Offensive Middle Class White People
James Hanley on Aug 23rd 2008
NPR ran a story today commemorating the 40th anniversary of the riots police brutality at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. The story, while generally interesting and almost informative, contained this stunning attempt to whitewash history:
Michael Heaney, a political scientist at the University of Florida, says that because of 1968, “we’ve now become a ‘movement society.’ ”“What 1968 demonstrated was that protest could be an effective tactic for bringing about social change,” he says. “So important new protest tactics were invented: the sit-in, the large demonstration. And people learned that this was a way they could effectively influence the government.”
That’s right, the mostly white protestors at the Democratic Convention in 1968 led to the invention of the sit-in and large demonstrations. Those uppity nigras in the 1950s couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with it. It couldn’t be that the 1968 demonstrators actually learned some of their methods from those ig’nant southern blacks, could it?
And make no mistake: Heaney is (like me) very, very white, as you can see. 
Is it really any wonder that Michelle Obama hasn’t always been proud of the U.S.? Even left-leaning academics and the liberal National Public Radio seem eager to give our collective memory a bad case of vitiligo.
I apologize on behalf of my profession (that Heaney is a fellow political scientist is galling–that anyone with a Ph.D. who studies social movements could make such a statement is appalling); really, we’re not all like that.
[Addendum: Why does it matter? Because the civil rights movement of the 1950s/60s was a voluntaristic collaboration of people who undertook great individual risk to protest against the worst thing government can do--discriminate among people on an arbitrary basis. The 1968 protestors opposed a war that sought (however unwisely in its implementation) to forestall a collectivist, coercive, ideology of government. They had every right to protest, I probably would agree with some of their issues, the cops were wrong to crack skulls, and yet their importance, in every respect, pales in comparison with the civil rights movement. It's a case of real freedom fighters vs. frustrated idealists, and Heaney has chosen to ignore the real heroes of liberty.]
Filed in The Barracks, The Basement
But James, don’t you know that 1968 was the pivotal moment in all of human history, past and future? Vietnam is the only war that has or will ever mattered (all other wars are just reflections of Vietnam) and the protests against it are the only political action that has or will ever matter.
While it is no doubt flagrant irrational bigotry on may part, I can’t help but feel global politics will be better off once the boomers get out of it, and take their paradigms with it.
Actually, based on Heaney’s CV, I would estimate he was born around 1971, making him part of my–post-boomer–generation, and further increasing my disgust. He also, like me, is a midwesterner, and we both spent time at Indiana University. But as I said, I’m not like that, really.
Wow, in that case he has even less excuse. What a poltroon (since I know you’re so fond of that word).
Yes, I am.
Dear James,
You are obviously correct that the tactics developed by civil rights movement were very important to the anti-war movement, which applied these tactics in an attempt to bring an end to the Vietnam War. Indeed, during the 30-minute interview that I did with Ina Jaffe, we spent some time talking about exactly that point.
I agree with you that the 20-second clip that was taken from this 30-minute interview was perhaps not an ideally precise quotation. In the statement that was aired, my intent was to communicate that these recently invented tactics were used effectively for the anti-war cause and helped to further demonstrate the efficacy of social movements as an impetus for social and political change.
I did not say, and I by no means intended to suggest, that the civil rights movement was not important in the evolution of social movements in the United States. Indeed, that would be a ridiculous proposition. Further, I do not see how my statement can possibly be construed as an effort to “whitewash” history or how such an effort could be carried out in 20 seconds, anyway.
Is it really necessary to label me as an “Offensive Middle Class White [Person]“? Attacking me on the basis of my race and class seems to be a bit outside the bounds of respectful scholarly dialogue. I did not attack you or anyone else on such an ad hominem basis and I don’t think that I deserve to be the subject of such an uncalled for attack. Frankly, I am blown away that you could reach such a conclusion on the basis of a 20-second statement. When you review my extensive record of publications ( http://plaza.ufl.edu/mtheaney/ ), is that really the conclusion that you reach?
Sincerely,
Michael T. Heaney, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Political Science
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Mr. Heaney writes, “I agree with [Mr. Hanley] that the 20-second clip that was taken from this 30-minute interview was perhaps not an ideally precise quotation.”
I find that statement confusing. In the first place, I fail to see where Mr. Hanley said any such thing such that Mr. Heaney could now agree with it. In the second place, having now listened to and verified that Mr. Hanley correctly quoted Mr. Heaney’s NPR soundbite, I am baffled by the phrase “perhaps not an ideally precise quotation.” (Yes, I understand that an out of context quote can be terribly misleading, but that does not mean that the quote, itself, was not accurate, let alone “ideally precise.”)
In any case, if Mr. Heaney wants to be treated with the genteel deference academics invariably pay one another inside ivy covered walls (at least, when anyone else is listening), perhaps he should confine his own musings to within those same walls and not let himself be used by journalists, let alone venture into the cultural wasteland that is the internet.
That said, I could certainly have quibbled with Mr. Hanley’s original post here, too. Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, was clear in his acknowledgment that the forms of non-violent protest and civil disobedience he and his followers in the civil rights movement employed had their roots, historically and philosophically, not only in Gandhi’s quest for the independence of India but also from the likes of Henry David Thoreau, a middle class white guy. Moreover, as I now think about it, I’m not so sure that discriminating among people on an arbitrary basis is the worst thing a government can do, though I’ll gladly agree it almost certainly makes the top ten.
Oh, and James K, speaking as an unrepentant Baby Boomer, I remember 1968 and it actually did have more than its share of pivotal historical moments. Then again, as Robin Williams has noted, if you can remember the ’60s, you weren’t really there.
I was asked to review this thread for violations of our comments policy. I found one.
I’ll give everyone on this thread three guesses as to which comment it was.
Lay off the name-calling, people. This is a warning, because I don’t like to ban people for a single slip-up. Next time, it won’t just be a warning.