Why The Hippie Movement Died

Couldn't have said it better myself. I love how everyone seems to be the authority here.

 

These are the ones that I referred to as "looking for a place to do wicked things." These are the ones who I feel killed the Haight; but really, I think that that SF would have diminished, anyway. That whole thing was too big to keep in just one city.

There were places where a lot of bad shit *didn't* happen, too.
You know, we're all aware of the bad things that went down. The media used that to condemn the good right along with the bad. We all cried over that, a little... but a lot of us picked ourselves up and carried on. And a lot more didn't believe the crap, and came out on their own mission of discovery - and by "came out", I don't necessarily mean to SF.

Not everyone who came out after 1967 was a "weekend hippie." I didn't get to the Haight for the spring/summer of '67, and by the time I did, there was no one left there that I wanted to know. I didn't say "fuck it" and go back home; I went looking, because I knew that the real hippies didn't go back home, either.

I think that the younger people on these forums also know that the real hippies aren't gone (at least, not yet). But you have to look for 'em. Heh... maybe there should be a board here called "Look Forum."

You know, when you find a person who wants to be a hippie, because it's a cool thing to do, you have a perfect opportunity to show them just how cool a thing it really is. Don't waste your opportunity, man... 'cause that's where the movement is, now. :cheers2:

 

Alcohol and football prolly had something to do with it..

 

Trigcove-
I really hope you are right. I hope there is something left of the hippie movement out there. Because the time is perfect for the hippie movement to stand up and be counted. Everything that I have been against all my life is starting to crumble and I really believe that it is time for hippies to make a difference like we did in the sixties. With all the shit that has been happening in the last eight years maybe now we can really get to the soul of this greedy selfish world we live in and show people that there is a better life if you just let love prevail. NOW IS THE FUCKING TIME FOR HIPPIES TO SHOW THEIR TRUE COLOURS.

There is one thing that you really didn't get right. That's the shit that went down in the Haight. I'll just leave it at that.

PAX

 

I for myself don't look for anything in a movement. Let me enlighten you a bit: when people are talking about 'THE hippie movement', like in this thread, they're not talking about things that can move you, it's about the scene in the late sixties/early seventies that soon after that ceased to be. So, what do I look for in a movement? Technically I expect from a movement some kind of group activity (in the broadest sense of the word), some kind of organisation as loose as it may be and perhaps certain actions following from that movement. A movement is not something abstract. There is no such thing as a hippie movement anymore.
I hope you understand now that I do not mean to put any people down or having a holier than thou attitude. I have nothing against such a movement or people wanting such a thing. But when I see people trying to make others believe that there still is a real hippie movement I want to make clear that it's just not the case.

 

Pax, It's my belief that hippies are the reason, either directly or indirectly, that the things you hate are crumbling. A passive struggle can institute change, too. The objective should be to turn Hippie Ideology into the mainstream philosophy, and I think we're slowly winning that struggle. We can do that best from right within the mainstream, rather than as a separate and localized entity. I think the time is long past for hippies to make a unified stand and put their collective fists in the air, figuratively speaking. As much as I would love to see the best part of those old ways come back, it's a new age and it calls for a new way.

I will defer to your understanding of what happened in the Haight. You were there when it happened and I was not. I've only heard it second hand from dozens of others who were also there... and everyone's experiences and memories are as different as the unique individuals that we all are. I would love to hear yours, as well. I'm sure many here would. Sharing the story of what was lost and how it was lost can invoke a positive reaction in the listener. You obviously feel the emotion that would make it a powerful telling.

 

Asmodean, not everyone is looking to recreate history. THE hippy movement has morphed into something different, now. As long as you pass hippie ideology along to others, either intentionally or just by being the kind of person that others will see and want to emulate, you *are* the hippie movement. All by yourself. We all are. We all create change in the world, every day, in little ways that may produce effects we won't live to see. Butterfly Effect.

You can call that serendipity, or whatever you like, but I believe that it will effect change in the world.

 

I'm not saying it can't do such a thing but this is not what the thread is supposed to be about. You're more talking about the moving of the hippie ideology then the actual hippie movement, you know. The scene. Which has died.

 

True, Asmodean, I think we can both agree that there is no hippie scene in SF, any longer. There may be differing opinions on exactly why it died, but the events and nature of 1967 are definitely gone.

I guess I was expecting to discuss something a little less obvious, so I interpreted "why the hippie movement died" as a discourse on whether or not the hippie ideology had died.

I guess, when I think about it, the answer to both questions are equally obvious.

We have no argument.

 

As with so many discussions, internet and other, people get hung-up with details and definitions - was there ever a movement? What's a movement? What died because of what? And so on.

It's true, there is no longer a major hippie scene. No more walking out the door and within a block, finding someone else tripping. But truly, there are hippies, there are people living good and simple lives and lives of service to humanity, there are people rockin' & rollin' & getting high a lot, there are hip people living every imaginable lifestyle.

So yes, the ONLY THING THAT REALLY MATTERED ABOUT THE HIPPIE SCENE lives on in freer minds and lives.

To me it's kind of like in one of Beethoven's greatest symphonies (3rd or 5th imo). There are all these different musical scenes - quiet, lyrical, crashing, dissonant, urgent, sad, and so on. And there are the incredible crescendos. The whole symphony can't be a crescendo - it just can't be done. The scene in the 60s and into the 70s was like an evolutionary crescendo. It was a flowering of the mind and culture as had never before been seen - or more accurately, experienced. And just like with acid, the fact is, you (individually and socially) can't stay there. You have to come down.

The miracle, of course, is that we ever went up. I'm grateful.

Be glad, for the song has no end.

 

Well then...shall we simply agree to disagree??

Zen

 

I'm not sure how to call that at the moment but I do know how not to call it
Look man, another thing that's bothering me sometimes is that some hippies seem to think that the hippie ideology is quite special. Although I agree it still is special to see somebody work with all their might on those ideals those ideals are not only hippie ideals. They were along time and still are shared by many people who aren't hippies. They just happen to like such things like peace, openmindedness, respect and so on as well.

 

Well, what do you know? We *do* still have an argument.

I'm inclined to think that a rose by any other name is still a rose.
Or, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, what difference does it make if it doesn't *know* it's a duck?

I'd be interested to know exactly what you feel is required to confirm that a person really is a hippie. And, what makes another person with the same ideals *not* a hippie? Does a person have to first refer to himself or herself as a hippie, before he or she can actually be one?

Kesey said, "You're either on the bus, or off the bus." Personally, I think that's a pretty effective way to define a hippie. You don't have to be 60 years old and and tag yourself with a label in order to be "on the bus".
IMHO, of course.

 

To me a hippie is a very particular label. Nobody is really 100% hippie, only if they want themself to be one. So I guess that's one thing that doesn't make every person with the same ideals a hippie. But to be honest, I'm really not so much interested in when you are a hippie or not because in my opinion a hippie is more of a stereotype than an actual individual. A person who matches the hippie standards so to speak shouldn't need any kind of confirmation neither.
But about the ideals: hippie, movement, it are all just words with a particular definition. That part of those definition, like the ideals, that match other peoples ideals doesn't make those other people fit the description of that definition right away. Also, I just think hippies like to get to much credit for all those ideals being realized. People have been working on that for centuries and no, those really weren't hippies neither. Same like saying Jesus was a hippie.

 

I know what you mean about labels. We used to hate the word "hippie", back when the whole thing went commercial and every teenie-bopper with a peace-sign necklace thought they were one. We called each other "freaks" when that happened. Now, it seems to be okay to be a "hippie" again and all those teenie-boppers are being welcomed with open arms. I'd like to think that's because we've come to realize that they are really hippies in training. We all started somewhere.

You do seem to have a pretty clear idea of what and who is not a hippie. I'd like to hear your definition of what a hippie *is*. It has to be more than just a label or a stereotype.

As far as Jesus being a hippie goes, you should read up about it on this website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie

Pay particular attention to the HISTORY part, because I agree with you that many people (who were not called hippies) can take credit for many realized hippie ideals. Everyone who shared the same ideology as hippies, going all the way back to ancient Greece, has had a hand in bringing about changes for the better. I would merely disagree with you that they are not hippies.

That name is really only a label. What defines the person is a belief system and actions.
If the label fits one, it probably fits all.

 

It's true that many of those ideals are not new, but what made hippies hippies (at least in the former times) was LSD and lots of people doing it. That was what took things way higher than ever before. But, like I said earlier, you can't stay high - not like that, anyway.

 

The reason the hippie fad died was because they ran out of T-shirts to sell.

It should pick up again around July me thinks.

 

The start of the hippie movement was a very welcoming community in the Haight. Like a stranger I met there said to me once I love you like a brother until you give me a reason not to, then I'll just love you like a friend. ........................That is free love. Can you D I G I T?

PAX

 

I'm sorry to say I don't have an exact definition of what a hippie is. I can only say what use I have for this term and I see hippie as an active participant of the counterculture in the sixties, or as a label and stereotype nowadays. That's merely my opinion though, feel free to disagree

It's very clear to me I don't see anyone who has the same ideology (or partially the same more likely. We're individuals after all) as a hippie. Not even the majority of the people in this time and especially not if they're from before the hippie movement. It just sounds very incorrect to me.
This would be something I like to agree to disagree about :biggrin:

 

Fair enough.