Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Monday, 17 September 2012 [View all]Tansy_Gold
(17,851 posts)Racism and inequality were not addressed by the anti-war movement. They were identified within the context of the war and the military, but as issues they were not addressed by the movement.
The Civil Rights Movement pre-dated Vietnam -- Brown v. was 1954, Montgomery bus boycott was 1955. Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney's bodies were discovered in Mississippi on 4 August 1964. the day of the Tonkin Gulf incident. I would contend that those murders -- and the assassination of Medgar Evers a year earlier in 1963 -- did much more to sustain the Civil Rights Movement (and to generate sympathy for it from northern whites, who had both money and political power) than did the anti-war protests which came later.
The women's movement loooooong pre-dated Vietnam. Again, the anti-war movement was focused on ending the war, and virtually nothing else. Very few gender issues were addressed at all; one of the complaints of women involved in various student organizations -- especially SDS -- was that regardless their individual qualifications, they were relegated to secretarial duties and making coffee -- and providing sex. While there were women who were prominent in the anti-war effort, the movement did not address women's issues.
The riots, as destructive as they were locally, did not materially affect the national consciousness in the long term. No major legislation was proposed and passed and enforced as a result, nor was there a shift (forward or backward) in public perceptions.
The movements of the 50s, 60s, and 70s did not birth OWS. OWS probably owes more to the Flint sit down strike than anything else, but even that had a specific objective.
Again, what is Occupy's objective? We already know we're the 99%; saying the movement's slogan is its objective is silly. Are you saying there's a secret OWS organization that's actually plotting something but no one knows what it is? Then what's with all the camping out in the parks? Is that a diversion? A smoke screen? A joke?
"Evolution of a New America" --- puh-lease. Are they running a single candidate for a single office. . . . anywhere? Are they training troops for a military take-over? What are they doing? ANYTHING???
A (r)evolution in a country of 300 million plus is not going to be effected by a bunch of folks camped out in tents in scattered parks around the country. The challenging of public sentiment is not going to be achieved without a countering media. The general public is not sufficiently enraged to take to the streets -- obviously. So who is going to wage this (r)evolution? And what is it going to evolve into? Something closer to what the OWS thinks the founders envisioned? Well, duh, the founders envisioned a country with a formal government with elected officials; they did not envision anarchy.