[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: SSDS and Revolution


Nostalgia n. 1: The yearning for events and objects of the past. 2: The
wishful thinking and wanting of a past that never existed; idealization of
past experiences. 

It's hard to see Scott Elliot's message as anything more than misguided
nostalgia.  Somehow Scott romanticizes both CEDA of the past, as well as
the original SDS, founded for the upper-middle-class white kids (the suits
of the protest movement).  Let's not kid ourselves: there is no "one
perfect" standard for success.  Tom Hayden saw success as "peaceful," 
"democratic" protest (which, was not that far different from the "signs" 
or slogans that the prowar establishment was using).  Abbey Hoffman, on
the other hand thought "confusion was mightier than the sword."  There is
a diversity of options on what one believes is legitimate persuasion, and
it differs based upon the audience.  Of course one could deny this and
romanticize the past:  Nevermind that CEDA of the past's raison d'etre was
based upon the need to demonize the "radical, fast, uncontrolled" debate
of NDT.  Nevermind the fact that BOTH SDS and debate organizations 20-30
or so years ago were primarily white men (which hasn't changed all that
much).  Let's not romaticize the past without a more complete picture. 

The problem with Mr. Elliiot's worries is that they try to replace what
they fear with something that might aproximate an objective standard of
"good communication," which somehow (not coincedentally) seems to hint
that most of us debaters are soaked in evil ways.  I've had religious
missionaries come to my door, explain how the world was basically going to
hell, and that there was a small sect there to save me come time for the
apocolypse.  Somehow one would be OK is they just converted to this new
"religion" and be saved.  I don't want to buy into that logic.  I don't
want to play the game where someone's "good communication" has a need,
like that of a missionary to demonize the ways of the other.  There are
multiple interpretations of a communicate act.  For each act is tailored
to a different always changing audience.  To pretend that somehow there is
an "objective standard" that excludes talking fast or speaking about
complex issues in a rigorous academic forum seems to fall on its face from
exhaution.  I don't want to define myself by my membership organization,
because, like nationalism, I think it just seems to divide us.  So I'll
pass on the labels like "policy debate," CEDA debate," "NDT," or "SDSS." 
I'll play the game no matter what you want to call it (not to say there
aren't differences nor that I don't have my own preferences; rather,
labels are overrated).  To quote Abbey Hoffman, "This reluctance to define
ourselves gives us glorious freedom in which to fuck with the system." 
Nostalgia is just a bad trip in disguise -- about as reasonable as the
claim that the Yippies actually levitated the pentagon.  Enough talk about
the 60s.  Somehow I think that debate and diversity can coexist. 

Sean  
"SPEED FREAKIN' CARD SPEWIN' NDT" debater in need of salvation
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page