Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The people of the 60's, Hippies, haven't had a significant effect on today's society? hmmm.
so, would we have endangered animals, national forests, considering hybrid cars, energy conservation at all? And as far as the Beatles? Come on, get on topic, they had nothing to do with Woodstock. Jimi Hendrix & The Beatles on the same stage? No, Woodstock and the people at it weren't perfect, nor was everything that came out of it. Nor was everything that came out of the Vietnam war, or the Gulf War, or any war for that matter. Why is it that the people here want to debate that it has to be all or nothing? Take your blinders off, look at the overall big picture, take the good with the bad. The old saying, you can't bake a cake without breaking the eggs.
People die in Wars, so therefore everything is bad about wars, that is so stereotypical and narrowminded speak, but that is what the Hippie, flower power love child was saying, Make love not War. Why can't you talk it out, work out your differences, "Come Together" We have the equal rights, womens rights, animal rights, civil rights, because of people from this era, the baby boomers. So the ones that want to look at one incident, and close your eyes and minds to the hundreds of other things that have gone on to benefit the world, then I truly recommend you READ and educate yourself rather than condemn what you don't know or understand.
The mind is a terrible thing to waste.
I don't think Woodstock had anything to do with anything. (I almost went, but had to have foot surgery that week, age 16).
I think the question is more, sort of, did "the 60s" have any lasting effect on society? If that's the question, I think it's pretty hard to answer. All time passages have an effect on how people live. After all, it's be pretty strange if things were the same after 40 years. I do think "the times" included broader civil rights for women and gay people, born from both the black civil rights movement (which had zip to do with white kids dancing, screwing, and taking drugs). I always feel annoyed when people dreamy-eyed talk about "the 60s" when it means the late 1960s, early 1970s, meaning mostly lifestyle changes, not the important political and legal changes. Who effected the political and legal changes? Whoever was in a position to do so at those times, regardless of generation.
I do think there have been ongoing changes that are good for the society, environmental, animal rights, people's civil rights, but I wouldn't lay it in anyone's lap based on birth year.
It pains me to see old (older) liberals lament that "no one is out demonstrating" about this or that. "Demonstrating" as a tactic to effect change ended a long time ago. It alarmed authorities when it was new, when it was middle-class white people, when it reminded people of street revolutions like Russia in 1917 or Germany in the 1920s and all. Otherwise, it's a tired way to get a TV camera to point at a few dozen people with a sign.
I think change is ongoing in how people now raise their children, contribute their money, and spend whatever time they can that isn't taken up with earning a living, and how they do small things at their place of work or business.
I'm told by younger friends that I'm not a "typical baby boomer." I hope there are lots of us out here.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,509,244 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinsativ
You certainly don't, cause if you would have read, you would have noted, this thread is about the 40th anniversary of Woodstock, not the immitation wannabe in 99, the 30th anniversary. The original Woodstock of 1969, was held in Bethel New York, on Yasgur's farm. Nothing like what happened in 99 happened there. The people of Bethel came out and overwhelmingly pitched in when what started out as a 3 day party for 10,000 people turned into almost half a million people. Still there was no looting, raping, burning, people of the 60's and 70's, we didn't do that. For those 3 days that whole area of New York state actually came together and pitched in to give to those "hippies" food, water and whatever else they needed because the promoters didn't forsee the overwhelming publicity and response of people across the USA.
The real travesty is that now, the place where Woodstock was held is a Museum, charging for a tour, just opened last year, so the people that attended it would be rolling over in their later years to go back and see that the site of their "Peace Rally" Music Love In" was now making money for the "MAN"
I was trying to make the point that woodstock 99 the one my generation (Gen X) went to was nothing like the one in 69 with the whole peace love thing. We are a differnt generation with differnt additudes. Heck look at the band line ups for both and look at the styles and messages in the songs. Quite a diffence. don't you think?
Of course I'm sure some of the kids that were thier in 99 were children of those same hippies that were there in 69. So it kind of begs to question. What have hippies of 69 taught the children of 99?
Have you read any of the other posts?
I honor the troops, past and present. Country Joe McDonald, who wrote the famous anti-Vietnam song, was a Navy vet himself, and according to the link below, some Vietnam vets took positions of leadership among war protesters after they came home. Vietnam Homecoming: Words from a Vietnam Vet
Woodstock is merely a *symbol* of the consciousness-raising of the time.
I mean, what a concept, peace and music, joining hands instead of taking sides.
No decade or generation should be neatly wrapped up with one symbol, but the media like to do this, and perhaps the Boomers, like it or not, are stuck with some sort of tie-dyed flower power image.
I have not condemned any other posters here, and yes I have read the other posts. perhaps to put things more in perspective as to why I feel the way I do about Woodstock and the counter culture movement I should say that it's not the message they were imparting that I detest so much, but the way they imparted it. At least the ones I saw, up close and personal. Oh, the things I could tell you that a servicemans son went through at the hands of these 'peace and love' types. The things my teachers in school said to me about my Father being 'over there'and the scene at the airport when he came home. Joining hands? Not taking sides? Conscienceous raising? Yes I am bitter, and yes I am STUCK with that image of peace signs and tie dye shirt flower power. When a 6 year old boys Father is turned into a villain because he wears a uniform and does his duty by a group of people preaching peace and love and praticing quite the opposite it leaves an impression. To be fair, I saw ONLY that part of the 'movement' and that is what I'm basing my feelings on, but it's a little late now to change that.
I have not condemned any other posters here, and yes I have read the other posts. perhaps to put things more in perspective as to why I feel the way I do about Woodstock and the counter culture movement I should say that it's not the message they were imparting that I detest so much, but the way they imparted it. At least the ones I saw, up close and personal. Oh, the things I could tell you that a servicemans son went through at the hands of these 'peace and love' types. The things my teachers in school said to me about my Father being 'over there'and the scene at the airport when he came home. Joining hands? Not taking sides? Conscienceous raising? Yes I am bitter, and yes I am STUCK with that image of peace signs and tie dye shirt flower power. When a 6 year old boys Father is turned into a villain because he wears a uniform and does his duty by a group of people preaching peace and love and praticing quite the opposite it leaves an impression. To be fair, I saw ONLY that part of the 'movement' and that is what I'm basing my feelings on, but it's a little late now to change that.
AFAIK, I have not condemned you.
I merely asked if you ready any at all of the *other* posts in this thread.
The title of the thread asks what we have learned, and I do believe that there have been some changes for the good.
As Sinsativ says, it does not have to be all or nothing.
I was born in 1954, so I was around back then, too--and my conscience is clear.
AFAIK, I have not condemned you.
I merely asked if you ready any at all of the *other* posts in this thread.
The title of the thread asks what we have learned, and I do believe that there have been some changes for the good.
As Sinsativ says, it does not have to be all or nothing.
I was born in 1954, so I was around back then, too--and my conscience is clear.
You are close to the same age of my sister. Her take on things from back then differs radically from mine, and ,of course, we were raised in the same house. My Mother too has a different take on things. My Mother, to my view, is as much a hero to me as my Father. She had a hard row to hoe, and this is one thing good that came out of that era. Mothers became more recognized for the burdens they had to bear while our Fathers were away at war. To my way of thinking that is proper and was long overdue. This had nothing to do with Woodstock or the counter culture thing, but it did come to the fore during that time. For me anyway. Our Mother kept it all together for us, despite all the pressure on her and her own feelings and worries she always kept up the family first. Who could say that the constant worry of the Father of her children being at war, and the dread of not knowing from minute to minute if he was even still alive was not a cross to bear, and yet ,despite all that, holding a brave face for the kids. Yes, I believe that Mothers and women in general, were given long overdue recognition during those times and it has gotten better today for them than it would have been otherwise. My Father was not my only role model.
Yes, I believe that Mothers and women in general, were given long overdue recognition during those times and it has gotten better today for them than it would have been otherwise. My Father was not my only role model.
I salute your mother, and see the truth in what you say. Military moms, and many mothers in general, had a lot to hold together.
This is one more facet of that time in America--the women's movement.
It was a lot more than burning bras.
Of course, women, one way or another, have been keeping it together for centuries, and dealing with the patriarchy along the way.
Some keep busy enough just quietly leading lives of good example, but others are more vocal about gender equality. The 60's and 70's were an interesting time in that regard.
Why can't you talk it out, work out your differences, "Come Together" We have the equal rights, womens rights, animal rights, civil rights, because of people from this era, the baby boomers. So the ones that want to look at one incident, and close your eyes and minds to the hundreds of other things that have gone on to benefit the world, then I truly recommend you READ and educate yourself rather than condemn what you don't know or understand.
The mind is a terrible thing to waste.
The 40th anniversary of a concert where people took illegal drugs and sat around in the rain for a few days while listening to crappy music....all of this is supposed to be commemorated? It's the 40th anniversary of a total waste of time. I'm totally staying on subject by the way because I'm pointing out that Woodstock had no impact on anything whatsoever and the fact that you say it symbolizes the changes brought forth in the 60s is simply not true.
So the original post asked what have we learned since Woodstock....well, basically, nothing.
The 40th anniversary of a concert where people took illegal drugs and sat around in the rain for a few days while listening to crappy music....all of this is supposed to be commemorated? It's the 40th anniversary of a total waste of time. I'm totally staying on subject by the way because I'm pointing out that Woodstock had no impact on anything whatsoever and the fact that you say it symbolizes the changes brought forth in the 60s is simply not true.
So the original post asked what have we learned since Woodstock....well, basically, nothing.
LMAO, I must disagee. people have learned to idolize musicians and other performers and credit them with positive changes to our way of life. Yep, the real movers and shakers, the less glamorous folks, get set aside for someone who can energize a crowd to a frenzy and start a riot by playing to that energy.
The people of the 60's, Hippies, haven't had a significant effect on today's society? hmmm.
so, would we have endangered animals, national forests, considering hybrid cars, energy conservation at all? And as far as the Beatles? Come on, get on topic, they had nothing to do with Woodstock. Jimi Hendrix & The Beatles on the same stage? No, Woodstock and the people at it weren't perfect, nor was everything that came out of it. Nor was everything that came out of the Vietnam war, or the Gulf War, or any war for that matter. Why is it that the people here want to debate that it has to be all or nothing? Take your blinders off, look at the overall big picture, take the good with the bad. The old saying, you can't bake a cake without breaking the eggs.
People die in Wars, so therefore everything is bad about wars, that is so stereotypical and narrowminded speak, but that is what the Hippie, flower power love child was saying, Make love not War. Why can't you talk it out, work out your differences, "Come Together" We have the equal rights, womens rights, animal rights, civil rights, because of people from this era, the baby boomers. So the ones that want to look at one incident, and close your eyes and minds to the hundreds of other things that have gone on to benefit the world, then I truly recommend you READ and educate yourself rather than condemn what you don't know or understand.
The mind is a terrible thing to waste.
One thing you need to understand is those of us who were kids from the late 1970s to late 1980s were told constantly by the media and the Boomers how great Woodstock and the Boomers were. When I was a kid every political discussion seemed to revolve around the Boomers.
What would happen when they retire?
Did they sell out?
Were they so great?
What made them great?
And on and on. They were way overexposed. And it bred a certain contempt. Particularly as many of us could so clearly see that getting high and dancing in mud wasn't exactly saving black people or even the environment. And that many things, like the murder rate, went up from the mid-1960s to the 1980s.
Granted it wasn't all bad. I give some credit for greater concern for the environment. The hippy thing may have even had a role in encouraging a greater sympathy for the American Indian. (Even if this was initially expressed in embarrassing ways) Still for those of us "raised in the Shadow of the Boom" there's bound to be a certain bitterness and resentment. We got to live with the hangover of the Woodstock generation. The age of Crack, Broken Homes, and Boomers lecturing us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep, the real movers and shakers, the less glamorous folks, get set aside for someone who can energize a crowd to a frenzy and start a riot by playing to that energy.
