who call them selfs hippies

I get a few people that remember me from the old days that will say"you used to be a hippie,didnt you??- boy remember, what a time that was "- - Funny because no-one from those days that I run into ever brings up, "hey Jack your a vet, right? What a time that must have been- just as well , > interesting though

 

[COLOR="Sienna")I started to write a long explaination of what hippies believed in -- but screw it. I came from the 60's - I know what hippies were and what they considered the important things in life. I don't know about today, I'm too old to know - but then there were indeed hippies.

It's amazing to hear someone who never experienced that life style and actually hung with others who had the same values condemn those who wear the label. [/COLOR]

 

I agree Ddoright.

Heywood, you make some very eloquent and thought out points, but underlying them, I detect an attitude of contempt for so-called "Hippies." Like I mentioned in another post, I never really referred to myself as a Hippie but by most definitions I did live the lifestyle off and on back in the '70s. Yep, I was there in real time.

And, I WORKED ALL MY LIFE. Perhaps the long-haired, free-luving, laid-back guy of the era was presumed to be some kind of free-loader, but I, like a lot of my long-haired friends of the time actually did work, except for the times we were on the road, often living cheaply on our savings from WORKING. (I dealt a little grass and psychedelics but never made much on it, just occasional rent and grocery money)

Maybe a few of us were the exception or maybe the non-working Hippie is a stereotype and in your case a prejudice.

I didn't have the best of jobs because of the societal prejudice against guys with beards and long hair. In New Orleans I swept streets at the French Market and cleaned nasty public toilets, I pumped gas at a prone-to-be-robbed-at-gunpoint gas station Claiborne in a bad neighborhood of New Orleans. I even worked for room and board in the HEAD Free Clinic for a while.

Now the thing not hit upon by your condemnation of Hippies was the bigger issue that affected the social change of the era. The Post War Baby Boom!

Yes, we were part of the big population surge who happened to be coming of age in that age of turbulence. We had lots of available young men to go die in a senseless war and an equal amount of young men and women to hold massive rallies protesting that war. The sexual revolution that broke away from the contrived propriety of the '50s was because of all those hormonally driven teens who had the support of each other to do it in the road. Even our shift toward Eastern Philosophy was due to the large number of questioning young ppl throwing out the mythology we had been raised in.

Yes, there have always been free thinkers and rebels in society, but not in the massive numbers that we were at that time. We shaped society by the number of us with the same interests. (we who now are about to break the Social Security system).

I'm sure you must have read that in a book somewhere.

 

Well put- -nuff said!:hat:

 

You don't need to defend your life to me... and if you worked as hard as it seems like you did/do, then that's great.

Okay, you're right... I'm not big on hippies. But that's because I haven't met many hippies that struck me as having any of the virtues that I tend to respect-- such as sincerity, humility, responsibility and dedication. I don't think they're the worst people, but they're pretty bad.

And there have been plenty of times in history where the people did something about a situation they didn't like-- and in a lot of cases, they got much further than the hippies ever did. Ghandi and his followers in India, The Russian revolution, the American Revolution, Spartacus, etc. etc... the politics may be slightly different but the overall pattern is exactly the same... the only reason there were so many hippies is because there are more people in the world now than there were before... if you adjust your figures, you'll realize it's nothing special. The only thing that hadn't been done before was the commercial aspect of it all.

But did the Vietnam war end because of anything the hippies did? 1975... hmmm... no, I don't think the hippie thing was quite so big at that time... and drugs had probably ruined most of the people involved... or they had grown up and gotten real jobs... lucky them, because heaps of kids nowadays can't get decent jobs even though they have two degrees, and if they do, most salaries haven't been adjusted for inflation.

To me, the hippies were the white, privileged posers who tried to associate themselves with real civil rights movements that had been gestating in various ghettos and closets for a very long time... sort of like how white suburban kids nowadays listen to gangsta rap. I don't think it's all that different, really... just that there was more sexual predation back then and the media hadn't learned how to be as sensational yet. And thank you hippies for helping the drug trade grow bigger and bigger so that nowadays we have crack and meth everywhere.

Oh, and to Ddoright... I think it's even more amazing that someone can think they have a point when their only argument is that I don't know what I'm talking about because I didn't spend my youth in a drug haze, staring at a lava lamp, listening to Jimi Hendrix and convincing underage girls to have sex with me.

Hippies are not the saviors of all mankind-- get over yourselves.

 

TRYING to convince underage girls to have sex. Let's get this discussion right!!

 

I'd rather die than be a fucking hippie.

That's just me though...

I think that people who refer to themselves as a "hippie" are either extremely stupid or extremely lost.

 

I think people who want to change themselves and spread the peace are good people - even if they didn't start out that way.

I sure as hell wasn't around during the 60's, but i'm pretty positive they didn't push people away who wanted to join their doings. They almost.... recruited to spread peace.

Today's society clearly states "hippies are over" and you are immediately entitled a *poser* or something stupid if your under 55. What people don't realize is the people under 55 are making up the rules. Who gave them the right?

Hippies have no rules.

If people want to spread peace in anyway they can, then let them.
What harm is it going to do to our world?

 

WOW - you must have a lot of pent up anger to get so upset about something that you know little or nothing about.

I had a job - not a desk job, but a job. I went to school, never stole squat - I didn't need much - what little I made was enough. It's amazing how little you need to be happy when you aren't trying to accumulate stuff. Now it seems I need lots of stuff. Back then stuff was the least of my concerns. We all shared food, housing, transportation etc - enough people helping one another makes up for a lot.

Try to mellow out and let people live thier own life without your world view clouding your perceptions of those you don't know.

 

I think Shale has probably said this as well as anyone could, but you quoted me, so I'm going to respond.

I don't recall ever meeting anyone during the 60's who didn't put in his time doing something. Whether you would call it a "job" or not, I couldn't say, but we all performed tasks in order to eat. Most hippies didn't want the luxuries of consumerism; if they did, they had jobs to support their luxuries. The ones who cast off the trappings of consumerism tended not to need a whole lot of money to survive, so they needed to work a whole lot less to earn it.
Maybe the thing they did was to volunteer at a free kitchen, or a clinic as Shale did, or maybe they were part of a collective, like Good Earth, or whatever. Those were things that wouldn't have been called "jobs" by straight people who couldn't fathom the communal concept, but they did provide what was required. Often times that was just a place to crash and a little food.

Here is the part that illustrates how you are going off of what you may have read in a book or seen on a TV show, but have no real frame of reference on which to base your opinion.
Part of what the hippies rebelled against in the 60's was exactly that attitude that no one would disagree with or get angry about the things that were going on. Most everyone up to that point did feel that the government was absolutely right, no matter what they did and that if we went to war in the jungles of Vietnam, it was absolutely the right thing to do. There was still a very large amount of patriotic vigor left over from WW2, which really was a worthy war, and people were only too happy to allow the government to race us headlong into a few more.

You talk about the media and the cameras and the technology as though those things, by themselves, could create the societal changes of the 60's.
But it was the images that the cameras and technology brought into the livingrooms of America to caused the change. Most Americans at the time thought that the war in Vietnam was as worthy a war as WW2 was. Everyone just KNEW that the USofA was pure and just and would never fight a war that wasn't the very essence of honor, and they told each other so and confirmed each other's beliefs... and then the cameras and technology turned to the images of the protesters and demonstraters, as they shouted out that the king wasn't wearing any clothes. And the scales gradually fell from their eyes in the light of the truth and almost everyone finally admitted that they knew it all along, but were afraid to say something, because everyone else seemed to believe the lie and they didn't want to be different.

That's pretty much how happened, but you don't have the benefit of having been there to see it happen for yourself. Plus, you seem to have a fair amount of animosity towards hippies in general, so you would probably rather give almost anything the credit. That's okay, it's your mind - you can make it up any way you like. (but the king still isn't wearing any clothes.)

No, I'm saying that the change is caused by people with new ideas. Every so often, new ideas spawn change in the status quo. Once upon a time, Mozart and Beethoven were the radical new sound. They didn't change the physics of music, they just presented it in a new and unique way.

So... you think that technology just organically inserts itself into our lives and changes us? Boy, talk about getting the cart before the horse...
Have you never heard the saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention?"
Technology is only created to fill a need that is conceptualized by... a person. Surprise!

You're desperately trying to pooh-pooh the contributions of hippies, but you're failing miserably. The music obviously changed in the 60's. I suppose you think that the actual change happened in a government laboratory and it was stolen by the hippies, but it was the hippie artists, influenced by their environment and their own expanded consciousness that did it. Whether or not it takes the form of "effects pedals and guitar-hero wankery" it was new and different and popular. It changed the music.

Who said anything about requirements? We aren't required to be Catholic, either, but Catholics arguably did more to spread Christianity than any other denomination. Your point is non sequitur.

No one ever said that hippies were responsible for EVERY event that happened in the 60's and 70's. We're not discussing how the corporate face of America changed in those days, we're talking about what changes hippies helped to create.

Man, you have constructed some pretty strange concepts of what was actually going on...

First of all, there is no way to judge how much of eastern philosophy was adopted, as you suggest, simply as a means to shirk responsibility. Who could know the minds of those who adopted it and who is capable of passing judgement? You?

Secondly, you yourself admit that your concept of what the hippies were doing with eastern philosophy was not how the philosophy was intended. What makes you think that the hippies, who in all likelihood studied it much more than you have - and frequently with gurus to guide them, would understand it less than you?

Thridly, drug use as a means to expand consciousness was not an offshoot of eastern philosophy. The LSD movement was spearheaded by people like Tim Leary, Owsley Stanley, Ken Kesey, etc... some of whom may have adopted eastern philosophies later on. Eastern philosophy was a means to achive enlighenment without the use of drugs. Again, your limited understanding (in spite of all of your supposed reading) of these things is tattling on your pre-conceived notions.

So, let me get this straight. Books are more accurate than individual accounts, because they are given to us by a person who goes out and researches... individual accounts? wow.
You have made the assumption that you can get more out of reading a book about an event than you can from participating in the event, itself. Well, I have news for you... even the "Key Players" only have a partial view of the overall picture. They only see it from their own perspective. You're right that we are speaking of generalities, and generally speaking, I'll take the opinion of all the people here who are talking about their own personal experiences in having lived through those times over yours after you "read the book."

That's right. You don't know who I am, or what grand or minor part I may have played in the scheme of things, but rather than find out, you would project your opinion that I am just some random guy who followed the crowd, didn't grow up, and now wants to take credit for the whole thing. Once more, through your pre-concieved notions, you have revealed you limited understanding - not only of the times, but of my purpose in posting.

I'm not taking personal credit for anything and I'm pretty sure you understand that. I know what it was like on a "grand" level, in the same way that anyone who was there knows what it was like. We lived it, day and night, for the entire time that it happened. We watched it play out daily. We participated in it. We encouraged it. We were part of it.
We didn't learn about it from a book, although we certainly may have used other accounts of events to augment our personal understanding.

Wait, am I assuming, or are you assuming that I'm assuming?
I have no idea what you're even trying to say, here. Are we talking about me personally, now? Are you trying to attack me as the personal "face of hippiedom?"
I don't assume the reason for people not liking me. I don't even assume that people don't like me. Why would I assume that? Are you saying that people don't like me? How would you know that? How would you know what people understand about me, or what I may have learned, or how far I may have moved on from the 60's, or whether I refused to move on?

I'm tempted to ask how you know anything. Are you just making stuff up as you go, now?

Is that what this is all about? You think I personally expect people to admire me for the life I've chosen? I don't think I've revealed all that much about my personal life to expect any admiration for it.

There's a lot of apparent anger in you, Heywood. You might be better served to do a little introspective meditation to find out where all that anger is coming from. I'm pretty sure that hippies are no threat to you, so you can relax.

 

Y'know, if I wasn't a moderator I'd tell you to fuck off. But I won't.

However, I take extreme offense at your statement. I AM still a hippie and I am neither stupid nor lost. My wife and I live a very modest lifestyle. We do all the good things hippies do (e.g. Drive fuel efficient vehicles, reduce, reuse, recycle, compost, heat with an efficient woodstove, garden and serve the community. My wife is a degreed R.N. and I am a Master Woodworker, Chef, Musician and Ordained Minister. (my spiritual services are free to all)
Stupid or lost? I think not!

Haywood, I must take you to task on some of your statements.
You may be at a slight disadvantage as I was a Rock Historian. In the 70s I was offered a tenured position at the University of Pa. But this, hopefully,isn't a pissing match but a good discussion.

In the late 50s rock was dying. (never considered Elvis to be rock) There was a real chance at a revival when Buddy Holly came on the scene. Unfortunately, "The Day the Music Died" happened. Rock music languished. Then along came the "Granddaddy of Them All"...Dick Dale. He and Les Paul changed everything. The Stratocaster came along. Dick Dale strung that axe with heavy strings strung upside down for a left handed guitar picker. Sound familiar? That's what Hendrix did.

Rock was saved!!! Dick Dale was really the first "Surfer Hippie" The man still does shows to this day. Sports a ponytail and bandanna headband.
I will agree many of the bands mentioned before really didn't change the face of rock...except for The Grateful Dead. There isn't enough room here to give you a real historical synopsis on that band but their influence still reverberates through the rock.
They, among a few others DID change the face of Rock.

Hippies were a large part of the anti-war movement. No, the movement didn't stop the Vietnam War but it did cause Nixon to be paranoid enough to do the stupid things that brought about his resignation. A Pyrrhic victory perhaps but it did help.
If not for us being in the streets the media would have ignored us.

Hippiedom wasn't commercialized until Woodstock. (yes, I was there) It was the realization by commercial interests of just how many of us there were.
Tis a shame but I've always thought that Woodstock was our greatest moment and the beginning of the end.

If you have any questions or want to explore this topic further, I would be honored to discuss this more with you. You seem intelligent enough to have a lively debate with.

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss a topic close to my heart.

Zen

 

Yet you start it out pissing.

I really don't see how you can say rock was dying before Buddy Holly came out. I mean, not even arguing the Elvis thing. Buddy Holly's (well, the Crickets') 'That'll Be the Day' came out the same day as Jerry Lee Lewis' 'Whole Lotta Shakin Goin On', Bo Diddley didn't even come out till 55, and Bill Haley and His Comets' 'Rock Around the Clock' was the first rock song to top the charts in 55.
Rock wasn't even fully born as a trend until the mid-50s and it was definitely going strong in the late 50s (when Buddy Holly, The Big Bopper, Jerry Lee Lewis came out)

This is the first major accomplishment I've heard claimed by hippies that I can actually agree with.

I've always seen it as the worst moment for Hippiedom (but one of the best ever for rock ); but I'm looking from the other end of the spectrum, as I wasn't born yet.



Oh, and Trigcove, I had a real busy last couple weeks with finals and whatnot, shall I resume our argument or leave it?

 

This new wave of hippies seems to be followed by a new wave of hippie haters.

I can't imagine where it's coming from, unless it's just that they are jaded from hearing about it for so long.

Perhaps it's the pendulum beginning to swing in the other direction.

 

Thanks Trigcove and Zencoyote for sharing your thoughts. From my experience you are both on target. If Haywood hasn't noticed - we are 57, 58, & 62 - we were there - we don't have to rely on someone with a sympathetic or antaganistic point of view.

 

I haven't seen an example of this too much.

I mean, everyone here except the wannabe hippies hate the wannabe hippies, but that's cause they don't shower. But no one actually considers them hippies.

Hippie hate was much bigger in the 90s rock and punk scenes, in my opinion.

 

The shower thing takes it a little too far. This guy is simply pulling our chains. Hundreds of younger people on this forum yearn for that era in American life. Peace, Love, Hippies and we were there - I suspect Duck is one of those who are bitter because they were not there. Peace & Love

 

I think that the "pissing" part was directed at BraveSirRubin.

The larger part directed towards Heywood was the hoped for "good discussion."

As you wish.

The discussion seems to be going on with or without the one we started.

 

The shower thing is just goddamn stupid. People have always bathed. It's less natural, not more.

I am not.
I yearn for peace and love, or at least, the part of me I like more does. I see hippies (in general) to be sheep. Followers of the trends. Punks in a different era. Emos in a different era. Posers.
It's a better trend but just that.
And no, I'm bitter because I missed the 20s-50s

 

So?
His 'credentials' were still one hundred percent unnecessary for any reason except showing off..

I was asking..
And yes, it does seem that way. =)

 

great post Shale