1968: The Year that Rocked the World et plus d'un million d'autres livres sont disponibles pour le Kindle d'Amazon. En savoir plus

Identifiez-vous pour activer la commande 1-Click.
Amazon Rachète votre article
Recevez un chèque-cadeau de EUR 0,68
Amazon Rachète cet article
Plus de choix
Vous l'avez déjà ? Vendez votre exemplaire ici
Désolé, cet article n'est pas disponible en
Image non disponible pour la
couleur :
Image non disponible

Commencez à lire 1968: The Year that Rocked the World sur votre Kindle en moins d'une minute.

Vous n'avez pas encore de Kindle ? Achetez-le ici ou téléchargez une application de lecture gratuite.

1968: The Year that Rocked the World [Anglais] [Broché]

Mark Kurlansky

Prix : EUR 11,38 LIVRAISON GRATUITE En savoir plus.
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
En stock, mais la livraison peut nécessiter jusqu'à 2 jours supplémentaires.
Expédié et vendu par Amazon. Emballage cadeau disponible.

Description de l'ouvrage

3 février 2005
It was the year of sex and drugs and rock and roll; it was also the year of the Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy assassinations, the Prague Spring, the Chicago convention, the Tet offensive in Vietnam and the anti-war movement, the student rebellion that paralysed France, civil rights, the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union, and the birth of the women's movement. With 1968: The Year that Rocked the World, award-winning journalist Mark Kurlansky has written his Magnum opus - a cultural and political history of that world-changing year of social upheaval, when television's impact on global events first became apparent, and when simultaneously - in Paris, Prague, London, Berkeley, and all over the globe - uprisings spontaneously occurred. 1968 encompasses the worlds of youth and music, politics, war, economics, assassinations, riots, demonstrations and the media, and shows us how we got to where we are today.

Offres spéciales et liens associés

Descriptions du produit



The things of the eye are done.

On the illuminated black dial,

green ciphers of a new moon-

One, two, three, four, five, six!

I breathe and cannot sleep.

Then morning comes,

saying, "This was night."

-Robert Lowell, "Myopia: a Night,"

from For the Union Dead, 1964



The year 1968 began the way any well-ordered year should-on a Monday morning. It was a leap year. February would have an extra day. The headline on the front page of The New York Times read, world bids adieu to a violent year; city gets snowfall.

In Vietnam, 1968 had a quiet start. Pope Paul VI had declared January 1 a day of peace. For his day of peace, the pope had persuaded the South Vietnamese and their American allies to give a twelve-hour extension to their twenty-four-hour truce. The People's Liberation Armed Forces in South Vietnam, a pro-North Vietnamese guerrilla force in the South popularly known as the Viet Cong, announced a seventy-two-hour cease-fire. In Saigon, the South Vietnamese government had forced shop owners to display banners that predicted, "1968 Will See the Success of Allied Arms."

At the stroke of midnight in South Vietnam's Mekong Delta, the church bells in the town of Mytho rang in the new year. Ten minutes later, while the bells were still ringing, a unit of Viet Cong appeared on the edge of a rice paddy and caught the South Vietnamese 2nd Marine Battalion by surprise, killing nineteen South Vietnamese marines and wounding another seventeen.

A New York Times editorial said that although the resumption of fighting had shattered hopes for peace, another chance would come with a cease-fire in February for Tet, the Vietnamese New Year.

"L'année 1968, je la salue avec sérénité," pronounced Charles de Gaulle, the tall and regal seventy-eight-year-old president of France, on New Year's Eve. "I greet the year 1968 with serenity," he said from his ornate palace where he had been governing France since 1958. He had rewritten the constitution to make the president of France the most powerful head of state of any Western democracy. He was now three years into his second seven-year term and saw few problems on the horizon. From a gilded palace room, addressing French television-whose only two channels were entirely state controlled-he said that soon other nations would be turning to him and that he would be able to broker peace in not only Vietnam but also the Middle East. "All signs indicate, therefore, that we shall be in a position to contribute most effectively to international solutions." In recent years he had taken to referring to himself as "we."

As he gave his annual televised message to the French people, the man the French called the General or Le Grand Charles seemed "unusually mellow, almost avuncular," sparing harsh adjectives even for the United States, which of late he had been calling "odious." His tone contrasted with that of his 1967 New Year's message, when he had spoken of "the detestable unjust war" in Vietnam in which a "big nation" was destroying a small one. The French government had grown concerned at the level of animosity that France's allies had been directing at it.

France was enjoying a quiet and prosperous moment. After World War II, the Republic had fought its own Vietnam war, a fact that de Gaulle seemed to have forgotten. Ho Chi Minh, America's enemy, had been born under French colonial rule the same year as de Gaulle and had spent most of his life fighting the French. He had once lived in Paris under the pseudonym Nguyen O Phap, which means "Nguyen who hates the French." During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt had warned de Gaulle that after the war France should give Indochina its independence. But de Gaulle told Ho, even as he was enlisting his people in the fight against the Japanese, that after the war he intended to reestablish the French colony. Roosevelt argued, "The people of Indochina are entitled to something better than that." De Gaulle was determined that his Free French troops participate in any action in Indochina, saying, "French bloodshed on the soil of Indochina would constitute an impressive territorial claim."

After World War II, the French fought Ho for Vietnam and suffered bitter defeat. Then they fought and lost in Algeria. But since 1962 France had been at peace. The economy was growing, despite de Gaulle's notorious lack of interest in the fine points of economics. Between the end of the Algerian war and 1967, real wages in France rose 3.6 percent each year. There was a rapid increase in the acquisition of consumer goods-especially cars and televisions. And there was a dramatic increase in the number of young people attending universities.

De Gaulle's prime minister, Georges Pompidou, anticipated few problems for the year ahead. He predicted that the Left would be more successful in unifying than they would in actually taking power. "The opposition will harass the government this year," the prime minister announced, "but they will not succeed in provoking a crisis."

The popular weekly Paris Match placed Pompidou on a short list of politicians who would maneuver in 1968 to try to replace the General. Yet the editors predicted there would be more to watch abroad than in France. "The United States will unleash one of the fiercest electoral battles ever imagined," they announced. In addition to Vietnam, they saw the potential hot spots as a fight over gold and the dollar, growing freedom in the Soviet Union's Eastern satellite countries, and the launching of a Soviet space weapons system.

"It is impossible to see how France today could be paralyzed by crisis as she has been in the past," said de Gaulle in his New Year's message.

Paris had never looked brighter, thanks to Culture Minister André Malraux's building-cleaning campaign. The Madeleine, the Arc de Triomphe, the Pantheon, and other landmark buildings were no longer gray and charcoal but beige and buff, and this month cold-water sprays were going to remove seven hundred years of grime from Notre Dame Cathedral. It was one of the great controversies of the moment in the French capital. Would the water spray damage the building? Would it look oddly patchwork, revealing that not all the stones were originally of matching color?

De Gaulle, seated in his palace moments before midnight on the eve of 1968, was serene and optimistic. "In the midst of so many countries shaken by confusion," he promised, "ours will continue to give an example of order." France's "primordial aim" in the world is peace, the General said. "We have no enemies."

Perhaps this new Gaullian tone was influenced by dreams of a Nobel Peace Prize. Paris Match asked Pompidou if he agreed with some of the General's inner circle who had expressed outrage that de Gaulle had not already received the prize. But Pompidou answered, "Do you really think that the Nobel Prize could be meaningful to the General? The General is only concerned about history, and no jury can dictate the judgment of history."

Aside from de Gaulle, the American computer industry struck one of the new year's rare notes of optimism, predicting a record year for 1968. In the 1950s computer manufacturers had estimated that six computers could serve the needs of the entire United States. By January 1968 fifty thousand computers were operating in the country, of which fifteen thousand had been installed in the past year. The cigarette industry was also optimistic that its 2 percent growth in sales in 1967 would be repeated in 1968. The executive of one of the leading cigarette manufacturers boasted, "The more they attack us the higher our sales go."

But by most measurements, 1967 had not been a good year in the United States. A record number of violent, destructive riots had erupted in black inner cities across the country, including Boston, Kansas City, Newark, and Detroit.

1968 would be the year in which "Negroes" became "blacks." In 1965, Stokely Carmichael, an organizer for the remarkably energetic and creative civil rights group the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, or SNCC, invented the name Black Panthers, soon followed by the phrase Black Power. At the time, black, in this sense, was a rarely used poetic turn of phrase. The word started out in 1968 as a term for black militants, and by the end of the year it became the preferred term for the people. Negro had become a pejorative applied to those who would not stand up for themselves.

On the second day of 1968, Robert Clark, a thirty-seven-year-old schoolteacher, took his seat in the Mississippi House of Representatives without a challenge, the first black to gain a seat in the Mississippi State Legislature since 1894.

But in the civil rights struggle, action was shifting from the soft-spoken rural South to the hard-edged urban North. Northern blacks were different from blacks in the South. While the mostly southern followers of Martin Luther King, Jr., studied Mohandas Gandhi and his nonviolent anti-British campaign, Stokely Carmichael, who had grown up in New York City, became interested in violent rebels such as the Mau Mau, who had risen up against the British in Kenya. Carmichael, a good-humored man with a biting wit and a sense of theater that he brought from his native Trinidad, had been for years regularly jailed, threatened, and abused in the South, as had all the SNCC workers. And during those years there were always moments when the concept of nonviolence was questioned. Carmichael began hurling back abuse verbally and sometimes physically, confronting segregationists who harassed him. The King people chanted, "Freedom now!" T... --Ce texte fait référence à l'édition Broché .

Revue de presse

"A riveting, evocative, entertaining read." (Observer)

"Eminently readable... Will bring a flood of memories of an exceptional year in the exceptional 1960s" (The Economist)

"An expansive, explosive account" (Esquire)

"Kurlansky is a very superior journalist: diligent in his research, quirkily original in his insights, swift and clear in his storytelling. 1968 is a riveting, evocative, entertaining read" (Observer)

Détails sur le produit

En savoir plus sur l'auteur

Découvrez des livres, informez-vous sur les écrivains, lisez des blogs d'auteurs et bien plus encore.

Dans ce livre (En savoir plus)
Parcourir les pages échantillon
Couverture | Copyright | Table des matières | Extrait | Index | Quatrième de couverture
Rechercher dans ce livre:

Commentaires en ligne 

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaires clients sur Amazon.fr
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoiles
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 3.7 étoiles sur 5  63 commentaires
64 internautes sur 78 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
3.0 étoiles sur 5 Entertaining, but Uncomprehending 27 septembre 2005
Par Odysseus - Publié sur Amazon.com
Mark Kurlansky's entertaining book amply justifies his thesis that 1968 was a watershed year, in which peoples around the world fundamentally reassessed their visions of themselves and of their governments.

Kurlansky weaves a gripping tale from start to finish: The assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, the Democratic convention in Chicago, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Mexico City Olympics, and so much more.

Kurlansky is at his best in two successive chapters near the book's end. The first of these, on the Democratic national convention, could hardly have misfired, so colorful is the material. But Kurlansky's treatment of the Czech response to the Soviet invasion is even more magnificent. This impressive chapter required Kurlansky to dig much deeper to tease out events that took place behind closed doors in repressive environments.

Kurlansky admits in his introduction that objectivity is nearly impossible when writing about such divisive, impassioned events. Unfortunately, Kurlansky's gift for narrative is accompanied by a shocking lack of perspective on the events of 1968, even at a distance of nearly forty years. For example:

Throughout the book, Kurlansky treats rebellious movements as part of an international piece, glossing over the fundamental difference between resisting the tanks of the Soviet Union, and taking over a building at Columbia University. Such gloss trivializes the bravery of those standing up to totalitarianism at the same time that it exalts actions in the west that sometimes veered towards recreation.

Kurlansky sometimes visibly strains to position the New Left as equal opportunity rejecters of capitalism and communism, sometimes with absurd results. He documents the struggles of visitors to Castro's Cuba to avoid being "seduced" by a tyrant, though his own narrative glosses over Castro's depredations into approving nods towards Castro's policies on health care, as if dictators for millennia haven't attempted to buy their populace's liberties with material giveaways. When Allen Ginsburg is given a chance to ask a skeptical question of Castro, he asks about the illegality of marijuana, blind buffoonery in context, but not presented so in Kurlansky's narrative.

Similar strains occur in the chapter on France, where Kurlansky makes much of DeGaulle's dismissal of student demonstrations as simply a symptom of not wanting to study. But despite several pages on the unrest in France, Kurlansky fails to substantiate that they were about anything of consequence. The reader is left feeling as perplexed as deGaulle.

Kurlansky treats the schism among the civil rights movement blandly as a morally neutral disagreement over tactics - violence or non-violence - between individuals with shared objectives. From a distance, we can see that the pursuit of power by violent ends is a tragic tendency as old as humanity. It is neither new nor exculpatory for such activities to be accompanied by a sense of higher moral purpose. The passions of people are the reason that western democracies work as well as they do, constraining these tendencies through power-sharing, and providing other avenues to political power. The fact that democracies sometimes fall short of these ideals does not legitimate violent action as a method of societal decision-making, as opposed to a last resort against others' coercive violence.

Towards the end of the book, Kurlansky's lack of perspective veers from the sloppy to the outrageous. Three especially deplorable comments stand out:

Concerning Castro's executions of political opponents, Kurlansky mocks concerns from American conservatives, suggesting that only hypocrisy could make a supporter of capital punishment shocked by state-sponsored executions. But one needn't be an advocate of capital punishment to see the difference between a fair trial that ends in the execution of a murderer, and a government that simply rounds up political opponents to be killed. Only the most credulous should fall for the favorite argument of dictators: the moral equation of the mistakes made by democracies, with their own systematic repressions.

Kurlansky's lowest moment may be when he writes that Republicans have been winning elections since 1968, principally because white racists outnumber American blacks. By this point in the book, Kurlansky appears almost a New Left's version of a McCarthyist: someone who accuses political opponents of being fundamentally hostile to broadly-shared American visions of rights. The generations that have followed 1968 are far less race-conscious than those of Kurlansky's generation, and indeed, many of them vote Republican.

Finally, Kurlansky spins a whopper when he states that the fall of the Soviet Union began in 1968. The invasion of Czechoslovakia, he says, destroyed its image from the people's revolutionary republic into a brutal repressor. Given that 1968 occurred not only well after the Soviets' similar invasion in Hungary, but after decades of imposition of a slave labor system that imprisoned millions in gulags, this is a breathtakingly absurd statement. 1968 may have been when Kurlansky himself woke up to the nature of the USSR, but not anyone better informed of world events. One suspects that this is Kurlansky's way of dismissing the reality that the USSR would probably not have disintegrated had it not been for the steady pressure from the US, which efforts many of Kurlansky's heroes were actually working against. The statement seems to validate the conservatives' view of the New Left of the time: self-absorbed, out of touch with history and with world events.

Kurlansky is a wonderful storyteller, and his book is worth reading for that alone. This is not a book to read, however, for objective perspective on the events of that turbulent year.
46 internautes sur 58 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 A wonderful whirlwind tour of the eventful year 31 décembre 2003
Par Seth J. Frantzman - Publié sur Amazon.com
This wonderful new account of the year 1968 gives one a whirlwind tour through the upheavals of that seminal year. From Cuba to China to Czechslovakia and Poland this boo does it all. A wide survey of everything from the Chicago 7 to the role of TV and disappearance of mini-skirts. Kurlansky is the master of story telling. He weaves in topics like the Jewish role in the Polish protests of 68', the Biafran war in Nigeria and the shooting of protestors in Mexico. Every subject is covered thoroughly so that you know the characters and feel the times. This is simply a very readable interesting account of a year that changed the world and still affects how we think about 20th century history.
31 internautes sur 39 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 Walking the tightrope of history... 14 janvier 2004
Par Christopher Betche - Publié sur Amazon.com
Every college professor will tell you that history is more than a study of dates and events. Only by looking at the long term and greater societal trends can true understanding be gained. Mark Kurlansky proves this belief dramatically wrong in his newest, and best work to date, 1968. The research alone must have taken years, to say nothing of the narrative flow and care in crafting the book. What happened to make this one year so important? How about Vietnam in full swing complete with the Tet Offensive, the Nigerian oil war, Czechoslovakia moving toward democracy only to be invaded by the Soviets, Muhammad Ali being convicted of draft evasion, student demonstrations of every kind from Mexico to France, Martin Luther King being assassinated, Cuba perceived as the most exciting nation in the world, Robert Kennedy looking like the next president only to be killed, the cartoon-like atmosphere of the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago including seventeen minutes of televised police brutality, the Black Power salutes of Olympic medal winners, and the orbiting of the moon by Apollo 8? And most amazingly, Kurlansky ties it all together; interconnecting the many separate and diverse movements and moments and showing how they affected one another. He also retains the human touch with numerous quotations and interviews with the people who were there. This is history, pure and untainted, as close as you are likely to get without experiencing it. It is often said that those who lived through historical events are unaware of their importance until afterward, but 1968 shows how so many participants were very aware that "the whole world is watching" and they acted accordingly. This book is a must read for those who were there, and even more so for those who weren't. One more good book, and you can shelve Kurlansky right next to Bradley or Ambrose.
22 internautes sur 27 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 GOOD HISTORY OF A UNIQUE EVENTFUL YEAR 5 novembre 2005
Par Denis Benchimol Minev - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché|Achat authentifié par Amazon
Having heard much of the separate events occured in 1968, it was interesting to see a well written attempt to unify the events into one coherent theme. The author describes in detail the background to each event and the actions taken by the main leaders of such movements -- a unifying theme seems to be that the movements were almost self driven, with figureheads at the top with no true leadership. Also part of the unifying theme was that these movements were led by students, who for the first time were aware of other student movements around the world and seem to not want to be left behind.

The stories focus on the communist bloc (Poland and Czechoslovakia), where there was strong repression of the student movement. The problem, for example, in Poland, was that the students were mostly the children of the Communist Party leaders, so the clashes put on opposite sides different generations of the same people. Such seemed to be the case in the Czech case as well.

The movements in France were also astounding in their magnitude, with leaders who did not lead much, but getting to a complete paralysis of the country and the downfall of many in the government. Movements in the US, especially at Berkeley and Columbia, has strong effects on the American psyche, as the war in Vietnam went on and civil rights movements were heating up and taking a turn towards violence (away from Martin Luther King and into the Black Panthers). The killing of Bobby Kennedy was also a significant event to shape the election year in the US.

I highly recommend this book to those interested in history -- it puts many events in perspective. The Prague Spring, for example, is much more well understood knowing the Communist party dynamics at the time and the international student movement raging on in the west. One should have a good time reading it, while we hope another such year occurs in our lifetimes.
15 internautes sur 18 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 A book of history: human, comprehensive, courageous 26 mars 2004
Par Ernest Hightower - Publié sur Amazon.com
Mark Kurlansky has written the most important book ever published about one of this nation's most galvanizing, divisive, and imposing years in modern history. Baby boomers who lived through this history as college students will discover context and multi-faceted details about how this year changed them indelibly. Younger readers will gain a richer understanding about how the events of 1968 benefit them today, including feminism, racial integration, and a healthy distrust of powerful elites. (Imagine what it was like to be expelled from college because you openly cohabitated with your romantic partner.) The book breaks through U.S. ethnocentricity about this remarkable year by presenting graphic images of 1968 from Paris to Prague and Mexico City to the former Soviet Union. The author demonstrates without apology or hesitation that 1968 was a worldwide cultural revolution that today benefits all Western societies and has brought greater freedom and social equality to countless people. Kurlansky is to be praised, not criticized, for his extraordinary accomplishment, the painstaking research, and an enjoyable writing style that injects humanity into historical details.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ?   Dites-le-nous

Discussions entre clients

Le forum concernant ce produit
Discussion Réponses Message le plus récent
Pas de discussions pour l'instant

Posez des questions, partagez votre opinion, gagnez en compréhension
Démarrer une nouvelle discussion
Première publication:
Aller s'identifier

Rechercher parmi les discussions des clients
Rechercher dans toutes les discussions Amazon

Rechercher des articles similaires par rubrique


Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?