Marv Gandall wrote:
>
> I would describe it as "progressive".
Marvin gives a pretty complete list, though I'm sure there are things both of us could think to add if we thought long enough. I would say also that one ought to include in the positive list events that in themselves were not (if that makes sense): I'm thinking in partiuclar of the urban riots, beginning with Watts. Granted the level of political consciousness was very low, but without them I think the Civil Rights movement would have lacked some of its force. They were a political gesture by people excluded from politics who did not quite know what they were attacking but correctly saw there was something that needed to be attacked. The serious history of areally great epoch remains to be written. And as contemptuous as I was of them then, and now, I suspect that even the so-called "hippies" were part of the needed mix. And the many local "white liberal groups" (one of which I helped found but had to split with) were in some ways an essential part of the whole and should be granted their mede of praise.
It is easy to have too narrow a view of what goes into a really large mass movement (I use the singular) and /or revollutiona.
Carrol