One of PB's many jackbooted thugs alerts us to Daniel Burton-Rose's Creating a Movement With Teeth: A Documentary History of the George Jackson Brigade for which
Professor Doctor Indian Scholar Ward Churchill has written the preface, entitled "ReVisioning a Movement With Teeth" (for those PB readers incapable of convincing a friend to shove them down a flight of stairs and/or lacking the courage to hurl themselves down said stairs, the entire preface can be read at the link).
First two paragraphs:
There was a time, not so long ago, when an appreciable segment of those professing opposition to the policies pursued by U.S. elties proved capable of transcending the banality of liberal analysis, arriving at a genuinely radical understanding both of what they were up against and what would be required to transform it. Thus were the obtund constraints of "responsible" protest discarded in favor of armed struggle undertaken not only by such organizations as the Black Panther Party and the Weather Underground Organization (WUO), but also a host of other groups around the country, many of them tiny, highly localized, and now all but forgotten.
Considered in light of Santayana's famously irrefragable observation that those unknowing of their history are doomed to repeat it, the "forgotten" dimension(s) of the armed struggle waged against the domestic status quo during the late 1960s and early '70s represents a problem of genuine significance. If we may agree that to draw reasonable conclusions from or about any phenomenon, historical or otherwise, it is essential to have as complete and accurate an apprehension of it as possible, the nature of the deficiency should be clear. Its ramifications are no less apparent in the discourse of the few who might presently assert that armed struggle constitutes the signifier of revolutionary purity and the sole means through which fundamental change can be precipitated as it is in the anodyne catechism mouthed by the multitudes who smugly dismiss recourse to arms as being both "unrealistic" and "self-defeating."
Interesting that in the very first paragraph Churchill—who apparently discovered "obtund" on a page of his Word Of The Day bathroom reader and elected to use it forthwith to show what an incredible brainiac he is—proceeds to use it incorrectly (from context, he could have used either "obtundent" or even "obtunded" and been quite properly erudite, albeit unnecessarily obfuscatory. Just who the hell is he writing for, anyway? Was he sick the day they taught grammar at Sangamon?).
And while Santayana's actual observation about history may, in fact, be famously irrefragable, The Perfesser's garbling of it is not. It occurs that Churchill could profit from a more thorough reading of Santayana, who—in addition to that repetitious history thing—also noted that a "conception not reducible to the small change of daily experience is like a currency not exchangeable for articles of consumption; it is not a symbol, but a fraud. "
Incidentally—"ReVisioning"? Seriously? Can an individual vision an object? Coincidentally, can that individual be described as performing the act of visioning? And further, were that individual to be momentarily interrupted but soon return to his earlier occupation, could he then be described as revisioning the object? Just curious, Poindexter.