But it is wrong to say that you "ended the war and changed the world".
The "war" ended in 1975, long after all the protesting has slowed to a crawl. And the ending of the war mainly had to do with an exhaustion of resources amidst an economic and oil crisis, and, well, actually losing the damn thing. There is such a thing as a lost war.
Furthermore, people mainly protested not because the war was "illegal and immoral", but primarily because of the draft and how it affected them (or people they knew). Lesson learned: the government used only pro soldiers for their wars from them on, and no protests of that scale and that extend occurred again.
The baby-boomer, sixties "rebellion" was in all, a failure. It didn't "stop the war", and it didn't "change the world". It ended itself in the conformism and consumerism of the seventies and in a drug and "self-discovery" haze.
If the world has indeed changed since the 60s, it's for the worst, in the political sense, concerning society, freedom, public and international policy (technology and science have of course improved, but those two always do, since the dawn of time, and exponentially since around 1600).
Now, how about the societal change regarding the treatment of blacks? Well, that was due to their organized protests and political action (from the action around Rosa Parks to the Alabama march). And, to return to the point of Maddox, this is what the other sixties movements lacked (since SDS dissolved into irrelevance), and what we lack today.
If baby-boomers' sixties was a self-absorbed failure, there was indeed a time when Americans fought and won very significant rights. It was when they were actually organized, agitated, and fought (often to death), to gain their labour rights, regarding working conditions, eight hour day, etc. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
Without political action and determination, you cannot have change. Blacking out a webpage is idiotic. "But it spreads awareness". So? What is the viewer of your webpage supposed to do with this new found awareness? Until you can answer that, it's all in vain. And writing to your congressman is idiotic. What makes him "your" congressman? Even a boycott is silly, if it's just about individuals making a choice, instead of being the co-ordinated action of some group with a minimum program and coherency.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for one thing: the sixties protesters certainly did change the world, just not the way they wanted to:
* They ensured Ronald Reagan's landslide victory in the race for governor of California, whose campaign promise was to shitcan UC president Clark Kerr and "clean up the mess at Berkeley," which I believe he fulfilled his first day in office.
* They ensured that Lyndon B. Johnson, arguably the most liberal president in US history and most powerful proponent of the 196[48] Civil Rights Acts, would not even attempt to seek reelection.
* They incited a riot at the 1968 Democratic Nation Convention, ensuring a landslide victory for somebody as unpopular as Richard Nixon.
In short, they empowered the opposition. Being a loud vocal minority only ruffles the feathers of the majority and calls them into action, which is why no political leaders are going to touch the "occupy movement" with a ten-foot pole.
The anti-SOPA movement on the other hand is a different because at the end of the day, it threatens a multi-billion dollar industry. Whether Wikipedia and Reddit can rally your "awareness" about it or not, the Googles of the world will still fight it tooth and nail to protect their own investments, and their money speaks just as loud as the entertainment industry's. For that reason, I never really believed SOPA or PIPA stood a chance.
While I wholeheartedly agree with your overall sentiment that the baby boomers poisoned the well of liberalism for the next few generations, I feel compelled to point out that Nixon's landslide was in 1972. 1968 was one of the closest elections of the century.
>Blacking out a webpage is idiotic. "But it spreads awareness". So? What is the viewer of your webpage supposed to do with this new found awareness?
Most of the websites I saw participating in the blackout urged people to contact local congresspeople. Wikipedia, for example, featured a form that would show contact information given a zip code.
While not at the level of mass protests, it's certainly doing something.
Further, awareness does matter. In my local paper, the blackouts made the front page. That exposes the issue to a wide range of people that would never have been aware anything was happening.
Are there other actions people could have taken to protest SOPA/PIPA? Sure, and some are probably more optimal than the blackout. Even so, I would disagree that the blackout was ineffective, much less "idiotic".
Thanks for the intelligent reply, Batista. Just a few nits...
The "war" ended in 1975, long after all the protesting has slowed to a crawl.
The war "officially" ended in 1975, but it really ended with de-escalation and the ending of the draft years earlier by our activism. Make no mistake about it, LBJ, one of the most powerful presidents ever, was brought to his knees, not by his political opponents, but by us. March 31, 1968 was the beginning of the end of that war.
Furthermore, people mainly protested not because the war was "illegal and immoral", but primarily because of the draft and how it affected them (or people they knew).
One of many counter-examples: the My Lai Massacre. Do you remember how aghast the American public was that things like this were happening on television almost every night "for no apparent reason"? People have always really known right from wrong. The difference is when they decide to do something about it.
Now, how about the societal change regarding the treatment of blacks? Well, that was due to their organized protests and political action (from the action around Rosa Parks to the Alabama march)
I imagine there are quite a few who would disagree with that, from the urban infernos of the late 1960's even up to today.
It was when they were actually organized, agitated, and fought (often to death)...
I think we need to sacrifice more, but I don't suggest sacrificing our lives. Ironically, mine was a generation that did sacrifice the lives of our martyrs. To this day, I often wonder how different the world would be if the opponents of change hadn't murdered JFK, MLK, RFK, or Malcom X, or crushed the lives of countless others on college campuses (Kent State, 1970), Stonewall, or in the streets of Newark, Detroit, Watts, and a hundred other places.
...to gain their labour rights...
Kinda ironic that one of the worst cripplers of today's economy are the entitlements won by the overextension of organized labor (see auto industry or almost any local government).
I'd stay and debate more, but a client just called and I'm already 27% behind quota this week. (Oh how times have changed.)
What an odd and misguided rant. It's like the assholes who tell you if you don't like the laws, run for office. "What makes him "your" congressman?" Whoa. Deeeep, dude.
Well, those "assholes" might just say it to discourage you from attempting anything, but in the whole, they are right.
If you don't like the laws, do run for office, or at least, run to ensure that someone who shares your dislike for the laws, get's into office and gets the job done.
Without that, all the blackening of blogs, symbolic ribbons etc don't change a thing.
In fact, the very meaning of a republic is that of the handling of things/issues that belong to all and affect all ("res publica", public things, in latin).
Politics weren't supposed to be some specialized profession, for professional politicians, but the duty of the citizen of a democracy.
Same for ancient Athens, who invented all that democracy thing. Public officials there were chosen at random, as to better represent the majority (this incidentally solves the funding problem). So you could end up a congressman (or something equivalent for the day), like you could be chosen for jury duty today.
(Incidentally, Athens and Rome declined when their citizens stopped caring about the "public things", and demagogues and dictators seized the power).
As if awareness is completely useless in the fight. Even congresspeople admitted to not understanding the law. If I can do something (write them, call them) to help them understand, that does nothing?
Sure, I'm not willing to die for Reddit. So, I guess you got me there.
Well, congresspeople can admit to "not understanding the law", but that is just bollocks. You really believe highly educated guys in Washington, with a lot of lawyers among them for good measure, don't understand a law and it's consequences?
It's not about them not understanding some obscure technical details of how the internet works. It's about what the intent and spirit of the law is, and that they understand all too well.
"You're not willing to die for Reddit", you say. Irony aside, is that what internet freedom and SOPA amount to you, the closing (or not) of Reddit?
But it is wrong to say that you "ended the war and changed the world".
The "war" ended in 1975, long after all the protesting has slowed to a crawl. And the ending of the war mainly had to do with an exhaustion of resources amidst an economic and oil crisis, and, well, actually losing the damn thing. There is such a thing as a lost war.
Furthermore, people mainly protested not because the war was "illegal and immoral", but primarily because of the draft and how it affected them (or people they knew). Lesson learned: the government used only pro soldiers for their wars from them on, and no protests of that scale and that extend occurred again.
The baby-boomer, sixties "rebellion" was in all, a failure. It didn't "stop the war", and it didn't "change the world". It ended itself in the conformism and consumerism of the seventies and in a drug and "self-discovery" haze.
If the world has indeed changed since the 60s, it's for the worst, in the political sense, concerning society, freedom, public and international policy (technology and science have of course improved, but those two always do, since the dawn of time, and exponentially since around 1600).
Now, how about the societal change regarding the treatment of blacks? Well, that was due to their organized protests and political action (from the action around Rosa Parks to the Alabama march). And, to return to the point of Maddox, this is what the other sixties movements lacked (since SDS dissolved into irrelevance), and what we lack today.
If baby-boomers' sixties was a self-absorbed failure, there was indeed a time when Americans fought and won very significant rights. It was when they were actually organized, agitated, and fought (often to death), to gain their labour rights, regarding working conditions, eight hour day, etc. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
Without political action and determination, you cannot have change. Blacking out a webpage is idiotic. "But it spreads awareness". So? What is the viewer of your webpage supposed to do with this new found awareness? Until you can answer that, it's all in vain. And writing to your congressman is idiotic. What makes him "your" congressman? Even a boycott is silly, if it's just about individuals making a choice, instead of being the co-ordinated action of some group with a minimum program and coherency.