What does Julius Lester see as the legacy of the 1960s?

Lester had a mixed review of the movements of the Sixties. He was proud of the things that were accomplished, and the fervor and intensity that accompanied them. But he also acknowledges that these causes lost momentum as they grew. As is often the case with ideas, they have their most creative phases early on. As more people jump on the bandwagon, a movement starts applying business structures- hierarchies of leadership, management, and other organizational concerns. And the original goals become diluted. Lester's prescription for this problem: to re-evaluate these organizations, and "if necessary, disband many and create others". Keep things fresh, in other words. Well-meant, but it never really happened.

What do you see as the legacy of the 1960s?

I agree with the historical view that the decade was simultaneously one of our most turbulent yet productive eras in bringing about social and political change. Television was a relatively new medium and played a huge role in the movements of the time, and that legacy persists into the present. There's no question that African Americans and women experienced new rights and freedoms they had not enjoyed before, but that their ideals are not yet fully realized fifty years later. People learned new and effective ways to protest and bring about change in the Sixties, and we still see those in action often today.

What do people you know, both older and younger than you, see as the legacy of the 1960s?

I can only speak generally about people I know, and in my own extended family's case, unfortunately none were really participants in the movements of the 60s. But I guess that becomes their "contribution", as it were... many Americans in the Sixties, and especially in conservative areas like the South, stood on the sidelines. Watched these conflicts on the evening news, shook their heads in bewilderment, and otherwise got on with their lives. My parents, in retrospect, made some minor concessions. I was allowed to grow my hair a bit longer (early-Beatles style), and wear more flashy clothes like bell-bottoms, fringe vests, and the like. And they bought me a guitar in the very early 70s- never foreseeing the personal legacy that would have on me.

I think younger people see the Sixties more objectively, without the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia. My son, who's also a musician, is 24. The Sixties are as alien to him as World War II is to me; they are respectively before our times. He can and does appreciate Jimi Hendrix or The Doors, much like I admire big-band music. But Hendrix is not a hero for him.

How does the legacy of the 1960s differ for conservatives and progressives?

In a nutshell, the progressives "won" in the 60s and the conservatives "lost". The latter are still licking their wounds. If the "old white men" and company could have their way, they would remove a lot of the progress that was gained- they still fight to ban abortion and same-sex marriage. They still believe many minorities are getting hand-outs (more modernly "bail-outs") that they don't really deserve. We hear derogatory terms such as "tree-hugging liberals" to this day. Progressives can look to the 60s for inspiration, while conservatives wish they could travel back in time and re-write the decade in their favor.