Well, I just hate it when history gets perverted, but it seems it always does. For instance, these new researchers seem to think they know more about something they didn't live through, than those who did. It is the arrogance and stupidity of thinking books tell the truth. Books tell someones truth, but it isn't universal truth. It is usually one man's opinion who happened to write a book.
Unfortunately this is the problem with research drawn strictly from books, and not testimony of those who lived that history. If you have ever played the game of telephone, where one person passes a message to his neighbor, and after ten neighbors the message is very different from the original, then you understand how one book leads to another and the same effect happens.
I have drawn conclusions from being there. These folks seem to think they are talking and writing about hippies, but they aren't, They just don't know enough about their subject matter to understand. When you talk to one thousand who classify themselves as hippies, you are likely to get a thousand different definitions.
They have fallen for the story advanced by the straight people, who themselves had no comprehension of hippies. That is like reading Tom Brokaw's book about 1968, and thinking that now you know all about the sixties. No one was straighter than Tom Brokaw. He stood outside and looked at the animals in the zoo, and thought he understood them. But researchers will gladly take his words as gospel, because they are written in a book.
They seem to think someone came around and said, "let there be hippies." Big brother decided to create hippies. Well, big brother just isn't all that good at creating social movement, If government and psychologists can control society so well, why are they still working so hard to maintain control. Why do they feel the need to create the incredible spying facility in Utah, so they can monitor all our communication? Shouldn't they just be able to practice mind control, and not have to go to the trouble and huge expense of creating super computers big enough to hold all our data?
And they assume that hippies put a bad face on the peace movement, and all the civil rights issues with which they became involved. Say what?
THERE IS NO DRAFT, AND MOST OF THESE RESEARCHERS NEVER HAD A DRAFT NUMBER.
No one can understand the terror of the sixties unless they felt the pressure of not owning their own life. You were fine until the day you turned eighteen, then your ass belonged to Uncle Sam. If they called your number, and they called nearly half of the men born in 1953, you had three choices. Go into the military and probably to Vietnam, don't go to the military and go to prison for five years, or go away.
If you went away and left the U.S., you were probably giving up everything and everyone you had known. You would never be able to come back home, because you were a criminal and wanted by the police. There was another way, if you were willing, to try to evade service. You could claim to be homosexual. Sometimes, particularly in the first few years of the war, that worked. But they got wise to the ploy eventually. And if one claimed to be a homosexual in those days, you could forget ever succeeding in society, as you were marked. And in those times, homosexuals were certainly not accepted like today, in fact quite the opposite.
We weren't ready to accept the world we came of age inhabiting. And we tried mightily to change it. And that was the essence of being a hippie. It had nothing to do with the length of your hair, or the music you listened to, or the drugs you took or did not take. It was an attitude you wore, and people of all shapes and sizes became hippies in the sixties. The same sort of folks who in the previous generation became beatniks for the same reasons. And later, punks became punks for much the same reasons. All of those groups were rebelling against a society they didn't appreciate.
So did the government create punks? Beatniks? I would say that the spirit that drove the pilgrims to America, is very similar to that of the hippies. They didn't want to live by the morals and ethics of England, so they rebelled. Those guys were hippies.
As a rule, hippies didn't go around wearing furs, driving sports cars or choppers. No, they usually couldn't afford to own transportation fancier than a bicycle. Because one of the main culprits and purveyors of evil according to hippies, was money and what it represented.
Well, most they have sighted as hippies, aren't. The rock stars in Laurel canyon won't claim to have been hippies, at least not honestly. They lived in very nice houses, with lots of money at their disposal, and always had nice guitars and places to play them. We didn't. And much of these new author's own research argues against their very contention that these musicians were hippies. I think one may have been hard pressed to find a hippie in Laurel canyon.
You see, these new young authors, who are trying to historically analyze the hippies, have missed the boat. They are analyzing the young people, and the music scene very well. But they don't understand the definition of hippie. They are falling for a wolf in sheep's clothing. You see, one could dress like a hippie, act like a hippie, but not be a hippie.
So I am tired of arguing this point. And I will close by stating that you should read David McGowan's book. It is packed full of excellent research. But realize that his conclusions are flawed. He has purchased the company line about hippies, so perhaps he is mind controlled, eh?
No, David isn't mind controlled, he is simply mistaken. I look forward to the day that someone will accurately define a hippie. I certainly haven't and cannot. I can feel what a hippie was, but can't describe it. Again, it is so difficult and perhaps impossible to describe something so ethereal. We had no uniforms, we had no tests to pass or qualifications to earn, and we didn't get a badge. But we knew if we were hippies or not. At least, we were happy to be called a hippie. Why? Because it pissed off our parents, and made a statement that we weren't willing to settle for the crazy world of the sixties.
I didn't appreciate having a "white's only" drinking fountain. I looked into the eyes of a black person, and saw no difference that looking at anyone else. Yet, my neighbors did. I thought nuclear weapons were crazy, and still do. I thought that there was no threat from the Vietnamese half a world away, and pulling each other around in rickshaws. And I didn't like seeing my friends coming home maimed, or just not coming home for reasons none of us could understand. And every night on television, we'd watch battle footage from the war, and those guys my age saw their future.
So I felt like a "hippie" I suppose. But so did some folks old enough to be my parents. Not many, but some. You see, being a hippie wasn't something you did, but something you felt. Anyone who wasn't subject to the draft will probably not understand. The rise of the hippies pretty well coincided with the escalation of the war in Vietnam. It also coincided with the rash of assassinations we endured of our leaders who dared to speak out against the system. We tried very hard to work within the system, but every time we thought we might succeed, someone shot a Kennedy or a Martin Luther King in the head. And in 1968, over 126 American cities burned with race riots. And that is also when "hippies" came into prominence, and those riots and the Vietnam war had nothing to do with the musicians in Laurel canyon.
David McGowan says that feminism, environmental issues, drugs, rock n roll, and weird hair and clothing was pushed on us by the powers that be, in order to confuse us and make us ineffective. Well, if so, they failed. The fact is that those social movements arose from those who were dissatisfied with the establishment. And guess what? There is no draft, and the military is the greatest proponent of a volunteer force. Women are working and running companies, which just didn't happen in the sixties. Gay folks can live among us without too much fear, as compared to back then. You can vote at age eighteen, not twenty one. Imagine having to go die for a country that wouldn't let you vote on your own future. In fact, the world is nothing like the sixties now, and those folks fought for much of the freedoms younger people enjoy today. And the government wasn't very happy about any of it, as they had a much easier time of it before then. So if they foisted these horrible hippies on society in hopes of maintaining their paradigm, they failed miserably.
But history is written by the victors. And we didn't win the war, just a few battles. So Tom Brokaw writes the history, and we fade into oblivion without anyone having successfully defined our generation. I suspect we are not the only generation to feel that way. Someday the younger generation will resent the history being written about them, because it will also be incorrect. Such is life.
No comments:
Post a Comment