Mail Call: A Turbulent Time

Readers of our Nov. 19 issue's coverage of 1968 were divided on how much that year still shapes the West. "We are who we are today in Europe thanks to the '68ers," one remarked. But another said, "I wonder if the true lesson of 1968 is that despite our efforts, we couldn't change our own shortcomings."

Why We Keep Coming Back to 1968
I was both warmed and saddened by your coverage of the legacy and relevance of 1968 in "The Year That Made Us Who We Are" (Nov. 19). Although I was inspired by the political and social passions of Martin Luther King Jr.'s followers, the activism of Robert Kennedy and the burgeoning of the feminist movement, I am disappointed by Americans' current ambivalence toward many of the same issues. I can't help but wonder if the true lesson of 1968 is that despite our efforts, we couldn't change our own national shortcomings. Ironically, the frustration of '60s idealism may have spawned the nonrevolution of today's passionless acceptance.
Etan Bednarsh
New York, New York

At the end of Mark Lilla's article "Eyes on the Past" (Nov. 19), I read: "The [European] '68ers, narcissistically focused on their own historical significance, simply aren't prepared for thinking about Europe's future. That will fall to a new, more mature generation." I felt once again what I feel when some American journalists talk about Europe as if they were middle-aged, down-to-earth, realistic people talking about an idealistic, naive teenager who has yet a lot to learn from real life. We are who we are today in Europe thanks to the '68ers, and new generations will not be more mature; they will just be different and will face different challenges. And after reading Geraldine Ferraro's article "How to Mend a Sick System" (Nov. 19), I wish American '68ers were still fighting yesterday's battles as Europeans do; perhaps universal health care would be a reality in the United States. This is an old battle that you have not even started yet.
Ignacio Salaberria Garcia
Malaga, Spain

Tom Brokaw may be reluctant to apply a definitive label to the boomer generation, but I'm not ("The Earth Behind a Man's Thumb"). How about "The Great Pretenders"? Back in the late '60s, Americans stood right on the precipice of true change for the better—we said that we believed in no more going to war, ending poverty, protecting the environment, eliminating the nation's racial and social divides, and saving our souls. Forty years later, the '60s are cold and dead, the '70s are blocked out in our collective consciousness like some embarrassing moment, and Martin, Bobby, Che, the kids at Kent State and Jackson State, and those noble self-immolating Buddhist monks and Czech student Jan Palach gave up their lives, and for what? The men and women who passed me joints on the beaches of southern California and whispered pledges that "things will be so much better when we take over" now drive SUVs, wear designer coats and don't give a damn about Dick Cheney or that their cell-phone records are not private. Cindy Sheehan is derided for having a broken heart, and these same boomers who protested the Vietnam War in college (while applying for military-service deferments) voted against John Kerry and apparently raised their kids to do so as well. We were right there and it was within our reach. What a bunch of phonies we proved to be.
Richard Raskin
Encino, California

Your story "The Year That Made Us Who We Are" was first-rate. A few European countries have successfully assimilated new immigrants, notably Britain and Norway. But the circumstances that sparked the French suburban riots in 2005 and the London bombings that same year seemingly justified the violence. The turmoil in France was ignited by the death of a young man being tracked down by the police. The fact that immigrant youths in suburban "ghettos" were also being treated like delinquents by Nicolas Sarkozy further inflamed the situation. The outburst was also due to the fact that the children of immigrants are consistently denied employment. In fact, if May 1968 in Europe was a movement against "the establishment," mostly by the French so that they could enjoy more freedom, then the condition of immigrants and their children has not improved today. They continue to be looked down upon by the French. The concept of liberty, equality and fraternity has been an empty promise so far. In London, the 2005 bombings could have been averted had the then Prime Minister Tony Blair not blindly followed President Bush into Iraq. Islamo-fascism may have been the result of the unfair policies of some European countries in the Middle East.
Dan Chellumben
Amboise, France

With its effective emphasis on the momentous and disruptive events of 1968, NEWSWEEK'S collection of articles on the impact and influence of the 1960s packs a wallop. Yet you fail to make one essential point: that the United States scorned the lessons of 1968. Four years later, in the presidential election of 1972, George McGovern, a thoughtful, honest man, understood those lessons, recognized the quagmire of a failed war, and dared to campaign on issues that could have restored America. But the country turned from McGovern's promise, opting instead, by a massive majority, to grant a second term to a president who had already demonstrated his ineptitude, dishonesty and blatant disregard of what 1968 had taught. What you refer to as "America's defining moment" occurred not in 1968 but in November 1972. Now we see, exemplified in the present administration, the ominous destination of the road then chosen. Is it too late to take seriously the lessons of 1968?
Roland A. Duerksen
Oxford, Ohio