The Greatest Generation

[paft.livejournal.com]

Great speeches were made this week, important speeches, and necessary speeches from powerful men and women. They offered not lies and vague platitudes, but reality. They offered, not the abandonment of the American dream, but its resurgence. They offered hope.

And yet, none of this is worth anything if we don’t understand what is at stake, and where our own power resides. The answer doesn’t lie merely in putting all our trust in these speechmakers. It lies in the fact that the 99% is 99%. The overwhelming majority.



No elected official is going to be perfect. No politician is going to embody or embrace every belief, every opinion, every ideal we have. They are human beings as we are human beings. And no, perfection can’t be found in a crowd either. Crowds can be deluded into acting against their own interests. They can chase mirages, break apart from selfishness and bigotry. They can become monsters.

But when a crowd embraces true solidarity, when it manages to look beyond race, class, religion, and gender, great things can happen. When people band together and pursue something beyond the hope of individual riches, they can create a society where, yes individuals can achieve wealth if they want it – but they can also live comfortably and safely if they want to pursue other dreams. We don’t have to live in a society where there is little or nothing between poverty and wealth, where the loss of a job can mean the loss of your health or even your life.

Graphic novels have been around longer than many of us know. They enjoyed a vogue in the early 20th century, with "wordless novels," sequences of often beautiful and highly skilled woodcuts that told a story, minus captions or word balloons. I remember discovering them back in college in the 1980s, when I scoured the local libraries for anything by Lynd Ward, Laurence Hyde, or Giacomo Patri.

The other day, just after hearing President Obama’s acceptance speech, I found an online edition of Giacomo Patri's masterpiece, White Collar originally published in 1939. The woodcuts have just enough detail to tell a complex and heartfelt story of a man knocked off the middle-class ladder during the Great Depression. It may have been published over 70 years ago, but it remains relevant. Healthcare, the power of corporations, homelessness, even abortion are all touched on in this novel.

Here's a link. You can choose autoplay for a moving slideshow, or just click on the arrows to turn the pages manually.

It's a call from the past.

The Greatest Generation didn't just fight World War II.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[dwer.livejournal.com]

FDR once said to a group of people who met with him to talk about a program (paraphrased): "I agree. Now make me do it."

I've often said "we are the government." It really is true.

I wish the images were bigger, but great link!

[paft.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I wish the images were bigger too, because there's some important details too easily lost, (Like a book with the words "Abortion is a felony.") But it remains a pretty powerful statement.

You can see larger versions of many of these images if you do a Google image search on "Giacomo Patri." They're also featured in a book entitled Wordless Books.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Even a bigger copy here. (http://i.imgur.com/bXGHu.jpg)

I love this type of art ;)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The Greatest Generation is a great big myth concocted by later generations. The GI generation did a lot of impressive things, but being drafted kicking and screaming to fight Adolf Hitler for a war most of them had no emotional stake in was not one of those things. It belongs in the same junk history category as all the other "generations" if we really want to get into it. I would point out that this:

But when a crowd embraces true solidarity, when it manages to look beyond race, class, religion, and gender, great things can happen. When people band together and pursue something beyond the hope of individual riches, they can create a society where, yes individuals can achieve wealth if they want it – but they can also live comfortably and safely if they want to pursue other dreams. We don’t have to live in a society where there is little or nothing between poverty and wealth, where the loss of a job can mean the loss of your health or even your life.

^is exactly what historical fascists advocated, the transcending of all social conflicts and the union of society. They even demonized the rich when it was convenient for them to do so. We do not need to transcend the existing boundaries in class, race, religion, and gender, because this is impossible, certainly in our generations, and requires a continuously maintained multi-generational policy to effect. We need instead to recognize that these differences do exist, and that their legacy, while problematic, offers a means for society to unite more sophisticated than assuming true solidarity, assuming the No True Scotsman fallacy can be defined here, requires that these not be acknowledged.

We can say this all we want, but a guy who lives paycheck to paycheck to provide for a family which spends most of its money and time on simply keeping itself fed is never going to see solidarity in the same sense that someone far more affluent will.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Holy crap.

I actually find myself agreeing whole heartedly with your analysis.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The one thing that I think the Marxists got right was to appreciate that the material aspects of people's lives do shape how they view the world and how politically active they're going to be able to be. So long as the cost of living is high and people's paychecks aren't equally able to meet that challenge, simply living day to day is far more engrossing than who wins what election when for what position. This is the temporal universal that tends to doom the genuinely popular, as opposed to mass, movements as the great masses have invariably loathed this aspect of things, but their so-called beneficiaries quiver and turn back when they realize that actually changing it costs them as well.

Essentially modern US progressivism has yet to accept that political movements in mass democracy are just this: mass. Not genuinely popular, for the good reason that the genuinely popular movements have far too much a shade of the Reign of Terror to be accepted. Looking beyond these differences merely perpetuates them.

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

Take my icon.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I know...weird!!!!!

[paft.livejournal.com]

So what do you suggest?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It's not the greatest generation that I have an issue with, it's their kids.

[paft.livejournal.com]

And that issue would be...?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

it's their kids

Thank you, Doc Brown.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Every generation is great in their own respect. E'nuff said about that.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Why am I seeing the same platitudes I would expect over at the RNC?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Those platitudes being?

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

I don't find the 99% vs. 1% thing useful when a significant chunk of the 99% is perfectly fine with the way things are.

but they can also live comfortably and safely if they want to pursue other dreams. I don't want to pay more money in taxes so someone can go broke following their dreams.

It is true that no elected official is going to be perfect. I think some voters are guilty of wanting to vote for the opposing candidate if their candidate isn't perfect.

[paft.livejournal.com]

This isn't about people going broke following their dreams. It's about people being able to follow careers that don't make a great deal of money, like teaching, social work, or even modest livings as authors or artists, and still having some comfort and security.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

I hate it when politicians kiss butt with their america is the greatest country hoo hah.

All of those speeches were terrible.

[paft.livejournal.com]

What would you have liked them to say?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Just for the record, folks -- Underlankers decided to continue this argument, without my participation, on Underlanker's own Livejournal. I would not have commented, except that these arguments included misrepresenting what I'd said. I responded on Underlankers page. Underlanker banned me. Very courageous, that.

So any of U's little friends who were commiserating with U about my awfulness (Hi ddstory and abomvubuso), do feel free to defend what I was taking issue with -- Underlanker's claim that the children of the GI generation "didn't do Jack Shit" to end Jim Crow, along with Underlankers extended vomit about hating baby boomers.

I'd be just FASCINATED to see what kind of defense you could muster for it.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Eh, you gotta realise at some point that it's pointless to try to correct everybody on the internet, and learn to pick your battles carefully, lest you lose your brain to a mass brain-assplosion!

That's the only position I had, and still have, and as you can see it has nothing to do with the children of the GI generation or any specific topic. Frankly, I don't have enough knowledge on the subject you were discussing, and neither does the above statement refer to you or your "awfulness" as you call it. So I'd appreciate if you keep me out of this, thanks.

Let's pretend that you didn't say "little" friends.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I did not decide to continue the argument. You did. I said that my post was about cutting an argument short that was endless, and this is exactly the reason that I did that. If I'd kept up another 300 comments of the same Who's On First pattern, that would have cluttered up my inbox with this bullshit when I really didn't need or want it. It has nothing to do with cowardice, it's simply refusing to take seriously someone who talks about their maturity and whose catchphrase is "scritch scritch run along."

As you're still repeating the exact same goddamn lies that led to this endless wankfest in the first place I refuse to undergo yet another round of needless headaches here. You're either selectively literate or you're simply put lying about what I actually said by using the Creationist methodology of selectively quoting what I've said and your own words.

So, since you got butthurt over my refusing to play ball, that's all I'm noting here. The OP said this, I'm quoting the entire thing in big bold letters so maybe you'll actually read what the Hell someone else is saying. Oh, who am I kidding, you're never going to do that but since you lied about this, too:

paft is nothing but badlydrawnjeff's inversion in terms of gender and political spectrum location. They both can't discuss things with other people and read the same things from the same words. I fnally had enough of wasting my time telling her what I think over and over again and her completely, utterly, totally, and idiotically refusing to listen, accusing me of saying the exact opposite of what I just told her three times in a row, calling me insane, to boot. I just can't bring myself to care enough about paft at this point to waste more time. Sometimes you just have to let someone be wrong on the Internet.

What I'm annoyed about is that I spent two days on the Internet wasting my time with this idiocy. Why da fuq did I do that? >.< I mean, really, I believe that arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics, so why I did wind up acting like the bull in a bullfight? >.<

As I said, that post was about cutting an argument short that was a waste of time. Your behavior was exactly why I did that, I banned you rather than go through this again in my own LJ when I had enough of it here.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Why are we even discussing what people write on their personal LJs? Why outing people like that in public? Sounds very grudgey-butthurtey to me.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And to provide the basis for this idiocy for the readers who actually care, if there are any (that this thread was dead after the latest wankfest stopped argues otherwise), this is what Paft said in her OP, the same words she is incapable of remembering she types:

No elected official is going to be perfect. No politician is going to embody or embrace every belief, every opinion, every ideal we have. They are human beings as we are human beings. And no, perfection can’t be found in a crowd either. Crowds can be deluded into acting against their own interests. They can chase mirages, break apart from selfishness and bigotry. They can become monsters.

But when a crowd embraces true solidarity, when it manages to look beyond race, class, religion, and gender, great things can happen. When people band together and pursue something beyond the hope of individual riches, they can create a society where, yes individuals can achieve wealth if they want it – but they can also live comfortably and safely if they want to pursue other dreams. We don’t have to live in a society where there is little or nothing between poverty and wealth, where the loss of a job can mean the loss of your health or even your life.


This is what I responded to with this:

The Greatest Generation is a great big myth concocted by later generations. The GI generation did a lot of impressive things, but being drafted kicking and screaming to fight Adolf Hitler for a war most of them had no emotional stake in was not one of those things. It belongs in the same junk history category as all the other "generations" if we really want to get into it. I would point out that this:

But when a crowd embraces true solidarity, when it manages to look beyond race, class, religion, and gender, great things can happen. When people band together and pursue something beyond the hope of individual riches, they can create a society where, yes individuals can achieve wealth if they want it – but they can also live comfortably and safely if they want to pursue other dreams. We don’t have to live in a society where there is little or nothing between poverty and wealth, where the loss of a job can mean the loss of your health or even your life.

^is exactly what historical fascists advocated, the transcending of all social conflicts and the union of society. They even demonized the rich when it was convenient for them to do so. We do not need to transcend the existing boundaries in class, race, religion, and gender, because this is impossible, certainly in our generations, and requires a continuously maintained multi-generational policy to effect. We need instead to recognize that these differences do exist, and that their legacy, while problematic, offers a means for society to unite more sophisticated than assuming true solidarity, assuming the No True Scotsman fallacy can be defined here, requires that these not be acknowledged.

We can say this all we want, but a guy who lives paycheck to paycheck to provide for a family which spends most of its money and time on simply keeping itself fed is never going to see solidarity in the same sense that someone far more affluent will.

And this is what started this waste of time that I should not have gotten into but did:

Paft asks this:

So what do you suggest?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I respond with this:

That we find a solution to today's issues that works for both the affluent person and the people who have to live mouth to mouth, one that is actual substance and not another round of sloganeering? The generation that directed WWII and sent the GI Generation to the battlefield had ideas like the GI Bill, while the GI Generation was the one that through actual policies struck down most of the existing legal discrimination in the United States at the time. They did not do so through endless focusing on who said what (though this is a perennial aspect of politics), they did so by focusing on implementing policies in spite of this.

The current Congress has too much deadwood who look good for the papers by passing useless repeals and relying on bureaucratese, too few people who know how to work the system to accomplish anything. It's also an unfortunate truth that the people most effective at accompanying things tend to be loathed by the people who can't do the same thing.

And she responds with this:

Yes, and working together is one thing. Pretending that differences of class, gender, race, and religion are irrelevant is not the way to get people to work together. They aren't. They can't be. Class, as defined by my example is obvious, but do you really want to argue that a black man who's got it made but is excluded from the elite by skin color has anything in common with an atheist Native American woman on a reservation who's got no opportunity because Native Americans are systematically caught in an imposed Catch-22? You can't simply transcend these things. It's been tried, the result was World War II. You can't simply claim "Class Struggle" and end things either. The former USSR and contemporary North Korea, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Nepal are examples of how that ends up.

Solidarity has to be based on more than handwavium, wishful thinking, and bubblegum.

And I repeat that the original assertion I was responding to, now in bold, italics, and underlined for the reading-impaired, is this one:

No elected official is going to be perfect. No politician is going to embody or embrace every belief, every opinion, every ideal we have. They are human beings as we are human beings. And no, perfection can’t be found in a crowd either. Crowds can be deluded into acting against their own interests. They can chase mirages, break apart from selfishness and bigotry. They can become monsters.

But when a crowd embraces true solidarity, when it manages to look beyond race, class, religion, and gender, great things can happen. When people band together and pursue something beyond the hope of individual riches, they can create a society where, yes individuals can achieve wealth if they want it – but they can also live comfortably and safely if they want to pursue other dreams. We don’t have to live in a society where there is little or nothing between poverty and wealth, where the loss of a job can mean the loss of your health or even your life.

Where the debate over the Civil Rights movement came into was when she asked about my assertion that contemporary Progressives, who are regularly rope-a-doped by the GOP in the Congress, are not as effective as the past generations that actually passed the New Deal and the Great Society's, because they fail politicial acumen and rely on whining to substitute for it. My comment about loathing the Boomers, which I do not and never did deny making, a lie she endlessly repeats, was in relation to the contemporary politics where old people want their benefits and want to deny them to my generation. Her comments about Boomers butchered in cold blood are, were, and will be a diversion from the actual point at hand which was that her assertion indicates a blinkered refusal to recognize an old theme of politics very much alive and well today.

With this, I intend to leave this thread, hopefully permanently, unless there is more whining about what was never said.

I leave it to any outside readers to decide who, if anyone, was at fault with the leaps into the ugly thread this became. I take responsibility for all ugliness in rhetoric on my side and for continuing this stupidity.