U.C. Berkeley & Bay Area 1960s
updated some spelling 30 Dec 2009
One must remember, one cannot blame the students or the faculty or the administration, or Sacramento, the forces that surrounded all these entities created the friction that created the result. By placing blame on one or the other, one cannot see the whole picture. – Michael Johnathan McDonald, April 10, 2008
University of California
Free Speech Movement
Official and Unofficial Discourse
By Michael Johnathan McDonald (undergraduate, University of California, Berkeley, personal writings, Spring 2008)
University of California, Berkeley, Free Speech Space.
Official Discourse: Berkeley in he Sixties.
1960s: The Knowledge Information Revolution – what was its significance?
The Crusades’, L.S.D., Role of the repressed, mass-hallucinations, and mass-change in consciousness as a novelty helps explain a decade.
Making Liberal of Radical Politics Legitimate in the Country.
Predicting U.C.B. Activism with each undergraduate generation.
Democratic Masses Take Over.
Free Speech Movement Spring 1965.
Semblances of decolonization.
We have a war to stop – Back to Basics of Outrage against U.C. Society.
1966 Ronald Reagan.
The Hippy Subculture – Strange World in Which They Live In From a Perspective.
The Black Panthers.
At War in Berkeley.
Students wanted to start a confrontation with anyone.
What is the Legacy?
The Hallucination of People’s Park
Notes: Further study
How to understand the forces behind the rise in student protests and the intricate thinking involved.
It was argued by the leaders of the Free Speech Movement that all injustice laid at the heart of the “machine.” In a wider context, the United States of American as the machine, and in the micro-context ‘subjective,’ the university was also a part of that machine. Yet, as complex, the University of California, Berkeley’s traditions created the foundations for the reaction against the machine. U.C. Berkeley has/had a tradition to teach the “truth,” as they see/saw it. Its motto is Fiat Lux (Let there be light). Symbolically, casting away the shadows of darkness of myth, this purposeful deception helped U.C. Berkeley establish a reputation for uncovering truths and disseminating them around the world that otherwise the world’s populous would never had known. This helps explains its world’s popularity and to some extent its national distain. While trying not to romanticize any point of view, there are counterarguments for these secret societies, and are duly represented as arguments in this piece.
The machine can be described as a normative trajectory for a superpower’s self-preservation. Secrets now allowed into a society are purposely perpetrated by the elites to make society function in semi-coherent facility. This is why we understand secret societies such as the Yale's “Skull & Bones” society and other secret societies of legend and of real in U.S.A. history. Even U.C. Berkeley had these secret societies in the 1910s-1920s, as symbolic photos of secret fraternities appear in these decades’ year-books. Yet, after World War II, society by and large in the United States of America contended with forces not known earlier. Before World War II, the United States of America was not a superpower or even a world contender in international policies. In fact, the Great Depression, previously led by locust swarms, unmanaged farming lands, subjective of isolationism, a military that was ranked sixteenth in the world ( demilitarization after WWI), and flare for laissez-faire economics that precludes mass representation into state economics, and a lack of education to increase social inclusiveness of the American experiment, created the restrictions of no outside force pressuring the need for scientific, socio-economic self determinism and international benefits of imperialism. After World War II the benefits of imperialism, which rose out of needs for such, as example, finding sufficient latex sources (Amazon, later the annexation of Philippines), led the United States to propagandize a national narrative of Liberty, Freedom and the American way. Yet, as U.C. Berkeley would understand, the truths were clouded in myths and Fiat Lux was the tool to uncover societies’ myths. That tool opened the eyes of students in the 1960s, of the likes of Adam’s fateful awakening resulting in a fall from grace – the opening of the eyes of the knowledge of truth – and that truth, as the students saw it, made them react in such a way that they grappled with those forces which had created the United States of American ascendancy to world domination. – Michael Johnathan McDonald, 20 April 2008.
The Port Huron Statement (1962, Michigan, Ton Hayden) synthesized as the foundations of the New Left Movement. As national normative narrative, its revelatory coming of age message described in student’s pro-activism against the forces of the unjust “machine” partly descends into irrational emotionalism against intellectualism of the American myth. Certainly the Greeks, Ottomans, Abbasids, the Spanish, French and many Middle Ages Europeans (as well as countless other civilizations in history) had discussed the contention between intellectual benefits of its state run myths and its social implications brought-on by such mass revelations of knowledge to the commoners. While The Port Huron Statement had valid arguments, it descends into an emotional response/reaction to normative civilianized-structural-forces it quite did not understand. The New Left changed the American trajectory, but it also led to complications as the youth grew up and wanted what their parents had had: a good life. This helps explain why so many 1960s youth rebelled at that machine in the 1960s and then to later engage its processes in the later parts of their lives, as the correct course of personal American Way trajectory. Even African American activist Robert F. Williams reentered the machine upon returning from China to head up a prestigious seat of Asian studies at Michigan University. He was not arrested; he came out of his own cognoscente. Many of the founding and prominent members of the Black Panther parties left the movement and reentered the machine. They understood the profound contradictions in continuing to lead emerging colonies existent within a larger dominate colony based upon fluid and lipid ideological boundaries. They had to make a choice of rational action. Even Mario Savio, a prominent leader (or the leader, to some) of the U.C. Berkeley Free Speech Movement, reentered the machine. His self imposed silence for twenty-years on his activities during the Free Speech Movement period tells us more than his vocalities. Part of these processes can be viewed as a compromise. How so? Like Malcolm X, or Socrates, or other revolutionaries in other times and places that continually push that machine, it will eventually destroy that pressure. This could be understood that truth or a/some certain perspective(s) of truth(s) has its socio-economic-political limits. Yet, and as compromise, these individuals made lasting contributions to their adopted causes.
In Greek lore and history, sacrificing ones body for your countrypersons’ revealed the ethical trajectory of your ethnic/group agency. The Battle at Thermopolis, the 300 (actually about 1300), defined the Democratic history of the ancient world. The United States of America was its historicism event. The ethic of sacrifice and service to one’s country (or group(s)), and without question, defined a Liberal ethic then and now. The United States of America had lived and died on this ethic as attitude. Viet Nam and the linking of the New Left’s sentiment for decolonization of ethics had changed that Liberal ethic. Viet Nam, as the New Left saw it, was profoundly racist, elitist-hegemonic, and helped to describe these national racial and ethnics policies at home. The New Left broke with the mythic tradition of the liberal ethic.
Communism, seen at that time as the Soviet Union’s commitment to spread a worldwide doctrine of anti-liberal ethics, was seen as the Persian Empire of its past (that actually ran socialistic government). Most U.S. citizens understood this ethic with intrinsic (or tacit) capacities that helped to explain the government’s actions and trajectory in Viet Nam policy making. President Johnson was simply appeasing the Republicans and should not be seen as contradictory to his Great Society reforms. The reason why ethics and sacrifice were, were things of unquestioned loyalty – a silent moniker of statesmanship, or of heroism and of bravery for adamant issues on the protection of the American family and the continuance of the Democratic ideological race. Yet, at San Francisco and at the beginning of the 1960s, the students of the University of California, Berkeley did not see the U.S.A. as a history of a continuance of these ethics. They debated them and found that democracy was the rule by the common – the Classical Greek bereft idealism. The common was not understood by the students. Greek democracy was never a democracy by definition. It was hierarchal-racist and profoundly nationalistic. Only white Greek Athenians could take part in the voting process during the Classical Greek period. Other city-states’ citizens, women, lower-classes, slaves and men not born to Athenians but lived and worked inside the walls of Athens could not take part in Democracy. To the students that debated during the Free Speech Movement brought up the Greek thinkers and the Roman thinkers—along with a myriad of other historical figures to make their case. The select few that drove the Free Speech Movement contended that Democracy includes all races and genders and does not discriminate. Simply bombing Viet Nam back to the stone-age to fight foreigners who were connected to an ideology of collectivism was not sufficient for American sacrifice. In fact, theses professors understood that Viet Nam was an escalation waiting to happen and leading toward an imperialistic disaster. But why would the students’ react?
The fundamental understanding or the deeper understanding of “why” the San Francisco bay area erupted into a slew of protests in the 1960s deduced to one unifying theme. We get this understanding from a form of some Classical Greek arguments’. The University of California, Berkeley,has had a history of representing youth who would otherwise not be able to afford tuition or acceptance into a major U.S. university. This meant that commoners were now exposed to what traditionally were upper-classed youth inductions into American political life and who were schooled by their parents of what are/were the secrets to life. The 1950s began the change in the university system, which we understood in the thirteenth century the word university meant a corporation. During this century the students ran the Bologna university, but at Paris, the professors ran the university. Yet, only the rich and affluent could engage in most of the top-universities of each age and attend to materialism successes of that secret. At Greece, the underlying argument was exposing truth to the masses ‘will” get undesirable results (and world politics and history), sociality and ultimately politically. That it to say offering knowledge to commoners will create a reaction to the common societal myths that are purposely implanted in society to run it smoothly. Members of Skull & Bones simply understood that. As the University of California made it their aim to hire the best and brightest faculty in the world, the result determined commoners were now exposed to the more-hidden-sides of knowledge, and a more- forbidden-discourse of history. While protests erupted around the world, the reason why Berkeley stood out as the world center was these factors. These students, feeling empowered by knowledge from their professors, descended upon the urban areas in and around San Francisco. The result was Berkeley at war in the 1960s. Its consequences were world empowerment and world fame. Its significance was life saving.
The number one contestant to understanding the Free Speech Movement (FSM, 1964-’65, proper) were intelligent students at one of the best universities in the world who were exposed to the most current foreign policy data in which they sought to communicate to a world impending around them, their students, in an effort to avoid another world war. The United States of America’s government forced faculty and institutions to take oaths that U.S. ideology of liberalism, freedom and democracy were the correct courses of action. Communist ideology was not supposed to be promoted on campuses, and this is exactly what some vocal and prominent University of California, Berkeley students engaged in as activism.
Being at an institution that is noted for the greatest documents of the eastern civilization in the western hemisphere, and subsequently the most up-to-date data and understanding of eastern current events, the results were significant -- communism in the east had proved the crime-rate, equality, equal representation, and social justice was superior in morality and diametrically opposed to ideologies of free-market capitalism, ethnic social domination, and technological hegemony. It would not be until the later 1980s and into the 1990s that Russia and China would open its archives to reveal different perspectives for the rural mass-populations. In the 1960s, the Berkeley students who took part only understood that collectivism, celebration of diversity and permissive multiculturalism were solutions of world peace and success. In subject, U.C. Berkeley students were exposed to information that most students and individuals in the United States of America had no access too. Being young, and being emotionally engaged in near remembrance of World War II and the university’s involvement, the students sought to engage in discourse against a government heading into the direction of conflict with the Soviet Union and China. After World War II, the United States became that machine, and that machine represented hedonism, extreme wealth for the privileged whites, and more importantly self-guilt of citizens living in an Empire of Liberty.
University of California, Berkeley Free Speech Space
At Sproul Hall, the steps leading up to Sproul Hall, and Sproul Plaza determined the space for the free speech movement. Students, either graduate or undergraduate, move through this space leaving or coming on to campus from the south side entrance. Sproul Hall is the building associated with admission offices, a symbol for the entrance into a prestigious higher learning institution. On the Plaza and to each side of the steps tables were set up in the day where students handed out pamphlets promoting their clubs, organization, debate groups, and general activist paraphernalia. Many students of non-political passion distained this part of the university, but one had to traverse its political harboring terrace. Within the time frame of 1963-1965 world events determined information the students had handed out at Sproul Hall. At the beginning of 1964, communist groups sought to debate the conceptual and raw data information concerning equal representation in communism and its social implication for social justice. As opposed to the U.S. government stance at this time with the House of Un Americana Activities Committee (HUAC), this was forbidden. This is the backdrop, or the unofficial version of the rise of the Berkeley students who tried to overthrow their university.
During the fall semester of 1964, a result of the University taking control of political discourse on campus, resulted in a backlash against mortality—the fear of mortality of an escalating war in southeast Asia. Why the myth persists today that the Free Speech Movement was aimed only at racism or African American employment remains a staunch ideal. While Racism was a definite local issue (SLATE), racism had persisted in the east corridor of the bay area for decades, but more importantly it had caused a world war. While it is true that some tablers were condition to information gathering services on Civil Rights in southeast U.S.A., the world’s larger racism (Viet Nam, U.C.B. weapons management to secure empire hegemony) played a significant factor in the rise of FSM.
The San Francisco Bay is part of a unique space in the geography of the United States of America. Geographically, natural bays are sought-out in history for settlements of great civilizations. As a result, diverse people made up a metropolitan society within the trade confounds of the natural bay. Asia, being the closest proximity and lying outward toward the west remains a connection to the eastern peoples. Viet Nam was expressed in this manner. Why was the United States of American battling people with rice-sacs on their shoulders, the students confessed?
The student uprising was the Viet Nam escalation, and the generation that was born right before World War II realized first hand the international implications world racism, inequality, injustice, under representation, adult delinquency as viewed as the U.S. government’s policy in policing the world. This was in fact coupled with the U.S.S.R.’s campaign to promote communist justice verses injustice of liberty and freedom, found its contradiction between many of the older faculty and the young and influential students. Unsuspecting to U.S. citizens at that time, international attention the United States had received for its forbidden discourse of world domination beginning with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s camping to spread U.S. government ideology to the world, entered the student’s curriculum. The University of California, Berkeley had created plutonium, created the processing plants (Caltrons) to quickly make enough fission material for mass production of the world’s first nuclear weapons, its faculty along with graduate students made up some of the leadership of the Manhattan Project,  and as result, but would not be the university’s decision, Truman had demonstrated the use of American power on two innocent cities of Japan by dropping one uranium bomb and one plutonium bomb. Cal was implicated in mass-death. Just attending the University brought a will of guilt connected to the outside world. The student youth of U.C.B. in the mid-sixties glared into the eyes of repetition in Viet Nam (Robert McNamara’s statements of the use of nuclear weapons on Vietnam (and the announcement of MAD), and Barry Goldwater’s militarism extremism mirroring McNamara’s resolve). Doubling that guilt would not be tolerated.
So what to do?
It was obvious, fight the machine. Since vocal protests did not gain the results sought, the physical bodies of students brought the university to international attention, but more importantly the physical bodies of the students helped stop a world war. – Michael Johnathan McDonald, 6 April 2008.
Berkeley in he Sixties
Source: “Berkeley in he Sixties,” a film by Mark Kitchell, Firstrunfeatures.com ( Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley: Media Center, Moffitt)
Backdrop of the 1940s-1950s.
Since the 1940s, blacks had migrated to the East Bay Corridor of the bay area. After World War two, the rise of suburbia brought deindustrialization to Oakland, Richmond and other urban centers where most of the African American and blacks called home. Their infrastructure by the 1950s was deteriorating and white America instead of expensive retrofitting of renovation to the urban centers built new cities along the East Bay Corridor – that we now call them suburban gardens and suburban in industrial gardens. Another understanding of why the city of Berkeley erupted was the most prestigious of academic “white” youth were flanked on both sides some of the most repressed, marginalized and poorest peoples of cities on the west coast – Oakland and Richmond. Of course, the pressure created an increase of presence on the streets for equal justice and this pressure over time resulted in an affirmation of “either support us or we will make your lives a living hell.” It is hard to conclude that something in the Bay Area air created a moral need for white youth to risk and actually get arrested on behalf of non-traditional Americans. Yet, this is the underpinning into which the bay area civil rights movements resulted in Caucasian’s assistance -- of the students who sought to intervene on behalf of marginalized citizens. Yet, the official story starts here because it begins at the beginning of the 1960s.
In the later 1950s and toward the beginning of the 1960s, the House of Un American Activities Committee (HUAC) conducted hearings against alleged subversive citizens of the United States of America: “Any views left of center were viewed as subversive.” As claimed by left-of-center advocates, HUAC engaged in “Putting people on trial for their political beliefs.” Freedom of speech was seen as violation from the U.S. Constitutions’ guarantees of permissiveness. In San Francisco, as official discourse, this was considered the first of the 1960s protests against the U.S. government’s policies against student activism for communism that gained national attention. In May 1960s, one of the first protests that formularized the 1960s as a decade of protests, urban war and domestic violence, was U.C. Berkley protest against the HUAC. “We refused to go back to McCarthyism,” was the consensus argument. The students simply did not know that Roosevelt changed the historical record in which Joseph McCarthy had no foundation in which to understand Roosevelt’s failed China intervention. Roosevelt simply wanted the U.S. to know he supported communism in the historical record so that his legacy would not be tainted for “losing China.” Not understanding that Roosevelt changed the historical record McCarthyism became the escape tool to which to vent frustrations against U.S. ideological trajectories.
U.C. Berkley students tried to gain entrance into the local San Francisco hearings. Suddenly hoses were turned on the students and they were dragged down the steps by policy officers. “[I]t turned out to be a political baptism that transformed fear into determinism. Something had changed, after this nothing would ever be the same.”
The HUAC committee made a film called “Operation Abolition,” John Searle, philosophy professor stated as the reason for the May HAUC conflict -- It painted a picture that students were going to overthrow the government, first by ending HUAC’s power. And, this upset the students who then made an effort to protest the film at the San Francisco hearings with aggressive activism. The film touted a belief in a vast conspiracy of organized student campus group that were extreme left-wing communists and who were engaged in plotting an overthrow the U.S. government. This film was scheduled to be shown at the Harvard ROTSI class (ROTC), on campus. At Harvard as it turned out, and as competition of college students against HAUC, it became a back-and-forth struggle as a “we are more American than you,” contest. Singing the Star Spangled Banner, and protesting the movie, the posturing between paternalism and child (students) began to separate as the children took over the roles, symbolically from the parents. Harvard was showing solidarity with the students in San Francisco, and vice-versa. It turned out that Operation Abolition was aimed at students to police students and strategized community members seeking out suspicious activity of other students fomenting extreme socialistic attitudes on campuses across the United States of America. To get the communication out to other students, the students formed groups by writing letters, set up meetings and discussed these government strategies – that they believed suppressed free speech. As discussed before, communism was seen as more accepting and tolerant of different lifestyles. The students simply had no idea how cumbersome life was under developing nations’ totalitarian regimes (that is to say, Communism, like Democracy, had never existed in its definitianoal form. As Nixon would see it, China , Russia and other proponents of communism were indeed only other nationalities and nations striving for modernization.). Yet, communist professors’ believed the rhetoric of the ideology of justice – a program of argued beliefs for the most equitable and tolerable societies which could be attained by constant revolution of older authorities (that being capitalism and imperialism, as it was argued to be inherently anti-human rights).
In essence it was the children, as students, that began to question their parent’s motives. Therefore, the break between the traditional families, as like the Leave it to Beaver serial T.V. shows that defined a normative dominate ethnicity, began its long decent into non-traditional forms of family associations that we see today as common – of the likes of single mothers, same-sex families who raise children, and foster homes – or both parents working full time jobs, leading to latchkey situations – the more patriarchal societies were seen in higher academic as tending toward fascism (R. Reich). It was the offenses of the Cold War, and decolonization that set this whole trend across the earth – not only in Cambridge and San Francisco, but in Prague, Mexico city, Paris, and Beijing – in the 1960s. Yet, in Beijing, the city students would end up listening to Air America, reading western translated books (forbidden in China, but no police force in the rural areas), and seeing first hand the horrors of Mao’s rural policies out in the countryside – which would lead a decade later to the Chinese democracy movements. Decolonization revealed capitalism at its negative exposure. Karl Marx had significantly changed the world with his critique on capitalism. Capitalism opposed justice, critics of capitalism concluded. Since the students did not know that China and Russia were in fact only emerging totalitarian regimes looking to modernize, they did not understand communism but promoted communism as teleological – new technology facilitated by a new medium allowed students to hook up with the decolonized and other students worldwide and argue communism as the only pathway to human rights.
1960s: The Knowledge Information Revolution – what was its significance?
By 1960s, U.C. Berkeley was beginning to discourse on changing technology, the Information Age, and the fact that television, and beginnings of script-work for the future of the computer industry, and also the advancement of telephone technology, began a revolution in its own way – and vitally, and significantly -- changing how students, citizens and activists organized and disseminated information between themselves and over vast areas around the world. Now the commoner, that is to say represented in the world-youth, were now, because of communication. in control of voices, opinions and activism at a wider and discursive stage of development. However, I contend that the population was growing denser in urban areas and those problems that beset those urban situations ultimate spilt out into the suburban areas such as the city of Berkeley. Tension of people creates tension that needed release in some form or another.
Twenty-nine percent of the U.S. gross national product was in the knowledge production sector, this had changed the way jobs affected the United States of America. Clark Kerr, University of California, Berkeley Chancellor gave a prophetic speech. It was accompanied by the machination of labor which in its affect, created job losses. It was also called coincided with deindustrialization by the 1950s. What Rail Roads did from the last half of the nineteenth century, the automobile did for the first half of the twentieth century, the knowledge production age symbolized the economic engine which would run the last half of the twentieth century. If fact the knowledge production industry was “growing at twice the rate” of other industries – “and that is to serve as the focus point for national growth,” president Kerr of the University of California, Berkeley, (U.C.B.) said. U.C.B. ran the government’s nuclear weapons labs, it was the largest publics university with the most prestigious faculty and it was commonplace for student activism to cyclically take place within each generation. Kerr explained back in 1960s that the U.S. job sectors were tending toward deindustrialization and toward the service sector and communications development. The failed switch to change unionism from factory and manual industry to the new prophecies sectors is a matter of heavy debate.
However, the rise of Television News in the 1960s played a correlating role the social activists as the 1960s had been known as the decade of television news. Radio also became a medium of mass communication. Robert William communicating on air from Cuba, defined a generation of decanting U.S. ideological trajectories. While music became the preferred format in the mid-1950s the advent of the decade of television news spilled over to radio transistors and portable radio sets facilitating dissemination of symbols and euphemisms. With the rise of civil rights movements, the Viet Nam war protest, youth moments, women’s rights, and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, television was compelled to address these issues facing the American public. While Television revolution can be viewed and linked to the 1950s, it is the consolidation of media groups with separate and special interests that identified the separate communication identities that framed the next decades of symbol declination.
The Crusades’, L.S.D., Role of the repressed, mass-hallucinations, and mass-change in consciousness as a novelty helps explain a decade.
Knowledge of psychedelics brought up from South America by way of Richard Evans Schultes, a pioneer of ethnobotanical studies, who had been sought-out in Bogotá by beat author William S. Burroughs of whom had come to South America seeking new drugs, passed on the knowledge of various mushrooms belonging to the Psilocybe genus to Alan Ginsberg. It was Schultes’ scholarly curiosity of plants which led him to investigate the Nahua from first reading of the teonanácatl (literally "god mushroom") which were reportedly served at the coronation of Moctezuma II in 1502. In a paper on August 18, 1960, published by Dr. Albert Hofmann, known for synthesizing Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), first described the chemical components of such Schultes’ investigations of hallucinogens such as ololiuhqui as Rivea corymbosa (and later others botanical-chemical properties). Hofmann’s publishing led to further curiosity, as well as Harvard’s Timothy Leary’s civilian investigations into hallucinogens, in which Hofmann later protested. Leary, a lecturer at Harvard, became known in 1960s counter culture by promoting the values of Lysergic acid diethylamide. At the beginning of the 1960s, only a small few at Harvard and some associated students in the U.S.A. had investigated the uses of hallucinogens. It is believed that only a handful of people were producing LSD for private use at this time. Testing on prisoners (T. Leary, Massachusetts’s Concord Prison), and psychiatric patients, one of the first instances in San Francisco in 1961, did not demonstrate the 1960s student/community -activist movement developed from the hallucinogenic discoveries. This myth is purported mainly from the connections to the workings of Owsley Bear and his influence of the San Francisco counter culture.
Born Augustus Owsley Stanley III (b. January 19, 1935), he had dabbled in the U.S. Air Force and was inspired by the Bolshoi Ballet, to which led to aspirations of dancing, sought in 1963 to enroll at the University of California, Berkeley, but later became engaged in the psychoactive drug scene. He dropped out after a semester, took a radio job and began to producing LSD in a bathroom of a home. The police took his equipment but LSD was not illegal then. Evading the San Francisco law who believed he was trying to manufacture methamphetamines, he moved to Los Angeles and produced 300,000 capsules (270 micrograms each) of LSD, returning to the Bay Are in May of 1965. As Connection to the Bay Area, in September 1965, Owsley became the primary LSD supplier to Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters. In 1966 after he met up with the up and coming Grateful Dead band, Owsley then rented a house in Point Richmond, California and started to produce LSD 99.9% free of impurities. By the time of the summer of love, the FSM had passed its proper stage, and there was absolutely no connection to the Black Panther movement. As part of the Counter Culture, the drug culture could be seen as existing as parallel and in unison in time, but not intersecting. While other individuals produced LSD, theirs had become hard to find, and it was the mass production purportedly that integrated the hippie in which Owsley has been given credit. While the Native Americans used hallucinogens as serious and ritual “medicines,” the beat, hippie and counter culture at large used it in a recreational substance. In 1966, in California, LSD became an illegal substance. American LSD usage declined in the 1970s and 1980s then experienced a mild resurgence in popularity in the 1990s. Why Lysergic acid diethylamide did influenced world pop culture, accredited for the hippie movement during the Summer of Love in the Haight-Ashbury area notably referenced by Charles Perry, and while much of the U.S. counter culture population as percentage dabbled in its draws, it did not influence the social protest movements when LSD entered San Francisco in later 1961. It was contained to small groups by 1962, still in experimental/scientific stages. While it may be a narrative of the counter culture, and replete with myth, the wide use of LSD did not take place as common recreation activities until and after 1965, well after the cogs and wheels of the machine were being assaulted on all sides. There is no evidence that college and university students or black liberation movements used such recreational perception altering chemicals to induce social protests.
Albert Hofmann experimentations with ergot reveled a molecule the forms lysergic acid diethylamide structure which can explain mass-hallucinations that occurred during the Middle Ages from harvesting fungi rye and other cereal harvests. Mental illness was associated with “ergotism,” where breakdowns and madness described humans as “lunatics, frenetics and the insane.” Sometimes it was a mild exposure and sometime intense. Le Goff argues “[T]he arrival of rye ergot in the west, famines, and ergotism which generated convulsions and hallucinations, the action of the brothers of St Anthony, and popular fervor of the Crusade together formed a complex in which the medieval world can be perceived in its physical, economic, and social ills and in its most disorderly and most spiritual reactions.” Arriving up to the period of the crusades, plague, scourges and epidemics created by natural forces (consistent moist weather, floods, extreme changes in climate) led to foodstuff hording, famine, inadequate grazing supplies for livestock (damaged poultry and meat supplies), mold and fungus on cereals and psychological desperation. The poor, who were affected the most, ate the funguses on the scant supplies of cereal-grains which led to convulsions, hallucinations and epidemics. Religious leaders had an easier time with desperate people, many who were hallucinating from natural forms of drugs growing no agricultural products due to poor climate and soil conditions. The masses were hallucinating and it was easier to spur on the groups to take up a cause for Christendom in the name of salvation. The sacred fire that was associated with ergotism, and the relic healing, defined the physio-psychological ramifications of starvation, religiosity, self-preservation and hallucinating. It is easy to understand that poor peasants made up the first Crusade; they were the ones hallucinating from fungiod foodstuff, desperate in their need to justify psychological their lives, feel important and express their freedom of liberation from their circumstances. This explains why they united in their physical ills. Le Goff argues that “Ergotism was the basis of a peculiar devotion which led to the foundation of an order.”
“With ergotism one penetrates further into a world breakdowns and madness. There were the gentle and furious madness of lunatics, frenetics, and the insane. In the face of these the middle ages hesitated between repulsion which people tried to appease with superstitious form of therapy ( exorcizing the possessed) and sympathetic tolerance. This spilled over into the courtly world (clowns were employed by lords and kings), or into games (fous des échecs-chess bishops), and onto the stage ( the young mad peasant, the dervé of the Jeu de le Feuillée in the thirteenth century announced the satirical farces of the end of the middle ages). The Feast of Fools prepared the way for the great unbridling of the Renaissance when madmen frolicked from the Ship of Fools to the comedies of Shakespeare, before they were cast into shadow in the repression of the classical age, in ‘the great seclusion’ of the prison-type hospitals denounced by Michel Foucault in his Histoire de la Folie.” 
The shift with the social pathology and the under-changing currents connected to the Bay Area (not just Berkeley in the ‘60s), drugs played a powerful approach to the psychology of repressed individuals who saw their world around them turn topsy-turvy. This change can be described of liberation, the same liberation that accompanies emerging superpowers, and yet its contradictions inherent with tradition and an emerging decolonized world – of which the U.S. sought to control for its economic benefits. The populating which was connected to the liberal ethic and to unions were simply living a different lifestyle than the youth who were no rich and found themselves at a nexus of career decisions and the availability of the treasures of Empire. It cannot be forsaken that this time, a time of turmoil, was so admirably described by the New Left as one of the most exciting periods in U.S. history. The emerging domestic Rights Revolution, the freedom to revolt against authority, and the freedom to be ‘free’ to do what ever one wished, could not have taken place under Communism of China or Russia – the desired social life in which many of the New Left looked to solve the “intellectual curiosity,” and intellectual contradictions” with empire. The connection with ergotism, the peasants of the middle ages, and their resolve to break-out in mass hallucination to forge a new directory of self agency, is part of groups in history that seek “liberation” from their perceived social ills. It can be said that the Crusades, these peasants, these mass-lower-class groups actually begun the current of western civilization change. In lieu of this statement, the students and individuals that descended upon San Francisco and the Bay Area in the 1960s, began forming collectives, in consciousness and, agency, and believed their were changing western civilization, from their point of view.
While I and others have used Hallucination to correlate the events of People’s Park, this is not a reference to perception altering chemicals otherwise technically termed as hallucinogens (popularly known psychedelics, see Aldous Huxley). I use the word to describe a changing perception of the social movements from focused activists to concrete social activates based on human equality and human rights and against U.S. ideological trajectory substance-causes to unrealistic, broad, and unfocused trajectories that led to aims not well grounded in reason or reality. The students like the peasants of the first Crusade united in their ills – this ills—was purely mental consequences of an empire that forged its economic foundation on U.S. interventionism. While previous off-campus causes I intend were ground in reason, people’s park descended into student hallucination(s) believing they were of a revolutionary movement. The groups, in general, sought to annex private property to free it from its possessors like communist revolutionary movements or crusaders that seek to overthrow existing government and annex lands for their own interests. Simply, at this stage of the U.C. Berkeley student activist movement the groups had no doctrine, no aim, and an unorganized purpose. Today, their argument that a parking lot was not sufficiently utilized still contains no weight. For the University of California, it was a loss of prime real-estate that would have know been a large-space for student housing. The University has a long history of fighting Berkeley city-hall for zoning laws, and garnering funds for momentous projects, such as student dormitories. Eventually the park would have become a venerable student housing, a housing shortage for U.C.B. undergraduates that still exists today. Significance? It was the issue over the use of people’s park that brought the University to approach Sacramento with the ultimate solution to bring in the National Guard. I still argue at this stage of the student activist movements had no part in the drug culture that created any of these circumstances. It is more of how large processes of revolutionary mindsets (as groups/ mass groups) work in relations to reason and contemplation or the absence of it.
Making Liberal of Radical Politics Legitimate in the Country.
Student activism took a turn when SLATE was formed in 1958 by Mike Miller, as student – campus run group that sought to focus on political issues and mentor other students. Some saw this as a small group of students who sought hegemonic discourse over U.S. political direction. Some accused them of being the radical student-government group that held their beliefs as “truth.” However, multiple perspective reflections adhere too, the group began to engage topics deemed by the university faculty to be off-campus issues. Jack Weinberg, a future activist from Buffalo, New York, who when coming to San Francisco was caught up in the totally different experience of the grass roots activism that shaped the 1960s Bay Area, is a prominent featured speaker of the film. After dropping out of school in New York State, he hitchhiked across the country to San Francisco, married and appeared at the scene of U.C.B hoopla. “ I was looking for truth, I was looking for meaning in my life” the former graduate reflecting on his life contributed as interviewed and part of its narration in the movie. Weinberg would become a central figure in the police-car-oration episode.
Students began to venture off campus and support local protests, make information that otherwise was not privy to outsiders available to common San Francisco citizens, which resulted in an administration backlash. “The Kerr administration was very upset with what they called off-campus issues. Anything to do with civil rights, or the testing of nuclear weapons or apartheid in South Africa, this of course were off-campus issues and this was what we were attacking – these were opposed to sandbox politics. The administration really started turning the screws – they started disenfranchising students because that was a big block of the SLATE vote, and then they actually threw the organization off campus. There was a big outrage at that, we got reinstated. So there was a growing community of people, who wanted to make liberal or radical – however they thought about it—politics legitimate in the country.” Miller reflects.
Predicting U.C.B. Activism with each undergraduate generation.
Each new generation of Berkeley undergraduates forms protesting groups, and“is one of the most predictable things we know,” Kerr reflects in the movie. In history, most costal, or a more significant observation is that port cities in large civilization tend toward leftism as opposed to right-wingism – not a rule but an empirical observation, after that civilization reaches a high-form of civilization. It could be even reflected in the extremity-politan observations in history if no large body of water nearby exists how would that affect inter-determinable relations with other races, ethnicities and cultural groups. “When we look at Modern Man we have to face the fact that modern man suffers from a kind of poverty of the spirit, which stands in glaring contrast to its scientific and technological abundance[…],” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Democratic Masses Take Over
“Civil Rights Movement became the well spring of student activism and inspired our entire generation,” said the movie narrative. “In 1963 Berkeley students started to band together with black activists to protest discriminatory hiring practices of Bay Area businesses: we sat in at restaurants, supermarkets, and automobile showrooms.” Our biggest challenge came when we tried to secure jobs for blacks and minorities in the motels and hotels of San Francisco.” A picket line formed around the Sheraton Palace, while negotiations with the hotel owners association took place inside.”
Weinberg: “It was getting to a point where we were saying, we were going to create a confrontation.” We are going to create a situation that is intolerable and we are going to force you to respond to it in some way and we are willing to get arrested, in order to do it and now the ball is in your court.” So some got arrested at the Sheraton Palace protest. It was the first major victory […] the Sheraton Palace hotel arrests.” Jackie Goldberg says of the democratic masses in protests in San Francisco. “It led to the first agreement in the north of its kind,” she claims. And that was an agreement between the entire hotel industry and the adhoc committee to end discrimination and to hire minority individuals in all levels of employment, including management—very historic and very elevating and it really pumped us all up into thinking my god, we really could have an affect on history, we could have an effect on lives of people that we would never know, we would never meet, simply be taking seriously, the words of the Constitution, the preamble and the Declaration of Independence, and all that stuff that we believed in, and the great vim and vigor, and here we just saw it happen and it worked,” Goldberg emotes.
“The other side of it was [that] other people saw it in a very different light. The business community saw it as a threat, as something that was going to cause them problems and the fact that 100 Berkeley students were arrested, and probably 500, 600 to 800 Berkeley students were involved in the thing, uhhh, it just portend things to come—and very quickly there was pressure put down on the university – ‘ you got to stop this’ and the terms that were being used were the university cannot be used as a base for attacks on the community,” as Weinberg reflected on the University’s reaction in general.
Free Speech Movement Spring 1965.
Officially Why? 1st Amendment privileges [at a public university].
Complications? Some Students of U.C.B. entered the community to engage in aggressive protests of San Francisco business hiring practices – which caused a backlash against the University by San Francisco politicians.
U.C. Action? Ban Political groups on Campus – their spatial-sphere on Sproul Plaza.
Student Reaction? A student Protest numbering at its height of 6000 (actually about 3,000 students).
Myth: Free Speech was suppressed, therefore protests reinstigated 1st amendment privileges. There is little evidence that free speech was banned or banned as a policy against the students, it was a reaction of student meddling in city politics and by use of militant/passive activism, as seen by the establishment (i.e. tradition of white dominance) as a dangerous precedence. The students turned the issue around to imply free-speech suppression and aggressively protested for civil rights by the terminology of free-speech. Students taking over a university for a variety of reasons has no precedence in history.
Unofficially Why?: The truth of social inequality, a common results of states in antiquity and modernity, created psychological reactions of students that in part resulted from a community pressure form the locals, exhibiting non-peace attitudes and threats to middle-class Caucasian students who were seen as privileged – underlying the economic, racial and marginalized divide within any such civilization (i.e., always one ethnicity dominates any such civilization in history – a truth that upset’s common youth because of realization imposed by the expert-world-class faculty at U.C.B. that usually likes to engage in deeper historical discourse/significance of human movement). It must be kept in the mind the number one motive of the students in off-campus activism ‘initially’ was minority representation in economics as coping with the realization of this social discrepancy and the pressure it enacted upon their physical bodies and peace of mind – mainly blacks who lived in large numbers to the north and south of the city of Berkeley that were denied many jobs available to other minorities and the white establishment. Yet, as myth, it was officially cast as a battle with the University over Free Speech, a guaranteed of civil right by the United States of America Constitution. Today, the university still lives within this myth. When the university decided to battle off-campus activists, who were only in retrospect a small percentage, they punished all the student activist groups—which led to the urgency and benefit of the civil rights student movement.
The University Faculty: They could not stop the outside community pressure on their Caucasian students; they were at a crossroads politically – when finally then governor, Ronald Regan needed to intervene against the two opposing sides – the faculty and the students—both receiving pressure by and of created a need for an outside arbitrating service to stop the escalation of mayhem. These students received pressure from the marginalized community, and the University received the pressure from the cities around them, and Sacramento’s officials were called upon to mediate the situation. One must remember the University of California is publicly funded institution, meaning California taxpayers hold its charge. The masses of people, outside and within the campus community, destroyed private property of Berkeley and Oakland community residents not a part of any movement. This aspect of the period was duly reflected in the film.
In the fall of the school year, the academic year of 1964-65, the tables now were banned on Sproul Plaza, according to the reaction of the university to student activism in the community. What was the significance of this ban of tabeling on Sproul Plaza? This spawned the “Free Speech Movement,” as the legend become known. “The effect of cutting this off [ U.S. administration’s crackdown on student off-campus involvement] was to stop political activity on this campus,” as Goldberg shown in a video during the spring of ’65 to a news reporter or documenter who summarized the University’s motives. They created an enormous reaction because they banned all groups – groups that were not affiliated with civil rights or worker rights [movements]– but all groups that were not off-campus issues. This created a mass reaction by students. The dean began to cite tablers (5 of them and two demonstrators) who did not follow rules, and by 3:00pm other students demanded they be cited as well as the Dean had retired for the day. The cited individuals were supposed to report to the dean’s office, but about 500 students followed and filled the halls. By 9:00 pm word got out that those cited individuals were suspended. So some of the students decided to ignore rules and the following days set up tables next to the Sproul steps. This led to Weinberg who was approached by a dean or a representative and asked for his identification or arrest, and Weinberg refused and was hauled off to a police car ( sitting in it for 32 hours, and at maximum time, about 6000 (some present said 3000) students on Sproul sitting around the police car), October 1, 1964. It was two minuets to noon and students blocked the police car by sitting in -- that is to say sitting around the car so it could not move.
Then students being careful not to damage the police car, taking off their shoes, began to get up onto the car (some on the hood, others on the back) and started having an argument -- saying to the other students – “are you with us or are you against us.” Then there was suddenly an open microphone on top of the car, and people that wanted to speak singed up too on a list – to say anything they wanted to say. “Hour after hour people were getting up orating, it was like an explosion of ideas,” Weinberg reflects. “People start talking, bringing in the Greek philosophers, bringing in the French Revolutionary thinker, talking about all the ideas – Constitution and liberties as if they had meaning,” (this other guy says( Mustache guy)).
People had to agree, it took time and it was boring and at times and it was fun, but it was all about civil rights. Six weeks went by the University kept blocks on Sproul Plaza tabeling. Some of these blocks were about issues related to Viet Nam, students handing out pamphlets on what was happening over in Viet Nam, dissenting views other than the media.
Max Rafferty, Superintendent of Public Instruction, observed, “What you have is a few of these rather bearded, unwashed characters of with sandals and long hair, who would normally be regarded sort of tolerantly as a lunatic fringe, that you put up with but not necessarily encourage, and in affect the campus has been turned over to these characters.”
“We were in the very midst of the FSM movement. For the very first time, the young, affluence, privileged children began to see themselves as an oppressed class. It was an astounding perception, you know because here we were, we were at the height of the privileged, at the best students and the best multiversity, destined to be the managers of society, and in the middle of this we turned around and looked at our education and said –wait a minuet, some how the best is the worst.” It put us out of touch with society, it severed technology from values, it severed the intellect from the heart. Many people, this was the only educational activity that we were involved in that was deeply meaningful,” said (Mustache guy)
A question of advocacy: Late November, the administration allowed tabeling to return with one stipulation of law abiding activities. That meant civil disobedience was still banned against students on campus. This also meant that radicals and extreme leftists could not engage in bottom up aggressive politics. After returning after thanksgiving, students learned that the original eight students that were cited were now being considered for expulsion – the administration had taken as steps to make them an example of aggressive advocacy. Four students were getting expelled, and six organization were being disallowed, Michael Rossman communicated to the students about proceedings for allowing tabeling back on campus. And the students believed that this was a mistake, according to Weinberg. Mario Savio, December 2, 1964 spoke to update the students on campus communicated/implied in his message to the students that the backroom politics of the University and the Regents was not “liberal,” and was not commoner democracy – transparency of students being as equals with adults. The students wanted a say in government policy, and the Regents and U.C. faculty wanted to communicate these things in private, but Mario believed that communicating it in the open would allow the students to believe that they were not adult enough to run the politics of government at their age – thus the emotive attraction to bottom up politics – and as result of not gaining anything out of the entire drama (except some ethnic classes). As proof the student not ‘feeling’ as equals with their superiors, Mario stated “we are the raw material.” What this meant is a complaint, and it is that the faculty, it is a research institution, were not supposed to do research but listen to their children and take orders from their children about how policy should be run in the U.C. system and the U.S. government – in essence the kids run the government and the material they use are the faculty, however Mario thought life subsisted on that level of operation ( as had others in history). “We are human beings,” “we are not going to be bought,” Mario emoted. What Mario did not address was that California corporations (as also the university’s denotation in history) paid the taxes for his education. Mario should have addressed the youth of the students in economics and how the university will gain the expensive money it takes to run the university if tax money of the corporations from state tax had to be cut off – according to Mario’s philosophy that corporations are morally “wrong” in society. A common misperception of adult’s claim against children or youth is that they have no appreciation of where and how hard money is gained and for the appreciation of simplest things as life that offers the privileged U.S. child such a prestigious position in world history (only a few million have ever graduated from the University of California, Berkeley). However, the fame of the FSM rests upon Mario’s oration on the mechanism of the machine: “There is a time when the operation of the machine become so odious, it makes you so sick at heart [not intelligence, but emotive] that you can’t take part, you can’t even passively take part, and you got too put your bodies upon the gears, and upon the wheels, upon the levers [and] upon all the apparatuses, and you got too make it stop, and you got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people that own it, that unless you are free the machine will be prevented from working at all,” Mario Savio (famous quotes) raised his voice at the U.C. Berkeley students. Not all students supported the movement. I’m not sure all could dissect and correctly analysis this famous statement without introducing determinates. However, a general notion is broadly and correctly understood – the adults were paying homage to Washington who was acting irresponsible, according to the younger generation of college students, who also saw a diverse society all around them but not represented in U.S. official legalisms or international human respect (later understood as human rights).
Many needed to traverse Sproul Plaza to get to class and some were mad that they had to pass (no alternative). Jentri Anders, noted some of the concerns of how participation in this coalition would affect her future – was she be caught up and not care? The students sought to shut down the school to protect the students who were persecuted by the school. Edward Strong, Chancellor of the Berkeley campus had announced the students were winning. (December 2-3, 1964)
So, civil disobedience became the norm for the school for two days, and these arrests accompanied a massive breakdown communicated from the university that sought to address courses of action in the Greek theater. They believed in bringing a revolution and their particular type of utopia to the campus, one faculty spokesperson that spoke in the theater to a jeering crowd of students. Mario approached the podium at the end of the meeting in the Greek Theater, in which to speak, and he was apprehended by police and the students erupted in protest. It was apparent; the school was out of control of the hands of the U.C. faculty. From the student’s vantage point, they were protecting students that were about to take a fall for them, and their decisions to align with these few students created much of the ambiance of two competing ideologies or groups – the establishment of the U.C. Berkeley, and the revolutionary-reactionary students that had sought only to assist in civil rights issues off campus, yet received distain form the local communities for their efforts and trying to change the status quo off-campus. The result was accusations that Mario was denied his free-speech, as opposed to faculty who claimed that had no idea he wanted to speak at the end of the meeting (although he was at the podium in a peaceful manner before the apprehension). Mario had ask to speak before the meeting took place and was denied because of an excuse of a “structured meeting,” and the meeting was to voice the (some of) faculties opinions, regardless of what the students wanted – the release from all expel process of the initial student arrestees. It was a fiasco for the faculty and students, and resulted in pandemonium, and by this point no – one was in charge of the campus any longer.
Semblances of decolonization.
For two months rallies, protests, gatherings, and sit-ins were commonplace.
A bunch of students drafted a resolution and it passed the academic senate 7-1, where most of the faculty came to a conclusion to support student free speech. It is with this passage that the FSM believed they had achieved everything they had set out to achieve – they claimed victory. Then a rally of a victory celebration; Mario claims it is a good position for freedom to speech, which is lawful. Therefore, he claims, we must
The students, as common slogan could have the administration sweeping the sidewalks, Seal emotes. It was the students won a powerful victory of direction for their education. “This is day one of a new era… we can have a totally different conception of education, [but] worse yet, we attracted to Berkeley the worse collection of kooks and nuts you have ever seen in your life,” John Seal reflects in the movie. Yet, as Seal offers an analysis, the TV and media distorted the perception by introducing outsiders as part of the campus movement. Therefore, a national audience believed that “kooks and nuts” were actually the Berkeley students. As perception, it was a radical, orgy, drug influenced party, which was the furthest from academic life of the students. The outsiders were replaced as the students in the media. This brought backlashes toward the university. Even Ronald Reagan believed it was absurd drugs and sex as a perception of the students. The media exaggerated in a certain sort of ways: “We were alienated and cynical,” Jackie Goldberg, empoted about the media’s skewed perception, “we were absolutely the opposite.” We were so committed that we risks our jobs, our education and we did it because we were so tied into the system, [and] into this country, and this culture, that we believed in it so much that we were willing to take risks when at a time, when it was not popular to do so,” Goldberg reflects.
John Gage, reflected that people lied to keep their power at the University. Then he understood that this was a societal norm, and it shook his reality… “when I saw that, I saw that everywhere, in Oakland, in the south,… these were mechanisms that operated everywhere.” The FSM had its victory, but students went back to off campus issues with vigor, the original agenda of the war returned to the prime focus.
Victory and Civil Rights, we believed we could change the world…..students.
We have a war to stop – Back to Basics of Outrage against U.C. Society
Phil Ochs, plays guitar in the movie, singing and playing the guitar.
Voice of Paul Potter, President of SDS, on May Vietnam day, 1965 on campus.
Reality and integrity of the national motives. ( persuasion moralism)
What kind of a system, which ceases the destinies of other peoples. …we must name that system, and we must change that system or it will destroy us (Potter, para). So student’s sought to block trains with soldiers going to military (Oakland army terminal) . In the fall of 1965, the Vietnam Day Committee organized a march through Oakland, as a peaceful protest against the war, and the end point was the Oakland Army Terminal ( Planned for October 15, 1965, by Weinberg). First was to march down telegraph at Berkeley toward Oakland. The Oakland city line had police, and Oakland put up a barricade, and scouts had talked to police and the marchers understood it was then going to be a bloody situation. And the next day, a second march, even bigger attempted to break the police line, but this time an obstacle of Hells Angels. The Hells Angles, yelling, calling the protestors pacifists, and pushing them, suddenly escalated with the third march a month later – but finally made it into Oakland. “The whole national mythology, was that the Viet Nam war was a consensus war,” Weinberg reflects. “And people that opposed it were marginalized, freaks, kooks, you know—unimportant people.” So the function of the anti-Viet Nam war moment was to form peace marches to break this mythology to the nation – that is was not a consensus war.
Ronald Reagan walked onto the political stage as a candidate for Governor in 1966, during his campaign he had addressed, “Attacking the mess at Berkeley,” pleased the crowds, the movie’s narrator intends. “ It began a year ago, when the free speech advocated who in truth have no appreciation of freedom were allowed to assault and humiliate the symbol of law and order of the policemen on campus, and that was the moment when the ringleaders should have been taken by the scruff of the neck and thrown out of the university once and for all,” Ronal Reagan said, in a speech addressing the Berkeley FSM. As Michael Rossman reflected on Regan’s election victory, “ he won by pandering to a citizenry that was outraged by what these terrible, insolent, ungrateful children were doing on the campus.”
A report of the Alameda committee that spoke about a Viet Nam dance ( Student activity), by the Viet Nam Day Committee on campus that had showed psychedelic images to loud rock and electronic music, that Regan had pointed out was part of a counterculture. “That there was is clear evidence of things that should not be permitted on a university campus,” Regan had said to an audience. There were 3000 people and some juvenile at the attendance. “There were three rock and roll bands that were playing in the gymnasium simultaneously during the dance and movies were shown on two screens at the opposite ends of the gymnasium, and these movies were the only lights in the gym-proper and consisted of a color sequence that gave them an appearance of different color liquid spreading across the screen, followed by shots of men and women on occasion, shots where of the men and women’s nude torsos on occasion, and persons twisted and gyrating in a sensual fashion,” Reagan had stated.
The Subculture was even a tour ride at San Francisco’s tour rides. Across the Bay form Berkeley, the counter culture emerged on the streets of San Francisco, dependence from the hipsters of the beatnik era, and hippies further exposed the chasms between the parents generation and our own. One can relate this chasm be referring to Ronald Regan’s observation above of the U.C. Berkeley dance. By 1966, more and more of us were “turning on, tuning in and dropping out.” ( this is a famous phrase, a curt definition of the counter culture) “Our alien nation ran much deeper than protest.”
It was much, much, bigger than the war, and it was much, much bigger than the civil rights movement,” Jentri Anders reflects. They did not want to be a part of a culture that was destroying the world,” she observed. This was also, I intend, the reaction to not being able to stop the war in Viet Nam. “The point is that, that, it was the culture that was sick, the whole, umm, the whole American way of looking at things that was sick. And so I think that we came to a realization that one way to change that is too just to live it differently,” Jentri Anders concluded the significance, the reasons why the hippy movement arouse. “….Instead of trying to change the structure in a direct confrontational way, you just drop out, and live it the way you think it ought to be.
Yet, narcotic cigarettes, marijuana also became a part oft the counter-culture. It was alos the appearance of the eastern religion, a peaceful and more spiritual journey type of faith. It was collectivist, where people were not talking about communism, they were actually living it. It was against materialism, some had understood the deeper messages, as opposed to spiritualism/non-materialism. “Do not tune into words, but into feelings that have no intelligence. Intelligence actually was thinking and thinking could recreate that parent generation that created so much “Wrong” in moral terms from the Hippies perspective.
The radicals of Berkeley, and the hippies of Height-Asbury had an affinity, we were visionaries, the narrator claims. “We were critical of conventional society, but we disagreed about how to change the world. This running argument came to ahead with the war in Viet Nam,” the narrator sets up the next segment. It was late 1966, and the anti-war movement. What they wanted to plan was a “love-in” rock concert to forge a love vibration that would actually stop the war in Viet Nam. Late Bill Miller, who owned a bar, was into the Anti-Vietnam movement. Believed that the politics of hip was an alternative but parallel world that was opposed to “strait” people (politicos who believed in the war in Veit Nam) – and this understanding represented the answers to social morality, they believed. These movements coexisted in contrast but as the sixties drew on the two parallel worlds moved closer together.
The Counter Culture burst onto the University of California, Berkeley during a strike on campus in the fall of 1966. Singing the Beatles song, Yellow Submarine, and it represents a new way of looking at life.
“The aim is to build a powerful peace block that really can have influence in the 1968 elections,” Martin Luther King. Jr. spoke. It started in 1968 and king called it “a tragic war,” and that it must be an issue for the up and coming elections. “As the warhawks escalate the war in Viet Nam, we must escalate our protests against the war,” King spoke. Stop the Draft Week, October, 1967 in the induction center in Oakland, activists sought to shut it down. The war was being escalated and a feeling of being impotent. Weingberg, we were increasing being alienated and therefore we could escalate our protests against that alienation. Graduate students, such as Ruth Rosen, influenced by King and Gandhi, but then the anti-war movement began to use rhetoric that we must “raise the stakes,” Rosen proposes the aggressive tactics used against pro-war movement. The police and students and anti-war protestors faced off, but the police won. The anti-war movement tried to shut down the war by aggressive protesting. “I do not think we made one bit of difference that day,” Rosen reflected. Then the anti-war movement began to plan for an escalated protest on Friday – a planned riot. The students pushed the police backwards, down the streets, and it was aggressive protesting, physical, violent, and dramatic. The students shut down the induction center and the city – what they had set out to do, yet was this what was going to stop the war. The U.C. Berkeley students were also blamed for innocent people’s property damage. The student’s strategy was confrontation and wanted it to take place all over the country. As Weinberg concluded, the antiwar movement did not have the weight in society to stop the war. This meant that the bay area anti-war movement was seen as ultra radical and out of mainstream America. The student’s believed that by aggressive protesting the country would follow their lead. It was a selfish and wishful sentiment – somewhat pompous as well. As the students engaged in property damage as a strategy to stop the war, “the Berkeley radical scene became more cut-off from reality,” Weinberg reflects. “We began to see ourselves as glue in the keyholes, we began to see ourselves as, uhh, obstacles in the way of, of, the system, filling its potential, you know wreaking destruction for all over the world. We began to see ourselves, well, you know, being as big of a pain in the butt as we could, and I think we sort of lost the idea that we could be victorious,” Rosen sums up her observations and the escalation of the antiwar movement in its perception within to without. The students were chanting “Hail Hitler ( and Zieck Hail).” The translation was the students believed this was a racist war against south Asians.
As confrontations, street demonstrations, sit-ins escalated they antiwar plan was not working. What would work was political voting. So the antiwar believed it was better to put pressure of nonvoting for Johnson. Stokely Carmichael SNCC ( Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) spoke with the same sentiment against L.B.J. “The honkie go draft you to go die in Viet Nam,” he said.
The Black Panthers: “The Revolution has come, it is time to pick up the guns, “ a popular chant of the black panther movement in Oakland resounded in unison. They came forward as the cutting edge of black power; the white students admired the black panthers in that the white students could not behave like them, or lest they would be singled out because of their society’s position as being white. Yet, white students tried to latch onto the movement in a coalition understanding. Black Panther militancy memorized the students. Bobby Seal and Huey Newton formed the Black Panther party in the fall of 1966 and drew up a ten point plan for black agency.
Huey called up seal with a plan to raise money to buy shot-guns. At Chinatown, in San Francisco, the Chinese Communist Red Book, Mao Zedong’s cultural proletariat revolutionary manual sold for cheap and the black panthers made 800% ( we would but them for 20 cents and sell them for $1 dollar) profit by selling these red communist books on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley. As Bobby Seal intends, the students bought them up fast. “We sold out in two hours,” we went bought and sold more, we did not even read the books for months, and that first day we bought two shot guns. Then the Black Panthers went to Sacramento with their shot-guns to show their second amendment right to bear arms. Huey Newton spoke. In a matter of six month the black panthers were an international sensation, even in newspapers in Africa, and in England. It was symbolic; they were not going to be viewed as non-violent any longer.
Huey Newton was at a scene where a policeman was shot and killed, and was arrested on charges of murder. This prompted the opportunity for U.C.B. students to form an alliance with the BPs. “ Free Huey,” became the student’s battle cry and national mantra for the Black Panthers. Now the movement became national as this episode energized both other cities that formed Panther groups and the media that latched onto a drama at first, then spinning it for fear of a national race-riot; the white left was confused with themselves, and they involuntarily they followed the militancy of the BPs, “ because it thrilled them the most,” a Black Panther stated. ( strange dude who had blue shirt on mustache).
The media skewed what the Black Panthers were actually promoting – justice, equality, and societal fairness. The media painted them as a militant revolutionary movement that was going to take over the United States of America, or start a race war in the streets – all which was spun and fabricated for political purposes by the white dominated media.
We captured the imagination to the white radical left, Seal said. And we influence them so they did what we wanted them too. “They were awed by us,” Hardy Frye a SNCC activist stated in the movie. “The Black Panthers were confronting the white power structure the ways they would have like to have done,” Frye continues. April 6, 1968 a shootout with the Black Panthers, a confrontation possibly a rise in tension as the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. had taken place and affected the nation.
The Black Panthers let some white radicals off the hook, Frye said. International revolutions, Paris, Mexico, Czeclosvokia.
Frank Bardacke reflects about his vision, the protest movement concluded at that time the antiwar, civil rights movement had moved into the fantasy of a revolutionary movement [ to overthrow the U.S.A.]. “ we were wrong, it was not a revolutionary situation, it was a mistake,” he concluded. At that time it had a lot of aspects to it, he went on to say. In 1968 revolutionary was in the air.
At War in Berkeley
Trying to Liberate Territories. ( Must have confrontational Issues to continue escalation of free-something movement)
People invaded the city of Berkeley and some by way of militancy, practicing with real live ammunition in the hills. The U.C. administration believed that they were in the midst of a student revolution and they were the targets. Like under siege, it was the University that caved into the demands of the students. The students gained power by solidarity and took over the school’s direction. As complex, sometimes this was felt as real by the administration, at other times the administration fought back.
Social Revolution, the Peoples Park:
Ordinary people in political decisions.
The demonstrators wanted a confrontation.
Students wanted to start a confrontation with anyone
Students took over a parking lot that was a private property on the south side of campus a few blocks away from the University that was not being utilized by the U.C. It was just sitting there talking up space. The U.C. was awaiting funds to build a housing complex for the students, as student housing has always been in short supply due already developed land. But the students wanted a confrontation and they sought to liberate lands and sections of territory – it was Berkeley at war. By liberating lands, the students believed they were revolutionaries and could do anything they wanted.
The students claimed the people park, an actual parking spot that was vacant for a long time and that the university had purchased the property a long time ago had not been developed, lay vacant. The students had said to the university that they now owned it and were using it better purposes than the university was using it. This can be explained in that a shortage of student housing also existed within the parameters of the university at that time and building a park students could live homeless there. The students took the initiative to build the park for one month, putting much effort into its construction. Then the university seized it, while knowing of threats of the university to shut down the university. The university complained to Sacramento and met with Governor Ronald Reagan who chided them for capitulating to student’s demands in the first place. The Administration had told Reagan that if they destroyed the park they “[T]hey were going to destroy the university” (Explain to the students that the University that it bought property). At the meeting Regan replied, “what do you mean negotiate” [with the students], Reagan said. And finally before he left the room, Regan summarized the U.C’s actions, “All of it began a long time ago, the first time some of you, who know better, and are old enough to know better, let young people think that they have the right to chose the laws that they would obey as long as they were doing it in the name of social protest.” -- Ronald Regan filmed in consultation with the U.C. Berkeley faculty.
The university fearing the students, the administration had asked Regan for a solution. The solution Reagan determined came in the form of the National Guard, stationed at the city for over a month. The students provoked the National Guard who then fought back. The university, after the students put so much work into the People’s Park had decided to destroy the student’s work and then the National Guard occupied the park. This had energized the students who now believed they were doing something really important in the world and were now real revolutionaries. The administrations actions to destroy the work of the students at the Park had angered the students beyond prevention. Then the university administration decided to have a public meeting with the students to apologize and say they were wrong. During this peaceful time, the Natural Guards had created blocking measures to survey students entering the university’s Sproul Plaza. Not everyone knowing what was going on, and peace movements that were independently operating created distractions, confusion, and ultimately a reaction.
Then a peaceful protest and non-access to Sproul Plaza during the occupation, a helicopter appeared and had flown over the campus, and the students believed they were under siege. Then gunfire broke out, smoke bombs, and outside the police line stopped student movement, some trying to leave and some trying to enter campus on the Sproul side, the were trying to get out and were beaten by police and national guard personal, and people tried to get onto campus – and noxious gas canisters were fired on campus and around the community. The students were gassed, and this episode actually ended the movement. The students had believed they could fight a real revolution, but with one deaththrow from this event that woke the students up to reality. This was real violence and with forces with real weapons. The students had awakened to reality of real consequences. Free Speech can only go so far. The students had started to believe they could actually change the world and knew more than the parents, the grown-ups and the generation before them. It was not that the protests’ were wrong; it got out of hand, as they had lost focus of their original intention. In some sense, the students became over confident, and pushed too hard. As John Searle, (continued as a U.C. Berkeley professor of philosophy – and He was the first tenured professor to join the Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley.) summarized, the students had no vision, no articulation of a social doctrine, no social plans and direction. It was emotional and misdirected at the end. It was a dramatic period for the University of California, Berkeley, and the National Guard was the final episode -- with its occupation -- it finally quelled the whole Berkeley sixties movement – it really woke students up to what is real revolution – where the game becomes serious and death is around the corner.
What is the Legacy?
Women’s liberation movement a result of the Anti-war movement, as people stated the speed to which this happed seemed so fast, and things were changing so fast. Women’s movement was a result of wanting to participate with the boys, and have rights like the boys, and at University of California, Berkeley, the young women wanted classes to focuses on how women could learn to be like the men for a societal role.
Berkeley Revolutionary Front (BRF)
The women movement suffered from the war’s escalation, so much things going on at the same time. BNF at the Chicago National Convention, trying to change national politics – no-one anticipated Mayer Daily’s crack down on students in the streets of Chicago, who were beaten – a side of American politics that was vicious side, and it was a destruction of the democratic party. It was an attempt of an electoral part to end the world, and third world parties, and separate parties
The Hallucination of People’s Park
U.C. Berkeley has had a long tradition of purchasing land around the University and not developing it for decades. People’s Park, as it would become known, was such a land. It was basically a dirt parking lot, two blocks south and just east of the south entrance to campus, and the U.C. had planed to develop the site into a valued and needed student housing unit. U.C. Berkeley has a history of trying to garner funds for projects, and it also has a history with battling zoning laws within the context of the Berkeley City Council's prostrations. Eventually, the space that became known as the People’s Park (now a homeless haven), this space would have been developed into much needed student housing unit. Today it remains a symbol, a national narrative and remembrance of the Free Speech Movement. Yet, People’s Park described the down fall of U.C. Berkeley 1960s off-campus activism. People’s Park was not directly related to the anti- war movement, civil rights movement, or any other previous off-campus cause. It was an hallucination of a revolutionary group that believed it could now change the world by annexing private property because its self-professed knowledge was now superior to the machine. In some sense, the movement became its own machine.
There are some outstanding websites that purport the national or local myth, and should be consulted for its romanticism. One can get caught up in the seduction of youth finding realism, truth and purpose within an annexed space. While the world’s history is founded upon groups in time, forging spaces as their agencies for their new ideas and customs. The revolutionary sentiment of this period was no different. Mario Savio, while not publicly communicated, took a self imposed twenty-years silence on the Free Speech Movement. He was part of the final stage that described People’s Park. Many who were a part of this final stage took some social and community heat. Battling over this space lasted for decades. As acting as a revolutionary movement, the movement had no doctrine, had no aim and had no real purpose that contested the real social causes that made the Free Speech Movement, proper, so relevant to their times. It might be said that People’s Park addressed the poverty around the world. Yet, to solve poverty, a massive effort not known to man still eludes this social problem. Maybe micro-decolonization? Maybe it was just an hallucination? In absence of trying to suppress the positive emotions of good nature, good will, and good position of the students, I will extinguish my commentary further on this topic and just purport some of the relevant facts.
1968: An ethnic studies program as Legacy of the efforts by some of U.S. Berkeley student protesting movements.
An ethnic studies program was established as a legacy of the some of the activist victories over the faculty during the FSM. In the so-called tumultuous decade and at its panicle, 1968, Regan who had been on the board of the Regents sought to shut down a pilot program intended to introduce social engineering classes or guilt classes. Many in the student union as we some of the faculty did not support social engineering classes, validated by voting. The argument remained for the Regents that credit should not be offered but that the classes were permissible. Reagan understood it as opposing meritocracy, yet decolonization movements understood that meritocracy was a bourgeois control ideology. Reagan reacted against the student protests on a whole as communist uprisings. Communism, as it was understood in the U.S. grass-roots movement was not elimination of private property or abetment of capitalism, but affirmative action – a ideology of forced inclusion of under represented and socially oppressed groups.
The Black Panther movement had sought a position in action and rhetoric as a revolutionary form of movement, therefore utilizing decolonization discourse and advocating dual language domains – one as ‘fight the power’ (the ‘power’ as directed only at white ruler ship of political institutions of America that were seen as undeserving, dishonest, repressive, racist and unworthy human beings) – the other was inclusionist, non-combative, compromising, mentoring toward white students their white heritage histories of repression of foreign lands and foreign peoples to foster guilt and remorse in efforts to diversify power and to ultimately gain power sharing. The Black Panthers simply received their arguments for global decolonization movements that reacted toward white European domination of the nineteenth the first-half of the twentieth century. While advocating inclusionism, the black grass-root movements that formed in the 1950s finally understood that whites would never allow them social agency in the U.S.A. The only avenue of recourse was to force the whites through constant reminders of their heritagical past. Since white topics from social to economic to political histories and to social sciences dominated the U.S.A. universities and colleges curriculums – classes that forced whites to be reminded of white murder, beatings, suppression and racism was the only way to change the white dominated system. It was understood that Reagan had understood the system and therefore his actions are understood and framed as racists by opponents that also understand the system. As part of the 1968 experimental program, Eldridge Cleaver, one of the leading figures of the Black Panther movement was scheduled to participate in the pilot programs for social engineering. In histories of all the great civilizations, either east or west, one race had secured the dominate role in government –this is the system. When diversity factors into the socio-economic-political foundations a state or civilization collapses. No civilization has ever been immune except for the promulgation of myth. Ronald Reagan reacted to what he perceives as the beginning point of the fracturing of the system: guilt placed on to white youth, who had nothing to do with the past, were not the recipients of revolutionary minority movements that decided to fight or die. This was normative history, uncovered by the methodology of historicism. The so-called tumultuous decade is an umbrella term for minority agency in the United States of America, and especially African Americans break-out onto the world stage as major contributors to intellectual thought, who decided they would either die or accept improvement for their economic agency form the white dominated central authority. It is of benefit to understand that the Black Panther movements were not what the media framed them as – violent, ignorant, and dangerous.
What made the Black Panther movements so appealing to black communities across the United States of America were their new knowledges brought upon by education, even self-education, which had defined the movement. The leaders of the original Oakland movement different in their education and words such as thug (ancient Hindu for petty criminal) a terms framed by the media to demonize the lumpen-proletariats who were recruited by the Black Panther leadership to police and govern their own communities against white police forces, and the rich capitalists (including affluent blacks) to contribute to the urban poverty programs. It was a coming of age for African Americans who now were directed by educated blacks who understood that whites were never going to keep their promises to them ( understood in the late 1950s in Oakland grass-root movements, see my pages on these) , and that they, and only they, could be counted upon to run their communities and fight for economic-political and social inclusion. It is this understanding, of what we call ‘ agency’ that derives the motivation for forcing the communities to include within them teachings of toleration, diversity, inclusionism (as well and as contradictory term of multiculturalism), and to give credit for teaching minority histories in experimental classes. What made African Americans and blacks from other places living in the United States was their new understanding that whites rose during the later half of the fifteenth century by way of ‘fighting’ and dominating their opponents (peoples that suppressed them and peoples that stood in their way to success – be it deserving or not.).
White’s guilty of their middle class lifestyles, and observing the cities on fire as empirical observations from urban riots, simply sought a pacifist outcome rather than overt reactionism – a part of past white European methodologies to keep minorities suppressed and subservient. What made the new experimental courses so important to minorities was now they would have their own histories, their own data compilations, and ultimately their own knowledges in which to battle the Jeffersonian precept of ‘all men [people] are created equal.’ The natural outcome of this was the advent of the current “American Cultures” courses in which whites are subjected to learning, analyzing and accepting the past white supremacist race of what is called la longue durée. In efforts to attend to the difficult associative reconstruction of history, Liberals sought to disassociate with their racist pasts, some accepting roles as mentors to minorities to remain in power, or others simply resolving to allowing minorities to rule over them – a recognition of someone else’s past guilt of human rights abuses.
As minorities’ clamorer to reach the power positions in U.S. society, fights over who controls of these once white dominated positions will follow normative historical models. Race riots among African Americans and Latins are commonplace at this time in youth circles and integrated schools, across the United States of America. Simple dominate issues or race agency are a micro-empiricism of a larger dominate white society. The decade reveled that the white establishment sought refuge in the liberal party and formed an ideology that is actually a temporal solution called ‘celebration of diversity.’ Yet in history we find none of this success. What we do find are pockets of time in which only certain rulers established programs of toleration – yet were complicated by their supremacy rule and non-power sharing relations. It is only the U.S.A. that has had a semblance of success in minority power-sharing, but evidently fighting over power-sharing continues at this time. The Roman model describes as myth the periphery overthrowing the center. Yet, when we look at it, it was the supremacy of Latin-Roman control that created the pressure of the periphery that created the fall of (western) Roman civilization. The Athenian model is not different. The white Greek heritage was overthrown by minorities, who ended up despising their earlier toleration for multiculturalism and power-sharing models. It is a myth that the Macedonians simple descended upon the Greek states and overthrew their rulers. Macedonians were integral parts of the Greek State story, which had helped build the Greek States from the beginning. They were simply shut-out as power-sharers until Greeks exhibited their own version of political correctness – due to grass-root forces that placed insurmountable pressure on the central authority.
City was occupied for a month: Some people tried to provoke the National Guard; it was a collective hallucination that emerged into a national revolution consciousness. On May 20th 1969, about 100 individuals acting as collectives descended upon the area and built a park, with help of a landscaper. Within the collective consciousness over 1000 people completed the park by mid-May. At this time, the U.C. had begun to re evaluate their understanding of what the park would eventfully become. No longer was a student housing project a planned agenda -- it would be changed to a a sports field – conceptualized in 1967, but voted upon June 20th, 1969 -- yet as reaction to the student take-over attempts. A myth had become historically constructed in that Reagan had initially wanted to quell the student protests citing efforts to stop the communist take-over of the school – all prior to 1969. By the events of 1968, Reagan had given up and warned the university it was ultimately there job to police their school. It was the U.C. faculty that was in conflict with the students and community and not Reagan. It was the U.S. administration that sought out the regents and U.S. faculty to enforce the annexation of private property – not a lone figure in Reagan as mythological reinventing of history had been demised. Reagan became the scapegoat of the blame-game because of his earlier efforts as stabilizing normality of white dominated tradition. It was the U.C. faculty that sought Reagan authority for intervention. The way the myth works is that by baptizing the U.C. faculty, the students could remain complacent when they attended class -- which was not the case. Reagan reaction of ‘if it takes bloodshed’ was not his lone resolve, but a frustrated U.C. Berkeley that had sought to stabilize normality for about a decade and were fed up as their own collective group in which they sought out Sacramento intervention. The myth works well to abrogating responsibility of the U.C. faculty and placing blame on a symbol – that of Ronald Reagan. In this way the U.C. could be normalized as a revolutionary movement that realized change in tradition and preceded as a moral progenitor of ethics and morality. Therefore the students could attend classes without dealing with reality and physical threats by living within a myth -- the same way the U.S. white hegemonics -- the Jeffersonians had lived before the reactions of the minority classes. Placing blame onto someone else helps to psychologically reaffirm one's ascribed or adopted myth for self=preservation and repose to otherwise continuing physical and emotional combat. The founding framers of the U.S. had understood that once the U.S became a rich country it would falter, a historicism understood by empirical historicy. Simply the ruling race and//or ethnicities would placate a more developing class(es), more resolved to measures of desperation and urgency.
Doe Library, the main library on Campus, symbolized the Athens of the West coast of America (United States of America). As recognized in its outer and inner architecture structure and motif. While Athens was the seat of Democracy in the ancient world, its philosophers questioned the relevancy of its structure. While Socrates championed democracy, he was mythalzied as its critique. Socrates understood that Athens did not run a democracy, purported in its definition, and spoke out against officials who had financially drained the Athenian temple on the Acropolis of Dalian Funds to fund construction of the Symbol of Democracy, The Acropolis. He also and lauded the discipline, the famile respect and dedication to justice of Athen’s neighbor Sparta. This could be explained that corruption of city officials was predominant theme when Socrates was speaking in the Agora. At that time, it had started to influence the youth. Plato, toward the end of his life, and who had broken off with the philosophy of benevolent democracy of Socrates, had articulated the first form of communism in his last work, called The Laws. In The Laws, Plato addressed justice rather than freedom. The contention between freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness contests justice, human equality and equal representation. Democracy, as defined by Helens, relates a denotative meaning of “rule by the common people.” In Athens, slaves, women and non-Athenian born males had no representation in the voting process of Athenian leaders. Was that really a democracy? When Thomas Jefferson had written the concept that men (as people) are born equal and have this equality as sacred ‘rite,’ this concept marked the transference of secret society to world exposure – an embrace by the emerging literate of the world after World War II. This helps explain why all the communist groups in the world, including the poorly termed “third worlders,” and black liberation movements, the youth movements, the social activists all utilized these Jeffersonian concepts to argue human representative agency. If the founding message of the United States of America swore to “all men are born equal,” the world’s population capitalized on this sentiment and shaped the world according to this revelation. From behind the secret door, from the eastern private schools, to the expelling of the clouds that shadowed the U.C. Berkeley campus by Fiat Lux, these concepts of equality, “all men,” and “freedom with rite,” profoundly integrated a world to a change of perception. Was the United States of America ever a democracy? While it is not in the founding documents, the official name of the government is Federalist, Representative, Republic, by the 1930s, democracy had replaced the conservative phraseology of the United States of America. With the democracy of goods, the American industrialization, the amount of plenty, the marginalized forces of the American landscape searched for their Shangri-La statement. They turned to Thomas Jefferson, an ardent anti-military, pro-agrarian U.S. founder. As part of the U.S. philosophy, Thomas Jefferson only represented a select view for the trajectory of the United States of America. While his view was largely suppressed for socio-economic--political agency until the twentieth century, afterward his views became the dominating theme of human rights. With the New Deal programs beginning in the 1930s, the United States of America steered its course to a semi-socialistic state. As modified kingship, it forges what other kingship states do in history. It sought to dominate the landscape around it. After world war II, and the military ascendancy to ranking of number one in the world, the U.S.A. now understood its spatial responsibility to the dominate landscape. As with all other kingships, ideologies are put into place as normative narratives that seek national consensus. This was liberty, democracy, freedom and equality. By-words of Thomas Jefferson, these were not the founding concepts of the United States of America. Most of the founders by consensus did not want a democracy, seeking explanations that its base functions revealed weaknesses in the strength of a state. There are many arguments’ for this in which this piece does not address due too length. However, as point, it is the contention of this that the students on campuses around the world, and in the United States of America had reacted too. It was Kingship of socialism, its founding measures, which created world’s dangerous concepts of “total War, annihilation, genocide, ideologues run amuck. Conservative fashioned their beliefs around “attitudes.” Part of those attitudes, and even reflective in Thomas Jefferson’s attitude, was isolationism. Yet, as kingship ideology, and self-state preservation, the leaders of America sought to defend its newly acquired larger population after World War II with global dominance – control for economics, strategic military bases, trumped up wars of diversion, and ultimate sacrifice of the common for the appeasement of the state’s ideology of liberty, freedom, democracy and equality.
The shift between American kingships to democracy marked the efforts of the student activist movements of Berkeley in the 1960s. While most U.C. Berkeley stood did not understand all the forces acting around them, the intrinsic knowledge with help of the ‘world-class’ faculty helped create the reactions that materialized in the 1960s. Concepts of liberation for the African Americans in economics and dignity, the result of ultimate sacrifice of the common for the appeasement of the state’s ideology of liberty – the Anti-Viet Nam war moment, and the un equality empirically observed around them, materialized in emotional reactions of the physical body as well as the emotional body. The realization that these students could not solve all the world’s problems helped end its off-campus activism by the end of the 1960s. However, and as compromise, the efforts sustained helped shift a growing legacy toward a new direction for the Untied States of America – a democracy.
For a semi-scholarly work on Berkeley in the 1960s (heavily sourced, some stereotyping, but worth one’s time) is W.J. Rorabaugh, “Berkeley at War: The 1960s” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). He was a Stanford University graduate who concentrated much of his time at Bancroft Library to achieve a source diversification that fits a well into the authoritative picture of the complexities of groups at Berkeley, San Francisco and Oakland in the 1960s. A particular mention is the treatment of the many groups involved in this decade, which underscores the national myth that the entire campus of Berkeley supported the Free Speech Movement. Divided into four main parts, however, there is an overall theme. If a scholar wants to engage these times for a project, it is suggested to consult this heavily sourced work, at least for clues and directions to further study of this decade.
Movie’s Characters, persons, credits.
“Berkeley in the ‘60s” Film credits…
Director: Mark Kitchell
Writers: Susan Griffin (writer)
Mark Kitchell (writer)
Release Date: 26 March 1992 (Germany) more view trailer
Genre: Documentary more
Tagline: The untold story of students in the 60s
Plot Outline:A documentary about militant student political activity in the University of California-Berkely in the 1960's.
Jentri Anders ... Herself
Joan Baez ... Herself (archive footage)
Frank Bardacke ... Himself (also archive footage)
Stokely Carmichael ... Himself (archive footage)
John De Bonis ... Himself (archive footage)
Hardy Frye ... Himself
John Gage ... Himself
Allen Ginsberg ... Himself (archive footage)
Todd Gitlin ... Himself
Jackie Goldberg ... Herself (also archive footage)
The Grateful Dead ... Themselves (archive footage)
Susan Griffin ... Herself / Narrator
David Hilliard ... Himself
Lyndon Johnson ... Himself (archive footage)
Clark Kerr ... Himself (archive footage) (as Dr. Clark Kerr)
Martin Luther King ... Himself (archive footage)
Barry Melton ... Himself
Mike Miller ... Himself
Robert Mitchum ... Himself (archive footage)
Suzy Nelson ... Herself
Huey P. Nwton ... Himself (archive footage)
Phil Ochs ... Himself (archive footage)
Paul Potter ... Himself (voice) (archive footage)
Max Rafferty ... Himself (archive footage)
Ronald Reagan ... Himself (archive footage)
James Rector ... Himself (archive footage)
Ruth Rosen ... Herself
Michael Rossman ... Himself (also archive footage)
Mario Savio ... Himself
Bobby Seale ... Himself (also archive footage)
John Searle ... Himself
Francis E. Walter ... Himself (archive footage)
Jack Weinberg ... Himself (also archive footage)
 Plutonium was first isolated and later collected on February 23, 1941 by Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Dr. Michael Cefola, Edwin M. McMillan, J. W. Kennedy, and A. C. Wahl by deuteron bombardment of uranium in the 60-inch cyclotron at Berkeley. Edwin Mattison McMillan (September 18, 1907 – September 7, 1991) was the first scientist to produce a transuranium element, at the University of California, Berkeley. (campus proper, room 40).
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, (April 22, 1904 – February 18, 1967) at this time as part of the Faculty of the University of California, Berkeley, was an American theoretical physicist, best known for his role as the director of the Manhattan Project, the World War II effort to develop the first nuclear weapons, at the secret Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico.
 LSD is considered as part of the entheogen set, because it can catalyze intense spiritual experiences where users feel they have come into contact with a greater spiritual or cosmic order. Other hallucinogens found in nature of the middle and south Americans are described as medicines, and not drugs, which have healing properties, thus the sacredness of their properties.
 Timothy Leary claimed that while in Mexico in 1960 he purchased mushrooms form an Indian spiritual leader, and the experience made him want to tell everyone in the world. He returned in the fall to Harvard and encourage graduate students to partake in experiments and ‘trips.’ He later left the scientific side of investigation and turned toward the recreation side, promoting the use to Ginsburg and other Beats.
 Author of One Flew Over the Cockoo’s Nest.
 Organized parties to promote and use LSD, called “Acid Tests,” and the provider was Owsley.
 His total production is estimated at around half a kilogram of LSD, or roughly 5 million 100-microgram "trips" of normal potency, although accounts vary widely. After continual arrests, moved around, to Denver and other places to evade U.S. laws.
 It was scholars that led the way for the U.S.A. drug movement. In manuscripts on 1850s Southern portions of America, and northern portions of Mexico (peyote), the Native Indians of middle and south American that told of “flesh” that made them able to communicate to their gods, created curiosity in prestigious students at some of the more prestigious institutions in America. These students curiosity found them in South America, Mexico, middle Americas, to seek these ancient textual sources and the ancestral natives who still lived in the locals to address these “sacred medicines.”
 Some 15,000 hippies converged at Haight-Asbury in the summer of 1966, San Francisco, said to come for the ‘tripping,’ that was the cornerstone of their new culture.
 Robert Greenfield, Albert Hofmann, Inventor and First User of LSD, in “Rolling Stone Magazine,” issue 1053, May 29, 2008 ( Rolling Stone, 2008), p. 24. Hofmann was born January 11, 1906. After receiving his “Ph. D. from the University of Zurich he began working for Sandoz Laboratories where he was investigating ergot, a fungus that grows on rye kernels. Seeking a compound that would aid blood circulation, he synthesized a series of derivatives, the 25th of which was lysergic acid diethylamide.” (page 24) 250 micrograms of LSD is a potent dose, but one cannot overdose on the drug.
 Le Goff, Jacques, Medieval Civilization, 3d. ed., trans., Julia Barrow (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1964), p. 240.
 Ibid., Medieval Civilization, p. 239.
 Ibid., Medieval Civilization, p. 239.
 Ibid., Medieval Civilization, pp. 240-241.
Copyright ©· All Rights Reserved · My Website