the nameless thousands who opposed Pinochet and other S. American dictators, and... the Russian revolutionaries (a man of your superior intellect must appreciate we're not discussing the merits of these folks but merely their roots.)
So, unless one springs from the lowest of ghettos, boot-strapingly gains a PHd in History, travels the world (to know more about it, of course)... he had better just take it and like it from his society?
(Unless you can answer in less than encyclopedic length, be assured I will not read any response: brevity is the soul, you know?).
Glad you appreciated the film, btw.
I do not look down on them. I admire their sacrifice. However, I think that their idealism and agenda polluted their rational thought process. Thinking that bombing some buildings will lead to the violent overthrow of the United States Government is, at best, naive, at worst, stupid. And these are clearly not stupid kids. Which leaves us with them being naive. Being naive often, though not always, results from a lack of experience. Being places. Doing and seeing things. One of the critisms of Bush before the first election was that his foreing policy would not be very informed because he had never spent any appreciable time outside the United States, experiencing other countries. I think that the same applies to these kids. They call themselves revolutionaries, though I doubt they knew what a true revolutionary was, and some apparently still do not. At least one seems confused as to what is a political prisoner.I used the work arrogant because they labeled themselves things that others who were, would not. Consider the scene in the film in which some of the Weathermen discuss the importance of racial equality, which, I assume, everyone would agree with. They then provide the remedy. The next scene shows a Black Panther leader dressing the down the group, basically telling them they are too lilly white, from white neighborhoods, wealthy, privileged, and that they can stay out of the way, thank you very much. Would Che call these kids revolutionaries? Or Castro? I think not. Would Mandela call the Weatherman spending his life in prison for a murder a political prisoner? Hardly.
I do not think that Che, Castro, Mandela, or Malcolm X, were spoiled kids. As an aside, there is a scene in the film in which one of the Weatherman is talking of Malcolm X, suggesting that his "any means necessary" was a support for their movement. Ironic, that by the time the Weatherman made the statement Malcolm X had abandoned that philosophy, and believed in inclusion, and supported peaceful resistance. I think that bespeaks to their being uninformed.
In the end, I think they enjoyed the labels. Most have now assimilated into society. Is that what a true revolutionary does? But they did not earn the titles which they bestowed upon themselves. In some ways they are no different than the priveleged they criticized - both had something not earned.
I did enjoy the film, and would recommend it to anyone with more than passing interest in American counter-culture of the 60's, and anyone who probably should know more about American politics, which includes most of us. To that end, I think that the film is very valuable.
very different perspective... the "future."
The robberies, the bombing of the Defense Department supported research university targets... this made sense at the time, both strategically and psycholgically.
Don't forget that the assassinations of two Kennedys and Martin Luther King were very fresh and the feeling that some unknown, hidden forces were controlling the country was not uncommon. Add to that the fact that an unjust and illegal war was claiming the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions (eventually), of Vietnamese and Cambodians and you have the stuff of revolution.
Yes, so easy now to look back and criticize.
Meanwhile, the political direct descendants of those war mongerers have led us into another killing field, this time in Iraq.
How naive were those guys, anyhow?
Consider the scene in the film in which, shortly after taking over S.D.S., they planned a riot of students in Chicago in which they would run down the street, destroying business property. They claimed at the time that over one thousand students would show up to partake. About one hundred actually showed up. That should have been their first clue that despite strong rhetoric, when the rubber hits the road, most students were not willing to put life and limb in jeopardy. They then somehow believed that if they upped the ante, those same people who would not break some windows would hop on board and partake in an armed revolution which was necessary to topple the government? Seems pretty naive to me. At the time.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
