who call them selfs hippies

I don't label myself anything.
Im just me. haha.

I actuallly agree with you floes.
Its like being a 'hippy' is a new fad thing or something thats popular and its just a label.
Everywhere i go i see violent people wearing peace signs and hemp and whatever saying ohh ya im a hippy and im just thinking 'your so fake.'
Its really annoying and it bothers me also.

The only thing i would say i am is a stoner and i dont see that as a label or anything.. its just something that i do.

 

I disagree in the case of black rights for certain. Affirmative action has put black rights over white rights.
Women's rights is a bit more tricky. Socially, I feel we treat women over men. Professionally, it's hard to say - there are clear incidences of women getting put down in professional fields - but there are also instances of women getting put up because they are women. My first day of Java, the teacher looked around the room, saw an all male group and told us, "If you're looking to transfer CMU, I wouldn't bank on it. My whole career here, the only students of mine that were accepted were women. They don't have enough women, so that's all they look for at the community colleges."
I've read about the Wage Gap, and I've read The Wage Gap myth. There needs to be a legitimate study on this.

And there are also analysists that say the hippies had nothing to do with the end of the Vietnam War.

I don't see how it's possible to look at the world we live in now and say the Hippies succeeded. Hell, if they did, why are there still hippies? Why are there still people fighting for their rights?

But if you want to continue the if hippies won argument, PM me (or make a thread about it), let's keep the focus of the thread on this part:

They are two different types of labels though. Ethnic labels are necessary labels to say, describe how someone looks. Professional labels are quite clear why they are necessary. All words are labels; and label is probably not the best word for me to have used, but I can't think of a better one.

I can see no reason why it is necessary for someone who wants to spread a message of peace and understanding to call themselves a hippie.
Why make yourself into a subculture when, what you want to do is spread the message to all people?

No, it isn't, and I never said it was. Context.

You say that as if they are extinct =P I have seen clear examples of hippies thinking of themselves as better. But whether they all are, sort've depends on my response to this:

I know, and I said that I have to ponder it. I'm still pondering.

 

Maybe the hippie thing had some sort of purpose way back when everyone was supposed to have short hair and nice clothes (I don't think so, but it's more likely), but nowadays all it means is a bunch of dirty smelly kids with STDs taking drugs and loitering around in the park playing drums, wishing it was the 60s again even though they don't really know anything about the 60s aside from the most mainstream superficialities.

They think they want to fight against 'oppression' and 'injustice', but have no real understanding of the complex set of circumstances involved in any of these 'oppressive' or 'unjust' issues, and no real desire to investigate... because it would require a sharp, alert mind (ie: dispelling the haze from their drug-addled minds), and because a vicarious persecution complex is integral to their identity. At the same time, they will latch onto absolutely any shred of information that will reinforce their cynical, paranoid vision of the world/society.

But in reality, all that this 'outrage at social injustice' gradually boils down to is yet another impotent mood swing... and their only real concern is who will be their next lay, who can get them high, and how can they do as little as possible while still living at an acceptable level of comfort.

 

And you would call this successful? It's more like a pendulum effect. Overcompensation is pretty typical when it comes to government mandates. I do agree with you that Affirmative Action is a misguided fix to the problem. I don't view it as a win for anyone. That doesn't change the fact that many advancements were made in the social attitudes towards blacks and women during the 60's, or that the hippies were functional in helping that along.

Yeah, but my sources are the right ones.
I believe it's a matter of how we choose to look at it. Here's a little parable:
A man is sentenced to die by firing squad. He's brought out and tied to the stake. The Sergeant at Arms raises his sword to give the command to shoot. Suddenly a little boy runs out from the crowd and wraps his arms around the condemned man. The Sergeant at Arms is startled and delays giving the command. The executioners, seeing the little boy in the line of fire, all decide independently not to shoot. Just then, a messenger arrives with a pardon from the King. Who is it that saved the condemned man's life? Depending on who you talk to, you may hear that it was the Sgt., the executioners, the little boy, or the King, but clearly, they all had a hand in it.

I'm not saying that the hippies succeeded ultimately. I'm just saying that they were an instrument of change . If you want to measure success by the yardstick of a perfect world, I'm afraid no one will ever succeed.

No need to carry it on in PM's or another thread. I'm not that interested in the debate.

Because that subculture is generally known for it's message of peace and understanding, the same way that a Catholic is known to believe in Christ, or a Shriner is known to wear a funny hat and promote a circus. One immediately identifies themself as a believer in certain principals that are different from other subcultures.

In reference to my saying, "To set yourself apart from other groups of people isn't proof of elitism," you said:

The context is this:

That is exactly you calling Sunfighter an elitist for wanting to separate himself from several groups by identifying himself with hippies and their generally accepted opposite views.

We cannot define elitism as the personal preference of one group over another. If we do, we must acknowledge that any person perferring any group is elitist. The word would have no meaning, because it would refer to anyone and everyone.

 

Interesting.
I bet you would have said much the same thing back in the 60's, too.
When viewed from the outside, all you can see is the veneer.

 

Again, those are all necessary labels for their implicit meanings.
You can be a peaceful and understanding person without being a hippie.

That is exactly what elitism is. The view of one group being better than the other...

 

So?

As a gay man and as part of an interracial couple, I personally think I am better than the homophobic, backwater, bible thumping, ignorant, racist redneck that disparages me.

Sorry, just telling-it-like-it-is. (A Hippie Quality)

 

Because, you aren't any better. With the same genes, with the same situation - you would be doing the same thing.
And with the right exposure and right influence from other common people (or famous role models), they could gain quite a similar philosophy to you.

No one can tell it like it is, only how it seems to be =)

 

Karmicly collective minded if you please!

Call me what you like....

 

You can believe in Christ without being a Catholic. You can wear a funny hat without being a Shriner. You're not really making a point, here. Anyone can believe in anything without belong to a group that professes it. The word hippie has a generally accepted meaning that identifies certain values and ideals. One can be a hippie without calling themselves one, but why should they choose not to, if they wish to be identified with that sub-culture?
Your issue seems to be that you find no "implicit meaning" in the word "hippie" and yet, earlier on, you said:

Which would indicate that you acknowledge that there is a set of ideals associated with being a hippie. However, you would not call yourself one, even if you were one, as you say, "down to a t." The implication is that you don't want to be elitist by proclaiming an affiliation. I am wondering which hippie ideals you hold, because they must certainly oppose some other group's ideals. It would appear that you are choosing to be a hypocrite to avoid being an elitist, which, by your definition, everyone is, anyway.

I did not say "better", I said "prefer"; but, let's take a look at this. By your definition:
The Hog Farm felt it was better than The Rainbow Family?
Muslims think they are better than Christians?
Boy Scouts think they are better than the YMCA?
Buddhists think they are better than Hindus?
Gandhi thought he was better than Mother Theresa?
Everyone who proclaims unity with any group thinks they are better than everyone else?
No one can claim solidarity with any group without being elitist?
That doesn't leave any room for anyone to be non-elitist.

Why wouldn't that be hippie? By your own apparant definition, EVERYONE is elitist.

 

I think you are half right. Your attitudes are better than the other ones you listed. Some practices are better than others. That's not quite the same thing as being a better person, though some people use those terms interchangeably.

 

Duck

you would'nt like to call yourself a "hippie"... thats fine. but for what reason really? is it because you think you are better then a "hippie"? (elitism)

i understand how you feel about the "FAKE hippies" it does get frustrating to see "them" but hey maybe you can help them out.... enlighten them and they can become "REAL hippies" or just argree to disagree with eachothers ways (a hippie is a hippie there are no requirements or criteria or shouldnt be anyway)

Hippies are hippies together. They have similar qualities and beliefs... or can accept fellow hippies diffrent beliefs, all with one goal in mind Peace and unity.

why not call yourself a hippie or atleast allow others to call you a hippie?

 

I love this thread. Trigcove -- great posts.

Going back to the question of what did the hippies accomplish -- three things for sure: transcendent rock music, the health food movement and the increasing influence of Eastern religions and thought.

 

Thanks SF, and great examples of hippie contributions.

 

man you guys no ur shit, i tried to read tho not so good on my behalf, i feel if i posted much more i would be put on the straight and narrow, haha enjoy ur dnm, rember to love my friends, peace

 

One of the things that hippies brought to the culture is that irritating tendency of people to project blame for things they don't like onto others (pollution, Vietnam), while also taking credit for things that they do like but in reality have very little to do with (what you have just mentioned here)... to tell the truth, that was the biggest problem-- everyone seemed to like the idea of being angry and 'spiritual', but nobody wanted to take responsibility.

 

I remember you! You're that guy that used to drive by and yell, "Get a haircut and a JOB, you filthy hippie!"
You haven't changed a bit, man.

If you looked a little farther than the end of your nose, you might know that hippies basically kindled the green movement. I would say that hippies and college kids did more than anyone else to wake America up about the idiocy of the Vietnam war. Aside from that, did you want hippies to take responsibility for starting the war or for the industrial revolution that led to pollution?

So, if it wasn't hippies, like The Jefferson Airplane, The Grateful Dead, It's A Beautiful Day, The Lovin' Spoonful, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Janis and Big Brother, Jimi, Creedence, Dylan, The Band, et al, who changed the rock music of the time, who was it?
If it wasn't hippies who inspired the health food industry, who was it?
If it wasn't hippies who embraced eastern philosophy in America, who was it?

How would you know what everyone was like? You weren't even born until around '77 and could not have been aware of it until well after it was all over. Seems like you just have an axe to grind with hippies. Was your mom frightened by a panhandler while she was carrying you, by chance?

Boo!

 

well said

 

I wouldn't yell that, but I do think that people should have jobs... the computer you're using now was made, designed, shipped, and sold to you by people with jobs. Living is working.

The hippies made noise, but it was the media that woke people up... and the advent of portable handheld TV cameras, and the images of combat that they showed on TV. Technology, made by people with jobs, was a lot more effective than a group of people who just blamed everyone who wasn't like them for the war.

The most obnoxious thing about hippies is that they're constantly operating on the presumption that before they came along, no one ever disagreed with anything, or cared about anything, or got angry over things. They always ALWAYS want to tell everyone else that they're asleep and deluded and that only other hippies really know what's going on, and how shitty and evil non-hippies are... and most of the time, they assume that the reason they know is because they do a lot of drugs, and drugs as we all know are the key to knowledge and understanding in the universe.

Again, are you saying that music had NEVER CHANGED before? And before the hippies came along, everything was just sameness, blandness and evil?

Those bands are really poor examples of 'changing the face' of rock music, considering they basically recycled really the same old stuff but with more effects pedals and with more masturbatory guitar-hero wankery... and in the case of CCR, they didn't even do that.

Technology is responsible, not hippies... the look just helped them sell the stuff is all.

OK... I'll give you those... but neither of them require being a hippie. And MacDonald's also rose to the status of a national icon during the late 60s and 70s... and fast food in general took off at that time.

And for all that Eastern Philosophy you embraced, how much of it was actually understood and put to good use, and how much of it was used to justify indulgence, self-importance, laziness and drugs?

Suddenly, instead of working to make the world a better place, you could drift away into your own personal nirvana (even though this isn't at all how it is meant). Substance abuse was no longer viewed as a recreational escape, but as a meaningful, purposeful activity-- and not only that, you were actually better off on drugs than NOT on drugs... because reality wasn't something you could enjoy and improve, but an obstacle on your way to some viscerally dazzling but intellectually meaningless hallucinatory state.

Because we're talking generally, not specifically. I don't know what your life was like, but I do know what I've read and I've read a lot about it. And in many ways, books are always more accurate than individual accounts... because they're researched, and because writing one often means interviewing/contacting the key players involved in any scene. I don't know who you are exactly, but chances are you were just some guy who was doing what everyone else was doing because it was the thing to do at the time (and then you didn't grow up, maybe?), not someone who was actually responsible for/marketing all the things you're so proud to claim responsibility for. So really, how would YOU know what it was like on such a grand level?

And you're assuming the reason that people don't like you is because they don't understand you/are afraid of what you represent (freedom, or whatever)... when the reason that they don't like you is probably because they DO understand what you represent... and while everyone else has learned from it and moved on, you refuse to.

It's your choice and it's a free country, but you can't expect other people to admire you for the life you've chosen... which seems to be what this thread is now about.