Review of
The Barnyard Epithet and Other Obscenities,
by J. Anthony Lukas
Five out of five stars
An account of a political show trial in the U. S.
When the Democratic
presidential nominating convention was held in Chicago in 1968, it was truly “wild
in the streets.” The most significant questions in the aftermath revolved
around who started what and who was responsible for the carnage in the streets.
Many in the media called it a “police riot,” while others blamed a core group
of people as organizers of the protests with plans to turn them violent. In one
of the most sensational trials of the twentieth century, seven men known as the
“Chicago Seven” faced charges of crossing state lines in order to plan and
incite a riot. This book was written by a journalist that covered the trial for
“The New York Times.”
The trial was
definitely a political show trial in the most theatrical of senses. The
defendants took every opportunity to make their cases that they were innocent
of the crime and turn the focus to the discussion of what they felt to be an
illegal and immoral war that the United States was conducting in Vietnam.
Passions were high over the war, so the Chicago Seven were treading in familiar
territory regarding the war. It was a time when public opinion in the United
States was rapidly turning against the war. The Tet Offensive had taken place earlier
in the year and it had demonstrated that the bright and happy scenarios being
put forward by American political and military figures were wrong.
This account of
the trial explains the glamour, hostility, grandstanding and other
embellishments that went on in the courtroom. Even the judge seemed to get
involved in the theatrics, so much so that an Appellate court reversed the
convictions of the Chicago Seven, largely based on the conduct of the presiding
judge.
The fundamental
conclusion that can be reached from reading this book is that the government
and the court failed to truly appreciate the significance of the show trial
aspects of the event. The Chicago Seven and their legal counsel clearly understood
the social and political ramifications and played it very well. The presiding
judge comes across as a bit of a reactionary buffoon. It was an interesting and
challenging time in America, the trial explained in this book was a small, but
significant aspect of those times.
No comments:
Post a Comment