|
|
By coincidence, coming on the heels of my post on the Camden 28 is news that 483 courtroom sketches from the 1969-70 Chicago Seven conspiracy trial have been acquired by the Chicago History Museum. (HT to BoingBoing.) The sketches, by Franklin McMahon, will eventually go on display at the museum. The Chicago Tribune also has a short photo gallery of some of the sketches.
For those who may not recall, here’s the Tribune‘s “history lesson” of the trial:
The defendants: Seven people, including yippies Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, were charged with conspiring to incite a riot during the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
The theater: Among the witnesses were Allen Ginsberg, Timothy Leary, Norman Mailer, Arlo Guthrie, Judy Collins and Jesse Jackson.
The outcome: In 1972 an appeals court threw out the convictions, citing the behavior of the judge, among other reasons.
The police riot and other events at the 1968 Democratic Convention and the ensuing Chicago 7 trial were key factors in radicalizing me. In 1975 I also picked up Tales of Hoffman , a now out-of-print paperback consisting solely of excerpts from the trial transcript. While certainly slanted, the book made clear just how much “personal bile” influenced the actions of trial judge Julius Hoffman. That Hoffman did as much, if not more than, Abbie Hoffman and his co-defendants to make a mockery of the justice system. My copy disappeared somewhere over the years but I found another one about six years ago and bought it immediately.
While it’s great these sketches are going to be on display, it does bother me a bit that such crucial events in my life are museum pieces. Even more bothersome is that the goals of the late 60s-early 70s “revolution” either were not accomplished or have been abandoned by too many. As it was, it evidently shall always be.
Julius, you radicalized more young people than we ever could.
Jerry Rubin to Judge Julius Hoffman at sentencing
Bill Harlan caught something I missed. Turns out that Frank Pommersheim, from whom I took Indian Law at the USD Law School, and his wife, Anne Dunham, are two of the “Camden 28.”
For those not familiar with the term, the Camden 28 refers to 28 individuals who were arrested for breaking into a Selective Service office in Camden, N.J., in 1971. PBS’s P.O.V. broadcast a documentary on it last week that I watched on my DVR this weekend. Unfortunately, I stopped and deleted the recording just as it was beginning a “where are they now” summary at the conclusion and may not have paid close enough attention at any shots showing photographs of all the defendants or of a reunion that was held.
The documentary is very good and looks at the motivations of many of the anti-war protesters of the time, the FBI’s infiltration of anti-war groups, and how the political and social issues of the time worked their way into the trial of the case and ultimate jury nullification of the charges against the protesters. It also pointed out that most of the defendants represented themselves or were “co-counsel” with a criminal defense lawyer. Frank is not specifically mentioned in that regard, even though he’d obtained his law degree some three years before.
Although I was surprised to hear about Frank being one of the 28, the fact he would be involved in something like that certainly isn’t surprising. He and his wife (they married after the protest but before the trial) moved to the Rosebud Indian Reservation after the trial, where he worked for a decade before joining the law school faculty. He came to the law school after my first year and has been, in my opinion, a great addition. Not only is he an excellent teacher, he is a low key guy committed what he views as social justice matters, much like the others portrayed in the documentary. It’s also no shock that he would tell Bill Harlan that his participation in the famous protest is “not something I wear on my sleeve.”
By the way, as Frank points out in his Law School biography, he is also “well-acquainted with the collected works of Bob Dylan.” Need I say more?
Civil disobedience founded this country. This is what the American Revolution was about.
Historian Howard Zinn testifying at Camden 28 trial
A recent and relatively intense disagreement between the discs in my lumbar spine and the rest of my body has kept me laying low and prevented finalizing various posts (not to mention how drowsy the combination of muscle relaxers and pain makes you). That said, I had to comment on this because it’s another one of those “maybe it is time to move to Canada” moments.
The First Amendment Center yesterday released the results of its annual survey on the state of the First Amendment. Among the results:
- Only 56 percent of those surveyed believe that freedom to worship applies to all religious groups.
- 74 percent believe a public school student should not be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a message or picture others might find offensive.
- 58 percent believe public school teachers or officials should be allowed to lead prayers in school.
- 65 percent believe the founders of the nation “intended the United States to be a Christian nation.”
- 55 percent believe the U.S. Constitution “establishes a Christian nation.”
What makes this more frightening is that 56 percent of those surveyed consider themselves Democrats or independents, twice as many as those who consider themselves Republican.
Lord, there’s danger in this land
You get witch-hunts and wars
When church and state hold hands
“Tax Free,” Joni Mitchell, Dog Eat Dog
As Bush continues try to use September 11 as a political Kevlar vest (no doubt the timing of Gen. Petraeus’ “surge” report is mere coincidence), it’s refreshing to see others, from the area blogosphere to national columnists, are attacking the lock box Bush and the right would love to keep the tragedy in. I’ve long contended that rather than honor the victims of 9/11 by using those events to inspire this country to a greater and true leadership role in the world, the tragedy was compounded by the fact it was perverted and wasted.
A recent post at Progressive Historians on how future historians will view this period predicts they will ask questions much like mine: “Why did America abandon its promise at the very moment it had the economic and political power to really accomplish something great in the history of the world? Why did the Americans not … use the international goodwill 9/11 gave them to promote a world order of lasting mutual peace?”
A similar view appears in Susan Faludi’s introduction to her forthcoming book, The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America. She writes that the hoped for sense of national unity and sacrifice disappeared because
no official moral leadership leadership emerged to challenge Americans to think constructively about our place in the world. There was no man in a wheelchair in the White House urging on us a reassessment of American strength and weakness. What we had was a chest beater in a borrowed flight suit, instructing us to max out our credit cards for the cause.
Faludi also posits that baby boomers seemed to retreat into a 1950s style of thinking, almost as if it were some sort of security blanket. To borrow from and perhaps stretch her point, “evildoers” replaced the godless Commies, any who might question the administration’s approach were cast as subversives and fellow travelers (“you are either with us or against us”), and Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld saw themselves as John Wayne in a world they treated as if it were a 1950s western.
Because the real world doesn’t play out like a movie script, particularly one based on fantasy, it looks like a happy ending is impossible. The man Bush wanted “dead or alive” is clearly the latter and probably has more adherents than ever. Thousands of lives have been wasted in a war that not only distracted from the neocons’ self-proclaimed “war on terror” but left us weaker and more vulnerable. That war is an irreparable quagmire that will long continue to putrefy not only our own capabilities and potential but America’s standing and influence in the world. We have forsaken and squandered a short-lived opportunity to assume a credible leadership role in the world and pursue realistic policies for the benefit of ourselves and the international community.
Thus, my reflections on “Patriot Day” both now and in the foreseeable future are far more sad than what is brought on by the loss of life in 2001. It is the sadness that those lives — and many many more — were wasted as 9/11 was turned into a political tool. Discarded just as quickly was the opportunity it gave America to bring about meaningful change in the world. That is undoubtedly the greatest misdeed of Bush and crew, an unpardonable sin that will stain this country and our hopes for a better future for decades to come.
Recovering from our wound and prevailing against our enemies required sagacity and hard realism; instead we dreamed ourselves into a penny-dreadful plot that had little to do with the actual world in which we lived.
Susan Faludi, The Terror Dream
With a couple more substantive posts on the immediate horizon, here’s a Sunday morning helping of marginalia:
- I hope he went there for research purposes, but David Louis Edelman’s poking around at the Fox News website produced a very observant post.
- When we actually win one, the DOJ makes sure it provides some payback for those that help domestic spying efforts , Here’s the actual comment filed with the FCC, which parrots the telecommunications industry line.
- Scott Esposito has an idea I might “borrow” for a future post — a list of five authors he’s discovered this year. As for one of his authors, at the end of last year I asked the same question he asks, “Why did it take me so long to read [Cormac] McCarthy?”
- Speaking of authors, this week saw the shortlists for the Man Booker Prize (I read and enjoyed On Chesil Beach and picked up The Reluctant Fundamentalist after work Friday on sale at the local chain bookstore) and the Prix Aurora, the award given by the Canadian Science Fiction and Fantasy Association (Blindsight is the only finalist I’ve read).
- While I certainly am personally biased, I think it’s at least worthwhile to ask questions like whether SF has a bias against Christianity. And while some might take it as evidence of bias, one of my favorite novels, Mary Doria Russell’s The Sparrow, has a Jesuit as the main character and directly addresses issues the discovery of alien life might present for the Christian faith. (Via.)
- As long as we’re being philosophical about SF, how about the philosophy of time travel. (Also via.)
- My blog post title for this quarter (or maybe the year): Does this make my vulva look fat?
Like Saint Theresa said: “If that’s how God treats His friends, it’s no wonder He’s got so few of them.”
Mary Doria Russell, Children of God
|
Disclaimer 
Additionally, some links on this blog go to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you. Contact me You can e-mail me at prairieprogressive at gmaildotcom.
|
