103 online
 
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 7 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
Life Arts    H3'ed 4/16/24

Thomas J. Farrell's Personal History of the 1960s (REVIEW ESSAY)

By       (Page 2 of 9 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.   1 comment
Message Thomas Farrell
Become a Fan
  (22 fans)

Now, when President Truman dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the Spanish Jesuit Pedro Arrupe (1907-1991; ordained a priest in 1936) was serving in Japan as a missionary. Later, Father Arrupe served as the superior general of the Society of Jesus (known informally as the Jesuit order from 1965 to 1983.

For further reading about Father Arrupe's life and times, see Pedro Miguel Lamet's 2020 book Pedro Arrupe: Witness of the Twentieth Century, Prophet of the Twenty-First, translated by Joseph V. Owens, S.J. (Institute of Jesuit Sources; original work published in 2019). Disclosure: I was in the Jesuits from 1979 to 1987.

Now, despite the totally terrifying threat of atomic warfare that all Americans lived under in postwar America, a funny new thing emerged in postwar America, as the University of Virginia's Grace Elizabeth Hale explains in her 2010 book A Nation of Outsiders: How the White Middle Class Fell in Love with Rebellion in Postwar America (Oxford University Press). According to Hale, the trend of white middle-class rebellion emerged in postwar America before the 1960s.

The American Jesuit Renaissance specialist and cultural historian and pioneering media ecology theorist Walter J. Ong (1912-2003; Ph.D. in English, Harvard University, 1955) discerned and discussed this trend in his title essay "The Barbarian Within: Outsiders Inside Society Today" in his 1962 book The Barbarian Within: And Other Fugitive Essays and Studies (Macmillan, pp. 260-285).

Ong's 1962 title essay is reprinted in An Ong Reader: Challenges for Further Inquiry, edited by Thomas J. Farrell and Paul A. Soukup (Hampton Press, 2002, pp. 277-300).

In any event, Ong and John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) in the 1960s were part of an older generation - as were my parents.

But if Hale and Ong are correct in suggesting that this trend of rebellion in favor of outsiders had emerged in the white middle class of Americans in postwar America before the 1960s, then perhaps some of the rebellion in the 1960s in American culture, perhaps even including the election of President Kennedy in 1960, should be seen as manifestations of that cultural trend.

However that may be, the 1960s were characterized by certain forms of rebellion.

Even so, in Ong's terminology in his 1962 title essay, the Harvard-educated John F. Kennedy for the most part represented what Ong refers to as the Greek position - not what Ong refers to as the barbarian position. Nevertheless, President Kennedy did come around to supporting the black civil rights movements spearheaded in the early 1960s by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. - representing what Ong refers to in his 1962 title essay as the barbarian position.

Now, we do not know for sure just how impressionable young Joe Biden and young Donald Trump were in the 1960s, nor do we know for sure exactly what impressions they had of the 1960s.

But we do know that the Baby Boomers grew up with television sets. Of course, we do not know how many Baby Boomers watched the televised debates between the two leading presidential candidates in 1960, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts and Vice President Richard M. Nixon.

But we do know that John Kennedy was telegenic -- and photogenic - and that young Jack Kennedy had been a hero in the Navy during World War II. In the 1960s, he and his wife Jacqueline Kennedy were so telegenic and photogenic that they seemed almost like they had been cast by Hollywood to play their parts on the world stage. In any event, the media lionized Jack and Jackie Kennedy, as they were known at the time. In short, they were glamorous - and the aura of glamor associated with them made the early 1960s also seem somehow to be glamorous to me as a teenager at the time.

But at the time, most Republicans such as Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, generally did not find the Kennedy presidency to be attractive.

For further reading about President Kennedy and his assassination - most likely by the CIA - see the following three books:

(1) James W. Douglas, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Orbis Books, 2008);

(2) Peter Janney, Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace (Skyhorse Publishing, 2012);

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Thomas Farrell Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Thomas James Farrell is professor emeritus of writing studies at the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD). He started teaching at UMD in Fall 1987, and he retired from UMD at the end of May 2009. He was born in 1944. He holds three degrees from Saint Louis University (SLU): B.A. in English, 1966; M.A.(T) in English 1968; Ph.D.in higher education, 1974. On May 16, 1969, the editors of the SLU student newspaper named him Man of the Year, an honor customarily conferred on an administrator or a faculty member, not on a graduate student -- nor on a woman up to that time. He is the proud author of the book (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Was the Indian Jesuit Anthony de Mello Murdered in the U.S. 25 Years Ago? (BOOK REVIEW)

Who Was Walter Ong, and Why Is His Thought Important Today?

Celebrating Walter J. Ong's Thought (REVIEW ESSAY)

More Americans Should Live Heroic Lives of Virtue (Review Essay)

Hillary Clinton Urges Us to Stand Up to Extremists in the U.S.

Martha Nussbaum on Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (Book Review)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments


Michael Morrissey

Become a Fan
(Member since Mar 8, 2008), 17 fans, 53 articles, 80 quicklinks, 2726 comments, 75 diaries (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)

"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."
       -- Mark Twain (?)

Facebook Page Twitter Page Linked In Page Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

Richard Goodwin was also one of the few who chose not to perpetuate the myth of continuity re Vietnam in the JFK-LBJ transition. (I have a piece on that coming up soon on OEN.) Goodwin wrote:

In later years Johnson and others in his administration would assert that they were merely fulfilling the commitment of previous American presidents. The claim was untrue - even though it was made by men, like Bundy and McNamara, who were more anxious to serve the wishes of their new master than the memory of their dead one. During the first half of 1965 I attended meetings, participated in conversations, where the issues of escalation were discussed. Not once did any participant claim that we had to bomb or send combat troops because of "previous commitments," that these steps were the inevitable extension of past policies. They were treated as difficult and serious decisions to be made solely on the basis of present conditions and perceptions. The claim of continuity was reserved for public justification; intended to conceal the fact that a major policy change was being made - that "their" war was becoming "our" war (Remembering America, NY: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 373; emphasis added).

Submitted on Thursday, Apr 18, 2024 at 6:50:26 AM

  Recommend  (0+)
Flag This
Share Comment More Sharing          
Commenter Blocking?

 

Tell A Friend