The video we watched in class about the Democratic National convention in 1968 really shocked me. After studying the civil rights movement and seeing the mistreatment by the police, this shouldn’t have surprised me. I assumed that our government would not let events of discrimination and abuse, like this one, continue to happen. I would never have thought that so many police officers would have acted in the terrible manner they did. To see police officers beating students who were on the ground angered me. I argue that the riot police caused the violence and terrible outcome of the protest.

The terrible action of the police makes it clear that they caused the violence. The police didn’t understand why these college students would be coming to disrupt a convention, and were completely disconnected from the thoughts of the student movement. This frustrated the riot police so they already did not think kindly of them. These officers were definitely not treated the most kindly. The protestors were very different from protestors during the civil rights movement. These students were not trained like the civil rights protestors, and didn’t know how to act in all situations. They began to cuss and throw rocks at the officers, which isn’t very smart. However, the reaction of the riot police was horrific. The police began rushing into the crowd, swatting at anyone and everyone with there wooden sticks. When people fell down, they would beat them and throw them into a van. They completely abused the protestors and treated them completely wrong. The riot police should have been able to handle the situation; there was no need for the actions they took. They needed to act in some way to stop the rock throwing, but violence was not the answer.

When we were kids...

The students don't like society. There are some major problems that bother the conscience. And thus, it's important to try to change the status quo, the way of looking at things. I guess the statement provides a sort of intellectual base for the movement. Or is it just-- the beginning it has to be? We start with values. We start with basic, core values based on I guess the sort of people we are and build our reason from there, or we try to pursue those values. And this is a statement of what society is and how it troubles the conscience and conflicts with their values. Racism is obviously wrong, but I don't know that this statement would change many people's racist attitudes; most racists would probably not bother reading it. But the statement shows the students have some idea of what they're doing. And they know how they may look to the public, which is arguably important enough to acknowledge. And, it may have inspired other students to activism. It's a statement of identity; there is emotion in the language. Emotion and intelligence; and a person who is aware of the problems, on reading this, might decide to actually get involved. There is something of an appeal to ego, or self-identity. To which category of people will one belong?

There are counterarguments. Well, one was mentioned: the questions aren't "considered of a fruitful, empirical nature (I think that's how it went). Empirical-- well, yes and no. Fruitful-- like, could something good come of this? Is that the meaning? I would think something very good could come of reforming society, that's certainly the idea.

Maybe the idea those who dismiss the students is that, politics is basically just an opinion. It would be a waste of time to consider your questions and ideas.

But I think that's obviously not the case. In a sense, just about everything is politics, having a university to begin with is a part of politics. What we have here isn't math and it's tricky and it sometimes people get too much into group think, well, we're liberal, liberal apparently means A and B and C, or conservative, meaning other letters, but-- how society is run, who gets what, how people treat each other-- these are important issues. Feeling welcome, having a sense of independence, I think these are sort of fundamental values, so it makes sense to reason how they may be achieved.

So, here's a statement by people who were serious and meant to change society. I like it-- the idea of trying to change society for the better rather than living as careless people who celebrate their newfound freedom by making stupid, typical mistakes. (bit of a tangent there, but)

“The oldest fallacy in the world is that anything that makes you angry must be bad.” Well put, Mr. Strait. I could not agree more with this statement. Throughout history, human beings have more often than not rejected anything that was not suited for them. Why? Is there really any point? It is hard to believe that there is only one right, only one appropriate, only one proper way of living live. It fact, it is impossible to believe.
In his article, “What is a Hippie”, Guy Strait applied this statement, this theory, to counterculture youth and their historically infamous lifestyle. They did not follow the mainstream. They did not do what was expected of them. They dared to be different. Does that make them bad? It is not like they woke up one morning, got together, and decided “Today we think we will turn this nation upside down for no reason whatsoever.” It was not like that at all. They had ideas, they had theories, and most of all they had well thought-out justifications for their decisions.
Hippies saw the inherent discontent in the standard American way of living. Americans attended the best schools they could, got the best education they could, found the best jobs they could, wed the best spouses they could, earned the most money they could, and raised they best children they could, but at the end of they day they were still discontented. Their lives were still incomplete.
America’s youth did not want to grow up unhappy, and they decided to attack the problem at its root – so what was the problem? After reading this article, I cannot seem to find any flaws in what can be described as nothing other than true, honest to God ambition.

If you had asked me before I registered for this class what the 1960s and anti-war movements were all about, I would of naturally answered something to the effect of "hippies and drugs." However, after watching the video from Wednesday and reading the articles from the course packet I have realized how wrong those generalizations were.
The biggest issue surrounded the idea that I thought most anyone who had protested the war was a hippie with "bells and spangles, long hair, feathers, beads, earrings and buttons, paisley skirts, shirts, blouses, ties and pants" as mentioned in the Sixties Papers, an "imaginative fashion;" and I had no reason to think otherwise. Those are the images we have been shown from that decade, with it's emphasis on music, love, community and experimentation. Nonetheless, I feel that this is an important issue that has not been addressed in most general history courses.
Especially after watching the documentary from Wednesday this notion has been strengthened. Those people from Chicago were not all hippies, either by look or ideals. John Hayden (forgive me if I have the name wrong) was clean-shaven, with hair of a reasonable length, but he was arguably leading the anti-war demonstration. Not all of them at the Chicago demonstration were even young adults. The gentlement vying for a non-violent demonstration (whose name escapes me) was out there in a coat and tie; there were respectable-looking figures in the Democratic convention protesting the war. Regardless how they dressed however, this anti-war movement, liked the civil rights movement, was a huge historical event. The rise of this "New Left" created such a rift in the fabric of government and action, that such acts of brutality occurred and it was American vs. American. Another civil war? Hardly. Atrocious? Most definitely.
If normal history courses even make it past World War II, all that is mentioned about the 1960s is Vietnam, Johnson and the hippies. I think that there is hordes of other information that should be added to the normal curriculum, because these facts are worth mentioning. This was not a time full of those who "tuned-in, turned-on and dropped out;" this was a decade full of myriad groups that were all against the war and I feel this is important.

As an on-looker of the past Vietnam War, we often overlook some of the problems of our involvement of the war that were more important than the fighting itself. As this speech shows, as early as April of 1965, Americans were extending out in hopes to end the war. The war, along with tearing apart lives, families and villages, was tearing apart the freedom for which our country stands.
Paul Potter begins his great rhetorical speech - in Washington with a crowd of 25,000 -by giving a simple explanation for why America needs to depart Vietnam. The facts are simple, we were creating an Orwellian society, spending billions of dollars, loosing thousands of men, and doing the exact opposite of what we entered the war to do; extend freedom. A pathos feel is extended to the crowd as he describes how we completely obliterate the Vietnam land and people. Still worst of all, we are infringing on their culture and the things which give their lives purpose. The way Potter examines this situation brings a satire of our American system in that we were supposedly in Vietnam to give a culture of freedom to the people. After many strong examples of the trauma being caused to our society by Vietnam, Potter insists a causal claim, stating that our problems do not lie within other countries, but within our American system itself. We had no business being in Vietnam. If one small country became communist, then so be it; at least they will have a country and citizens, and we would still eventually unite. While America was fighting a war for freedom, he took away that very thing from his allies and own citizens. Potters proposal was very blunt and effective: the movement must grow to a level where the American “system” breaks down. This idea relates to the successful Civil Rights Movement, and gives optimism for the crowd because it has been proven to work.
Potter makes a great argument, which makes it extremely surprising that the war lasted almost seven years after this speech in Washington. The hippie culture is praised by him, and encouraged to continue to grow with the movement in hopes to create an end to the current American system which enthralls them, as well as the innocent Vietnamese.
David Weibel

Annoying, dirty, filthy, obnoxious, and weird are a couple of words that could pretty much some up what I thought about hippies. But after reading “What Is a Hippie?” by Guy Strait it gave me another perspective on hippies and how they act and why they act the way they do. The first thing that came to mind when I thought of hippies was the way they looked. To me it was strange and the complete opposite from normal and as Strait says that appearance was the main reason the community acted out so angry against the hippies. They so-called “normal” people didn’t understand why the hippies dressed the way they did, all they saw and as well as all I thought was that they just wanted to rebel against what was right, they just wanted to start trouble. But as Strait explains that “the straight world [was] a jungle of taboos, fears, and personality” (310). And it was interesting to hear Strait compare the world to a jungle where normal people used a “protective coloring: the camouflage of respectable appearance” (310). Viewing our world as one big jungle where everyone is in fight and out to prey on one another by wearing camouflage to keep from being seen was a way I had not looked at the world. Then I realized that it was the hippies who stood out in their appearance from the normal world and in that they were a danger to the rest of the world. They weren’t camouflaged like everyone else and it made the traditional world angry and Strait reminds his reader of “the oldest fallacy in the world” (311) where “anything that makes you angry must be bad” (311). I had always seen hippies as dressing different because they wanted to rebel against the norm and wanted to stand out to create controversy and confusion and instead they didn’t want to be one of the few to camouflage in and prey on one another. Another point that Strait made was interesting that it caused me to realize what he was saying was actually true and still is true today. The world focuses in on “steady lucrative employment, and the accumulation through the years of possessions and money, building security for the future (311). So true is it even today our society thinks that money will bring us happiness and in fact it doesn’t. We tend to focus on what we think will make us happy and “wind up old and tired, alienated from [our] children and just as often…from the other” (311). Strait’s definition of why hippies abandoned the traditional world and what was “normal” opened my own eyes to my own world and made me realize that they weren’t just rebelling to stand out from the crowd and they weren’t just trying to cause mischief and danger in the world, but were actually trying to open their own society’s eyes to what was really going on in their world.

I was surprised to read about a see the division that existed in the Democratic party. The party was split over the Vietnam war. Eugene McCarthy put together an anti-war campaign whereas Hubert Humphrey proposed a plan that resembled LBJ’s policy. War protesters took every opportunity to protest the war leading to the breakout of riots. Seeing the riots and disagreement was almost unreal. I have watched the past few Democratic National Conventions and I got the sense that all they were was a chance to say how great the Democratic party was, degrade the opposition, and garner support from the public. The inner division of the party was a great shock to me. I could not believe that there was disagreement during the actual convention. When the anti-war protesters began singing “We Shall Overcome” the DNC’s band attempted to drown them out. Watching the video, this looked very childish. The riots were even crazier. Protesters took to the street and police beat anyone that got in the way of their clubs.

I believe the Democratic party was destined to lose the election after such a disagreement. Whenever a party is split down the middle, members should not expect a victory during an election.

After watching all of the footage from the UC Berkeley student movement, I realized that hippies had it good. Even though they were publicly ostracized by more prominent individuals, compared to their more tame peers, they were quite well-off. As far as their progress within the university, they pushed the envelope in order to earn the constitutional rights that were being taken from them. If it weren’t for their vigor and passion, many students might still be without their fundamental right to free speech and peaceful assembly. These hippies stood up to the administration with such a unified force, that their effect was powerful and inevitable. Their rebellion paved the way for numerous other movements because it proved that the underdog could prevail. By taking a non-violent stance on the issue, they were certain to overcome the tyrannical supervision. Just as the civil rights movement had reached its goal through patient protest, so too did the student movement. By attracting attention to the violence being imposed on them, these hippies changed the face of society. Although they were still considered out-of-line, the hippies continued to protest. They simply did not care how the troubled higher-ups thought of them, because it was these stifling attitudes that kept the students tied down in the first place. They felt it was their duty to promote peace and freedom. The Vietnam War was a huge part of their platform because it gave them an opportunity to cling to something meaningful to them and hopefully have a say in it. I would love to spend days just listening to music in a park, not caring how society looked down on me. I can understand how dancing freely all day would appeal to them. Not only did it attract attention to their cause, but it did so in a manner that was befitting of the hippies standards. They seemed harmless enough, but that was because our government underestimated them. Their spirit of happiness lifted them to create one of the most recognized periods of American history. These drugged protestors changed our country.

I think this article was interesting to read. I agree with the students when they were saying they felt like their campus was being taken over- that they had a right to be there and the national guard didn't. If I show up to class one day and find around 100 men with guns lining up, I am going to be angry also. I think that during this time many people didn't know how to react to demonstrations like this. The national guard should have been better trained to not let themselves get overwhelmed and turn the situation worse. That is what happened at Kent State. Yes, I do agree that the students did not have the right to throw rocks at the guardsmen. However, I believe that probably happened because every other way in which they could show their defiance against what was happeneing was stopped. The use of tear gas among the roits, not just at Kent but everywhere, was too widely used. When the students began throwing it back towards the national guards, I think it was a very strong, bold move. It showed the guards that they were not going to leave but it may have also helped to have led to the violence that occured. No matter how provoked, unless the guards really felt like their lives were being threatened, their was no excuse for fires being shot. The killing of these students was an event that could have been completely avoided. I think that if the administration would have just allowed the students to meet and had given them one place where they could, a lot of the events that occured at Kent could have been avoided. I think that the administration did not know how to respond to a situstion like that, so rather then learn and look at past incidences of this occuring, for example the one at Berkely, they may have had a better idea of how to handle the situation. I think the sixties was a time in history where a lot was learned- not just by the students but also by the enitre US population. I truly believe that the sixites changed our country forever. I think that individualism is much more accepted now because of the sixties. I also believe though that in today's world, a movement like that happening, at that size and force in unlikely. I believe that our society today is much more involved in their own lives to have something like this form. What I am trying to say by that is that today students are much more sheltered by what is going on in when we are at war. Our lives and way of living did not change since the war started. If someone never watched the news or read a newspaper it is possible that they wouldn't even know that a war was going on. And I am no different then a lot of those people, my life and what I am doing doesn't stop everytime their is a anti-war demonstration like many students lives had in the sixties. Its just interesting to to see how different the two generations responded to war.

A Hippie is someone who appreciates life as it comes and wants nothing more than to live it to its fullest extent. To worry about nothing but the clothes on their back and the shoes on their feet, what’s mine is your and visa versa.
Guy Straight’s definition of a Hippie encapsulates what their lives were all about and why they chose to live it that way. “Normal” people simply rebelled against them because they were different. That’s usually how such a controversy happens. Any one who has ever strayed away from the herd has been thought unusual and anger is brought upon them for causing change. It is the only way that people who can’t handle change deal with it.
Hippies understood the meaning of life and what it should mean to be a human. Life isn’t about material things and who has more of them. It is about reconstructing a poor society or spreading peace to a warring nation. Guy Straight brings up a valid point when he says questions what good has come to those who have slaved away for years and all they end up showing for it is stress and anxiety and ending up old and tired. It is all about building your own future and what you can make of it with the things that really matter in your life such as yourself and what you believe in. It will get you farther in life to stop thinking about who has more than you and to start thinking about what you could be doing to help those who don’t even have what you have.
Unfortunately we still see these same norms today. Our society is still built up on materialistic values and about who has the nicer car or the bigger television. Advertising has ruined our society. It convinces us that we need to want more in order to feel “normal” and satisfied. It is a concept that seems to be growing worse as the world ages. If only we could hold on to the spiritual ideals of the hippies and learn a thing or two about dropping our selfish ways and digging deeper into ourselves to figure out that the things we really do need in our lives are the things we cannot put a price tag on.

The war in Vietnam was growing and student protests were being staged everywhere. This was a war that the students felt we did not belong in, and the truth is we were not really wanted there either. More people would die in this conflict than in the previous Korean conflict. All the students wanted to know is why we there and what our country men were dying for.
Protests were happening on campuses throughout the country. On the campus of Kent State University in Kent, Ohio on there was a peaceful protest by the students. The Ohio National Guard gunned down the protesters killing 4 coeds and injuring 11 others.
The weekend prior to Monday, May 4th clashes between police and students resulted in broken windows and other property damage. There were many broken windows but none of the damage seemed just cause for murder. That Monday as the guards under orders from school official began to march towards the students to break up their assembly. Rocks thrown by some of the male students at the guards that were in full riot gear. The rocks could have caused injury but not death. This is where the line is crossed, and the events of the past week and the breakdown of communication reached. But, is this just cause for murder? Were the guards lives in danger?
The students were tense, yet peaceful. Animosity was strong between the two sides, the students felt the soldiers were on their turf not allowing them to go to class and were not told that they were asked to be there by the school.

-67 Shots Fired
-13 Seconds
-9 Wounded
-4 Killed

I feel the gaurd that day had had enough, operating on little sleep and pushed by young punks throwing rocks and calling them “pigs” but by negotiating with bullets not words, neglecting the student rights given to us, for the public servants to protect. Their first amendment rights did not protect these students. These were young people with a future. Several wrongs resulted in the deaths of these students. All were preventable. This was a relative small campus in a relative small town. The police, school, and city officials did a poor job of communicating with the students. The students by breaking windows and destroying a campus building were also wrong. These wrongs still do not excuse the death of 4 people 2 of which may have had nothing to do with the protests other than just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

After I read the excerpt about Hippies entitled “What is a Hippie?” my views of hippies have changed dramatically. Before reading this and doing a little research on the Internet, hippies to me were just a bunch of dirty potheads in tie-dye. Many people feel the same way that I did. We feel this way because no one has told us other wise.

The term hippie describes the rebellious youth of the 1960’s. Hippies were greatly influenced by the music of the counterculture. Hippies were interested in “tuning into their inner minds” (wikipedia.com), with or without the use of drugs. So not all hippies were potheads, like I thought. Another goal of the hippie generation was to improve mainstream society. So that shows that they weren’t just about drugs, promiscuous sex, and tie-dye, they actually had a goal. They would organize and participate in peaceful protest to protest the Vietnam War among other things that were going on at the time. Some of these protests include the USA marches on Washington, civil-rights marches, and anti-war demonstrations, which includes the 1968 Democratic Convention.

So I think that hippies got a bad reputation just because some of the older people didn’t agree with what they were protesting or wearing, or the life style that they chose. Its sad that they have the reputation of being just dirty potheads, instead of getting recognized as a group that greatly influenced many Americans.

In the reading “What is a Hippie?” Guy Strait makes a good argument when he talks about the “straight” people saying to the hippies “But you’ve got to build a future for yourself. If you don’t support yourself, no one else is going to! It’s a hard world,” and the hippie replies, “And pray tell who makes it hard participating in the scramble for material ‘security’?” That one little excerpt says so much about the hippies and the straight people. It makes you think that the hippies have a point. If we weren’t so caught up in being the best looking and having the most money, we could make it easier on each other. In a way it makes living like a hippie seem ideal. The straight people thought that the hippies should just knock it off, get a job, and indulge in the material things that they do, but by standing by their beliefs and supporting their stance with good rhetoric, I think that the hippies make a compelling argument. So all in all I have learned that hippie doesn’t mean pothead, dirty, promiscuous, and tie-dye; instead to me it now means simple, courageous, peaceful, and idealistic.

After reading 20,000 pages of statements, speaking with 3,437 eyewitnesses and participants, watching 180 hours of film, and looking at 12,000 still photographs, the Walker Commission concluded on December 1, 1968 that the horrible events surrounding the 1968 Democratic National Convention were the result of a “police riot”.

After researching the riot occurring during the 1968 Democratic National Convention beyond the class readings, I still can’t believe what really happened. More precisely, my mind is not able to comprehend how this happened. The answer more simple than I am willing to admit: the riot occurred because those who whose job was to keep order (i.e. the police) intentionally provoked a peaceful crowd (i.e. the protesters) and therefore created a tragic disorder that our Nation’s police department would gratefully delete from its history. In Chicago of 1968, Anti-war demonstrators clashed with 11,900 Chicago police, 7500 Army troops, 7500 Illinois National Guardsmen and 1000 Secret Service agents over 5 days in a disgraceful event of America’s past.

As much as I don’t want to believe what I read and see, the accounts, film, eyewitnesses, and photographs are undeniable. The terrible images of this event are burned onto my mind. Skulls were cracked, innocent women were beaten bloody and unconscious, tear gas reigned, and police lines advanced through demonstrators like the Gestapo. In what was dubbed “Czechago”, the barbed-wire laced jeeps evoked images of Russian tanks in Prague. In reading about this event, I knew it was important, though I didn’t necessarily know what implications it would have on the future. In my further research, I learned Chicago ’68 was more than just a riot, but rather a watershed event and focal point of this decade already marked by dissension. More than any other event of the decade, I believe, the social conflicts of the Sixties were most vividly on display on the streets and parks of Chicago.

In Chicago ’68, I see so many of the conflicts of the time: New v. Traditional, Young v. Old, Left v. Right, Order v. Disorder. Dean Blobaum summarizes the importance of Chicago ’68 in the following way: “The eyes of the nation focused on Chicago and we decided who we were, what side we were on, and what we would fight for. Chicago changed minds, Chicago changed politics, Chicago changed the Left, Chicago changed the media, Chicago changed those who were here and those who watched from far away, and Chicago changed Chicago.” I now understand that the importance of Chicago ’68 should not be underestimated. Because it changed political and cultural institutions which affect us today, Chicago ’68 is as important in the past as it is for the future.

In reflecting on Chicago ’68, I feel quite embarrassed for our country. It is embarrassing that we claimed to be advocates of peace and justice while the enforcers of peace and justice directed a scene of real anarchy and terror. It is also just undeniably sad. The images of police officers beating kids my age to a bloody pulp makes me shudder. Though it is still difficult for me to accept the horrible reality of Chicago ’68, I find myself wondering if such an event could happen today in the United States, a mere 37 years later. I would argue no, but then again, I care barely believe that it did happen.

It is often said that the laws and police of our country are put in place and do what they do for our protection; however, once an event such as the chaos outside the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968 occurs, you begin to question such a statement. Were the thousands of canisters of tear gas sprayed into the faces of student protesters there for their protection? Was the student’s march to the Amphitheater, where the convention was taking place, really prohibited for their protection? Were the innocent cameramen and bystanders beaten unmercifully for their protection? Most importantly, were the police and National Guard even concerned about protecting and restoring order? The police unnecessarily sacrificed their responsibility to the law and protection of the citizens for their own anger and emotionally driven actions during the Chicago convention.
These questions spark the debate on who in fact really was at fault on the streets of Chicago. If the police were indeed stationed out on the streets and parks to ensure the protection of the city’s citizens, then whom in fact did they end up protecting? They certainly did not provide protection to the student protesters who were beat unconscious by their violent club swings. They also refused to provide protection to any innocent bystander or neutral news reporter who may have gotten within swinging range of their clubs. So what were the police doing out on the streets in response to mobs? Some may say they hoped to squash the mob before it could become something even bigger. This brings up the ultimate question: When is the line crossed from protecting a city to taking away people’s rights and liberties? When violence is brought down upon “persons who had broken no law, disobeyed no order, [and] made no threat” (Walker Commission 433), then it is safe to say, that line has far since been crossed. The “police riot” was not to save the city from a violent mob. The protesters got violent as a result of the police. Who is really the mob when the police are “[charging] people on motorcycles and [striking] about a dozen of them” (439) down to the ground? In no circumstance should the government or police forces ever possess the power to wreck destruction on a group of people as they did in Chicago. When “more than 60 (about 20%) [of the newsmen are] involved in incidents resulting in injury to themselves, damage to their equipment, or their arrest” (438), it is obvious that something is wrong. Regardless of many people’s defense that this was the necessary tactic to halt the mob, there is no excuse for the innocent injuries and the overly excessive beatings many of the protesters received. This was an all-out war upon the protesters and will always be remembered as one of the country’s worst cases of police brutality.

After reading this excerpt about Guy Strait attempting to define what true hippies were and how their decisions related to the traditional society they chose to give up, I realized that my prior thoughts about hippies were very biased and exaggerated. Ever since I was old enough to know what a hippie was, I was always taught to have a negative image of them. Growing up listening to my mother describe them as wild, loose potheads that only wanted to have fun and do nothing all day gave me the impression that hippies were only weirdos that went around saying ‘love and peace, man’ and weren’t a productive part of society. As you can see, my depiction of a hippie was very prejudiced, and after reading what Strait defined them as allowed me to realize even more how far off my definition was. One of the main reasons why I had such a negative view of them was because of their appearance. The loud colors and designs along with the excessive hobo-like jewelry were the foundations for my beliefs, but I never thought about why they wanted to dress this way. I never considered what Strait viewed as the principal reason: “because they have thrown a lot of middle-class notions out the window and with them the most sensitive middle-class dogma: the neutral appearance” (310). By going against what traditional society considers the norm hippies exposed themselves to hate. People naturally try to conform to the society mold so they won’t be perceived as different and considered as a threat, but since hippies did the exact opposite they were “therefore a danger” to society (311). Not only did they want to abandon traditional appearance, they also “wanted no part of self-defeating goals” such as believing that everyone “must be all handsome or beautiful, sexually devastating, and owners of a staggering amount of recreational gadgetry” to not be “doomed to frustration” (312). That statement allowed me to see that hippies were not not productive and weird; they only wanted to escape the constraints of the man’s machine that didn’t allow them to enjoy a happy, expressive life. By going against traditional beliefs many people considered them as what I once perceived them as, but I now feel that hippies are normal individuals just like everyone else that only want to be free from the restraints of what the world views as normal.

It was students like Jerry Rubin that professors, law enforcement, and other authorities were terrified of. The excerpt from his book “Do It!” seems like it was written during an acid trip, with its references to sexual freedom and day-glow paint. In my mind, Jerry Rubin seems like a good representation of what a stereotypical hippie was like during the sixties because of his strong anti-establishment stance and radical methods.

Rubin’s views about the educational system in America are severe but at the same time very interesting. In his book, he compares taking a test to going to the bathroom and describes babies as “zen masters [that are] curious about everything” (446). Even though his way of thinking is a bit unconventional, many of his arguments do deserve some merit. Rubin stated that his “task [was] to destroy the university and make the entire nation a school with on-the-job training” (447). Personally, I think that going to school and learning in a classroom setting can be incredibly valuable, but I also agree that much can be learned outside of the university as well. Actually living life and interacting with different people can teach a person so much more than a 600-page textbook can. Rubin also makes a good argument when he points out that “teachers and students […] learn and teach from each other” (447). I agree that education can and should be based on reciprocity. In spite of his many off-the-wall analogies and possibly violent revolutionary ideas, Rubin makes some incredibly valid arguments concerning education.

Rubin’s discussion of the media is especially interesting because he was part of the infamous “Chicago Eight” that were accused of trying to start a riot during the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Rubin admits that “we take more chances when the press is there because we know whatever happens will be known to the entire world within hours. Television keeps us escalating our tactics” (442). Perhaps this helps to explain some of the actions on that day. The fact that there were cameras watching could have made the protesters try to act even more revolutionary. Televised police brutality upon middle-class students could cause more of the public to become sympathetic to their cause.

While I understand that making out in the middle of a lecture class or threatening to put acid in Chicago’s water system can be viewed as extreme, I still think that Jerry Rubin serves as a good representation of the youth during the sixties because of the way he expressed his individualism and questioned the status quo.

In elementary school I learned to be kind and respectful of other’s opinions. Young American children are socialized to know that if we want something we don’t hurt someone for it, we ask. Education majors are taught that a child surrounded by a diversity of opinions and culture ages with more advanced cognitive development. We are taught these lessons in reasoning all of our lives, and yet no one seems to practice it. Murder, war, divorce- all these things flourish in our society. After researching the violence of the 1960’s, I see a pattern- a key factor in the violence was a lack of reasoning.
The Vietnam War began from a lack of reasoning, trusting that the Pentagon Papers are true. Americans hated communism, but did they bother to research what a communist was? Some probably did, but many ignorantly feared that a person wanting social change was a communist. The government did not seem to care what Vietnam’s reasoning was for wanting to be a communist country- they just assumed it was wrong, and began a war. Yes there were other reasons for the war, such as imperialism, but I do not think the war would have happened if there wasn’t such an imbedded fear of communism spreading. The government had it set in their minds that communism was wrong, and it probably didn’t even matter what Vietnam’s reasoning was if the government even heard it. The government didn’t understand that not everyone will agree with them- that some distant countries might not agree with a capitalist democracy, but want a communistic society instead. So instead of acting on what any five year old can recite- to be respectful of other’s feelings- they murdered millions of innocent, harmless people with different opinions of their own. And what did that violence bring? Nothing. It didn’t prove anyone right, it didn’t bring any understanding. Call me idealistic- but couldn’t so much death be avoided if before getting angry at another’s opinions, people sat down calmly and tried to reason with each other?
Immature reasoning at the Chicago Democratic Convention erupted in violence between the cops and marchers. So what if the marchers were affluent brats, or if the cops were law-lovin’ pigs? Just because the cops didn’t agree with the marchers because they didn’t have a permit (and probably because of their political beliefs and reputations), and just because the marchers didn’t agree with the cops violating their rights does not mean that violence had to erupt. The cops could have at least arrested the marchers instead of beating the liberalism out of them. The marchers could have been mature instead of throwing their disgusting poop at the cops. True, the protestors did not have a permit to march and knew they had to leave Lincoln Park, but that still does not give cops the right to violently beat them. As Jeremy Larner describes it in “The Chicago Democratic Convention”, the cops acted as the “violence that smashed up anything it couldn’t understand.” Neither side cared to understand the other’s point of view, so they hurt each other instead.
It sincerely frustrates me thinking about all of the devastating events in history that could have been avoided if people just took the time to educate themselves on people different from them- if people were to really try and put themselves in other’s perspectives. The Red Scare, Vietnam War, 9-11, Holocaust- could these have all been avoided? In a perfect world, people could talk over their opposing view points before killing each other. Although our world is no where near perfection, hopefully we can learn to reason with each other before acting on our primitive impulses to harm one another instead.

Counterculture
After reading and analyzing the several selections in the course packet on the counterculture and the hippies who came out of it, I realized that the counterculture was not all bad. I was amazed to read about how such an unpopular group could bring about change in America. Although the hippies and protesters were disliked by many and brought about police brutality, they stood for something that has changed America. They stood for individualism.
I believe that the counterculture in the 1960’s changed America in a positive way even though it was a time of war and rebellion of the youth. I was impressed when I read about college students standing up for what they believed in. Not only did they stand up for what they believed in, but the college students went against their elders and parents to change America and gain more rights. Freedom of speech is a right that everyone is supposed to have, but the students and Berkley didn’t have this right when they wanted to set up tables and pass out literature about things that they thought mattered and needed to be changed in the world. The students banded together and protested this issue and ended up getting their tables back. Without using their right of free speech to protest these issues, they would not have been able to discuss the serious issues that they thought needed to be taught to their fellow students.
Not only were the students at Berkley protesting for free speech, but students all over the nation were protesting against the war in Vietnam. It amazes me how the youth of America in the 1960’s could feel so strongly about an issue and do something about it. No one really sees that in society today. The hippies and counterculture definitely wanted to express their views and opinions, knowing that protesting and vocalizing the issues would be the only way to change them. I feel that even though the hippies went against the traditional American lifestyle by doing drugs, listening to music about drugs and sex, openly talking about sex, and looking completely different from everyone else, they truly taught America to stand up for what it believes in and not be afraid to be different. No change is going to come if one does not vocally express his or her opinions to the public.
Even though the hippies and youth of the counterculture were being judged by their elders and the leaders of America, they did not back down. They fought through police brutality and continued to voice their opinion. Without the continuation of their efforts, nothing would have ever been accomplished and people today would not have been able to wear what they wanted to, listen to what they wanted to, and believe what they wanted to.
The counterculture in the 1960’s amazes me because, it is a lot like our culture today at UT. Everywhere you go on campus you see all kinds of people. Although some people dress alike, you see all kinds of styles and people around campus. Everyone is willing to share their opinion and protest for what they believe in. I would like to see more of this. I would like to see more individualism and less conformity. I want people to stand up for what they believe in and educate others on their views. Without this no one can make a difference, and I believe strongly that all of our individualism started with the counterculture of the 1960’s.