No problem. And I'm neither resentful, angry or jealous. But I do get tired of hearing about how we (the sixties generation) changed the world. There were individuals who inspired change. But we as a group didn't accomplish much. Taking credit for whatever progress was made is much like the couch potato assuming at least partial responsibility for his team's winning touchdowns. And, yes, the music was far better. --Db
Good post...touche! But still, the fact remains that literally millions participated in protests and marches and really did ultimately make a difference. And while it may be arrogant to say "we made a difference", it really is true. But the "we" are not to be patted on the back because "we" were any better (or worse) than any other generation as humans. We just happened to have lived in at time of great turmoil and social upheaval. It probably had more to do with growing up under the threat of nuclear war with the USSR than anything else. This constant cloud of death hanging over our heads was enough to give us an attitude that we could try and make changes....try and make things better. At no real risk, because what could be worse than a worldwide nuclear war. Which was, we believed, an inevitability. What we were born into sucked. Ever hear about the "duck and cover" exercises we had to do when we were little kids in school? Imagine what that was like psychologically. Then the Cuban missile crises had us all convinced we were going to die. That week. Hardly any doubt about it. But our President saved us. And not long after he saved us, he was murdered. So we were looking for better times. Then along came the Beatles with long hair, and that was different. And the early hippies, who flaunted society. And that was different. So basically, we just wanted DIFFERENT. And this motivated many of us to try and make a difference. Even the Vietnam War was not a big issue until years later. In 1964, '65, '66, and into '67, this was a back burner issue. Selma Alabama was an issue. Little Rock was an issue. Lester Maddox was an issue. Nixon was of course always an issue, as was LBJ, who could never fill the shoes of JFK, who we all admired. And mourned. We were young and we were innocent. But we were also brought up in an atmosphere of extreme fear. Could we be blamed for wanting change? Peace, rs7
While it's true that many of us did want change, we part company on the "making a difference" issue. JFK made a difference, as did RFK and Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King. But as a generation, we were largely ineffectual. We created a lot of drama, particularly in Chicago in '67 and at Kent State. But we had nothing to do with the Viet Nam pullout. That was the result of television, which, for the first time, brought the ground war into American homes, blood and death and all. And we had absolutely nothing to do with bringing Nixon down. Yes we marched and demonstrated and sat in. Many of us actually went to jail. But what we accomplished mostly was getting ROTC and Dow Chemical thrown off campus. The desire for change is a common after-effect of war. That's pretty much what the twenties were all about. And the changes in race relations and the role of women were dramatic after WWII. And that carried over into the fifties, which, one might claim, was the era of real change: Rosa Parks, Bill Haley, Elvis Presley, James Dean, Marlon Brando, the transistor. Whenever I begin to think what hot stuff we were, I remember the newsreel footage of kids our age throwing rocks at the blacks in Little Rock wanting nothing more than to go to school. And hangings continued throughout the decade. The sixties were a great time and I had a lot of fun. But I don't kid myself that we were some driving force. If that were true, how on earth did Nixon get elected? --Db
I think we really did have an impact on the ending of Vietnam. Yes, it was tv and the media. But we brought the media to the issue. (BTW, Chicago was '68, not ,67) And if you remember, the rallying cry was "The Whole World is Watching"...so yeah, it was about getting attention and exploiting the media to make change. I agree...only Nixon could bring down Nixon. Also, obviously you are 100 % correct about Rosa Parks, JFK, RFK, King, etc. Not many can have their kind of impact. But the "kids our age" throwing rocks at James Meredith were the product of their environment. And kids (a little older than us) rode the Freedom Buses to make changes in that injustice. Some died. "Mississippi Burning". No doubt about it. The sixties had no monopoly on change. Just IMO it was a time of far greater than average change, and involved a FAR FAR greater number of participants (no matter how effective or ineffective their efforts were...they showed up!). As for how Nixon got elected....here's a theory. Tell me if I am wrong. I don't know if I am right....like I said, just a theory.. "LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?"...sound familiar? So we (or enough of us) protested the war, and LBJ did not run for re-election. (After winning in maybe the biggest landslide election ever in '64). Then the Democratic Convention in Chicago (you mentioned) was made into a farce by the demonstrators and the Chicago Police Department (on orders from Daley). So my theory is these events brought the Democrats to a halt. They looked bad, and came up with a decent but totally un-charismatic candidate (Humphrey). So Nixon slithered in. Peace, rs7 BTW, I did not realize you were of that generation. You really believed we all stayed stoned for the ensuing 30 years???? And if you are of "my generation" then I apologize for making an inaccurate assumption and lumping you in with that other guy in my "Plato's Retreat" crack.
We'll have to disagree about the media. They were up on things even before Madam Nhu came calling. But the kind of reporting they were able to do was unprecedented, as was the graphic nature of it. And after a certain number of years of blood and guts on the six o'clock news, even Walter Cronkite buckled. That gave America permission to rebel. And we didn't stay stoned for the ensuing 30 years (except maybe for Dennis Hopper). But a lot more people than is generally thought were just having fun. After we skulked away from Viet Nam and Nixon was toppled, it's as if everybody lost interest. So we all turned to disco. And you're probably right about the Democrats. Humphrey was the worst possible choice. Although I've always suspected that the reason they nominated him was to show that they couldn't be cowed by the demonstrators. If we'd just have shut up, perhaps McCarthy would have had a better chance. --Db
optional, i think you need to calm down a little. war, however necessary it might be at times (without getting into a discussion of whether or not this one was), is always a tragic event. i don't think anybody would disagree with that. your big hang seems to be not that some people might profit from the event that is occurring, but how they feel about such profits. i don't know what good it does for you to always be getting so upset over other peoples' behavior (it hasn't helped you any, has it?). why not just accept that some people will feel differently about things to you.. in any case, as i said, i think just about everyone (99.999%) would agree that it's sad to see people having to die in a war. sure, given the pressures of trading, some people might exclaim, "phew.. that was a nice trade...thanks saddam!", but do you think they REALLY mean it? come on dude.. another thing, i wonder if these people that get so worked up over this war that they find it hard to live their lives get similarly worked up over all the other tragedies that occur ALL THE TIME in the world? i doubt it. i would be willing to bet they don't even have a clue what other tragedies (some, if you ask me, a lot bigger than iraq), are occurring. the only reason they care so much about iraq is because it's constantly on the news.. my take on it is, that, like i said above, while it's obviously tragic that a war is happening, there's really very little my moaning and crying will do, and it's something that had to happen. (and in the end, the world will actually be better off for it, imo). in the meantime, i'm gonna do as i always do, and trade through whatever miserable events are happening in the world. also, for those of you disgusted by this war to the point of paralysis, you might consider how far humanity has come. we used to cut off our enemy's heads and parade them around town. it's nice to think we've grown beyond this to the point where we feel genuine compassion for the other side's dead. so, as much of a "monster" man may still be, he sure has come a long, long way.
nicely said aphie. obviously the facts of reality really gnaw at the touchy feely PC crowd... aphie didn't say that never crying is what makes someone a man, simply that women are far, FAR more likely to cry about certain things than men are.... apparently, it's become cool (if you listen to the SNAGs) to just let yourself become overwhelmed by your emotions and parade them for everybody to see.... BALONEY the fact is, if we want to grow as people, we need to become consciously aware of which emotions serve us and which don't. i can't imagine that anyone here really thinks that bursting out crying over every single thing that doesn't go your way is actually a healthy (or intelligent) way to live your life... that's not meant to say "real men never cry"... that's obviously not true at all. but saying that "women tend to cry a lot more often than men BECAUSE they get a lot more emotional over the same things than men" is absolutely true. on the whole, i think women's propensity to be slaves to the way they happen to be feeling in any given moment goes a long way to explain why the most important jobs in the world are held down by men.
I am calm. Part of being calm, is being able to see the contrast between the American way, which is compassion in our fellow man's plight, and the barbarians who care nothing about anyone but themselves. When I see Americans acting like the barbarians, I point that out. Shouldn't we be the first to call out "ugly American" behavior when we see it, so that maybe people will re-evaluate their perspectives and priorities in life? If the barbarians feel no shame, there is little that can be done. Most Americans have a conscience, and a conscious awareness of the value of all life of all human beings. Most Americans conscience pushes them in the direction of living by the golden rule, doing unto others what they would like to have done to themselves. Then, we have the minority of Americans who have no conscience, and live by the narcissistic rule of "do unto others before they get a chance to do it to you." Fortunately, we still have a spiritual base in this country, but at times like these, the bad apples do tend to spoil the whole bunch just a bit.
Just read this entire thread. :eek: Had to say... Every generation likes their own music and thinks it is the best. Saying that the 60s had the best music "ever" is damn annoying. Get your head out of your ass. I would say the best music is the music I grew up with (80s & 90s). That's what every generation does, fools!! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...period. PEACE AND LOVE, HIPPIES.. FRuiTY P.S. WHEN I HEAR THE DOORS COME ON THE RADIO, I USUALLY CHANGE THE STATION. HA HA HA TAKE THAT, HIPPIES! TAKE SOME MORE HITS FROM THE BONG AND HAVE SEX WITH YOUR HAIRY SELVES. LOL HEHE HEHE P.P.S. BELL BOTTOMS ARE COMING BACK; YES, IT'S TRUE... So get them out of your closet if you want to be "hip" for another decade.... (if they still fit). FRuiTY P. is on the cutting edge of style and knows what is up. In a few years, all the young people will be wearing them. Watch.....