# Another *ism: hippism



## Mate

Following Maxiogee's advice regarding threads on whatever-isms (click) I will beguin defining -with some help from Wikipedia- this particular *ism.

Notice: rather than a simple cut and paste definition, what follows is a wildly modified brief based on this article.

*Hippism*: one could define it as a movement or as a culture or even as a sub-culture originated around 1960 in the United States, becoming an established social group by 1965 before declining during the mid-1970s. 
It was composed mostly of teenagers and young adults between the ages of 15 and 25 years-old. 
Hippies rebelled against established institutions, criticized middle class values, opposed the war, embraced aspects of oriental religions, and created communities.
They opposed "political and social orthodoxy", and favored "peace, love, and personal freedom”. They perceived the dominant culture as a corrupt, monolithic entity that exercised undue power over their lives, calling this culture “The Establishment” or “The Big Brother”. 
The hippie ethos spread worldwide through music such as rock, folk, blues and psychedelic rock.

______________________________________________________________

This said I will kindly ask all foreros interested in this phenomenon to answer the following questions:

1) In your opinion, was the Hippie a movement, a culture, a sub-culture or any other thing worth defining?

2) Whatever it was is there anything related to hippies (values, costumes, ways, anything at all) that could have influenced your society or culture?

3) Is that influence –if any- still noticeable?

4) Do you believe that hippism is dead all right or do you foresee any possibility for one or more of its features to come back full force?

Please feel free to share any comment regardless the questions above. Just try to stay on topic   .

Mateamargo


----------



## cuchuflete

> 1) In your opinion, was the Hippie a movement, a culture, a sub-culture or any other thing worth defining?
> 2) Whatever it was is there anything related to hippies (values, costumes, ways, anything at all) that could have influenced your society or culture?
> 
> 3) Is that influence –if any- still noticeable?
> 4) Do you believe that hippism is dead all right or do you foresee any possibility for one or more of its features to come back full force?



1- It was a very small number of people doing what youth have always done: take a position contrary to that of older generations.  Hippies were every bit as conventional as their parents, but with opposing conventions of dress, speech, music, art, and use of drugs such as LSD and marijuana, in combination with alcohol.  The parent mostly confined their drug use to alcohol.
The cultural influence of hippies was much broader than the "membership" in that somewhat anarchistic lifestyle.  The hippie phenomenon coincided with the growth in opposition to the war in Southeast Asia.  

Hippies, by their dress, lifestyle, and opposition to the war, seriously offended and outraged the more conservative members of society.  Those people, as good reactionaries, responded by calling the hippies things like "dirty, bearded, commie hippie scum".  Many hippies were bearded—mostly male hippies—and some dispensed with boring middle class customs such as bathing.  Few were "commies" or adherents of any particular political ideology, and none I knew qualified to be called 'scum'.   But they were damned good at outraging the most conservative members of society, leading these to behave as overblown caricatures of everything the hippies despised and opposed.
Thus the two groups made perfect foils for one another.  

2-Hippies were in the forefront-accidentally?-of a pattern of broad social change in the mid- and late 1960s. As I don't know if the hippies were consciously leading that change movement, I can't say if the enduring aspects of that time of change are attributable to the hippies.   For example, without hippies, would my generation have adopted tie-dyed shirts?  Would we have protested against the war in Southeast Asia by the millions?   Hippies didn't create acid rock, and there were not enough of them to support its commercial success.  Changes in sexual mores were overdue, widely embraced (all puns intended) and lasting.  I wouldn't credit the hippies for that.  
3- See answer to 2.  It's hard to say exactly what the hippies did to or for society at large.
Mayor Richard Daily of Chicago did much, in 1968, to turn so-called "hippies" into martyrs and leaders of political action, but...were those his police beat and clubbed really hippies at all?

4- Rebellion by youth against older generational values was around long before the hippies, and will likely continue long past my lifetime.  See José Ortega y Gasset, La Rebelión de las Masas, published in 1930.


----------



## Mate

_"Hippies started the ecology movement. They combated racism. They liberated sexual stereotypes, encouraged change, individual pride, and self-confidence. They questioned robot materialism. In four years they managed to stop the Vietnam War. They got marijuana decriminalized in fourteen states during the Carter Administration." Timothy Leary _

I found this precious nugget here. 

One can agree or disagree partially or totally with Mr Leary's thoughts but although the author is not among WR foreros -and not even among us mortals anymore- his statement has everything to do with questions 2) and 3). 

Far out man!

Mate


----------



## danielfranco

Although I have no real experience with any of them hippies (after all, I was born around that time period), I have always thought that perhaps these type of cultural changes were precipitated by the very hard years following WWII. Those were times of very harsh limitations in people's lives: sure, they won the war, but lost so much and so many doing so.
Afterwards, in the fifties, the phenomenon of "Rock 'n' Roll" music seemed to be some kind of catalyst that help young people realize they could (and maybe should) explore life on their own terms. Perhaps the embodiment of this outlook in life was projected in the very public and universal image of The Beatles, so people everywhere were able to feel connected and to feel to a certain point justified in their iconoclastic reaction to society.

1. So, I think that "Hippism" movement became a sub-culture and then proceded to influence many aspects of the general culture.
2. I think that the present climate of political correctness and other strange customs particular to the USA (and other parts of the Western civilization) might stem from the idealistic notions that "come together" and "we are all one" should be applied to society at large, at any cost.
3. I think many things influenced by the idealistic ideology of those years can still be found. Especially in the "pop" culture. For example, alternative music in the present has not really deviated much from the experimental music of the sixties. Perhaps it has gotten louder (technologically advanced, perhaps?), but that's about it.
4. Like in #2, I think some aspects of it keep coming back to us recycled and sometimes improved. But the same can be said about "Hippism" itself: many of its ideals were borrowed from the Near Eastern religions, if I'm not completely mistaken (has been known to happen... often).

[By the by: Did Leary finally made it into orbit?]


----------



## .   1

1.  I don't know how to define it.  I think that it was a rebellion against over controlling totally conformist parents.  I think that the other stuff just happened along the way.
2.  Not really.  I think hippies were a symptom not a cause in themselves.  they were a flamboyance of colour to contrast the drab greys of their parents.
3.  I have noticed that any hippie influence is being swept away in a fervour of right winged evangelical religiosity.
4.  Six feet under and gone.

.,,


----------



## LV4-26

First off, let me say that, while he word "hippism" may work fine in English, it really sounds strange in French : it means horse racing. 

1 & 2. A subculture. A limited number of people but, as far as I could see when it happened, a tremendous influence. Now that it's long past, one may rightly wonder whether the hippies were just children of their times. It would be misleading to state that they were an operative cause. I think they were just another aspect of a broader movement involving the teenage and young-adult baby boomers. 
Some mottos of the May 68 "revolution" in France would not have sounded misplaced in the mouth of hippies. For instance, "jouissez sans entraves" (enjoy [life] without hinderance/constraints - but keeping in mind that _jouir_ has a strong sexual sense = climax -). The difference being that many of the 68 rioters would claim that their action resorted to political involvement. While the hippies' attitude had something "political" in the very broad sense, they would never had admitted it.

3. Difficult to say. The hippy movement and subculture are now an object of rejection and mockery by the economy & competition-centered modern French right-wingers. Now they even issue radio and TV commercials that mock the hippies. 
Hippism's infulence may not be really noticeable. However, even though I've never been a hippy, I wouldn't be what I am if the hippy movement had never existed. And I don't think I'm alone in this.

4. As I suggested above, it's now a legend, a myth. People seem to remember that, long ago, there existed something to that image. Something to be made fun of, mainly.
On the other hand, I think quite a few ideas originated in or adopted by the hippy movement have spread (and weakened at the same time - or, shall I say, have been _diluted_?) in a much larger population.


----------



## Soledad Medina

Congratulations to Cuchuflete for his very thorough and interesting analysis about hippism.  Also, congratulations to Daniel for his valuable comments on this subject.  However, I just wish to share my humble perspective based on my first impression of hippies.  When I arrived to the United States in the 70’s as a political refugee, there were still many hippies in the city of Coconut Grove, Florida.  I remember them with their long hair, bands around their forehead, eccentric attire and very “particular” smell.  I thought they were very poor but someone explained to me they were mostly from rich families, consumed drugs (especially LSD) and were against the Vietnam war.  One of my teachers was an admirer of the hippie movement and he explained that it originated in Berkeley University, San Francisco, in 1964.  His favorite word to describe them was: “non-conformists”.  As far as I can remember, hippies were against every single rule of society.

Sorry, my dear Mate, for not answering your questions and simply sharing my memories of that time.
Un cariñoso saludo
Soledad


----------



## cuchuflete

Mateamargo said:


> _"Hippies started the ecology movement. They combated racism. They liberated sexual stereotypes, encouraged change, individual pride, and self-confidence. They questioned robot materialism. In four years they managed to stop the Vietnam War. They got marijuana decriminalized in fourteen states during the Carter Administration." Timothy Leary _
> 
> I found this precious nugget here.
> 
> One can agree or disagree partially or totally with Mr Leary's thoughts but although the author is not among WR foreros -and not even among us mortals anymore- his statement has everything to do with questions 2) and 3).



Oh Wow, Man!  Like whaaaaaat have you been smoking?  Were those mushrooms good?  Have another hash brownie with your Thunderbird for breakfast!

Leary's statement has nothing to do with questions 2) and 3), because the statement is a pack of self-serving lies, just like "the Man" would tell. Let's examine the Good Tiny Dr. Tim's blatherings before we argue them...

"Hippies started the ecology movement. Total falsehood.  The ecology movement was started by scientists and concerned citizens, reading and trying to follow the sort of advice in the original Mother Earth catalogue.  They were not hippies for the most part.   

They combated racism. Maybe a few did, but most of them just lived lives free of racism, rather than actively doing much to combat it.  

They liberated sexual stereotypes, No, they did not.  They enjoyed sex.  

encouraged change,

individual pride, and self-confidence.  Lots of social and political movements throughout history have encouraged individual price.  The attempt to attribute encouragement of self-confidence to  hippies is too ludicrous to debate. 

They questioned robot materialism. So did lots of political, social, and religious activists, for many decades before the first hippie. 

In four years they managed to stop the Vietnam War. No, they did not.  Leary is taking credit for what others did.

They got marijuana decriminalized in fourteen states during the Carter Administration.  In fact, some very astute medical professionals, with backing from others wearing suits and neckties, gained very limited, very partial rights to the use of marijuana for a very few medical conditions.
Marijuana was not decriminalized for general use in any state during or after the Carter Administration.

In short, Leary's statements are mostly drug-induced delusions.  Too bad.  It would be nice if there were some truth to them.  


LV4-26 is right to question "hippism".  I've never come across that as an English term to characterize hippies.  They were not part of the 'hipster' movement either.  They owed a lot to the 
Beatniks in terms of attitudes.  Much of what they did was a healthy reaction to a repressive period--politically, socially, sexually, musically--and their visibility probably encouraged others to 
question "the rules".  

Why were hipies mostly white, from economically secure families?  $$$!  They could afford to "drop out, tune in", with the security that Mom and Dad (those terribly conventional people) would
bail them out, literally and figuratively, when they were broke and hungry, or in jail.  

This thread leads me to wonder why the most 'oppressed', the poor, didn't become hippies.


----------



## Mate

cuchuflete said:


> Oh Wow, Man! Like whaaaaaat have you been smoking? Were those mushrooms good? Have another hash brownie with your Thunderbird for breakfast!
> 
> 
> 
> Just home grown good ole' pot, and just once a week or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Hippies started the ecology movement. Total falsehood. The ecology movement was started by scientists and concerned citizens, reading and trying to follow the sort of advice in the original Mother Earth catalogue. They were not hippies for the most part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They combated racism. Maybe a few did, but most of them just lived lives free of racism, rather than actively doing much to combat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> 
> They liberated sexual stereotypes, No, they did not. They enjoyed sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And their behaviour encouraged many others to do the same, so Leary is right about this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> encouraged change,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> individual pride, and self-confidence. Lots of social and political movements throughout history have encouraged individual price. The attempt to attribute encouragement of self-confidence to hippies is too ludicrous to debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's not debate on this then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They questioned robot materialism. So did lots of political, social, and religious activists, for many decades before the first hippie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is saying that hippies were the first in doing that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In four years they managed to stop the Vietnam War. No, they did not. Leary is taking credit for what others did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This I do not really know. Could you please bring us some facts to back your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They got marijuana decriminalized in fourteen states during the Carter Administration. In fact, some very astute medical professionals, with backing from others wearing suits and neckties, gained very limited, very partial rights to the use of marijuana for a very few medical conditions.
> Marijuana was not decriminalized for general use in any state during or after the Carter Administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are absolutely right. But anyway...legalize it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LV4-26 is right to question "hippism". I've never come across that as an English term to characterize hippies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Spanish the term "hippismo" is accepted. At least colloquially .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They owed a lot to the Beatniks in terms of attitudes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I totally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much of what they did was a healthy reaction to a repressive period--politically, socially, sexually, musically--and their visibility probably encouraged others to question "the rules".
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well good for them and for us all then!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why were hipies mostly white, from economically secure families? $$$! They could afford to "drop out, tune in", with the security that Mom and Dad (those terribly conventional people) would
> bail them out, literally and figuratively, when they were broke and hungry, or in jail.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my country and perhaps in the whole South American sub-continent hippies were mostly poor youngsters from poor backgrounds, just for you all to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread leads me to wonder why the most 'oppressed', the poor, didn't become hippies.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps for the same reason why most "commies" were intellectuals coming from traditional and/or wealthy families, like our Ernesto Guevara Lynch.
Click to expand...

 
Mateamargo


----------



## cuchuflete

> In four years they managed to stop the Vietnam War. No, they did not. Leary is taking credit for what others did. This I do not really know. Could you please bring us some facts to back your opinion?


 I'll be as brief as possible, to avoid derailing your hippie topic.  There were, in the US, probably about 100,000-200,000 hippies. Even if there were many more, they were not as many as 1% of the population.  Many millions protested against the war, and they were led by political activists, not hippies.  The US had mandatory military conscription. A very large number of college students of my generation protested against the war for obvious reasons of personal and national self-interest.  We were not hippies.  Black leaders opposed the war because large numbers of young men from their communities were dying in Vietnam.  They were not hippies.  Many members of Congress opposed the war.  They were not hippies.  Around the world, large numbers of people demonstrated against the war, and against the US.  In those days, presidents such as Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon paid attention to our "allies".  They were not hippies.  Most important of all, when tens of thousands of US middle class and working class parents received notice that their sons had been killed or wounded and maimed in Vietnam, they began to protest against the war.  They were many, politically
significant, and they were not hippies.


----------



## palomnik

Having lived through the hippie experience (at least, I think I did, I'm not sure I remember) I would say that Hippism was a sub-culture, and one which continued past the middle seventies and can even be found in isolated pockets today, usually on communes that are way out of the way of the rest of civilization and that have pretty much turned their back on the rest of the world.

Of course, most of the original hippies do not adhere to this lifestyle, and in fact even in their own time the hippies were, in my opinion, at best a concentrated manifestation of an attitude of discontent and reaction against the established order that came about in the USA due to the rampant anticommunism of the postwar period and was brought into focus by the Vietnam War. 

As for whether the movement exercises any ongoing influence, I have to say that in a sense their influence was tremendous, but not necessarily in an obvious way. Bill Clinton once made the comment that you could define an American's political stance by asking him how he felt about the sixties: if someone thought it was a good era, he/she is probably a Democrat; if not, a Republican.

In fact, the legacy of the whole era today was to create a turf war between those who feel that the USA has a social responsibility to strive for social equity (with the government footing the bill for achieving it) and collegiality with the international community as opposed to those who believe that the USA is inherently a fair, equitable place that has a historical mission to pursue, and that the only thing the USA needs is to stop obsessing about self-doubt. It is because the whole generation that came of age in the sixties is still fighting over this with each other that American politics have gradually gotten so ugly and factional over the last 20-25 years, with baneful consequences for the rest of the world, most notably the Middle East in recent years.

I don't think Hippism _per se _will ever make a comeback, at least not in the USA; the culture has changed too much for a phenomenon like that to arise again, although something with some similarities may arise; after all, hippies didn't create everything they believed from whole cloth - think of the Luddites in the nineteenth century.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

First off, let me say this is my third day in a row without a decent night of sleep. My apologies to those who could eventually read this, since the spelling, grammar and phrasing one 'adopts' under such circumstances could be somewhat offensive to other language lovers.  

Anyway, here goes my try:

*1) In your opinion, was the Hippie a movement, a culture, a sub-culture or any other thing worth defining?*
Yes. To all three of them. Wait, doesn't it mean to none? Or, just to the last one? Ok, let me try. I'm not from the US (and then you say, excitedly: "reeeaaally?"  ), so the hippies I know about were not really, truly, authentical hippies. It was kind of a culture, or rather, a sub-culture, that abruptly arised from - - - No, wait, wrong phrasing... There *were* hippies in my country, but they were not truly faithful to the whole -original- hippie 'sistema de creencias' (system of beliefs? Doctrines? I'm lost...) It was just a group of 'chamos' (young people) who though it was cool to do something new, and guess what? Those yanks (gringos, actually) came up with the perfect thing they could use in order to protest against society, dress anyway they wanted, and refuse to work under this exploiting system that leads nowhere...

Not really, but that was the view that others had. They would say they were "just some -antiestablishment- fellow human beings looking for peace, love, and balance in this Earth of us"... oh, and that they wouldn't stick to the standards set by other human beings who thought themselves in the right to tell them what to do (although they were following a foreign trend, anyway...)

*2) Whatever it was is there anything related to hippies (values, costumes, ways, anything at all) that could have influenced your society or culture?*
Well... The use of marijuana, perhaps. I'm not saying it was not done before the hippies, nor that only the hippies used it, nor that once the hippies were 'gone' so was that predilection for cannabis leaves, but down here, marijuana means: (a) You are/were a hippie, (b) You come from Jamaica, or (c) You can't afford today's drugs, so you grow your own pot.

Besides that, I think just fashion trends --oh Cuchu, I nearly cried when you mentioned tye-dye...

*3) Is that influence –if any- still noticeable?*
Nope. Just regarding the drugs thing, but... can we really blame ONLY the hippies on that? Come on!

*4) Do you believe that hippism is dead all right or do you foresee any possibility for one or more of its features to come back full force?*
Well, I think the youngsters here are too busy with their reggaeton stars & "new" socialist ideas to wonder about the real principles beneath anything at all...


----------



## Poetic Device

1) In your opinion, was the Hippie a movement, a culture, a sub-culture or any other thing worth defining? Yes, yes and yes. There were and still are many levels of "hippieism" (or however you spelled it). That is why I feel that it is both a culture and sub-culture. As far as it being something worth defining, it is because there are a lot of ways that the hippies made popular or well-known that they are still being used today. My generation has a "sub-culture" of hippieism if you will. There are even people that are called "new aged-hippies", meaning, they still feel the same way that people did in the 60s, but they shower and don't smoke up as much.

2) Whatever it was is there anything related to hippies (values, costumes, ways, anything at all) that could have influenced your society or culture? The freedom of mind idea definately freed up a lot for my generation, and I firmly believe that it allowed a lot of things to be more acceptible.

3) Is that influence –if any- still noticeable? Hell yeah.

4) Do you believe that hippism is dead all right or do you foresee any possibility for one or more of its features to come back full force? I think that it is back right now in the United States, and not just with the fashion. Personally, I am the new aged-hippie that I just spoke about. It's not quite Buddhism, but it works. (BTW, I did not make up the name for it, someone else did. If I am sounding like an idiot I apologize.)


----------



## ernest_

I think no movement is even remotely interesting to consider the possibility of talking about it. There are many individuals that may or may not be associated with a particular movement that deserve consideration though. But, generally speaking, anything that goes mainstream loses its real meaning, it becomes spoiled and falsified beyond recognition. It turns into a farce. That's what happened to the hippy movement, I think.


----------



## loladamore

Isn't "hippism" something to do with horses? 

I think that those of us who grew up during -or in the aftermath of- *hippiedom* in the UK were affected by it. British society is less formal than it was, hairstyles much freer and ties less ubiquitous, for example. Certain liberal customs such as vegetarianism continue to grow (*info*), but I doubt we could say that this is a direct result of _*hippiosity*_. The ever-increasing availability of mind-altering substances is probably more to do with neoliberalism and the market economy (greed?) than peace and love. Hmm. What was the question again?

There are still a lot of people who refer to themselves as hippies, and hippy culture is alive and well in the UK, especially in parts of Wales, for some reason. The _*hipitecas*_ continue to thrive along the entire Mexican pacific coastline, although one suspects that many of them go back to their government office jobs once the holiday is over. I had a fantastic time with some of the Rainbow family a few years ago in Michoacán. Or at least I think I did.

I'm quite hippy these days (see thread on love handles/_agarraderas_) but that's another story.


----------



## Fernita

Hi, everyboydy! 
Personally, I agree with almost all that was said above about hippies.
Anyway, I'd like to make clear the fact that this movement is still alive not only in USA and other countries but also in Argentina. It's a question of ideals and it is closely connected with music and drugs, as far as I know. Do you remember 'Woodstock'? That's a relevant example of what it represented: all hippies lying on the grass, listening to heavy rock, drinking alcohol, taking drugs and having sex. (The bands used to destroy their musical instruments at the end of their perfomance as a symbol of rebelion, too). Hippies rejected organized society and established social habits and joined together in leading a less conventional way of life. The movement was most widespread in the 1960s. Nowadays, it's not as strong as it used to be but I wouldn`t say it doesn`t exist anymore. There are still hippies all around the world or people who still think thay way.
This is my humble opinion and sorry for not answering question by question.
Regards to everybody,
Fernita


----------



## LV4-26

Fernita said:
			
		

> Do you remember 'Woodstock'? That's an relevant example of what it represented: all hippies lying on the grass, listening to heavy rock, drinking alcohol, taking drugs and having sex. (The bands used to destroy their musical instruments at the end of their perfomance as a symbol of rebelion, too)


Looks like a phantasmatic imagery of both Woodstock and the hippies, to me. There were 300,000 people at Woodstock. I don't think *all* of them were hippies.
Pete Townshend (The Who) often broke his guitar or his amplifier. He probably did at Woodstock. But he's never had much in common with the hippy movement.
As for heavy rock....CSN(&Y) (not sure Young was in the group yet) didn't play heavy rock, did they? Actually, I can't really think of any artist there who really did.


----------



## Mate

LV4-26 said:


> Looks like a phantasmatic imagery of both Woodstock and the hippies, to me. There were 300,000 people at Woodstock. I don't think *all* of them were hippies.
> Pete Townshend (The Who) often broke his guitar or his amplifier. He probably did at Woodstock. But he's never had much in common with the hippy movement.
> As for heavy rock....CSN(&Y) (not sure Young was in the group yet) didn't play heavy rock, did they? Actually, I can't really think of any artist there who really did.


 
Mr. Young (my favourite) was there all right:

_"With Young on board, the group went on tour in the late summer of 1969 through the following January, their second gig being a baptism-by-fire at the __Woodstock Festival__ in front of their peers,..."_
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosby,_Stills_&_Nash_(and_Young)

The group specialized in American folk & country music, but they played rock as well.


Jimi Hendrix was also one of the main performers at Woodstock: 

_"...Hendrix's popularity eventually saw him headline the __Woodstock__ music festival on __August 18__, __1969__. Although a number of the world's most talented and popular musicians were invited to the festival, including __The Who__, __Santana__, the __Grateful Dead__, and __Jefferson Airplane__, Hendrix was considered to be the festival's main attraction..."_
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimi_Hendrix#Woodstock

Hendrix composed and played *the heaviest rock ever*. He was black, he grew up in a poor neighborhood at Seattle and perhaps he's the most emblematic of all hippies. And if you have any doubt about this opinion of mine just take a look at my current signature below  .

Cheers! - Mate


----------



## TRG

The hippies were part of the cultural revolution (that might be too strong a word, but that is how historians speak of it) that occurred in the US and Europe during the 1960's. One way to look it this phenomenon is as the coming of age of the post-depression post-WWII generation or baby-boomers as we call them here. To the extent that it's origins can be traced back to the depression and to WWII let's hope this was a transient phenomenon, not soon to be repeated. I don't say that as an indictment of hippism, but only to express the hope that we never again see a period in our history as miserable as the time from 1930 to 1945.


----------



## Mate

TRG said:


> The hippies were part of the cultural revolution (that might be too strong a word, but that is how historians speak of it) that occurred in the US and Europe during the 1960's.
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree about its revolutionary nature; not strong a word at all. Nevertheless its worth pointing out that the hippie "movement" (or whatever you may call it) went far beyond the US and Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One way to look it this phenomenon is as the coming of age of the post-depression post-WWII generation or baby-boomers as we call them here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also call them baby-boomers here (Arg).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't say that as an indictment of hippism, but only to express the hope that we never again see a period in our history as miserable as the time from 1930 to 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I fully agree on that .
> 
> Mateamargo
Click to expand...


----------



## .   1

Fernita said:


> Do you remember 'Woodstock'?


I don't remember it but I have read a little of it.



Fernita said:


> That's a relevant example of what it represented:


Yes it is but I think that you may have misrepresented some key aspects of it.



Fernita said:


> all hippies lying on the grass, listening to heavy rock, drinking alcohol, taking drugs and having sex.


The music was a long way from heavy rock.  They were still in the transitional stage from folk music.  
Woodstock occurred only three years after Bob Dylan was booed and jeered and called Judas because he used amplified guitars and a drum kit in performances.
I am sure that a few exhibitionists played the two backed beast in public but common sense dictates that this was not anywhere near as wide spread as subsequent embellishment indicates.  



Fernita said:


> (The bands used to destroy their musical instruments at the end of their perfomance as a symbol of rebelion, too).


Pete Townsend wasn't doing anything different to what he had been doing at every other non hippie venue.
The hippie movement stood for peace and equality and a gentleness with nature and a love for and acceptance of others.

.,,


----------



## danielfranco

> Originally Posted by *Fernita*
> (The bands used to destroy their musical instruments at the end of their performance as a symbol of rebellion, too).


I often equate this orgasmic demonstration of iconoclastic idiosyncrasy (or is it "idiosyncratic iconoclasm"?) with the punk-rock of the 70's...

But "Hippism", to me, always calls up in my memory the (ironically iconic) photograph of a hippie putting flowers in the muzzle of a soldier's rifle. Do "youze" guys remember it?


----------



## Mate

danielfranco said:


> I often equate this orgasmic demonstration of iconoclastic idiosyncrasy (or is it "idiosyncratic iconoclasm"?) with the punk-rock of the 70's...
> 
> 
> 
> So do I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But "Hippism", to me, always calls up in my memory the (ironically iconic) photograph of a hippie putting flowers in the muzzle of a soldier's rifle. Do "youze" guys remember it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I remember that picture Daniel, but I think there's a lot more to it:
> 
> _"When we heard about the hippies, the barely more than boys and girls who decided to try something different... we laughed at them. We condemned them, our children, for seeking a different future. We hated them for their flowers, for their love, and for their unmistakable rejection of every hideous, mistaken compromise that we had made throughout our hollow, money-bitten, frightened, adult lives."_
> Author: June Jordan
> From: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hippie
> 
> Mateamargo, the hippiest of all gauchos
Click to expand...


----------



## .   1

danielfranco said:


> But "Hippism", to me, always calls up in my memory the (ironically iconic) photograph of a hippie putting flowers in the muzzle of a soldier's rifle. Do "youze" guys remember it?


It was and remains one of the most beautiful moments ever televised.
It is iconic to the degree that it has been referenced on The Simpsons.
We I allowed to pose a such thread I would ask that question.
What is the most beautiful moment you have ever seen televised?
I bet that the flower being more powerful than the gun would rank highly.

.,,


----------



## Mate

Mateamargo said:


> My turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) In your opinion, was the Hippie a movement, a culture, a sub-culture or any other thing worth defining?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a sub-culture, a stem from the "left culture" (if the "left" can be defined as a culture).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Whatever it was is there anything related to hippies (values, costumes, ways, anything at all) that could have influenced your society or culture?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact there are so many -most of them already enumerated by other foreros- that the list would be too long, and I'm too lazy  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Is that influence –if any- still noticeable?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell yeah! (as said before by a new-aged hippie who does not want to get pissed)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Do you believe that hippism is dead all right or do you foresee any possibility for one or more of its features to come back full force?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not dead at all. It lives inside many of us, even inside some people that are totally unaware of that.
> 
> I've got a feeling, a feeling deep inside, oh yeah!: "hippism" can't come back because it never really left.
> 
> Mateamargo
Click to expand...


----------



## Bonjules

I am very sorry; I lived through that period too:
Whatever it was, it was by far not clearly enough defined and meant too many different things to too many peolple to deserve an '-ism'.
That's why I have never heard this strange coinage for
this phenomenon (although someone will undoubtedly
have found it on Google or Wiki); the only thing I can think of that comes close would be what is called
'hipismo' here in P.R.; it has to do with horses...

P.S. Anyway, if one still insists on '-ismhood' for this, 
it would have to be 'hippieism'. There you go.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

I saw two faces of hippidom when I was small, because two of my aunts departed radically from their rural Ontario Catholic roots.  One lived at the infamous Rochdale College in Toronto, and was just about disowned for taking me to stay with her when I was four years old.  I remember the scents of incense and marijuana, the extraordinarily hairy people in the hallways, the psychedelic flower stickers on all the walls, and the incredible view from the roof.  Although the experiment was a failure for many reasons, two publishing houses, several authors and a very successful play sprung from its ashes.  The other aunt, who had a degree in theoretical mathematics, was so repulsed by the conservative politics and academia at the time that she left for Mexico and spent the rest of her life living the life of a mystic/hermit/ one-woman ashram in the mountains of Oaxaca.  One felt that the best response to the flaws in society was to flee; the other to break societal rules publicly and deliberately.

All but one of the communes and collectives that were so common in this part of Ontario in the 70's are gone .... but the values of living simply, collective decision-making, and yes, protest against social injustice are still very much present around here.  Many are now Quakers and Unitarians, and now they dress up a little more formally for their protests.  British Columbia also has a sizeable collection of people who would have been called hippies earlier, who live the same sort of anti-establishment values.  Abundant sex and pot don't feature largely in their lives, though.


----------



## don maico

Mateamargo said:


> 1) In your opinion, was the Hippie a movement, a culture, a sub-culture or any other thing worth defining?
> 
> 2) Whatever it was is there anything related to hippies (values, costumes, ways, anything at all) that could have influenced your society or culture?
> 
> 3) Is that influence –if any- still noticeable?
> 
> 4) Do you believe that hippism is dead all right or do you foresee any possibility for one or more of its features to come back full force?
> 
> Please feel free to share any comment regardless the questions above. Just try to stay on topic   .
> 
> Mateamargo


A) I guess a subculture. "Ive been there done it and wore the t shirt" as we say. Only got the tail end ie 1970 when I was 17 and my teenage rebellious stage was about to start.What defines it for me is the fact that young people were prepared to state their individuality, ridding themselves of so many social conventions which they saw as oppresive. "Turn on ,tune in and drop out"( Leary ) became buzzwords together with all the paraphenalia of language borrowed from across the pond- "Hey man, stay cool" etc. Clothing became as shambolic , colourful and dishevelled as to shock the mainstream and attitudes, whilst passive and non violent, bore the resemblance of two firmly held fingers pointing straight to the sky ( or in the US the single middle finger) " Swivel on it , man"
B)Very little . hippies were viewed very much as outsiders, contemptible because they rejected the norms of hard work, aspiration and leading a conventional lifetsyle. The drug taking was a big negative issue as well. Maybe  few artistic/ bohemian  types or those who live an existentialist lifestyle would see some merit in it.Thinking about it there are certain sections in some  cities which display these tendencies. I'm thinking of San Telmo in Buenos Aires and the North Lanes in Brighton UK for eg.
c)Read b)
d)I think there will always be a small minority of people who feel that mainstream society offers them little and would therefore prefer a more hippie lifestyle.Indeed we still have some who label themselves New Age Gypsies and who roam around the country in old buses camping out in any old piece of ground they can find.Sadly the public at large profoundly disapproves of them.


----------



## pejeman

Mateamargo said:


> ______________________________________________________________
> 
> This said I will kindly ask all foreros interested in this phenomenon to answer the following questions:
> 
> 1) In your opinion, was the Hippie a movement, a culture, a sub-culture or any other thing worth defining?
> 
> Whatever it was, it was worth beeing 20 in 1968. I did not have to go to war and it was fun to meet crazy people from the USA coming into Mexico. I did not have the courage to throw everything away and move into a comune, but I did not criticize to those who did it. The nusic was superb, with Jefferson Airpline, Deep Purple and all of them. Drinking alcohol and going out with girlfriends wouldn't had been fun without that music. When I was 10, music was boring, with trios like Los Panchos. Not to mention Eidy Gormee.
> 
> 
> 2) Whatever it was is there anything related to hippies (values, costumes, ways, anything at all) that could have influenced your society or culture?
> 
> Sure. The world became more interesting and free. My children did not have to go to deliver flowers to the church every day during the month of June (a Catholic tradition in my home town) and I guess they did not have to deal with that much guilt feeling I experienced every time I cursed. They call me on a first name basis
> 
> 3) Is that influence –if any- still noticeable? Yes, as I said.
> 
> 4) Do you believe that hippism is dead all right or do you foresee any possibility for one or more of its features to come back full force? It may be dead, but its influence is still in the air.
> 
> Please feel free to share any comment regardless the questions above. Just try to stay on topic   .
> 
> Mateamargo


 
Saludos y Amor y Paz, hermanos. Aliviánense, maestros, no le jalen muy duro la cuerda al papalote. Yo ya no puedo dar malos ejemplos, por eso doy buenos consejos.


----------



## Mate

Mateamargo said:


> 3) Is that influence –if any- still noticeable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *May I give you a hippie that is still around?: Bob Dylan.*
> 
> 
> _Dylan ha escrito canciones que tocan lugares de la mente a los que nadie antes había llegado_ (Jerry Garcia).
> _Al oírle pensé que un alma cogía la antorcha de América_ (Allen Ginsberg).
> _Actualmente hay un hueco generacional, porque los chavales de veinte años no tienen "Bobdylanes" de veinte años_ (Joaquín Sabina).
> _Bob Dylan es uno de esos personajes que sólo aparecen una vez cada 300 o 400 años_ (Leonard Cohen).
> _La obra de ciertos artistas habla por su generación. Una de las más grandes voces de libertad de Norteamérica no puede ser más que un nombre: el transcendental Bob Dylan_ (Jack Nicholson).
> _No he pretendido hacer algo donde se desvelen todos los secretos de Dylan, ni mucho menos, sino rendir un homenaje a uno de los poetas más brillantes del siglo, un hombre que hace que nos miremos a nosotros mismos, que nos emociona y nos hace sentir cosas que no sabríamos transmitir de otra manera_ (Martin Scorsese acerca de _No Direction Home_).
> Sorry, but I found no English translation for these quotations in the source.
> 
> Mateamargo
Click to expand...


----------



## danielfranco

Mateamargo said:


> Mateamargo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *May I give you a hippie that is still around?: Bob Dylan.*
> 
> 
> _Dylan ha escrito canciones que tocan lugares de la mente a los que nadie antes había llegado_ (Jerry Garcia).
> _Al oírle pensé que un alma cogía la antorcha de América_ (Allen Ginsberg).
> _Actualmente hay un hueco generacional, porque los chavales de veinte años no tienen "Bobdylanes" de veinte años_ (Joaquín Sabina).
> _Bob Dylan es uno de esos personajes que sólo aparecen una vez cada 300 o 400 años_ (Leonard Cohen).
> _La obra de ciertos artistas habla por su generación. Una de las más grandes voces de libertad de Norteamérica no puede ser más que un nombre: el transcendental Bob Dylan_ (Jack Nicholson).
> _No he pretendido hacer algo donde se desvelen todos los secretos de Dylan, ni mucho menos, sino rendir un homenaje a uno de los poetas más brillantes del siglo, un hombre que hace que nos miremos a nosotros mismos, que nos emociona y nos hace sentir cosas que no sabríamos transmitir de otra manera_ (Martin Scorsese acerca de _No Direction Home_).
> Sorry, but I found no English translation for these quotations in the source.
> 
> Mateamargo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are nice quotes, but I always thought Dylan was more of a beatnik than a hippy. I guess this demonstrates how "unhip" I am. Or, since we all love political correctness, I am "hippism-challenged".
Click to expand...


----------



## .   1

danielfranco said:


> Mateamargo said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are nice quotes, but I always thought Dylan was more of a beatnik than a hippy. I guess this demonstrates how "unhip" I am. Or, since we all love political correctness, I am "hippism-challenged".
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Dylan is a performance poet and is beyond hippiness.
> In my opinion Bob Dylan is a minstrell or a troubadour who touches on the zeitgeist.
> 
> During the hippie era he may have been ever so slightly psychiadelic in music but I am not familiar with it.
> I would consider him to be more blues and folk.
> 
> .,,
Click to expand...


----------



## Mate

Mateamargo said:


> danielfranco said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are nice quotes, but I always thought Dylan was more of a beatnik than a hippy. I guess this demonstrates how "unhip" I am. Or, since we all love political correctness, I am "hippism-challenged".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dylan was barely 20 or younger when all the _hippie thing_ began. Nevertheless there is an undeniable _beatnik counterculture _influence to be found in his work and I quote: "_Ginsberg was close friends with Bob Dylan and toured with him on the Rolling Thunder Revue in 1975. Dylan cites Ginsberg and Kerouac as major influences." _
> (From Beat generation_) _
> 
> Since the line between beatnik and hippie is blurred you might be not as "unhip" as you think you are.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by again man!
> 
> 
> 
> . said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Dylan is a performance poet and is beyond hippiness.
> In my opinion Bob Dylan is a minstrell or a troubadour who touches on the zeitgeist.
> 
> During the hippie era he may have been ever so slightly psychiadelic in music but I am not familiar with it.
> I would consider him to be more blues and folk.
> 
> .,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good evening Sir,
> 
> I have trouble finding _zeitgeist_ in the English - Spanish dictionary.
> Dylan was -and still is- a troubadour and his style was -and continues to be- folk, blues and of course rock and roll!.
> 
> All the best!
> 
> Mateamargo
> 
> 
> Ps. Perhaps I should have posed question 2) : "Whatever it was is there anything related to hippies (values, costumes, ways, anything at all) that could have influenced your society or culture?" instead of 3) : "Is that influence –if any- still noticeable?"
Click to expand...


----------



## don maico

Mateamargo said:


> Mateamargo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dylan was barely 20 or younger when all the _hippie thing_ began. Nevertheless there is an undeniable _beatnik counterculture _influence to be found in his work and I quote: "_Ginsberg was close friends with Bob Dylan and toured with him on the Rolling Thunder Revue in 1975. Dylan cites Ginsberg and Kerouac as major influences." _
> (From Beat generation_) _
> 
> Since the line between beatnik and hippie is blurred you might be not as "unhip" as you think you are.
> 
> Thanks for dropping by again man!
> 
> 
> 
> G'day Robert! How they hangin'!
> 
> I have trouble finding _zeitgeist_ in the English - Spanish dictionary. Is it Yiddish?
> Dylan was -and still is- a troubadour and his style was -and continues to be- folk, blues and of course rock and roll!.
> 
> All the best, mud in your eye mate!
> 
> Mate-amargo
> 
> 
> Ps. Perhaps I should have posed question 2) : "Whatever it was is there anything related to hippies (values, costumes, ways, anything at all) that could have influenced your society or culture?" instead of 3) : "Is that influence –if any- still noticeable?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist
Click to expand...


----------



## .   1

*Zeitgeist *_German _*n*the spirit, attitude, or general outlook of a specific time or period especially as it is reflected in literature, philosophy etcetera. [German, literally; spirit-time]

It is in reasonbly general use in English and is about as common as another borrowing from German, _schadenfreude._

In general use it means 'the spirit of the times'.
A person who touches the zeitgeist is absolutely hip or cool at that moment.


.,,


----------



## TRG

I agree that Dylan was hip, but neither a hippie or a beatnik. In his autobiography, "Chronicles", he states(according to a review at Amazon) that much of his music was designed to alienate his audience and free him from the burden of being the voice of a generation.

If you want a broader reflection on the social upheaval of the 1960's, get a copy of Tony Judt's book "Postwar - A history of Europe since 1945", and read chapter 12.


----------



## dtcarney

From what I've experienced at college in the past few years there isn't such a visible hippy influence  as much as average students holding simular beliefs as the hippies of the 60s/70s.  Sure there are the ones with blonde dreadlocks and sporting Grateful Dead T shirts, but on the whole there are more students who look clean clut but who listen to Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane etc. and hold anti-conformist views.


----------



## Mate

dtcarney said:


> Sure there are the ones with blonde dreadlocks and sporting Grateful Dead T shirts, but on the whole there are more students who look clean clut but who listen to Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane etc. and hold anti-conformist views.


 
By reading the above I understand -and please correct me if I miss your point- that hippie sub-culture is still alive inside most of the average college students. 
But ther are also a few _rara avis _who still believe that a _hippie looks_ is _a must,_ some sort of a tribal sign that must be understood by everybody just in order to realize that those rare birds are _the real thing_.

Thanks for your intersting input - Mate


----------

