I give up. It’s Tom Brokaw, I thought. I don’t know that much about the sixties compared to other eras, I thought; I missed all but a couple of months of the decade, so – here we go.
First of all, the writing was not what I expected. It didn’t feel like it was at the level where I would expect Tom Brokaw’s voice to be, after all the acclaim I've heard about his books and the amount of time I've spent listening to him (although, granted, he normally read someone else's script). It wasn’t stupid, quite; it wasn’t badly written, the format was interesting (part memoir, a smattering of interviews bookended by the histories of the interviewees, bookended in their turn by personal reflection); it was just … not there.
So, the 60’s… “You say you want a revolution”. The book’s title is “Boom!” because there was an echo of revolution in almost every aspect of American life. Equal rights in all venues, based on gender and race and maybe even just starting to look at gender preference … America’s role in Vietnam … Everything was turmoil and upheaval.
Let me put my point of view in perspective. In the past few years, I worked at the front desk of an office, with little contact with the rest of the crew; then in an office with a very Christian office manager and a mostly grown-up staff who were primarily interested in just doing their jobs; then in an office with three men. I was unemployed for almost a year before being hired to my current place. Thinking back, it has been something like 15 years since I worked in an office full of women, and I can say based on where I am now that things have not changed for the better. And in this book I can see the seeds for the coarsening, the self-centeredness, the escalation of crudity, the sheer loudness.
What made me quit the book, what brought to a peak the traces of frustration I was feeling with the attitudes of the 60’s and the changes wrought, was the tale of one of Brokaw’s subjects in the section on equal rights for women, Dr. Judith Rodin. She fought her way to a position as a researcher at Columbia University – only to have her work stalled by anti-war protests that locked down the campus. Months’ worth of research was lost. Why? Because her research involved a number of lab animals. I shudder to think. When the protesters locked down a campus, they literally locked it up – locked everyone out – prevented access to any buildings. Including the science building where this woman’s test subjects were slowly starving to death. The situation was described thusly: “So I lost all my research, about a year’s worth. I learned there are no easy answers in life, that loyalties can be divided [because she was against the war, but wanted to keep working]. It also taught me perseverance, because I had to get rid of the dead animals and start all over again.”
Is that really what the 60’s were like? God knows how many (or what kind of) animals, starving to death in their cages because a bunch of entitled little idiots felt their protests would be weakened if they let someone in to tend them, and that fact wasn’t even a blip on their radar? I know, I know – the lives of the animals were irrelevant anyway; scientific research is rarely good for its test subjects, and of course the very most important thing about any of this was that the project was in the hands of a woman (who maybe refused to show any kind of concern over the animals lest it indicate too much girlyness?) – but at least if they had died in the course of the research it might have meant something. This? This smacks of a cold petulance. And no one, not the protesters, not the scientists, not Tom Brokaw, seems to have noticed.
And what, exactly, is the point of shutting down a campus? Did I miss something, and Columbia was entrenched in the politics of the war? So, apparently, I did, or Brokaw did – Wiki: “In early March 1967, a Columbia University Students for a Democratic Society activist named Bob Feldman discovered documents in the International Law Library detailing Columbia's institutional affiliation with the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a weapons research think-tank affiliated with the U.S. Department of Defense.” Fine. Plus they were building a gymnasium that was going to be segregated, so, yay – twofer. But here’s the thing. How many students went to Columbia in 1968? How many were involved in the protests? How many just wanted to get on with the education which they had paid for, or get on with their own work (and care and feeding of lab animals)? And what, in the end, did the riots accomplish?
And then there’s this sort of thing: “Violence continued into the following day with students armed with sticks battling with officers. Frank Gucciardi, a 34 year old police officer, was permanently disabled when a student jumped onto him from a second story window, breaking his back.” No. Absolutely not. “We’re protesting for peace – let’s attack the cops with sticks!” What the hell? Seriously, what the hell?
In the end, my impression of the decade is of the clueless leading the blind fighting the fossilized, of on the one hand idealists and contrarians embarking on a campaign to, on the one hand, right wrongs – and fumblingly going about it in all the wrong ways – and, on the other hand, to upend every aspect of life apparently for the simple sake of doing so. Of course hindsight is much clearer than anything they had the ability for, but so much could have been accomplished. And wasn’t, because of wrong-headedness, corruption, cupidity, stupidity, and misdirected idealism.
As I mentioned earlier, I see the beginnings of so many terrible things in these interviews. There is the rise of vulgarity as commonplace, unremarked. There is the sickening movement, on the rise this year, of protesters provoking law enforcement to violence, purely so that the provokers can point to the result and say, “See? That’s what the pigs are like!” (Oh, and then so that in the resulting chaos there can be looting – free stuff! Yay!) There is the strange recipe of entrenched secrecy within the government blended with the public’s awareness that secrets are being kept.
I don’t know how relevant this is, but it came to mind while thinking about the protests and sit-ins and so on, and it won’t go away. I’m a fan of The Walking Dead, and especially of the character Daryl Dixon. And, since no one’s entirely safe in the zombie apocalypse, there’s a meme out there which is, succinctly, “If Daryl dies we riot.” And my understanding is that TWD’s creator, Robert Kirkman, has responded snarkily along the lines of “The more I hear that, the more I want to kill him off”. And I can’t help thinking that this sort of attitude, expanded and amplified, is an encapsulation of the 60’s. The more the scruffy counterculture protested and yelled and disrupted, the tighter the powers that be buttoned up and battened down.
In the end, my opinion of the decade is only solidified: I’m glad I missed it. And I’m at least as pissed off to have to live with the consequences as they were to be living with what their predecessors left them.
But this should be a review of the book about the 60’s, not the 60’s themselves. And, in the end, I’m trying to separate my opinion of a decade I’m glad I missed from my opinion of “Boom!” – and I still feel fine with giving “Boom!” one star. The book was published in 2007, before Barack Obama was more than a possibility of a candidate. As a history of the 60’s, one would think it would be fairly timeless – but it isn’t. The current political atmosphere – current as of 2007 – is referenced several times, and, in short, the book has not aged well. It is irritatingly dated.