Talk:Hippie/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Marijuana

...which then had less potency than it does today, was prized as much for its iconoclastic, illicit nature as for its effect. Whoever put this in - sure about that? -- till we *) 00:13, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

<<potency>> I don't have a cite, but it is something that I've heard mentioned in informational meetings. It is asserted by those who wish to see less widespread use of marijuana, when speaking to parents who participated in the counterculture movement of the 1960s. <<source of prizedness>> Perhaps this is speculation in part, as it is a generalization, but it is certainly what I remember of the movement. I will notify the relevant Wikipedians who may be able to speak from more personal experience than I can. Kat 14:52, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The second part is probably true, but could use a cite. The first is defiantly false. This comparison has been well-publicized by the DEA and other groups, but it is based on comparing weed seized at the Mexican border back then with weed hydroponically grown in the US today (schwag vs. kb). I will remove the claim.--Tuf-Kat
Oh dear. I haven't touched dope in a long time, but yes, anyone of my generation (I'm born in '54) who has been around drugs can assure you that what people smoke now is much stronger than what was commonly smoked in the 60s. People today smoke bud, and it's bud from plants that has been bred for potency for some time. My generation, when young, smoked mostly leaves, and when you bought a given quantity you had to card out the seeds and stems yourself. 206.124.153.89 22:47, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I guess it depends who's buying. I'm a schwag man, myself -- seeds and stems and all. Maybe it is true that there is more potent marijuana available today than there was in the sixties, but I don't think its share of the market is as big as you make it. A lot of smokers can't afford sixty, seventy, eighty bucks for an eighth. And people have been smoking and breeding stronger weed for centuries -- just like wheat or maize or apples or walnuts -- that's not to say that the science hasn't developed a lot since the sixties, but 60's weed was also cultivated. Hydroponics was probably a new thing at the time (If it existed at all?).--Tuf-Kat 06:11, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

This is 2 years later, but I'd just like to note something -- People misunderstand and misconstrue the word "potency". You could be "really bad" or "really potent" weed in the 60's, and you can now. Pot as a whole has not gotten more or less potent. If it were more potent, it would actually be more healthy. It's funny how the anti-drug propaganda mentions that and shoots itself in the foot like that, as a side note. And, 80 BUCKS FOR AN EIGHTH? MY GOD MAN WHAT KIND OF EIGHTHS ARE YOU BUYING? I buy excellent, excellent marijuana for maximum 40$ an eighth, and only 80 if im buying the most potent stuff in the world, which is 40 a gram!

Or did I misunderstand the statement?

Sorry, I'm stoned. bahaha.--Lockeownzj00 02:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've seen $80 before (For very good stuff), though never paid more than $50.--Tuf-Kat 21:53, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Even if it was 'very good stuff'? (Which is, as you said, worth 30$ more?) I think I can hear your logic squeak ;)--OleMurder 00:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

To put this debate to bed, it appears that:
In the 1960's and prior to that, the good commercial marijuana available to most smokers had a THC content of about 3% to 6% and the best sinsemilla marijuana was about 10% to 15% THC. Some sources say that dope with THC content of 1% to 4% was considered good stuff in the 1960's.
In the year 2005, the good commercial marijuana available to most smokers had a THC content of about 8% to 15% and the best sinsemilla marijuana was about 25% to 35% THC. Some reports have weed with 50% THC content being produced by some advanced growers.
http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj029.htm
Or just do a google search of "thc content" "more potent", and you'll find a gazillion sites, many with reliable provenance. The best evidence I've seen, though anecdotal, is that all the old hippies I know who still smoke (quite a few) have told me that the grass today is for more powerful.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, pot is stronger now than it was then. It's been getting steadily stronger, 80s pot was stronger than 60s pot, and weaker than 2006 pot. It isn't simply a matter of THC content as there are scores of psychoactive cannabinoids. Some of the strains that people smoke today are descended from strains that didn't even exist as recently as 20 years ago. Even the government-grown pot has increased in potency, and pot has been more aggressively bred for psychoactive effect, by a more knowedgeable group of horticulturists than before. Even hash has become stronger, made from stronger pot. Of course you can't use what I'm saying in wikipedia, it's WP:Original research, but trust me it's quite true that pot is much much much stronger. Funny thing though, when it was a felony drug, I saw pot smoked in public a lot more, in places like Dennys, now that it's a misdemeanor, the only public use I usually see -- or smell -- is at band concerts. Pedant 05:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Diffintly stronger than it used to be The age (melbourne) "good weekend magazine" recently (may?) did a front cover story on this very issue. It stated that the increase in pot induced psycosis may be due to potency ANd the nasty chemicals they add to "hydro" - particularly if the crop hasn't been "flushed" properly befor harvest. The old Hippys of Ninbin (pot capital of oz) and many "neo-hippys" refuse hydro and go bush - buds. Or even better , organic. ```` cilstr 05:57, 22 August 2006

Hiya!

I am an aging Hippie and proud of it! What is a Hippie? It depends on who you ask! If you ask Mike Wallace, it is someone who is unconventional or acts like a young derelict! LOL! Ask me and I'll say a person who is Hip or Cool or OK or Easygoing. In the Sixties a Male Hippie had long hair and wore Tye Dye T Shirts & Bell Bottom Denim Jeans. The first time I saw young men with long hair was in 1964 at JFK Airport when the Beatles arrived. Later that year I was watching NBC News Special Report and there was a Vietnam War Protest at The 1964 New York World's Fair and some young men with long hair were fighting with police on an escalator and the reporters and police were calling the protesters "Hippies" and noted they had long hair and were students at a University. Gabe Pressman was a reporter there. So the earliest report of a Hippie in my mind is 1964. Before that, the type were referred to as Beatniks. Hippies did not all have the same political beliefs or religious beliefs. Most Hippies were against the Vietnam War, but by 1975, everyone in America wanted out of Vietnam!

We just weren't gonna win that one. Drug use, especially Cannabis was seen by most young people whether they were Hippies or Square. It was part of the rites of passage. Most people nowadays see being a Hippie as a way guys used to get girls. It was not. It was a way of acting for rebellious youth. Hippies still exist, but the original 1964 crop is dying fast. Last I heard of any organised Counterculture was called "The Rainbows" and they had met in Colorado in the mid 90's. Most Hippie Communes have become defunct. Hippie music is still with us and defines the time. Hippies gave us the Apple Computer for home use and invented the PCR-DNA Test which has freed many innocent men from Prison! Hippies have created new Medicines and therapies and made life better.

--Supercool Dude 06:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also just want to say hey to all you beautiful cats and chicks out there. I miss you all. The world became a better place for ya, and thanks for making the dream come alive and stay alive for a while .... The whole thing was, of course, totally misrepresented by mainstream HIS-STORY ("The Meaning of the Sixties" ... HAH! Like they'd know!). Sometime someone will put it all together and put out The Book that hasn't been written yet.

See y'all later! Twang 08:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Most hippies would say 'hippies' was a term invented by Look magazine, in the early 60's, it wasn't until the later 60's that people actually began embracing the term as something that applies to themselves. If it weren't for hippies and yippies, you other folk would all be speaking 'square' today. ~~

Are Punks Neo-Hippies?

Also, is punk a kind of neo-hippie movement? It would seem that anti-conformity, strong political concerns, rejection of military force and a spirit of rebellion are common to both movements. But is there any documented connection between the two movements?--David R Alexander 4:11, July 16 2005

EDIT: Like my goth comment/edit above, punk is really more just a social trend/fad. The "anti-conformity, strong political concerns, rejection of military force and a spirit of rebellion" stuff is really to make the average "punk"'s shallow exterior of Che Guevara T-Shirts, the no-longer-crazy-looking-because-every-other-punk-does-it hairstyle and jungle boots seem to have more of an actual "culture" they can lean back on if ever questioned of their so-called beliefs. Few of them are truly politically concerned though they'll wear plenty of anarchy/marxist/etc neo-liberal garb, and they are hardly "anti-conformity". I mean the fact that i can sterotype their basic look alredy show how conforming they are within their group. Perhaps this trend was some how set off by an extension of the hippy sub-culture, but it holds much less of an impact than the hippies.

Though, what i say of the goths/punks may also hold true for the hippies as well, just that the hippy "fad" was much more wide spread with a bigger effect.

I think the matter of difference is "tolerance": I find punk's more aggresive... Than Hippies, that is - Of course. They're more relaxed than punks, who tend to get more enemies, and don't care for the collective, but the individual.--OleMurder 00:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, talk about generalizations of punks! Some truth, but definitely some problems. I label myself as a punk, but I don't typically dress "punk" because it is so cliched and lame. Punks do tend to be more aggressive, but not always. Also, while most punks aren't deeply political, there is a punk underground that does take politics very seriously (this is what I am involved in). This underground punk community actually does have some hippie influence (crust punks especially).
Traditionally, punks actually rejected (often violently) the hippies for being too non-violent and sell-outs. Anyway, nowadays there is more of a mix between the groups (I wear tie-dye on occasion and listen to some folk music), but I wouldn't call punks neo-hippies by a long shot. The Ungovernable Force 03:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

hey if hippies are against conformaty than why did they follow the same beliefs and dress alike, isnt that conformaty at its worst

  • Well, it might have been if they had, but they didn't so it wasn't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the average punk today hasn't the slightest notion of why or what he's wearing, but the street punk clothes, (which are most common today) are stemmed from the UK82 scene when punk was first commercialized with expensive leather jackets and a standard hair cut- mohawk, liberty spikes, etc. Prior to the Sex Pistols and especially John Lydon there was no such thing as a punk, kids who went to "punk" shows were simply known as outcasts of the popular crowd. Like the hippie, traditional punk outfits were supposed to be original, and have the D.I.Y. spirit, (do it yourself). The original punk didn't wear boots, or mohawk, they simply dressed themselves in garbage clothes, and commonlly would peirce their bodies in an unorthodox way such as a chain from the nose to ear, or a safety pin through the cheek.

See Also section

What's "nonsense" about a see also link to Calvary Chapel? The first sentence in its History section is "Calvary Chapel was once part of the Hippie "Jesus Movement" of the late 1960s." Seems to have more to do with hippies than bodhisattvas do. —alxndr (t) 21:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As a "Calvary Chapelite", for lack of a better term, it's great to see a CC link in the Hippee 'see also' section. However, I do find it intriguing that the word "Hippie" was added to the History section of Calvary Chapel only 2.5 hours before you made your edit here. Coincidence? --JesusFreak Jn3:16 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, these links seem a little off-topic too:

—alxndr (t) 21:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

CounterCulture Wikia

Wikia (formerly Wikicities) now has a new CounterCulture wikia inviting people to join in. I think that people interested in this subject might find it useful. It's only new but looking for contributors. Alpheus 11:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

The link to peacefeast2005.tk has only just been registered, by the looks of things- there's no content there, so I will remove it unless there are objections. EvocativeIntrigue 11:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I surprised you didn't include a link to the Rainbow gathering:

Rainbow Family of Living Light Unofficial Home Page http://www.welcomehome.org/

link?

does anyone think it worth adding this link to an essay on this topic I wrote some years ago? [1] Peter morrell 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Drugs

But in fact overall, drugs were not and still are not considered a central theme in hippie culture

I removed the above statement by 205.188.116.71 because this user made an all encompassing statement leaving out very key pieces of information such as who doesn't consider drugs to be a central theme? The “hippies”? Americans? Nicaragua? What percentage of this group feels this way? Half? 88%? This contributor also sounds like they’re coming to the defense of the hippie culture instead of listing factual information. They could have given a key fact, statistic, quotation, or any other piece of information to defend their point. Simply saying that drugs weren’t and are still not considered a central theme is akin to me stating boldly that overall, the paint job on my car is not considered to be ugly. I just can’t prove that. oo64eva (AJ) 22:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was there, and drugs=hippies and hippies=drugs. There were those who used more, or less, than others, but the two were inseparable. To say otherwise is wishful revisionism. Such a statement may fly now, but in the 60's and 70's would have been laughed off the planet.--Doovinator 04:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many people recall that hippies did not smoke tobacco cigarettes, and considered tobacco dangerous, but photographs from the time shows many hippies smoking cigarettes.

I'm not sure about this. I think the hippy movement considered tobacco "the drug of the establishment", and therefore refrained from using it; I doubt very much that they refrained from using it because they considered it dangerous. Also, it is worth remembering that many young people at that time would have dressed in a hippy style, even if they were not actual hippies (In the same way that dressing in "gangsta"-style doesn't necessarily make you a gangster), so photographs showing people with long hair and tie dyed shirts smoking cigarettes doesn't really prove much.

I'd say it basically just wasn't thought about very much. Smoking tobacco didn't really mean much of anything one way or the other at the time; However the 'preferred' smoke, the smoke which more or less defined who was or wasn't a hippie, was certainly marijuana. If pot wasn't available, catnip or banana peels or tobacco would have to do.--Doovinator 07:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My personal two-cents worth (I was at Berkeley all through the late '60s): The pot most of us smoked then was, indeed, much more powerful than what's commonly imbibed now -- not because pot was innately more powerful but because we were pretty naive and generally broke. Rather than "Maui Wowie," most of us on campus got by on what George Carlin called "Toledo Windowbox," and you had to smoke half a dozen to get a decent high. Regarding tobacco: Smoking simply wasn't taken seriously as a health hazard yet and most of us smoked routinely. Tobacco wasn't so much the "establishment's drug" (that would be martinis, etc), it was just the most easily available and cheapest (about 30 cents a pack for unfiltered Camels, as I recall). I was too busy with grad school and supporting a family to be more than a hippie "fellow traveler", but I *do* miss the '60s! -----Michael K. Smith 00:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Acceptance of homosexuality

Though hippies embodied a counterculture movement, early hippies were not particularly tolerant of homosexuality. Acceptance of homosexuality grew with the culture.

Is this true? If so, how did Allen Ginsberg become a leader of the hippie movement? David R Alexander 4:11, July 16 2005

  • Because, as the sentence said, acceptance of homosexuality grew with the culture -- and Ginsberg was by far the coolest homosexual peace-freak beatnik poet. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

yeah, but besides that, who exactly is that language refering to when they say "early hippies" and what really is the accuracy or so call "verifiability" of that statement? in otherwords it seems a clearcut eample of something that to my knowledge appears all over the place in the "hippie" and "gay" articles: unsupported generalization.

I agree, generally, with the statement in the article. Remember that, while hippies were in rebellion against the previous couple of generations, they still grew up in the 1950s & early '60s. Homosexuality, except in a few enclaves like the Village, was a mystery and therefore a threat to most young people. Likewise, as many hippie chicks will recall, most male hippies were also pretty unenlightened about feminism. All that eye-opening came later and most of us grew into it. -----Michael K. Smith 00:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd sure like to see a citation or two in support of that assertion. *Where* were they "not particularly tolerant"?? Lower East Side? San Fran? *Who* ... "biker" hippies? Who can speak for and summarize the overall feelings and behavior of several hundred thousand people from a range of classes? In fact, since the great majority of homosexuals were still in the closet in those "early hippy" days -- apart from flamers -- how many "early hippies" would have known anyway? As I wandered and hitched around, went to festivals, walked the streets, I don't recall hearing a single anti-gay sentiment. Logically, you'd expect "hippies", whatever that connotes, to be neither more nor less tolerant than the population in general. Except that, since being "cool" and "mellow" and "the love generation" and "peaceful" were commonly shared values, you'd logically expect a somewhat greater "acceptance" (perhaps a better word than "tolerance"). That was my experience. I've seen a lot of misrepresentation of what those days were like in the colorful "histories" written so far, and I don't think this article needs to reflect that crap. Twang 08:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Incense association

I have never heard of incense being strongly associated with hippies (at least not strongly enough for it to be characteristic). Maybe this should be removed?

  • Musta never set foot in or near a head shop, then! Incense, beads, peace man! (Trust me on this; incense is present wherever hippies can spend money.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

neohippie OR

The last three paragraphs of the "Neo-hippie" section seems like the very definition of OR. Whose observations and conclusions are these? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

extreme Pro-hippie POV

Now, I will admit right now, I HATE HIPPIES, and it may leave me unfit to edit this encyclopedic entry. But despite my views, this is one of the more biased entries I've seen to date on Wikipedia. This article, specifically the last two paragraphs of the POLITICS section, is so far left I thought the words were going to fall off the page. (we should all agree here, it's fairly obvious ,no?)

I'm not just saying this because of my views towards hippies. I also despise Jane Fonda, but I think that here page is one of the better political pieces on this "encyclopedia".

Here's my suggestion to help clean this page up:

Remove all of the words in the 4th paragraph (POLITICS) that make it seem like hippies were wrongly accused of these unpatriotic acts. It was mainstream. Ask anyone who lived during this time. My uncle, a self-proclaimed hippie, said that the majority of hippies would go to airports just to berate the returning vets, as well as stoning them on college campuses. They also burned ROTC buildings on nearly every campus. This is one reason that most colleges today don't have the ROTC. Get rid of this ridiculous statement with the "small radical fringe element". Most veterans, myself included (1st gulf war), believe that opposing any war in public, while it is your right under the 1st Amend., it is dishonorable, unpatriotic, treasonous, and a slap in the face to all active duty and discharged vets, thus the statement "hippies did not disrespect military personnel" is your opinion, and since I highly doubt that you are a member of the military, it is ill-informed.

Secondly, this kooky FBI conspiracy theory doesn't belong in an "encyclopedia", and it is definitely irresponsible to tell it as if it is fact.

The last paragraph about this song is ridiculous. My dad, who returned to San Fran from Vietnam in 1973 never even heard of this song/"singer". I tried to balance this out, by adding a song called "Welcome Home Brother" from Lloyd Marcus' "United We Stand" album AND I CITED IT [[2]], but because it tells of the disrespect on the part of "flower children", the editors of this "article" decided it didn't belong.

Semper fi.

69.141.213.168 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC) oorah

I understand that you wish to rely on your uncle's opinion that "the majority of hippies would go to airports just to berate the returning vets, as well as stoning them on college campuses." I was in the thick of things during this era, and I never knew anyone who did this. If it had been a "majority" thing, I would have known someone--yet no, never, not a single person, not a single time. We DID oppose U.S. involvement in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, and we were vehement about that. But most of us went out of our way to befriend returning vets, offering them both moral and practical support.
Am I saying that returning military personnel were NEVER disrespected? No, of course not. People get passionate about things. Undoubtedly some hippies DID insult returning military personnel. And I know at least two hippies who were beaten up--one, a woman, who was raped-- by military personnel who were angry at hippies. Both of these extremes were condemnable, and neither represented the norm; both were thus "fringe."
Please note that the historical evidence with respect to J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO operation is irrefutable and has nothing to do with various conspiracy theories. I would suggest you read the one article I cited, as well as a selection of others--Google has many links to excellent original source material. Hoover DID employ agents provacateurs in his bid to discredit those involved in the civil rights movement (Martin Luther King Jr. in particular) as well as those who opposed U.S. involvement in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Hoover's agents DID perpetrate crimes that compromised the non-violent character of both of these movements, and the published record makes it clear that Hoover sent his agents out to public venues specifically to shout "Baby Burners" or "Baby Killers" at returning vets so that these stories would feature prominently in the news. Did others who had no connection to Hoover's COINTELPRO operation join in? Probably so, but this sort of behavior was roundly condemned in every hippie circle I was familiar with. Again, "fringe" is accurate.
The vast majority of hippies opposed the war in Vietnam out of CONCERN for the welfare of military personnel, who were in fact their friends, brothers and cousins. I can understand that you might believe such concern was counterproductive (the first paragraph of the "Politics" section mentions this), but peaceful protest against the Vietnam War was far from "dishonorable, unpatriotic and treasonous." The right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment is what all Americans have fought for from the beginning of our Republic, and it is precisely "speech that offends someone" (in this case speech protesting the War in Vietnam, which military personnel found offensive) that needs such constitutional protection. Speech that offends no one needs no such protection, and non-offensive speech is not curtailed even in autocratic states (the People's Republic of China, the former Soviet Union, Saddam's Iraq, Afghanistan under the Taliban) that do not guarantee freedom of speech.
I would agree with you, however, that Jane Fonda's trip to North Vietnam and her various pronouncments WERE "dishonorable, unpatriotic and treasonous." Jane Fonda never considered herself a "hippie," and because she never demonstrated any understanding of what we stood for, neither did we claim her. Fonda's actions went far beyond the intent and scope of those of us who peacefully protested the Vietnam War, and every hippie I know condemned her at the time.
Your father may never have heard of Scott McKenzie's rendition of the song "San Francisco," but that does not make the information provided erroneous. Again, please consult the record, Scott McKenzie's web page in particular. "San Francisco" became the pre-eminent "freedom song" throughout Eastern Europe in their bid to free themselves from Soviet oppression after the song was taken back to Europe after the 1967 "Summer of Love," where it rose to #1 in the charts. The Soviet Union eventually forbade the playing of "San Francisco" because it became a rallying cry for "Prague Spring," Czechoslovakia's premature 1968 attempt to cast off the Soviet yoke.
The song you cited was deleted only because it did not make any reference to hippies, the subject of the article. I have corrected this, and it is now part of the article. Its inclusion would be also very appropriate in the article discussing the Vietnam War and the lack of appreciation felt by returning vets. On a personal note, I must say that I regret this lack of appreciation, and I extend my heartfelt thanks to your father, and to you, for the service you have provided our nation. Although I did not serve in the military, three of my cousins served in Vietnam, and I have personally thanked them as well.
Interesting that you would say that you "HATE HIPPIES." How many hippies have you really known? What do you think we stood for? As a former hippie, I acknowledge that hippies were mistaken about a lot of things. But one thing we got right was our emphasis on Christian love, which precludes hating anyone. To you I can only say "Peace Brother." We are both patriotic, freedom loving Americans. Semper fidelis indeed!Founders4 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You're applying logic where it's unlikely to be useful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably so, but one has to try.Founders4 00:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I appreciate your nice little note, especially its depth and concern. It's nice to know that at least someone on this "encyclopedia" addresses the tough questions, unlike your friends over at the bin Laden page. I also sincerely appreciate, and will go so far as to applaud your addition of the Llyod Marcus song. I think that is a nice gesture of fairness and impartiality that I feel tends to be lacking on Wikipedia. I also am glad you did not just delete my questions and disregard them as "vandalism" as most people would've done.

Nevertheless, I still feel like the hippies disrespected our military, and they helped in the defeat of the United States of America, for which I attribute the characteristic of being unpatriotic.

Of course, it is your right under the 1st Amendment to freedom of speech, but I still believe that it was irresponsible and inappropriate to go to the lengths that hippies often went to. It is undeniable, that hippies would participate in burning the flag of the United States, the burning of ROTC buildings, the stoning of soldiers, and for this I hold my animosity towards hippies.

As a soon-to-be Marine, the extreme anger that I get anytime I see someone burning our flag leaves me unable to respect any group of people who would do this EVER as a form of protesting.

Again, thank you for your returning my message, but I find myself unable to forgive these actions. Semper fi.

oorah 68.83.23.147 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Please find me a single reference to hippies burning ROTC buildings (for example). You are conflating "hippies" with the much much broader counterculture, anti-war, free speech etc. movements. You have every right to be pissed off at them (though I think your anger is misplaced), but mostly those people weren't hippies. The SDS wasn't hippies. The Free Speech Movement wasn't hippies. The kids murdered at Kent State weren't hippies. Yes, hippies were anti-war, but they weren't anywhere near the bulk of the anti-war crowd. There simply weren't a lot of hippies -- but there were tons of anti-Vietnam-war people. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I would like you to know that I never burned an American flag, and I am offended when I see that done.
Flag burning is an interesting topic though. When an American flag becomes too tattered, the officially prescribed method of disposal is to burn that flag. Yet some people propose a constitutional amendment to make that same action, burning the flag, illegal if it is done in protest. In other words, the proposed constitutional amendment would make certain THOUGHTS illegal, which sounds quite un-American to me!
The debate as to why America lost the Vietnam War will probably continue forever. Personally, I believe we lost the war because a large percentage of the Vietnamese people (Dwight Eisenhower, who first committed American military advisers to Vietnam, put the percentage at 85%) favored Ho Chi Minh over South Vietnamese leaders (Diem, then a succession of military rulers) favored by the U.S. This was certainly a bad choice, and communism brought the Vietnamese people much misery, but it was THEIR choice.
The 15% of Vietnamese who favored U.S. involvement were the more educated, urban Vietnamese who appreciated the benefits of a free market, democratic system and who were less vulnerable to communist propoganda. It was this educated minority of Vietnamese whom we supported, and who supported us, and I believe our objective in Vietnam was an honorable one. I worked on an alternate plan, "The Free Cities Plan," which was lobbied in Congress but never received sufficient favor for implementation--this would have established Free Zones, similar to Hong Kong or West Berlin, which the U.S. could have easily defended. This option would have avoided the general militarizaiton of the war.
"The Free Cities Plan" can be found here. FYI the author Jon Read is not Founders4.
I opposed our choice to generally militarize the war because I believe it is impossible to win a war when only 15% of the people involved want you to win it. While the U.S. enjoyed majority support in the larger cities of South Vietnam, in the countryside support fell off rapidly; since Vietnam was largely rural, we could not hold a countryside where support for the Viet Cong approached 100%.
Despite news reports to the contrary, and due to the valor of those U.S. soldiers who fought in Vietnam (along with Australians and soldiers of other nationalities), we DID prevail militarily in nearly every battle. But winning the war was another story, and by choosing to generally militarize the war, I believe we overreached.
America lost 58,191 good soldiers during our nearly 20 years of various sorts of engagement (1957-1975). During this period we killed between 1,000,000 and 3,000,000 Vietnamese soldiers and civilians--perhaps 10% of the population.
We needed to leave Vietnam not because we lost the war militarily, but because to continue fighting was pointless. A majority of the Vietnamese wanted to implement communism, and they could not be dissuaded by our commitment to freedom. This was a tragedy for all concerned, especially after 1975 when several million Vietnamese were murdered by their own government.
By the way, in case you are wondering, I DO support our current engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I admire your choice to join the Marines. I believe our war against Islamofascism in these two countries is not at all like Vietnam. Founders4 08:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I'm proud of you Founders. Maybe not ALL hippies are bad. I am very surprised that a former hippie would support the Iraq war, and I agree with you on your entire last paragraph. You raise some good points about Vietnam that lead me to believe that you aren't as far left as some of the neo-hippies today on college campuses, with whom I have had many encounters.
Although we will probably never be able to agree on every issue with the Vietnam War, my respect for you has gone up a good deal throughout this dialogue. I am also surprised by your willingness to acknowledge the unfair, biased reporting.
Semper fi.

oorah 69.141.213.168 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your kind words. What you might want to do, at least in your own thinking, is differentiate between us REAL hippies (we started as a group composed of perhaps 500 people beginning in 1965) and the pretenders. Real hippies were thoughtful, fun-loving folk--sincere, loving and quite sane--as they continue to be. In fact the prime movers have been extremely productive during the years since--even the popularization of the Internet and the operating systems that allow us ordinary folks to use computers were inspired by hippie culture.
Probably your image of hippies has been tarnished by all those ragged, unwashed, unproductive homeless people who now populate our urban centers. Please believe me when I tell you that it wasn't like that at all!
If you ever get to the Bay Area, please contact me at kensigntonguy4@yahoo.com. We'd probably enjoy having a beer together. Founders4 09:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You're most likely right about my skewed view of hippies as being unmotivated, lazy, pot-smoking, Socialist, anti-American hippies. You seem like a good guy, so I'll take your word that these characteristics weren't the essence of the movement.
I'll take you up on your offer if I ever visit the West Coast, but right now, I'm a little preoccupied with prior obligations in the Corps, followed by my first tour of duty in Iraq. Semper fi.

oorah 69.141.213.168 04:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. May your tour of duty in Iraq go well. My prayers will be with you.Founders4 19:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pejorative connotations

Perhaps you misunderstand what Wikipedia is. It is a place where one may add to the information available about a certain topic. It is not the place to offer criticism, or praise, for a certain group.

Obviously you consider former hippies to be self-important, self-centered nostalgia freaks. You may be correct in this assessment, but that is beside the point. The word "hippie" does not have this pejorative connotation, which is what this section is about.

Please refrain from personal ruminations. Founders4 17:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Who was this aimed at? Nuke Mecca 15:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should have clarified. The person in question posted a personal comment critical of the hippie tendency towards self-centered nostalgia. The comment really had no legitimate place in the article.Founders4 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/p/Talk%7EHippie_archive_1_d1cc.html"