June 17, 2003

Because I Said So, Dammit!

Okay, so hublet's been reading The Long March, which is essentially a guidebook as to why Baby Boomers chap my ass--not all of them, just the morons who thought that it would be a good idea for a bunch of chemically addled sub-adults to be in charge of a nation and proceeded to whine and throw molotov cocktails 'till they got their way--and since he can't be outraged without reading the offending passages aloud to me, I was introduced to the illustrious Angela Davis.

Since she's currently a "professor" (sneer quotes intentional and extra-sneery), I thought I'd Google her, given her radical past.

I came across a lot of entries of the "academic airbrushing" variety--you know, the bio pages where they kind of gloss over her implication in the deaths of four people, the arms dealing for the Black Panthers, etc., and treat her ideas about abolishing prisons with great gravitas--but I also came across a site called disinformation.com, which styles itself as one of those uber-hip, truth-revealing, conspiracy-busting sites for fighting The Man. I read their entry for Ms. Davis, which basically went with the whole "she was like, black, and like, a radical, so she was like, framed" angle, and I thought--"well, okay, but where are your sources?"

The bottom of the page is chock-full o'links, but they're mostly links to what Davis says about Davis, or radical sites about how she was framed--the one "alternative" site--the Truth About Angela Davis--is labelled "disinformation at its finest." At this point, Irony stopped by, pointed, laughed, and moved on...

The gist of Disinformation.com seems to be that because it's opposed to mainstream media and because it calls itself a source of truth, it is. And in a nutshell, that's the legacy of the Angela Davises of the world--you can remake yourself eternally, because the truth is very very malleable, particularly when you're dealing with the morally superior branch of the intellectual elite, who will gloss over any "past indiscretion" in their search for political poster-folk for the cause du jour.

The legacy of the sixties isn't radical change or social betterment so much as it's freedom from consequences and the primacy of image over substance. Yay, sixties. Explain to me again why we're romanticising this crap?

Posted by Big Arm Woman at June 17, 2003 09:10 AM

Do you know how lucky you were not to have to put up with Angela and Co. in real time, as in happened, in our faces? Keep in mind that it wasn't her peers, all of us now-almost-old-codgers who glamorized and praised her and her ilk, but older folk who should have known better. They were not interesting then, and aren't now. Oh, the pain.

Posted by: Jack at June 17, 2003 11:29 AM

Jack -

Trust me, I have joy at not having lived through the Age of the Craptastic; but WHY won't these people just get old and go away?

I mean, really. Go. Away. Now. I'd even take up a collection to put them in a halfway decent home somewhere in Amsterdam--they have leagalized euthanasia there, don't they?

Posted by: Tracey at June 17, 2003 01:07 PM

There has to be somewhere they could go to live happily in a People's Collective. Cuba is the natural place, but it's too close. North Korea comes to mind. We'd need to talk some even more senior intellectuals (YO! Stanley! I'm talking to you!) into going along . . . anywhere, so long as we don't have to listen to their incessant din.

Posted by: Jack at June 17, 2003 02:06 PM