The Manson Family, Leonard Peltier And Justice

I heard filmmaker John Waters on the radio yesterday making a case for the parole of Leslie Van Houten, one of the members of Charles Manson's "family" who helped murder Rosemary LaBianca in 1969. Van Houten could hope for a better friend and defender than Waters, who drew a vague connection between his declasse films, the social movements of the '60s and the crimes committed by Manson and his gang.

It's interesting that National Public Radio interviewed Waters about the case at length and did not challenge his faulty points of comparison between his films and reality or his particularly egregious rewriting of the history of the '60s. The interviewer picked up on the sheer and intentional grossness of Waters' work, but did so in ways which made the interview almost titillating and gave Waters more of a forum and an opportunity to appear insincerely introspective and regretful. He's regretting everything he did all the way to the bank.

The Manson case is getting some renewed media attention. It has become an opportunity for the media to make us think about where and who we were 40 years ago. Some of us remember where we were when Kennedy was assassinated; others remember where they were when news of the murders committed by Manson and his followers broke. We often remember a more trusting world when we look back, one filled with promise. Whether that's correct and realistic or not, what are we recalling and saying about the state of the world when we remember the events of August 10, 1969? It says a great deal about the degeneration of social relationships that the media is forcing this into the public discourse.

Meanwhile, Leonard Peltier has been in prison for 12,240 days. He's been imprisoned since 1976 for events growing out of the pine Ridge Reservation occupation. It is at least doubtful that he is guilty as charged, and likely that he's innocent. He is certainly a political prisoner.

If Waters' argument that Van Houten is guilty of the crimes she was charged with but has served enough time holds water--no pun intended--then Peltier gets his get-out-of-jail free card before she does. Peltier is probably innocent; Van Houten says she's guilty. If the argument that Van Houten has successfully done so much in prison to improve herself and help others gets her out from behind bars, then Peltier--a real hero--goes first. Check out the website for Peltier here.

If nostalgia for a time that never was is going to sway our opinions and determine what justice is, then it's fair to ask who better represents a time of protest--Van Houten or Peltier? Waters was all about linking Van Houten to protest movements, youthful idealism and Abbie Hoffman--none of that holds water. What is so radical about people destroying themselves with drugs and trying to provoke racial conflict and mass chaos?

Peltier, on the other hand, was part of a people's movement. The FBI broke the law in the ways in which it subverted and attacked that movement and in the ways in which it intervened to assure Peltier's conviction. July 28 was an international day of solidarity with Peltier but NPR didn't get anyone on to talk about the case and Waters didn't mention Peltier or any other political prisoners.

We say that art is not produced from abstract principles. It reflects the political-economy and social divisions of a particular day and place and attitudes about development, existence and change. Some art is progressive and revolutionary and some is declasse, reactionary or degenerate. Personal taste is not the issue; how art functions and how artists live out their creativity and ideals is very much the issue on the other hand. Waters crossed the bar, if he ever was on the right side of things.