Skip to main content

tv   Lectures in History End of the Cold War Youth Culture  CSPAN  June 29, 2022 12:45pm-1:59pm EDT

12:45 pm
we are talking about today is picking up where we l okay, so what we are talking about today is picking up where we left off on thursday with the end of the cold war. and also, i'm trying to make sure that we stitch different things that we've had through the quarter and through both quarters together. the program is titled, america to 2025. so
12:46 pm
some thinking about the future is important and as i've been thinking about the last part of the 20th century the 1990s, i think it made sense to really dig into, in terms of how people thought about the future in culture, in popular culture, as well as in politics. so the themes and overviews i want to talk about in terms of this to a little bit of looking back looking forward too, and then they're kind of going to be two halves of the lecture, linked to, kind, of politics and linked to pop culture. so i want to talk about the end of the cold war and especially how it manifested in how americans thought about politics, then i want to talk about pop culture and think about the way the 90s thought about the future and thought about the present even in terms of, like, everything is great or everything is
12:47 pm
terrible, either the future will be perfect or all the future is going to be awful. adding here that i as with all of my lectures i'm not going to comprehensive coverage. but especially asking people to think about change overtime in there like how does ideology, how does youth culture, how does systems of power change over time. so there's going to be, i think, asking you all to think about how the 90s were actually quite different then today. and i've got some examples that i think will be interesting. oops! in terms of looking forward, looking back, a reminder how we are combining psychology and history. it's an interdisciplinary program so i'm not going to be talking much about psychology, that's my coteacher nathalie's job, but i'm thinking about how the disciplines have different orientations. and i've really been thinking a lot, and we are going to talk about this in the afternoon, we kind of stumbled
12:48 pm
last week on experiments, and how like history can do experiments, and there's no -- historical research is not grounded in the ability to ask people different questions about the experiences they lived through in the moment. we can do it with oral history, but, like, contemporaneous documents can't be changed. so, that's structuring a little bit of my thinking. i'm not going to talk too much about that this morning, but definitely this afternoon. and then this is also a chance to return to things where we began really, week one, week two, week three fall quarter about national identity, because of how, like, developmental and adolescent psych is all about change, is all about development. how modernity has kind of paused did the nation-state as an individual, as a person, or as a family -- we have read all in the family -- and it just yet, development in adolescents of youth culture. okay. questions about where we are? everybody, is this making sense? sound familiar? okay. all right! okay. so i talked some on thursday about the collapse of
12:49 pm
the soviet union. and i remember someone -- and i forget who it was -- was sort of, oh, now i forget how the idea of from generation disaster, the reading we had, how a certain group of people would have grown up in the aftermath of the end of the cold war with really triumphant, kind of like, yay, america! america has done it! sort of thinking. so, we thought some about, like, the kind of national narrative of triumph. i really also want to focus not only on the end of the cold war as a national triumph, but in a sort of, like, us versus them, but really go into the ideology -- ideological triumph. the idea that the promise of liberal western democracy and capitalism has triumphed
12:50 pm
internationally. so some of this -- these little post formal to different things that once were asking you to think about. national politics and ideology, and then youth culture. so it's not like teenagers -- i'm going to give some, like, geopolitical stuff that teenagers wouldn't have been thinking much about. but i think there's something shared in the ethos. so, we are going real, like, nation-state and national ideology. and particularly around capitalism, and just elevating stuff that you all said in our seminar for week seven. in week seven we were reading about, like, international consumerism. do people remember that? like international consumerism? >> [inaudible]. >> yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!
12:51 pm
girl scouts, that international reading. and one thing in your seminar was the idea that, like, capitalism never ends. that with consumer culture, especially like tech centered youth consumer culture -- remembers only walked one, 1980? it's like, oh, this stuff is always demonstrating the superiority of capitalism. like, as long as there's new stuff to consume, capitalism is obviously dominant. and so like, that is, that was very much a shared idea. and so, saying that, like, the collapse of the soviet union, the fall of the berlin wall, were seen geopolitically as success, the evil empire has been defeated. but then also a little bit of, like, everything is great, with not just national conflict, but, like, our ideology about consumer capitalism has been triumphant. so just really,
12:52 pm
like hitting 1989, fall of the berlin wall, vermeulen in generation disaster points out in 1991 as [inaudible] why 1989 is imported. in 1988 [inaudible] 1989 came up in a lot of the stuff i was looking at as well. so the cultural dominance of capitalism here, even, like, tended to span the political spectrum in the united states so both folks on the right and folks on the left tended to, in some ways, see capitalism as having been validated and so just like things that might have been coded as negative or were coded
12:53 pm
as negative, like deindustrialization, the decline of factories, were often framed or understood in a sort of like, oh, there was this coming together, the world is shrinking, technology is connecting us. the tech boom of the 1990s, the real flourishing of silicon valley and the dot com bubble it was not seen as a bubble. it was venus like, oh, technology is causing unprecedented economic growth. so the 1990 saw, like, government surpluses, booming economy, right? turns out the wages were stagnant, but it seems like wages were rising. it seemed like, you know, technology was going to solve more or less every single problem. there were currents of opposition. and this is an area where, like, thinking about change overtime as possible, like looking through the
12:54 pm
evergreen newspapers of the 1980s and 1990s, there were lots of examples of people being, like, not entirely on board with things, or the system seems fractured. but nothing in the 1990s happened in the same way that, like in 2000, seattle world trade organization protests if -- people are familiar with this -- that they were big riots against a meeting of the wta in seattle, starbucks windows got smashed, and the initial media coverage of this was like, how did this people? why are people angry at starbucks? where did this come from? so there were currents in the 90s that, like, exploded in the 2000s. but since 2000, i mean, there was the 2008, 2010 occupy movement, the 2016 bernie sanders campaign, just real sentiments of critics of capitalism across the political spectrum exist now that definitely didn't exist in the 1990s. nick?
12:55 pm
>> [inaudible] that wages seemed to be rising but [inaudible] related to inflation? >> you see, everyone was kind of like, oh, look, we've fixed inflation! there isn't much of a problem. the idea was that even though economics would later see a, like, stagnant wage growth, like, the media was covering stories. i mean, i will say i was i high school student in the late 1990s and there was a time when burger king was offering 3000 dollar signing bonuses for. so this idea was that sondland's burgers in bringing summer of 1990. that is -- >> [inaudible] i know it seems i'm incredulous but i'm shocked! >> this is actually, there are things like this in our economy right now that -- there are a lot of entry level jobs that
12:56 pm
are offering big paychecks to begin, and people are framing it as the great resignation. people are, like leaving, if the job. someone if you have left edge up and started moving to one for better wages in the last couple of months? right. there's another -- matthew had a question. >> so, at what point, again, did this whole -- oh, what was it called -- the seattle world trade -- >> yeah, world trade organization, yeah -- >> world trade organization protests started? was it in the late 90s or early 2000s? >> that's one thing that i don't actually know about the, like, specific groups that protested. they all existed before, but there was some meeting in the summer of 2000 that protests turned into, you know, direct action of people smashing windows against globalization, against the kind of, sort of, international, you
12:57 pm
know, unfettered capitalism >> and this -- did it just happen in seattle? or did it happen in other cities across the country? >> international opposition, but it was, the meeting was in seattle, and so like, the event was only in seattle and it was covered as if it was just seattle. and there was lots of, like, media coverage and it was like, what's going on? why are these kids breaking windows? hannah. >> last week you talked about how the shared memory of the cold war was like an ideological capitalism versus capitalism versus communism. is that the reason that, like, the afterwards of the capitalism also ideologically? even though that was productive for you? >> yes, i think. so you're asking, like -- the idea that it was triumphant was ideological -- >> thought of the war as ideological between capitalism
12:58 pm
versus communism? >> exactly, exactly. there is a victory, there has been a struggle. one side has been defeated. we are going to look at some stuff that grounds this some actual text. but -- spencer? >> i think, i think i understand [laughs]. i'm just going to, i think i'm going to [inaudible] have a conflict thinking, i'm just think i'm just going to chew the fat. >> welcome back to it. okay. two things to maybe -- three things -- to come to grant this before, that lead to the next thing. it's just about how there was a, kind of, across the political spectrum the way that the wto protests or the occupy movement were really, like, capitalism terrible and needs to be not just reformed, but changed. that was really absent in the 1990s. and i want to illustrate that in a couple of ways. things that we've
12:59 pm
thought about, so if you are if you remember, queer activism in the 1970s was very much about, like, antidiscrimination in jobs, and it kind of like hold political inclusion and is lots of like we need to get more gay activists elected to political office. it was very, very, very politically. a 1980s, 1990, the aid secondary epidemic totally changed queer activism to be very much, like, people are dying. so, the idea that like the system was rigged was a political one but it was not a, like, intersectional radical, like queer identity in the 1970s, and maybe kind of can lead to a different type of capitalism, which did exist exists some on like tumbler today. so, i, queer activism, the civil rights movement i
1:00 pm
think this might answer your question. remember how radical inquiry of the civil rights movement in the long civil rights movement framing was, like march for jobs and freedoms, and not just, i have a dream. most activists felt that post voting rights act 1967 in 1968 1969, that movement had kind of felt in lots of substantive ways. the poor peoples campaign by martin luther king before his assassination and then after his assassination is like didn't accomplish the goals, it kind of fell apart. so hard-core activists that had, a, like, really intertwined critique of politics, of economics. felt that the movement had falling apart and the 70s were a time of great declension. contrast that with the national triumph, right? like, how did many americans, who were kind of like, hey! we solved the racism problem! segregation is gone! and kind of there is a full inclusion
1:01 pm
regardless of race is now not just possible but happening. so there is this real like, oh we've triumphed. if capitalism has truimphed, then, oh, the more radical critics don't need to be listened to. so they so, there is a british jamaican theorist, stewart hall. he has come up in some of our ratings, does lots of cultural critiques. sociologists, i do not know if we put him in a post structural world. he has said that the 1970s, 1980, and 1990s globally the left increasingly engaged in classes of identity inclusion. instead of critics of capitalism. there is a certain kind of identity politics that is all about who is in the system, who is not in the system, the system is rigged and needs to be overthrown or taken apart. who is involved? who is not
1:02 pm
involved? that is a different question than just what our systems. does this make sense? is this kinda tracking? on the right, as well, american conservatives to a certain extent felt that american capitalism was obviously dominant, triumphant, and there was not a lot of we need to teach people how great capitalism was. capitalism is. there was like a raw, raw, yay american. the main strand of the grassroots activism in the 1980s and then carrying on into the 1990s was all about family values and morality. do you remember the all in the family reading that starts with. we now have to center family values? evangelical christians
1:03 pm
formally entered politics in a way that most evangelical christians throughout the united states had a very tenuous relationship with politics. that is the world of cesar, that is the world, that is not the sacred world. that is the secular world. 1979 jerry falwell forms an organization called the moral majority. loss of american evangelicals said politics is an area for morality, for encouraging family values. it was not linked to the whole communism is bad, it was the feeling that way one and now we just have to keep these kids from getting perverted, and becoming immoral. hannah, did that help make sense about the ideology? they shared their? the most important or example that everyone points to as the
1:04 pm
ideological expression of this idea is an essay by an economist called the end of history. have people heard of this? show of hands? >> i have heard of the end of history but it is one of those things where if you asked me if i have heard of the paper i would say i have heard of the end of history, i do not know who this person is or this essay. >> it is familiar, i am going to illustrate that in a little bit, so he was a scholar, he wrote an article and a publication called the national interest, a couple of years ago he turned the article into a book and lots of people look back on it and i have seen conversations about how his argument is more sophisticated than people think of it. it is
1:05 pm
going to seem, or the outline of it will seem a little silly based on what happens next in the world. i think it is important to think of it as descriptive of how people thought, as opposed to him saying this is how things are. it is more like this is the ethos right now. the poll could i have here, the triumph of the western idea is obvious in the total exhaustion of systematic alternatives to western liberalism. if all of the berlin wall, that summer, that is like the triumph of the west is evident. i will even call it up, i will link it on canvas so people can read it in totality. this is the very beginning of it, here it is andre store, very beginning. in watching the flow of events over the past
1:06 pm
decade or so it is hard to contain the feeling that something fundamental has happened in world history. the pastor has seen a flood of articles commemorating the end of the cold war and the fact that piece is breaking out and many regions of the world. it is interesting, pieces in quotation marks because of the idea that the cold war did not have much objects. most of the analysis lacked any framework between what is contingent and what is accidental and world history. and, are particularly superficial. here, this paragraph he does some of his defining and background and context. here is the poll quote, triumph of the west and the western idea is evident in the total exhaustion of a violent systematic alternatives to western liberalism. so, with the fall of communism there are no alternatives to western
1:07 pm
liberalism. this is it, hannah? >> they relationship between capitalism and western liberalism in this year's gonna? >> in this they are completely intertwined, here this paragraph, or this sentence. but, the century that began full of self confidence in the ultimate triumph of western liberal democracy. 1900 self confidence that ultimately western liberal democracy would triumph over a monarchy, and then totalitarian and absolutism. at its close seems to be turning full circle to where it started. not to an end of ideology, or, as a convergence between capitalism and socialism. but, do an unabashed victory of economical liberalism. economic and political liberalism, he is defining them, this is economic
1:08 pm
liberalism, political liberalism, but all of these are wrapped up into one. >> i just wanted to make sure i am chewing the fat and not picking my teeth. basically i am feeling a latitude of if you are not super pro-america, capitalism is great it feels like there is a confusion on that part. we won, what do you talking about? the idea of there is no large systematic thinking. in my mind i am basically thinking people exist outside of america, people exist in the foothills of god knows where just living in existence. people exist, themselves. basically, i get the feeling it is very like we have one, we down the good, we are prosperous, and then you
1:09 pm
come up and there is a saying of a dirty communist living in the hills or something, i do not know. >> yes, or what you are suggesting earlier, it is almost like what is the need to respond to these things? >> exactly, way one. >> it is self evident, it is evident, way one. the next decade there have been unmistakable things in the world communist countries. and then the soviet union flash russia and china. so, even the communist bastions are now embracing a kind of economic liberalism. so, it is no longer even and conflict, anymore nick?
1:10 pm
>> i was not alive through most of the 90s but what do you feel like at this point in time experiencing global politics? do you feel like it was inevitable? >> i think you will see it, that is why i want to turn to pop culture. >> is it shared by minorities that were actively experiencing the exploitative and oppressive nature of capitalism? was this shared by them or where they just invalidated by this idea that success had been that? ideologica >> i'm going to let that question percolate, i'm not going to answer that. i think it will come up. that is a question about who matters in ideological frameworks and who doesn't. so, i didn't copy all of it but this whole journal was the first article and then
1:11 pm
there were massive responses from people who are very prominent, including the democratic senator who created the report. we read some about the moynihan report and not straight not white pathologizing queer blackness. the report was all about why are black families falling apart? there must be something pathological about the family. across the political spectrum response it really had the kind of popular and academic media college that was not much. there is a little bit of how did the 2000s highlight exactly what you asked? >> white gay man and lesbians,
1:12 pm
white gay men becoming a very capitalized. i remember when i was a kid the gay material stuff was more like -- perverted is not the word i'm looking for, but it was spooky, it was not normalized, it was communism to heteronormativity whatever. i know there is a connection, a lot of queer people see white gay men as being advertised to being mortgages and cars, if you read a queer magazine it is a straight suburban ad thing. gay vacations. i do not know. >> that is what i was trying to suggest about where activism when, it went to hiv/aids, and then it went to marriage equality, especially when the second bush administration in the 2000s began, and state
1:13 pm
governments began outlawing gay marriage, marriage became a real battleground. and then, the obergefell decision in 2014 as that legalized gay marriage, there were npr reports that were like this gay organization had an advocate for marriage quality forever, what will it do now? it is like, now we're going to disband, it has been achieved, full inclusivity. this is about a certain kind of identity based politics being all about inclusion as opposed to systematic critique. yes yes, yes. because capitalism is triumphant. because capitalism is triumphant, why would there be an alternative is the mindset. you have equal access to participate in capitalism.
1:14 pm
>> yes, yes, full equal access. you can compete on anyone's ground and on anyone's terms. >> so, from what i am understanding capitalism is like with a gay marriage, did i just hear that with gay marriage was legalized, the gay community can engage in capitalism? >> sort of, it's more that as opposed to thoroughly connected critiques of all parts of a society that would marginalize and excluding people. it's not about a whole society that is wrapped up in excluding and marginalizing some people. the critique of that falls away when you become included. so when you can have the two kids, white picket fence, golden retriever, despite being a
1:15 pm
same-sex couple, you can have your television set, you can live in suburbia, why would you have a more interconnected critique? is that making sense? >> i think so. >> but wouldn't the critique be considered invalid because if your group gains inclusion while others remain excluded then there still not inclusion, even though you feel like you are on one side of it, inclusion does not exist unless everyone is included. >> yes, this is a tension in a lot of social movements and in a lot of groups that advocate for equality, is like, is it about us or is it about everyone? there are lots of things about as long as one of
1:16 pm
us is in chains, none of us are free. that is a critique, that is directly interacting with that other, more superficial critique. i want to make clear that there were lots and lots of people, this is why things like the protests of the world trade organization pop up in 2000. there are lots of people that are like, this is not an option, the dominant ideology is not including the critique that we have, more change has to happen. >> iso,'m curious what intersectional-ism looked like at the time in the relation to that, then. >> yes. this is all, 1989 is, someone has to help me find
1:17 pm
when patricia mccallum's all in the family was written. what is the date of that? it is after the article -- after the book we read from bell hooks. feminist theory, right. it is after that. the combahee river collective was in the 1970s. there was lots of widespread activism and intellectual critique of it. it just was not finding purchase in mainstream politics. >> all of these people only talk about intersectional isn't but on the street, it is so weird to talk about history about something that i was technically alive for happening. >> that has been your question all along. >> it is hard, i am doing it. >> it is how social activism made it so that the publishing piece was there. there was enough progress achieved but the critique was not fully considered or actualized into later. does that make sense? >> does, i do not know how often people articulated in that way. i do not know how often that was subconscious. we would really have to look into how did mainstream organization respond to critiques that they were not actually in. that is
1:18 pm
where we would see that. i want to talk one more thing, to more things about the end of history and then i'm going to come back to something that will illustrate this. the reason that they described as the end of history, and this is the thing that i think is the surprising piece that is superficial. the operational definition of history, according to his the author history is a hegelian struggle, a dialectical struggle between two opposing forces. history is best understood through the 20th century has been liberal economics versus authoritarianism and communism. there has been a struggle. that
1:19 pm
has produced history, in the conflict comes history. two poles and conflict generates history. what happens when one of those is gone? it's the end of history. there's no longer any history happening. i am not saying i am setting this up in the right timeline but thomas friedman, in a book, i know i thomas friedman in the 1990s have the name of it, it's something like the olive tree. right for the new york times, he wrote a book where he positive that no two countries that both had mcdonald's had ever gone to war with each other. at the time he wrote it he was wrong, the u.s. had invaded panama, both of those had mcdonald's, but since the 1990s through the 1990s and
1:20 pm
into the 2000 there has been more and more evidence of liberal economics and democracy does not mean that there will not be conflicts. at the time there was this widespread and shared idea. i want to talk about the legacy and then i want to move on to the response of the left to really, and this is going to spencer's thing of i have heard of it but if you put a gun to my had. i was wondering where was the end of history in our library catalog? i was legitimately looking for the book to see if we had an e-book for it, but this was fascinating. pay some attention to the topics that people use for this. can folks see the book titles? this is the book, 1992 that fukuyama turned the
1:21 pm
article into. the end of history and the last man, but then the date is 2000, the curious fate of american materialism, do folks remember dairy data? the homicide bomber phenomenon. liberation theology. the shape of the signifier, 1967 to the end of history. we spent so much time on postmodernism. american fiction in the 1990s after the end. and then, i just thought this was kind of our program. the marketplace utopia and the fragmentation of an intellectual life. really getting back to this idea of utopia, is this connecting with
1:22 pm
people? this is american utopian thinking and history is over. we solved all of the conflict. >> i guess my question is what is after history? >> i think that is what people in the 90s were grappling with. anyway, i thought the legacy was very interesting. this is trying to really nail home the way that mainstream american political left was put in a vice. matthew? >> very quickly, what was the full name of the book by fukuyama? >> the end of history and the last man. >> the last man, okay, thank you. >> we could take 15 minutes just talking about that, right?
1:23 pm
the last man? why is it not a human. what about gender is in there? why does it have to be a last man? >> in academic or historic things it often means people. if all men are created equal technically and 20th century it did not occur to me that man would be a gendered option. i was like yes, old-time english. yes. >> yes, but also have the article has a question mark and the book does not. people are returning to fukuyama and his book, i have seen conversations about how there is a lot of clever things than it. it is really understood at the time as yeah we have one, now what? there is going to be no conflict, eventually the world will come at peace and it is
1:24 pm
very utopian to think about where we are going. at the same time, it is utopian to think about where we are going, this is an article, i was browsing through the journal. this national interest, this is national interest, same issue a couple of pages later, i do not know who allan tunnel says. i did not look him up. he writes this manifesto for democrats. the cold war, what should democrats do and the answer is a complete overhaul on their foreign policy, he goes up here and talks about the party has lost the white house in five of its last six tries, michael dukakis says ten state hall was a encouraging showing. the democratic party needs all of the help they can get. what should they do? abandon internationalism, abandon the no longer a formidable strategy
1:25 pm
of grounding american security and prosperity and a congenial world environment. instead, the parting needs an approach that emphasizes the restoration of military and economic strength. that is more discriminating about foreign policy commitments and more willing to use force unilaterally to secure important interests. it advocates tougher trade policies and seeks greater self sufficiency. a new nationalism. and the time we have one, what should the left do? get tougher. i link it there. this is the time to talk just briefly about bill clinton. and, bill clinton's utopian thinking. bill clinton in 1992, his campaign song was fleetwood mac's don't stop thinking about tomorrow. yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone, do not stop
1:26 pm
thinking about tomorrow. bill clinton was this very charismatic figure that was a very much like the future is bright. he came from a town called hope, arkansas. he was the boy from hope. literally the boy from hope. the future is bright, in all of his state of the union's, which were always very long, he would always discuss one new technological achievements are happening? what are the technological breakthroughs that are going to make our life and society better? his policy, he and many people like him dubbed themselves third way of democrats. that in this map onto the old end of history framework, they party had been the party of the left and critiques of capitalism. supposedly. that there were
1:27 pm
only two sides of the culture wars. there were only two sides of the economic wars. the party of johnson and the great society. that was no longer viable, the third way needed to be found. that was like we needed to reform some of these systems. we need to do things like welfare reform because there are too many people on welfare. we are too soft on crime, there need to be crime bills, increased mandatory sentencing requirements. three strikes and you are out. it was the democratic party in the 1990s that actually got tougher on a lot of issues. i think this is connecting. the idea that the system is rigged and needs to be overthrown, which existed in some circles, is not what the main political parties were saying. >> is that just because what i am thinking is absent of the perspective's of the people still experiencing a very dichotomous worldview, that
1:28 pm
being the oppressed and the oppressors? they still think there is conflict, they still think that there are things to be done, they do not think there is a triumph. is that view just absent that perspective? >> it is somewhat absent that perspective. there is also still oppression, still marginalization, what prescriptions do we have? the drug of communism has poisoned everyone. that is bad, that is not the prescription. there needs to be more liberal democracies. the exclusion and oppression is not because the system is terrible, people are not being included in the right way. one of the reasons for crime bills and many of the legislative architects of them. the black community is being
1:29 pm
decimated by crime. the crime is killing lots and lots of african american folks, there were a lot of black legislators who supported and wrote the legislation because of what it did to communities. as opposed to being like, oh mass incarceration is leading to violence they were thinking we need mass incarceration to protect communities. >> this is individual versus system. if the individuals are just not on welfare or not committing crime, instead of poverty has put people in positions where they have to commit crime focused on poverty and people's response to poverty. is this a shift to individual versus systemic in the 70s and 80s? >> i think so, somewhat, but the real way to answer is what were people saying? to go to the literature and say what's actually where they saying? i can see a critiques that would have existed in the 1990s that do not look like a bernie
1:30 pm
sanders campaign. just to have a different flavor to overarching, there could be a very systems thinking. that would blame systems that would not say the answer is socialism. socialism has been disproven, one other answers might there be? is that a little clear? that the gop continually acts like it is a party of b >> i'm just wondering, what is the key difference between the neoliberalism of the 90s and the fiscal conservatism of the 80s? and, also why is it that the gop continually acts like it's the party of bernie sanders when it's the party of bill clinton? >> i don't think i can answer
1:31 pm
the second one in terms of the difference between them. this is why it was third wave. the economic neoliberalism of the 1990s would reject some of reagan's policies in the 1980s. i'm struggling to think of specific examples. they would say things like to prevent outsourcing. they would say outsourcing is a bad and american corporations shouldn't be encouraged to outsource. we should have tax incentives to keep things at home. we should invest in tech training to support the workers that are being suffering. here is a systematic answer to a problem that is caused by the capitalist system, so they would have a critique of it whereas i think the right would have less of that critique, the right's answer was often people need to buy american cars. gm will not ship cars overseas if people are buying american cars. >> this may be somewhat
1:32 pm
disconnected, but i'm very curious how y2k factors into this and how that is poking the ideology, whether that is more connected to preventative measures, yeah, things like that. >> i have y2k on a slide in like three slides. >> this is a good opportunity to change and go from the end of cold war, the supposed end of history. so one quote. this is from the bottom of the first page of the end of history, but i'll show it on the slide and instead, for how folks like him then link this to culture as well. in fact, what fukuyama is saying is this phenomenon being the triumph of liberal economics and politics. this triumph, this phenomenon exists beyond type-ology. it can also be seen in the ineluctable going everywhere, not able to
1:33 pm
be stopped, spread of consumerist western culture in such diverse context. this gets to spencer's thing about peasant markets, color television sets now omnipresent throughout china, clothing stores opening in moscow. the beethoven piped into japanese department stores, and rock music joined the like in prague, rangoon, and tehran. so, rock music, american pop culture. i do remember lots of things about blue jeans, people in the soviet bloc not having access to blue jeans, and blue jeans being a sign of a freedom on the march. in fact, a french social philosopher says there was more power in blue jeans and rock and roll than the entire red army.
1:34 pm
>> -- was a stewardess. the people on the flight, yeah, a stewardess, back in the day in russia and on the flight they would pack, jam everything they could with blue jeans because once they got to moscow they would make hundreds and hundreds of dollars per pair of blue jeans. she was like, oh, no, they love their blue jeans. >> it's a symbol of freedom. i think it is interesting to think about or transition to what was rock after the triumph? this is setting up the 90s as optimistic or pessimistic. so, like, brief detour to our own home, a reminder that nirvana practiced right there. there's a clip on youtube on nirvana from the evergreen state college television studio playing right there. kurt cobain grew up in aberdeen, he
1:35 pm
did not attend evergreen, he had lots of friends who did. one of his friends was the founder of the riot girl movement. folks know about riot girl in the 90s? this is deeply ingrained in your blood even if you hate it. >> with three r's. >> that sounds less familiar. >> kathleen hanna was a fan of kurt cobain, she graduated evergreen. she wrote on one of his false wall at one point that he smells like teen spirit, she meant the deodorant, apparently kurt cobain claimed he did not know what the deodorant was and thought they were linked to the kind of conversations that they had about social inequality, and about the decadence and the oppressiveness of american consumer culture. it is also
1:36 pm
very interesting to think about rock and roll as american freedom and then rock and rollers are like, this freedom has me feeling left out. >> is that where cobain got the title of smells like teen spirit? >> yes, it was written on his apartment door by an evergreen grad. he turned that into the lyrics of a song they were jamming about. and, so i will show briefly. i have lots of different articles from the cooper point journal from the 1990s. there is a whole thing about the strategic plan for evergreen, which in this issue there is lots of discussion. first of all discussion of
1:37 pm
alien abducteess. so, bruce smith, he had 34 offspring with that alien that he drew. maybe one of those offspring is now a student here. i did think that there was lots of critiques of -- this critique of the evergreen strategic plan that i found very interesting, because of how relevant it seems today. the assumption that just cooperative teaching willb pread cultural sensitivity and knowledge can be exploitative. people of color sometimes get tired of being the teachers once again and victims become responsible for solving the problems caused by a dominant culture. this is intersectional theory lived in critiques of evergreen's model then. lots of interesting stuff on that.
1:38 pm
super secret panel hides the truth about ufos. amnesty international defends human rights. one place that the left really went is a full scale doubling down on human rights violations and how exploitative and disruptive things are. there are lots of systematic critiques that the solution wasn't socialism. that was not the solution, this is everything everywhere is political. i did want to show nathalie this. new open door lecture and film theories, maybe some of you also took this. she was a student at a time and she wrote about. if you know nancy this is funny, evergreen is fractured. we need a central schedule that is open to the community. respect the integrity of the program, stay
1:39 pm
for the whole thing, don't leave. but done everything is political, there is tv coverage, but then here is a little coverage of nirvana, and i think it's funny. my favorite part of this, the only thing i am lifting this off of it is how everyone in the olympia community would know nirvana. it is very off handed, the album sells for way too much in seattle. and then here is the press kit. nirvana consists of kurt with a d. and two k's
1:40 pm
cobain. and not of chris kovalchik the ex drummer, the publicity photo that they have was with the old drummer who stopped touring with them as they instead brought in a new drummer. there was a punk band in the area, that is dave cruel. it is the same guy, he is dave growl. >> what is the abolitionist narrative of the talks you are talking about with kurt cobain, how does that fit within the idea of socialism has failed if abolition is still a thing? what after abolition? what is the alternative? do you get what i am saying? what would that look like? or was it just in opposition to the rest of the ideological support of
1:41 pm
capitalism? >> i want to just keep moving on it. or i want you to keep mulling on it. so, here's another thing, there's another issue with as there's a review of the closet that they have in olympia, that's, like, it was a good show but it was way too popular. too many screaming teenage punk rocker's. nirvana mania. poorly dressed records executive to step away from lincoln continentals handing out diamond studded cards. so there's a little bit of -- what's the right word? cynicism about, like, even nirvana is too popular. so this is where i wanted to just have us think some about pop music, pop culture of the 1990s, as moving between two poles of optimism and pessimism. that either, like, everything is great or, like, well, socialism might have failed and we're not going to advocate for socialism. but boy, american culture sure is oppressive, sure is dominating,
1:42 pm
sure makes us feel left out. i mean, you know, the lyrics, did i read out the lyrics of smells like teen spirit? the first stanza is, load up on guns, bring your friends, it's fun to this and to pretend, she's over bored and self assured. oh, no, i know a dirty word. listen to the actual song, well listen to the song and not to me terrible cognizant to be. terrible representative of nirvana, don't listen to me. but air travel american culture that's [inaudible] so i would just ask, you use nirvana an example of optimism or present there isn't about the future? you'd probably say pessimism. okay, i want to do this with a couple of other acts. okay. so, in a different note, the backstreet
1:43 pm
boys, are they optimistic about the world are pessimistic about the work? optimistic. tupac shakur optimistic about the world more pessimistic? pessimistic. two boys to men are going to pessimistic. richie gets the regime. so india. >> optimistic. >> my heart will go on. my heart will go on. does anyone know the band garbage? one of garbage is big singles, i'm only happy when it rains. >> i only know that they did this some for one of pierce brosnan's last bond movies. >> which one did they do? >> there was not enough. >> there was not enough. optimistic or pessimistic? >> [inaudible] pessimistic, but as an american, that's very optimistic [laughs]. >> i got some really -- like the more i thought about it, the more fun it became. like,
1:44 pm
marilyn manson, creed! kind of a, like, christian rock band. sort of like, creed is like, are you -- are you? >> [inaudible]. >> [laughs] so the point is not that there is one of the other, it's just like i feel like there was a lot of disaffection and a lot of, like, hopeful optimism. so i came up with another couple of examples of this. just of, like, that got to be about the future. so i don't know if you're a big action movie fan from the 80s or the 90s, but in the original terminator, that is a bad vision of the future. arnold schwarzenegger comes back to kind come back to kind of kill
1:45 pm
sarah connor because she's going to have a son, john connor, that is going to be the leader of the ministers bunts army. so he, led the robot to launch nuclear strikes against all humanity and to try and seek to exterminate humanity. john connor is the only hope. and boy, that is indicative film. in 2000, in 1990, one terminator two, arnold schwartzenegger comes back as a hero, and in fact, he is the robot that learns to care for john connor, learns to cure for human life, doesn't actually kill anybody, john connor's a good, eddie furlong tells him, like, you can't kill anybody so he only shoots police officers in that he's. and the, you know, there is no faith but what we make. so 1980s is like the future is terrible. 1990s is like, well, there might be nuclear war, and robots might be trying to collapse, but some of the robots got to color to love [inaudible]. there's a new, new hbo documentary about which
1:46 pm
woodstock, 1999. so there were two festivals to celebrate, which talks 25th anniversary and 30th anniversary. in 1994, there was a lot of like peace and love and harmony, it was like not a great re-run festival, but it certainly emphasized the peace, love and harmony. woodstock in 1999 is just this dystopian vision of people, like tearing things down, setting fires on fire, dancing in mud. >> is that the one about [inaudible] and acid. like, i heard stuff about woodstock, and i might be -- >> maybe, they might have been bad drugs. there's a great documentary. >> i just remember hearing about woodstock or maybe there woodstock, and like, people losing their mind in mud. and being like, that that image, you're saying, i think office pacific thing of it [inaudible]. >> there was much more that in 1999. like bonfires and real, like, media coverage of it as like, lord of the flies, people are turning against [inaudible]. yeah, kai. >> [inaudible] with all the representation of, not everyone, without having effect on how [inaudible]? >> yeah. so i mean, this is a good question. what did these depictions do for politics? i think it's -- and trying to
1:47 pm
show that there was, like, there was a lot of optimism and there was a lot of ambivalence. and it didn't map neatly onto the political parties. that there's a lot of -- like, that bill clinton is the boy from hope, and that technology can lead the way. and so another thing i have done here is there is all of this conversation of the internet as the information super highway. it would lead us as a bridge to the 21st century. that might have been another, like, campaign slogan of clinton in 1996. we need to like, get on the bridge to the 21st century. but then, [inaudible] asked about y2k. we're all going to die! like, the computers are not going to understand the difference of 99 to 00. all the computer systems are going to go back to 000, the bug is going to knock out power plants, airlines are going to crash, it's going to
1:48 pm
be mass hysteria. so, like, tons and tons of coders spent lots and lots of time to actually fix the problem. but the idea of like the future is really, really talk with y2k's contrast of, like, the information supply way. >> i'm keeping this idea of, like, it's like we have all this, cause you say, you talk about utopian things, and it's likely stopping, just like utopian thinking, but it's not, like, utopian thinking from the start of, like, a communist scene, it's utopian thinking of a start of like it, a horror movie about fm [inaudible] and just keep in thinking like of think of that, i don't watch or the horror, but it's [inaudible] ruining the family, you know, that comes a lot. so i just keep thinking that that -- >> pleasantville. >> what? >> pleasantville. like all society gets really, like we're all going to be so much in this, we are all going to be cookie cutter little boxes. nobody is
1:49 pm
going to fix in. so like it's yeah, it's positive, but oh! nekwisi. >> just an interior sections of time thinking about octavia butler [inaudible] the southern, i think that a lot of people are, like, oh my god, she predicted so much and was so close to it. but it seems like that narrative was just so much more common than we often staying. >> yes. yes. and at the same time like octavia butler didn't get the recognition during her lifetime but she's gotten since those there's a lot of like where was mainstream culture not, listening to the parallel of the sewer. >> matthew? >> you said pleasantville and i want to note there was a movie 1988 calledd pleasantville with kirstie dunstan, tristan maguire. >> anderson parts of a liking color unpleasant black about. >> [inaudible] in the form of
1:50 pm
color and like the mom orgasm in the bathtub, and that causes the tree to both catch on fire and can color, and so people start, like they have no color signs. it's not subtle. >> it's not subtle. like, you know, and it's a popular critique. so also like i'm not wanting to, i'm not wanting to overstate that everyone agreed with the end of history. it's just interesting how that framing really has to shape everything, like history is over, the future is now. what's the future going to be? so another example i have, i see your hand, evan, like the matrix i was thinking about these two films within two months of each other, the matrix and phantom menace, that, like weirdly a matrix is the one where, like, technology has a history of, humans are
1:51 pm
enslaved to robinson ike break out of it, and there will be a savior who will come and, like at the, neo triumphs, you flies, at the impression of the machines is going to be over, and the matrix is going to have an optimistic story out and is one of the, like, dark gritty -- it's, like, not a great picture of the future. that sentiment does is, like, this little boy, are the things that can skywalker is going to be darth vader in the lot of people. it's like a bad narrative arc, but that movie is bright, it's colorful. the pod racing is one. it's like all this bright i -- don't know, it's just really interesting to read, like the, narratives and then the aesthetics. like you. very much a spectacle. which the matrix is too. so this this, i feel like them so this, peoples minds are being turned in multiple different directions. is this tracking, folks? evan. >> okay. first, the matrix is overrated at the phantom menace is a guilty pleasure. but i'm just wondering, it's vaguely connected to information super highway and how we think of the internet. what do you think definitively we came to be coming to what is called the move for post facts world, where the facts is what you or your party believes? >> we talked some about that in
1:52 pm
week two or three or four. i think it is a real artifact of the bush years. i was talking about, like, post modernism and relativism, and when -- i would say mid 2000s and then people are really citing the, like, the 20 teens, the mid 20 teens, as being the start of a real different, like, information accuracy network or dichotomy. i saw another hand. okay, cool. i'm mindful of the time. so, the last thing i wanted to end with was just another one of these examples. i saw this on social media and i love, i love the image. >> [inaudible] oh my god! >> yes. so they're bringing that scott neil, right? >> sam neill. >> some neill, jeff goldblum and laura dern. they're
1:53 pm
bringing the original cast back. but so [inaudible] like, jurassic park, at the dinosaurs breakout, they eat a lot of people, like, technology has cloned dinosaurs, that was a big mistake, shouldn't have happened. but at the same time, like, the catchphrase, like the main thing is, life finds a way. they're like, real hope in traffic park. and it's just bright and gorgeous and the image, i mean even the nighttime scenes with the tea rights. yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, is that amazing black. where are we in 2020? is jurassic world, dominion. >> i can't even see their faces. >> you can't even see them! >> jheff goldblum is so sexy and i couldn't recognize him. >> right. like, wait a future in 2022? right [inaudible] in this is [inaudible] there's not a lot like the future is good happening right now in the culture. because of track. >> the move [inaudible] we [inaudible]. >> serious about your thoughts on like, how much this kind of polarizing, like, utopian dystopian outlook towards the future, is tied to either the age of the people who are
1:54 pm
creating the media or the age of the people that it's directed forwards and i guess i'm thinking about just like adolescent psychology and development and, like, is the more pessimistic narrative directed towards, you know, adolescents and emerging adults who are more, like, geared towards activism and change and -- yeah. >> yeah. my historian hat is often what i am saying is i'm not being comprehensive. looking at change overtime, looking at the snapshots and examples that are illustrating. i think that is a real strength of the generation disaster book, focusing in on who are the people who saw 1989 as this breaking point? who was raised in an environment where it's like, we're triumphant, you could have anything you want salons your parents saved the right money for and you asked
1:55 pm
them to get the right tickle me elmo and not the knock-off one. so yeah, not a comprehensive answer but i like the question. >> you're seeing this enemy, this them in the distance, and who is going to be the enemy and who are we fighting in creating our own society? these people are trying to create dystopia with their political beliefs, it is an us and them created by culture. creating this facade of an enemy. >> that is linked to evan's question. americans have always thought other americans are the enemy. that's not new. but, there is a new texture to it. >> i guess i'm just thinking is there something in the way people age and develop that would make them more committed to a feeling of we won, now i am coasting through to the end
1:56 pm
of my life. versus when you are emerging, you are building your own world and emerging into adulthood, are you less committed to feeling like you made it? >> you still want to fight. it's kind of a baby boomer question as well. i am mindful of time, i think we should leave it there. we will see you after lunch, we will come back to watch a depiction of the future with star trek. thank you all.
1:57 pm
1:58 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on