Talk:Hippie

Archives

1 2 3 4

Drugs section

We've been tiptoeing around this topic for years. Drug use by hippies could develop into its own article, so I'm surprised this hasn't been expanded. In the past, I've added content about cannabis use, but it was removed by another editor. I would like to hear suggestions on where to go with this, and hope others can contribute. For example, I think this would be a good place to add information about the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic. —Viriditas | Talk 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be a hard one to do, since so much of the information out there is simply derogatory yellow journalism filled with falsehoods. Not to say it's not worth the work to sort it out, but it would be quite a job. Important points might be the relationship between the psychedelic movement/experience and the hippie movement (and the whole idea of "raising consciousness"), the pervasiveness of cannabis use, the contrast between the "back to nature" current and the use of "artificial" chemicals, the attempts (with mixed results) of hippies to police themselves concerning what was then called "hard drugs" and abuse vs use (the rejection by the majority of hippies of heroin, cocaine, and "needle-drugs", the "speed kills" initiative, the acid hot-lines and care stations at rock concerts, the free clinic (and other) testing services for drug content and purity, etc), and issues like the advent of paraquat, drug cuts that were worse than the drug, and when the drug war was more harmful than drug use itself. In fact, it might be better to create a short article and expand it into the "War on Drugs" article or something. Rosencomet (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Three additional books we can use without much debate: Brotherhood of Eternal Love: From Flower Power to Hippie Mafia (2007; ISBN 1904879950), Acid Dreams (1985; ISBN 0802130623), and Storming Heaven (1998; ISBN 0802135870). Could we at least start by focusing on cannabis and LSD? —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I see how this is tied into not one, but two sections: Spirituality and religion, and Drug use. —Viriditas | Talk 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm game, though I won't have much time to think about it until after March 2nd. The key to the use of "consciousness-expanding" drugs among the hippies, IMO, is that though there is nothing new about a sub-culture exploring consciousness through drug-induced altered states of consciousness (or induced by any other means, for that matter), it had never been a massive youth movement throughout the known world before. Usually, such practices were limited to a fringe group of mystics, cultists, secret-society members, some sort of priesthood, an artistic community, or some other group divorced from the mainstream. Sometimes this was considered disreputable or even illegal (like opium dens and absinthe users), other times it was applauded and expected of those individuals (like medicine men, oracles and shamans). But never before was it seen as a potential wave of the future and part of a social revolution, the way psychedelia was seen by millions before illegalization, and depicted in major magazines, movies and other media. Rosencomet (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. The economic aspects are important too. In a hippie community like the Haight, many sources describe cannabis dealing as a legitimate (or viable) profession. I'm sure this is true for other enclaves as well. I'm not as sure about LSD, but the Brotherhood's network probably provided jobs. So rather than seeing the stereotype of violent, greeedy, and corrupt drug dealers, there appears to have been a stable culture supporting this lifestyle. Some kind of change occurred in the late 1960s, with the prohibiton of LSD (many forget that it was once legal) and the introduction and availability of harder drugs and the crackdown on cannabis (you allude to it above). So for a time, it appears as if LSD and cannabis were stimulating the hippie economy and even sustained it. —Viriditas | Talk 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

True. This is not unusual in any subculture; a black market becomes an integral part of the socio-economic structure, and often the only source of revenue to a group that is excluded from operation and upward mobility in the "legitimate" economic world. Among hippies, this ranged from selling hash pipes and roach clips to clandestine private investigators specializing in finding runaways, doctors supplying medical deferments for draft dodgers, drug smugglers, free (and not so free) clinics, hostels, etc. There were way too many kids flooding the Haight to survive begging for spare change; just like Woodstock, the sheer unexpected numbers overwhelmed the original vision.Rosencomet (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the Leary dictum "Tune in, Turn on, Drop out" become a key theme of hippie philosophy? Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Though it was "Turn on, tune in and drop out." Sunray (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly so. Involves drugs whichever way.. :) Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I recall Leary saying that "turning on" didn't necessarily have to involve drugs. —Viriditas | Talk 12:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! This is something that is all to often brushed aside in the stereotyping process that was happening then (and still). Sunray (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct. From the beginning, Leary said that one could turn on through meditation, religion, philosophy, or any number of other means, and he believed this even more as he explored sensory isolation, mind-machines, and cyber-space.Rosencomet (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Any idea if it was John C. Lilly who turned Leary on to "sensory isolation"? As for mind-machines, I could use some help on Dreamachine if anyone wants to jump in: there seems to be a link to the beat generation in that case, and I'm wondering if there are instances of hippies using them. Regarding cyberspace, it's my understanding that the WELL was a natural outgrowth of the Hippie movement, but at the moment, I'm only going on Fred Turner. I'm wondering if someone can look through references to Hippies in Howard Rheingold, John Seabrook, Katie Hafner, and Roy Ascott and Carl Eugene Loeffler; these publications are listed on the WELL page. —Viriditas | Talk 21:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough but, while it may have not been Leary's intention - the reality was that the phrase became a rallying point for hedonistic drug consumption worldwide. That could be a good way of introducing the topic. BTW, it's a primary source I know, but there is Michael Hollingshead's book The Man Who Turned On The World, in which he describes how he introduced Leary to LSD.. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have access to the book, and it discusses the topic of hippies (or a specific part of hippie-related counterculture), I would appreciate it if you could expand the drug section. We really want to stick to hippies, however, so make sure it is only in relation to that topic, here. —Viriditas | Talk 02:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Well, In a passage describing a 1965 visit to Berkeley with Leary Hollingshead observes that a strong element of hippie philosophy was a changing regard of Providence - as an internal rather external source of human development."Odd, really, how quickly the young respond to change. Whilst only seven or eight years ago the style was teeth-and-tweeds, button-down shirts and college ties, the mode of dress now veered on the far side of informality—jeans, denim shirts, cowboy boots and Afghan coats; and beards and long hair were everywhere prevalent. It was as if one psychic atmosphere had spread from California to Italy. Millions of similar people everywhere in the West. And their lifestyle was loose, unstructured; they seemed to roll on like the waves, whose movement is regulated by invisible forces emanating from the moon. They were beings who were in possession of a secret which provided the impetus to their lives; their aims were more inward; they had a feeling for values; they had achieved a certain level of consciousness. Were they not somehow more open than in any age previously, which gave them this new amplitude and a sense of purpose? And if you were to ask them, 'What for the future?' it is to themselves they would point. What folly to believe in a Providence which guides life from the outside! This is the change in itself. Where growth is guided by conscious volition, development of the personality takes place; everyone progresses, marches onward, further and further, and no end is in sight. Here was a new generation for whom time is real before eternity." Consciousness raising was thus paramount. A little below I do see him quoting Leary as saying "'The yoga of drugs is of course a key method." [1]. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been responding to comments. Only now did I just actually read the Drugs section. It covers the above point pretty well. I've stuck in a fact tag on the Stonehenge 'heroin' thing. In that regard I saw Leary speak once in the early 90s and he divided drugs into political classes. Cannabis and LSD were 'democratic' drugs, while heroin and cocaine were 'republican'. I think the section reads well but could be expanded and a couple of other key influences included such as Aldous Huxley and even Lewis Carroll. The progress of emphasis from mind expansion to hedonism could be remarked. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation as to whether drugs led to hippies, or hippies turned to drugs. Myself I tend to go with the former - hence my intuitive reversal of Leary's dictum above. Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good edits and nice comments. Someone snuck that OR in and you caught it; I would just go ahead and remove it, but I always find it helpful if the editor removing content (that isn't obvious vandalism) takes the time to place it on the talk page with a brief comment explaining the removal. Keep in mind, not all hippies were hedonists; some practiced renunciation in the Buddhist tradition, and I think the hippie flight out of the cities and back to the land was a form of urban asceticism. Living simply in small, isolated communities doesn't seem to be altogether focused on the pleasure and happiness of the individual, but rather that of the group. In fact, I would argue that communalism is quite difficult, as is finding your true self, getting in touch with your inner being, etc. Viewing hippies as hedonists seems a bit too superficial, but that's just my take on it. I'm sure you'll get a dozen different opinions. :) As for drugs leading to hippies, I think we are really talking about bohemianism at its core; since bohemians lived unconventionally, drugs were generally an accepted part of that culture, in some form or another. I think there is something to be said for the influence of cannabis (its use by the beat generation and their influence on the hippies) but very few (if any) authors have tackled this conundrum. There is something unique to cannabis that sets it apart from any other drug; it has the dual reputation (and some would say mythological stature) of helping artists to create and hashshashin to kill; perhaps this does come down to set and setting, and the drug only reflects the state of mind of the initiate. But a glance at the article shows the myths in full force: Dylan got The Beatles stoned, etc. Even Martin Booth in Cannabis: A History (2004) touches upon the Jazz musician myth: it is said that the best Jazz music was invented in between marathon cannabis sesshins. So I think we are dealing in the realm of mythmaking, because the mind seeks out explanations; one could argue that the Free Speech Movement was the center of the cyclone, and before it the Civil Rights Movement, and before it...ad infinitum. There is no one explanation, no way to point and say, "see, there it is", because we are not dealing with a physical thing, but rather memes. I always thought that Hunter S. Thompson's description of "the thing" as a "wave" was the closest anyone came to pointing in the right direction. —Viriditas | Talk 09:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't take responsibility for any edits. Someone else's work. I have an idea of how the section might flow. Hippies inherit druggie mind expansion from bohemians. Hedonistic cannabis & LSD use becomes widespread. While Aquarian types tend to move to increasingly ascetic rural communes, urban hipsters move onto speed and cocaine and dadaistic revolutionary politics. Don't ask me for references but surely Hoffman and Rubin say something. My own experience - I am British - was that a prime factor in the UK was the arrival of immigrants from Jamaica and Pakistan in the late 50's/early 60's bringing cannabis culture with them. In the 70s I attended a performance by an American eccentric called Nick Shoumatoff at the ICA in London. In it he told a story. He came to Oxford University in the late 50s, sharing lodgings with Jamaicans who introduced him to hashish. He made friends with Steve Abrams, a protegé of Jung who knew Huxley. Shoumatoff went to Morocco on summer break and returned with a sleeping bag full of kif. He and Abrams set about turning on their fellows. A band was formed called The Black Arabs and wild parties ensued. It was probably at one of these where the young Bill C. declined to inhale. Members of the coterie moved to London in the early 60s and began countercultural institutions such as Indica that spawned hippie culture in the UK, and particularly influenced the Beatles. All thoroughly anecdotal and unencyclopedic I know, but I think it illustrates my theme that drug taking by bohemian intellectuals begat the hippie 'wave'. I did start an article on Release. In July 1967 an Abrams-organized full page cannabis legalization ad in The Times was signed by The Beatles and financed by McCartney. That's pretty well documented. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole hippie movement was the beginning of the regression of people and society(the 50s-early 60s was the peak of modern society).The drugs also ruined many people who had great potential. Hippies were for being peaceful and natural, but they were not. They were stoned and living like animals and ruined the fashion. And as for the peaceful part? Look at the result today and the cause of what we have. No discipline, sex everywhere, lack of mores, etc. Yes, good job hippies. *shakes head* They could have protested things, but in a civilized and mature way. If the hippie movement did not happen, just think of what could have been today, how really developed society would have ended up. 22 October 2008

UK Underground

I would really like to get the Swinging London hippies into this and the history article, but I've been having trouble finding sources in the states. Since libraries often archive culture-related news-clippings by subject in special collections, I'm certain that one can find hippie-era archives in the UK. Would you be willing to look into this? Unfortunately, the sources in the UK underground page are pretty sparse. —Viriditas | Talk 10:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The way to go on that I think is to work on individual aspects in seperate articles including that one. Those topics can be adequately researched in that environment. Then some kind of brief synthesis can be included here that is backed up in sufficient depth. Barry Miles's books are likely a rich source of content. I'm in NYC now, since many years. But there's a fair amount online. I promise to pick at it. One thing I note is that the 'hippy' spelling predominates in the UK. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I note the earlier Rastafari and Punks_vs._Hippies comments. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to bring that up, but I figured you would find it. :) —Viriditas | Talk 11:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Hippie

I challenge whether there is any such thing as a Neo-Hippie, separate from just being a Hippie. It seems to be a made-up word used by people who don't realize that hippies still exist and, though the hippie movement is not by any means the wide-spread popular youth movement it was in the sixties, it never really went away. There have been subsequent Woodstocks and other festivals (some listed in this article), tie-dyes and other fashions associated with hippies are still produced, concerts and recordings in the Jam Band genre' of music (and other subsets of alternative rock, folk rock, folk music, world music etc) are still popular, certain icons like Wavy Gravy, Harvey Wasserman and Stephen Gaskin & Ina May Gaskin still write and make public appearances, and many companies and organizations from Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream to Plenty International, the Rex Foundation, and Hunger International still carry the same spirit on. Neo-Hippie, on the other hand, seems to have very little that uses the term to self-describe, nor is there much that's significant that comes up in a google search. Thoughts? Rosencomet (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The term is meaningless. Recall, though, that the Diggers buried the hippie in San Francisco following the summer of love. So in a sense all hippies after that rose out of those ashes, so to speak.

I have never heard anyone, at any time, in any place describe himself or herself as a "neo-hippie." Kind of a made-up term that never gained any traction. I see no reason for it to appear in any Wikipedia article. Apostle12 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Which brings to mind that somehow we've lost the account of the burial. It had been in the article, but is gone now. To my mind it is hard to overestimate the significance of that event for the movement. Sunray (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It should certainly be discussed in this article. FWIW, I read an interesting account about the incident in The New York Times archive, so there are plenty of good sources. —Viriditas | Talk 11:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it was an important moment that should be included; however, the Diggers didn't own the hippie movement and were never empowered to end it. Stephen Gaskin, for instance, never recognized an end to the movement; The Farm is still "America's biggest hippie commune", and he still lists "hippie" as his religion whenever asked on a form. Many organizations and companies refered and refer to themselves with the word hippie decades after the burial. It did, however, mark a turnng point in the popularity of the movement, and as great a disillusionment as Watergate was for American politics. But American politics and the GOP continue, and there are still hippies doing what hippies do.Rosencomet (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake to ascribe too much importance to an impromptu Digger "burial of hippie." After all it was just someone's spur-of-the-moment idea, done primarily for the amusement of those involved. Probably a slow news day, so the media latched on--otherwise most of us wouldn't even have been aware it happened, much less remember it forty years later. Apostle12 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, you raise an important point regarding the Diggers that should be addressed in the history subpage. That is to say, the Diggers represented one faction of the hippies, and did not necesarily speak for all of them. At the very least, this page should discuss or make mention of Emmett Grogan and the information contained within Ringolevio (1972), and their impact upon the Haight community. —Viriditas | Talk 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The point the Diggers were making (and one that resounded in the media) was that the image of "the hippie" had become a media plaything, hyped beyond all recognition and subject to endless manipulation. They apparently read this right, as it wasn't long before the Nixon administration launched its campaign through the mainstream media to target "the hippie" with imagery calculated to turn the image of hippies into something sinister, subversive, insane, chronosomically damaged, etc. Sunray (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at Nation of Rebels: Why Counterculture Became Consumer Culture (2004)? They explain the underlying problem that the Diggers were only touching upon. As for Nixon, it would be good to get this information in the history article, but briefly mention it here. —Viriditas | Talk 10:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting source. As to the Nixon administration's actions, an account appeared several years later, in, of all sources, TV Guide, written by a senior network executive. I will see what I can find on it. Sunray (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of comments, neither totally pertinent. 1) Diggers: In a BBC Documentary on psychedelics, Microsoft founder Bob Wallace talks of the influence of LSD culture on the development of personal computing. Specifically he questions whether it could have ever developed with out the shareware ethos. Although not mentioned specifically surely that is essential digger philosophy. So the irony is that their ethic on some ways outlived the movement and thrives today in everything from open source, free software, P2P to, bless us, Wikipedia. 2) Death: In the analogous case of punk rock - In 1977 Mark Perry declared punk dead the day The Clash signed to CBS. Perry's point was that punk as defined by mass market products & media was no longer alternative and thus no longer essentially punk. That death in fact signified it's birth as a mass cultural phenomenon. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the counterculture and personal computing, see also: What the Dormouse Said (2005) and From Counterculture to Cyberculture (2006). And as far as the death of the hippies/punks, I seem to recall Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters having something to say about the naming of things, which they seem to have stolen from a Buddhist philosopher or two; by naming the thing ("hippie", "punk", whatever) we are removing ourselves from the direct experience. I really don't remember what Kesey was talking about, or if this came from Tom Wolfe. —Viriditas | Talk 11:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm foggy, but I think it's also in Plato. My point being that the 'Death of Hippie' was the for all intensive purposes the birth. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That makes perfect sense. It's beautiful, too. —Viriditas | Talk 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

This article .. today at least ... gets it better than anything I've read. After decades of The Man's media distortion, that's hard to do. It was sweet, it was right on, and the solutions haven't changed. You can dissect it, argue about it, do all the brain-twisting analysis you want ... but the reality of The People IS simple and profound and relentlessly pushing above the glib, mad surface into a New Day. Hey y'all! rock on. Twang (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Culture of psychedelics

What influence - if any - did psychedelic drug use have on the art and music produced by the hippie counterculture? This all seems very familiar. The indigenous Huichol people of Mexico use peyote in their religious rituals. Is it a coincidence that the art of the Huichol makes use of fluorescent colors and psychedelic designs, reminiscent of hippie tie-dye and day-glo colors used by the Merry Pranksters? What was the role of psychedelic art in hippie culture? Is it conceivable that those who experimented with an altered state of consciousness through the ingestion of psychedelic drugs, were motivated to recreate this experience during normal waking consciousness, resulting in a cultural explosion influencing every aspect of reality, and manifesting pure imagination? Was LSD the catalyst for the new forms of music, literature, art and fashion? —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Expressing my concerns again

Too much of this article is devoted to the Family Dog, and I suspect there are COI reasons for demanding that such a broad article be focused on such a small aspect of this history. I'm going to ask Apostle12 to once again consider moving non-essential elements out of this article and into the history of the hippie movement. I'm also concerned about the statement, "Some of the earliest San Francisco hippies were former students at San Francisco State College who were intrigued by the developing psychedelic hippie music scene and left school after they started taking psychedelic drugs.[33]" I've studied this issue and don't see any support for the claim that they "left school after they started taking psychedelic drugs" which is linked to reference 33, attributed to the opinion of a non-historian, Bill Ham, a light engineer, on both his website and in the past, by a an interpretation of a primary source (a film). Unless a transcript of this is produced, showing these particular words, or a link to Bill Ham's words on his website, I'm going to remove it. If those two things are produced, then we will compare them to what notable historians say on the subject. —Viriditas | Talk 00:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To date I haven't done anything with this because it's not clear to me what you would like to see. Is it, for example, the Family Dog aspect or the Red Dog Saloon material that you object to? Or both? The two are linked, of course, in the sense that the Family Dog came into existence following the summer that participants spent at the Red Dog Saloon. My only desire is that the connections between the various events be established in the article, since those connections were so seminal to what became the hippie experience--not sure how this could be considered a "conflict of interest." (For the record, I did know a few of the people involved, but the Red Dog predated my involvement and I had nothing to do with the Family Dog.)

In order to write the section on the Berkeley coffee houses, Chandler Laughlin's creation of a "tribal identity," the Red Dog Saloon, the Family Dog and the rest, I spent most of a day watching and re-watching the film to make sure I got it right. Simply don't have the time to rent it again and prepare a transcript.

You seem to believe that the section you quoted was attributed to Bill Ham's website, but I don't see that this is so. His website appears elsewhere as a source, but not in reference to this. Apostle12 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The ref says 33 but actually links to 32 - the film in question; very confusing. Still, it's an interpretation of a primary source which needs to be supported by a secondary source. It should be easy to find or attribute if you want to keep that particular point in the article. It's quite a sweeping statement to make, however. —Viriditas | Talk 05:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the material would be salvageable if you are trying to refer to specific individuals, which it looks like you are. Who is it that "left school after they started taking psychedelic drugs"? —Viriditas | Talk 05:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the sentence in question:

"Some of the earliest San Francisco hippies were former students at San Francisco State College who were intrigued by the developing psychedelic hippie music scene and left school after they started taking psychedelic drugs."

While I wrote much of this section, it has been edited since then, and I can't quite recall whether or not I wrote "and left school after they started taking psychedelic drugs." I do vaguely recall something to this effect being said during one of the interviews in the film, but that would have been just the opinion of the speaker. I'm sure a good case could be made that "Some...hippies were...students...who left school after they started taking psychedelic drugs." But as written, I agree that it sounds too sweeping, because the qualifer "some" appears at too great a remove from the rest of the sentence. In any case, to me it's not an important point, so I have no objections to a revision.Apostle12 (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it has been revised several times. The problem I have is with the idea that people were dropping out of school after taking psychedelic drugs. I have never seen any evidence for such a claim. While it is true that Leary's dictum Turn on, tune in, drop out was influential in 1966, the particular statement in regards to San Francisco State (Perry 2005, pp. 5-7) concerns 1965. —Viriditas | Talk 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd have to say that it didn't take Leary's instruction for many of us to come to the conclusion that the developing Bay Area scene was a lot more happening than our classes at Berkeley, S.F. State, and other local schools. In my case, it was Fall 1965 and I was a freshman at Berkeley. Many of my parents' upper-middle-class Berkeley friends (Berkeley professors and, especially, the research chemists and physicists working at the Rad Lab) had taken LSD and were enthused. Also I had done some research and had read much of what Leary and Alpert had written about LSD. One night my friend Chopin and I were bored, and we remembered that there was a jar in the fridge containing 3,000 capsules of White Lightning, which my girlfriend was storing for her friend Owsley. After that evening, I returned to classes and none of it seemed "relevant" (remember that favored 60's word); the Vietnam War was beginning to rage, and that evening turned my attention to other matters that seemed much more important. I dropped out of Berkeley soon after. Apostle12 (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Of course all of this is OR and I wouldn't attempt to use it for sourcing. Perhaps, though, Charles Perry could confirm that this was pretty common--he was the only writer among our set of Berkeley friends, though he was a bit older, beyond college age as I recall.Apostle12 (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can state for certainty that psychedelics caused people to drop out of college. I do think we can put it in the proper context; it sounds like you were saying the people involved in the Red Dog/Family Dog production were the ones who dropped out, so why not just be specific? Problem solved, no? —Viriditas | Talk 08:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. I do think it is valid to say that many people experimented with psychedelics (LSD, mescaline, psylocybin) and that these experiences changed their perspectives. Many of the college offerings were over-intellectualized and seemed irrevelant to these people; they came to favor a more direct, experiential approach to life. They left college because they lost interest. That's not the same as saying "psychedelics caused people to drop out of college." The Red Dog/Family Dog initiators and early participants were mostly people in the 25-35 age range who had "dropped out" (meaning they had disassociated themselves from the "straight" world) long before; I can't think of anyone who was a college student. Yet many of those who joined the party once it got going in the Haight were former college students who lost interest in school. And a lot of those came from San Francisco State, especially Gaskin's crowd since that was where he taught. Always nice to get it right, but as I've said before, I have no real stake in this, since I don't think it's an important point. Apostle12 (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree to remove the "left school after they started taking psychedelic drugs" bit? —Viriditas | Talk 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It goes a bit beyond correlation and can be read to imply causation, which would not be accurate. I'll take care of it. Apostle12 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Hippie" scene and dropping out of college

Okay, I made some changes so that this section (discussed above) no longer implies that S.F.S.C. students dropped out of college because they took psychedelic drugs. This topic does deserve some discussion in the article, however, because so many young people who were influenced by the developing hippie ethos left school after concluding it had little to offer them. Their view of life and their priorities changed radically due to many factors:

• the collective experience of living apart from parents for the first time with an unprecedented number of relatively affluent young people
• occasional, yet intense, pyschedelic experiences that caused one to question the values and priorities of one's parents--as Bob Weir has written, most hippies did not spend a great deal of time "stoned," yet the time so spent was transformative
• collective angst regarding the tragedy of the Vietnam War, and the large divide (at least until 1968) that generally existed between young people and their parents with respect to this issue
• the easy availability of birth control and (in many areas, even pre Roe v. Wade) abortion
• THE MUSIC!
• THE PARTIES!
• THE SCENE!

The importance and attraction of dry, often over-intellectualized college courses faded by comparison. Many young people were just hungry to experience life, and there didn't seem to be enough time both to live fully and to attend school. So they dropped out.

Yablonsky has written about this to some extent in The Hippie Trip. I'll try to get some of it into the article as time allows. Apostle12 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. I would love to see more of this in the article (and I will help expand it) but we need less of the minutiae concerning the Red Dog/Family Dog, which while very interesting, takes us away from the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 01:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Red Dog Saloon and the Family Dog as they influenced the hippie ethos

During this period Cambridge, Massachusetts, Greenwich Village in New York City, and Berkeley, California, anchored the American folk music circuit. Berkeley's two coffee houses, the Cabale Creamery and the Jabberwock, sponsored performances by folk music artists in a beat setting. In April 1963, Chandler A. Laughlin III, co-founder of the Cabale Creamery, established a kind of tribal, family identity among approximately fifty people who attended a traditional, all-night Native American peyote ceremony in a rural setting. This ceremony combined a psychedelic experience with traditional Native American spiritual values; these people went on to sponsor a unique genre of musical expression and performance at the Red Dog Saloon in the isolated, old-time mining town of Virginia City, Nevada.

In the summer of 1965, Laughlin recruited much of the original talent that led to a unique amalgam of traditional folk music and the developing psychedelic rock scene. He and his cohorts created what became known as "The Red Dog Experience", featuring previously unknown musical acts—Big Brother and the Holding Company, Jefferson Airplane, Quicksilver Messenger Service, The Charlatans, The Grateful Dead and others—who played in the completely refurbished, intimate setting of Virginia City's Red Dog Saloon. There was no clear delineation between "performers" and "audience" in "The Red Dog Experience", during which music, psychedelic experimentation, a unique sense of personal style and Bill Ham's first primitive light shows combined to create a new sense of community. Laughlin and George Hunter of the Charlatans were true "proto-hippies", with their long hair, boots and outrageous clothing of distinctly American (and Native American) heritage. LSD manufacturer Owsley Stanley lived in Berkeley during 1965 and provided much of the LSD that became a seminal part of the "Red Dog Experience", the early evolution of psychedelic rock and budding hippie culture. At the Red Dog Saloon, The Charlatans were the first psychedelic rock band to play live (albeit unintentionally) loaded on LSD.

When they returned to San Francisco, Red Dog participants Luria Castell, Ellen Harman and Alton Kelley created a collective called "The Family Dog." Modeled on their Red Dog experiences, on October 16, 1965, the Family Dog hosted "A Tribute to Dr. Strange" at Longshoreman's Hall. Attended by approximately 500 of the Bay Area's original "hippies", this was San Francisco's first psychedelic rock performance, costumed dance and light show, featuring Jefferson Airplane, The Great Society and The Marbles. Two other events followed before year's end, one at California Hall and one at the Matrix. After the first three Family Dog events, a much larger psychedelic event occurred at San Francisco's Longshoreman's Hall. Called "The Trips Festival", it took place on January 21–January 23, 1966, and was organized by Stewart Brand, Ken Kesey, Owsley Stanley and others. Ten thousand people attended this sold-out event, with a thousand more turned away each night. On Saturday January 22, the Grateful Dead and Big Brother and the Holding Company came on stage, and 6,000 people arrived to imbibe punch spiked with LSD and to witness one of the first fully-developed light shows of the era.

By February 1966, the Family Dog became Family Dog Productions under organizer Chet Helms, promoting happenings at the Avalon Ballroom and the Fillmore Auditorium in initial cooperation with Bill Graham. The Avalon Ballroom, the Fillmore Auditorium and other venues provided settings where participants could partake of the full psychedelic music experience. Bill Ham, who had pioneered the original Red Dog light shows, perfected his art of liquid light projection, which combined light shows and film projection and became synonymous with the San Francisco ballroom experience. The sense of style and costume that began at the Red Dog Saloon flourished when San Francisco's Fox Theater went out of business and hippies bought up its costume stock, reveling in the freedom to dress up for weekly musical performances at their favorite ballrooms. As San Francisco Chronicle music columnist Ralph J. Gleason put it, "They danced all night long, orgiastic, spontaneous and completely free form."

Here are the three paragraphs in question. Believe it or not, my intention during the original writing was to condense the story as much as possible while still making clear the progression from the traditional "beat/folk" scene, to the Red Dog, to the Family Dog, to "The Tribute to Dr. Strange" (the first public dance in modern San Francisco history), then to the Avalon and Fillmore events and the eventual flowering of full-blown hippie culture. As Bob Weir has written, we were pretty much unaware that our numbers had grown to the critical mass required for self-identity as a group prior to the "Tribute to Dr. Strange" event. Then our freak/hippie identity began to be adopted by more and more people.

I am somewhat in doubt what might best be eliminated. To be honest, I would prefer there not be a separate "History of the hippie movement article" because co-ordinating the edits between the two is so tricky.

Since I wrote most of the above, and I was condensing as I wrote, every word was carefully chosen to eliminate anything I thought was extraneous to telling the story. So why don't you tell me what you think is too detailed and we can work on it here. Apostle12 (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I feel that I understand your position, and in some ways I support it, but this is pure "history" and should be discussed in the history of the hippie movement article. Take a look at the articles contained within Category:Subcultures to see how articles about subcultures are handled. Unfortunately, there is currently no way to sort the category by FA/GA articles, so you will just have to look around. My approach may be to blame for some of this miscommunication, because I am taking a big picture approach. A lot of the Red Dog Saloon and Family Dog material has more to do with music of the counterculture and the development of rock concerts. I know there is a lot of overlap, and that can't be avoided, but I would like for us to concentrate on the hippies themselves. I know you dislike the use of a subarticle on history, but it's just going to keep growing. Take a look at Hip hop culture to see how they successfully manage splitting the topic into multiple articles. Anyway, I'm not done addressing this. I'm glad you created a new section to discuss it. —Viriditas | Talk 08:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(Revised: 10:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)) - In the early 1960s, the American folk music circuit was anchored in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Greenwich Village, New York and Berkeley, California. On the West Coast, Chandler A. Laughlin III was co-founder of the Cabale Creamery, one of two Berkeley coffee houses that hosted folk music. In April 1963, Laughlin and fifty people attended a Native American peyote ceremony. The psychedelic experience in a Native American spiritual context led to the creation of a new community that formed around musical performance in the summer of 1965: Known as the "The Red Dog Experience", the Red Dog Saloon in Virginia City, Nevada featured then-unknown bands Big Brother and the Holding Company, Jefferson Airplane, Quicksilver Messenger Service, The Charlatans, The Grateful Dead and others; The Charlatans were the first psychedelic rock band to play live on LSD. Later, in San Francisco, Red Dog participants created "The Family Dog" and on October 16, 1965, the group hosted one of the first psychedelic rock performances at Longshoreman's Hall called "A Tribute to Dr. Strange". From January 21–23, 1966, "The Trips Festival" was held, with ten thousand people attending. During the January 22 event, 6,000 people drank punch spiked with LSD and witnessed one of the first light shows. By February 1966, Chet Helms and Family Dog Productions began promoting events at the Avalon Ballroom and the Fillmore Auditorium with Bill Graham. The San Francisco psychedelic ballroom music experience was brought to life in these venues with liquid light and film projection designed by Bill Ham, a pioneer of the original Red Dog light shows.

Just an example of condensing text down to essentials and moving the rest to linked subarticles where people can find more information. —Viriditas | Talk 09:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize you were working quickly in order to provide an example. However a lot of error made its way into your condensed version, and I think some of the omissions are important--your attempt to isolate "hippies" from the "history of the hippies" seems quite artificial to me because hippies came and went so quickly. The act of becoming determined who and what hippies were. I don't think the hippie phenomenon was comparable to hip hop.

To begin with, the April 1963 "event" did not happen at the Red Dog Saloon. I would have to verify the location with Chan since I didn't attend it, but it probably took place on the reservation at Pyramid Lake, just north of Reno, Nevada, which was where I attended a similar event in December 1965. In the "Rockin' at the Red Dog" film Chan speaks at some length about the genesis of this event, which found its inspiration in his developing awareness of nuclear vulnerability during the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. The peyote ceremony I attended was conducted in a traditional teepee under the auspices of the Native American Church; this and the previous ceremony (more were to come) were some the first links formed between budding hippie culture and Native American culture.

Sandoz acid was legally available at the time, though its distribution was limited, and thus controlled. Peyote was more easily available and offered a similar shortcut to transcendent states. As local LSD manufacturers developed their production techniques, LSD became the "drug of choice" for those seeking such a shortcut. Even during the Red Dog's wildest days, the seed of reverence that was planted during the April 1963 peyote ceremony continued to grow and flourish, eventually finding its way via the Family Dog into developing hippie culture.

Now I don't expect much of this to find its way into the article, but it would be nice if ALL the good stuff didn't get boiled out. You have done that to much of the rest of the article, which I find sad. Given your incessant demands for sourcing, your assumption that you are the final arbiter of what is appropriate in the article, not to mention your general arrogance and high-handedness, few of us have been willing to remain (even sporadically as I have) to mount a defense of what we know to be true. I do NOT agree to disagree; what you do seems wrong to me. Apostle12 (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what errors you are talking about. The example above was just that, an example.Ok, I see the errors above. I will attempt to fix them. I don't think we will ever come to an agreement about this because you are writing from your first-person experience; that's why I mentioned COI before. We need to be writing from secondary sources. The primary source you are using is a film called, Rockin' At the Red Dog: The Dawn of Psychedelic Rock. As I said above, your version of early hippie history has more to do with music of the counterculture and the development of rock concerts. And, I'm not denying in any way that your version isn't valid; but it gives too much space to material about early psychedelic rock while ignoring (not deliberately, you've said in a previous section that you want to expand it) the intersection of the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-Vietnam War Movement, and the Free Speech Movement, which like psychedelic rock, also had a large role to play. Again, this is all extremely interesting, but this article is supposed to be about hippies. The history article can contain all the origins, antecedents, connections, and details, but there's a lot missing from this article about hippies. I am not attempting to "isolate" hippies from their history, but rather to clarify exactly what hippies were and are without the excess verbiage that describes things best handled by linked subarticles, such as names, events, and places. I never compared the hippie movement to hip hop, but they are both subcultures that have a lot in common. Lastly, the demand for sourcing is the foundation of the current version of the encyclopedia. It's sad to see you fall back on your usual accusations against me, but I will continue to ignore them. —Viriditas | Talk 10:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(By the way, I attempted to incorporate the changes above soon after the original version appeared. An edit conflict prevented me from doing so.)

My point is that you have in the past used sourcing demands to limit the article to selective expression of your favored ideas. And they are not just "my accusations;" such complaints about your approach have been lodged by many editors since you arrived and established effective ownership. When editors attempt to introduce ideas you do not favor, you routinely revert and initiate unending demands for sourcing--nothing is ever good enough for you. Sometimes you have even added themes introduced by other editors months after they gave up in frustration (yes, we noticed), as though they were your own idea...never with an apology or acknowledgement of course.

There is no conflict of interest here; that is a misuse of the term as I know it. I did happen to know many of the people involved, however I am not over-emphasizing their roles. The Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-Vietnam War movement, and the Free Speech Movement were only ancillary to the development of hippie culture, though the spirit of those movements gained experiential expression as hippie culture developed to become racially mixed, anti-war and committed to freedom of expression in general. Apostle12 (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that you revised your original condensation; the new one looks better and probably would have provoked less outraged response. I would tend to classify the "Rockin' at the Red Dog" video as a combination of primary and secondary sources--the primary being interviews with original participants and the secondary much of the commentary offered by the film maker. I think Perry's work corroborates much of what is in the film, though he was also a primary participant, so the sourcing picture is mixed there as well.Apostle12 (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never used "sourcing demands" (whatever that means) to limit or promote ideas, and I challenge you to find one instance. You wont' be able to. This article was a huge dogpile of unsourced original research when I arrived, authored by you no less - and now is almost 80% sourced. You apparently appointed yourself WP:OWNER and have raised hell ever since your territory was encroached. (and in case anyone decides to go check, no, you weren't using your current user name) I haven't a clue what this little rant is supposed to mean, but it's highly amusing: Sometimes you have even added themes introduced by other editors months after they gave up in frustration (yes, we noticed), as though they were your own idea...never with an apology or acknowledgement of course. Perhaps you misunderstand what it means to remove unsourced material and then add it back in with actual references to improve the article. BTW, you're welcome. —Viriditas | Talk 11:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The "dogpile" you refer to was written by a group of perhaps six other editors who were primary participants at the time; I didn't write it. Of course the article had flaws, as does the current version, and you have encouraged better sourcing, I agree. But that does not change the fact that you have been aggressive, heavy-handed, arrogant and obnoxious in your approach, which is why ALL those editors left long ago.

You are wrong that I couldn't find one instance of your use of sourcing demands to limit or promote ideas, though to prove it with specific, dated references would take more time than I am willing to spend. Besides I have never seen you concede much, no matter how well-documented, and we seem to be the only editors actively involved here anyway, so what's the point?

I will mention just a couple of instances:

• You insisted (because one source said so) that hippies never accepted the hippie label and instead called themselves "freaks," despite all evidence to the contrary. It took eons to get you to allow the real progression to emerge.
• You fought tooth and nail against the idea that "hippie culture spread around the world," rejecting as inadequate all overseas references provided by other editors until those editors left in frustration. I am not sure what brought you around, but you never acknowledged that their references to overseas hippies were in any way valid. After they were long gone, you added material supporting their claims.

I have never regarded this article as "my territory." On the contrary I have been consistent in welcoming anyone who has been willing to add valuable material. My tendency has always been towards inclusiveness and support for other editors' efforts--with appropriate re-edits where necessary and more patient requests for sourcing than you have demonstrated. It is you who arrived and savaged the article, with wholesale reversion of whole sections and no respect for anyone; YOU are the reason I changed my name, a symbolic gesture representing an attempt to leave behind the intense hostility I felt towards you. In my present identity, I make sure that I keep it down to occasional disgust that does not rise to a wish for your instant demise. Apostle12 (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was right; you could not find one instance where I used "sourcing demands to limit or promote ideas". And, I'll be happy to address your continuing distraction from the topic of the Red Dog material you added, so we can get back to discussing it instead of me. Your recollection about past discussions is seriously flawed. The most I've ever commented on the term "freaks" was to say: Hippie as a pejorative. At what point did "hippies" embrace the term? As I understand it the term was derogatory, and actual "hippies" referred to themselves by other names, such as "freaks". That's it. And, it's in the current version of the article. The original discussion concerned the pejorative use of the word, which is now in the etymology subarticle. So, I once again have no idea where you get the idea that I insisted...that hippies never accepted the hippie label and instead called themselves "freaks," despite all evidence to the contrary. Further, you write It took eons to get you to allow the real progression to emerge. No such thing occurred. "Freaks" are mentioned in the main article and the pejorative use is in the etymology subarticle. Second, you claim that I fought against the idea that hippie culture spread around the world, when in actuality, I added a reference to Hirsch describing hippies as "Members of a cultural protest that began in the U.S. in the 1960s and affected Europe before fading in the 1970s...fundamentally a cultural rather than a political protest." Other editors tried to expand this with unsourced material, and I asked for reliable sources. The references provided by "other editors" were not valid or reliable. Since these editors were unable to find reliable sources, I helped and found references to jipetecas in La Onda Chicana, something nobody had ever discussed. Eventually, the lead section was fleshed out to summmarize other aspects of the article which were eventually sourced. So for the second time, you are welcome. Now, if you would be so kind as to stop distracting away from the subject and get back to discussing it, I would appreciate it. Of course, I would be more than happy to clear up any further misconceptions you might have about me, but please use this discussion page to discuss improving the article, as I was doing before you changed the subject...again. —Viriditas | Talk 13:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Viriditas is, forever and always, unerringly "right." It is your recollection of past discussions that is seriously flawed sir. It occurs to me that you might profit from asking yourself a single question, "Why does Viriditas seem to find it so empowering to inspire annoyance, even hatred, in others?" Apostle12 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not the topic of this discussion, so please mind WP:NPA. WP:CIV and WP:TALK may also help you. I have no idea why you think I am "forever and always, unerringly "right" as I have made no less than three concessions in the last 24 hours on this page: one at 05:21, 4 March 2008 (You are correct. The ref says 33 but actually links to 3); the second one at 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC) (You're right, it has been revised several times); the third at 10:42, 5 March 2008 (Ok, I see the errors above). I suggest you put your emotions aside as they appear to be clouding your judgment. Stick to the issues, not the personalities. Your "hatred", revulsion, and muderous impulses (instant demise) belong to your own psyche. Try to control yourself. If you can't participate constructively, don't edit. Take a break, walk around, go meditate, whatever, but don't post your invective here. —Viriditas | Talk 01:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not my hatred I was referring to; you had inspired that emotion in another editor. "Revulsion"--well, yes; you have inspired that emotion in me and countless other editors, which you well know because they have let you know on these pages. "Murderous impulses?" Those are your words, not my own, nor do those words represent anything in my own psyche. In a previous incarnation (now abandoned for this more peaceful one) I would have welcomed your "instant demise"--from natural causes of course.Apostle12 (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please leave your emotional problems at the door. This page is for discussing the topic. If you can't do that, please don't edit here. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 09:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Board certified sane here; I have no emotional problems. Apostle12 (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic

Apostle12 uses the unreleased film/DVD, Rockin' at the Red Dog: The Dawn of Psychedelic Rock (1996) to support his material. Its inclusion in this article is essentially an interpretation of the film. Without transcripts, we have no supporting documentation. I would appreciate it if secondary sources are offered to support its inclusion in an article about hippies. Related articles, such as psychedelic rock, San Francisco Sound, and others are entirely appropriate, but devoting ~700 words to it in this article seems a bit over the top when other important issues related to the hippie subculture are completely ignored. An appropriate subpage titled history of the hippie movement already exists where these topics can be expanded in more detail. —Viriditas | Talk 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rockin' at the Red Dog is available from Netflix. A transcript of the film would be useful and welcome should anyone wish to prepare same. Apostle12 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And it probably won't be needed, as I'm collecting secondary sources for inclusion below. The central issue regards hippie dance concerts. —Viriditas | Talk 01:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• Charters reprints Sally Tomlinson's essay from High Societies: Psychedelic Rock Posters from Haight-Ashbury (2001) a publication of the San Diego Museum of Art. (Charters 2003, pp. 291-305.) Tomlinson's essay, "Psychedelic Rock Posters: History, Ideas, and Art", describes the "dance concerts that so galvanized the hippie community", which she traces to two points of origin in 1965: the Merry Pranksters and the Charlatans. While focused on hippies, she does not discuss the origin of the Red Dog Saloon; that information can go into its own article once it is created. Perry discusses several West Coast "hippie scenes" that preceded the Haight-Ashbury including Pine Street and the Red Dog. —Viriditas | Talk 15:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Herb Caen

Use of the term "hippie" did not become widespread in the mass media until early 1967, after San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen began referring to "hippies" in his daily columns.[24][25][citation needed]

Please refer me to a secondary source that says this. I seem to recall seeing one a long time ago, but it's not linked to this statement. —Viriditas | Talk 10:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

One source says, "Mecchi, 1991, 22 December 1966 column, pp 125-26." This reference doesn't even have a publisher listed, just a page number and date. How can something published in 1966 support a claim about early 1967? The second one is listed as "San Francisco Chronicle, 18 Jan 1967 column, p. 27." Not sure how this supports the statement that Caen's usage "become widespread in the mass media". —Viriditas | Talk 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• ...
• ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination failed

According to the quick-fail criteria, any article with cleanup or expansion banners (such as the one in Legacy) and/or large numbers of {{fact}} tags, must failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy the issues brought up by such banners and remove them before choosing to renominate the article. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky 00:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

References

Note: I'm starting to reformat the references per SG in the PR. —Viriditas | Talk 07:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. But more references are needed. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Removed

Barring source material verifying the claim that "TRENT IS GAY" and subsequent discussion of its pertainance, I have removed that phrase from the first sentence of this entry. 205.214.48.251 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, there's nothing to verify the apparently widely-held belief that Ashlee Peterson is a 'fake' hippie, either. Rhakaryn (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

LGBT

In the past, several editors have tried adding material about LGBT, but weren't able to add sources. User:Benjiboi did a little bit of research and found a number of references here for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that some rose-colored glasses may be donned before editing, and the early hippies described as less homophobic than was, sadly, often the case. We got better; but it was an uphill struggle for our LGBT sisters and brothers to find the acceptance that was their due, just as it was for the feminists. Conversely, the Stonewall rising was perhaps inspired in part by what the hippies were doing; but the Stonewall bar was not, as I understand it, a hippie place. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right about this. Ginsberg was ever-present, of course, but on a personal level most hippies had little to do with him. And gay people were ostracized in many communes. Bi women were cool (as they are today among straight guys), but bi men had to keep a lid on it. Apostle12 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about asking the LGBT group to participate in this discussion. I want to make very sure that the article covers all the bases and doesn't leave any group out. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas was looking for someone who was somewhat familiar with LGBT issues in the 50s and 60s. I've worked on articles for the Daughters of Bilitis and The Ladder, and read a bit on Homophile organizations in the 60s. You can message me if you're interested, and let me know what it is you're specifically looking to add. --Moni3 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding. I'd like to keep the discussion here so that active editors on this page can contribute. To start with, I'm following up on content that was removed as unsourced and now resides in the archives. This concerns at least four threads, possibly more: [2], [3], [4], [5] If you could review this LGBT material and determine if there are any sources to support it, or find that it is relevant to this article, please let us know. After that, if you could review a discussion I had with Benjiboi here and make the same determiniation, that would be apprecated. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I read those sections, and while they may have been somewhat accurate, without citations they're just WP:OR, and I think you were right to remove them. Hippies have a reputation that far reaches beyond them. I can suggest two sources for one of the issues. Randy Shilts wrote The Mayor of Castro Street about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay supervisor in San Francisco. Shilts describes how the counterculture movement encouraged so many gays to be drawn to San Francisco in the 1960s to create the most famous gay neighborhood in the world. On the east coast was Greenwich Village in Manhattan. I covered this a tiny bit in an article I wrote about Ann Bannon, although the time in question was the late 1950s, so it's more about the Beat generation than hippies. The Stonewall Inn is in Greenwich Village, and any source that describes the Stonewall Riots in 1969 will be able to describe the neighborhood as a gay enclave. The folks who first fought back in the Stonewall Riots were drag queens, although the riots lasted for 3 days and attracted a lot more people. Soon after the Stonewall Riots, the Gay Liberation Front was formed, but from what I've read it was chaotic and without any direction - quite perfect for hippies, actually. It didn't last long and was replaced somewhat by the Gay Activists Alliance.

I'm not sure what sort of help you were looking for, and if I answered something you were asking. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to start slowly with Margaret Cruikshank as a source. She talks directly about the influence of hippies on LGBT. Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

Recently on the peer review, WP:MOS#Quotations was brought up, with a recommendation to use plain blockquotes without graphics. Personally, I prefer what we have now, but the WP:FACR may not allow for it. I wanted to alert active editors to this possible change, as it goes against my personal preferences. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Humor

I'm just reading a rant by Bill Hatch in response to Gerald de Groot's Reflections on The Sixties Unplugged, which argues that the '60s counterculture achieved nothing of lasting importance. I liked this line: The greatest achievement of the hippies was and remains humor -- comedy asserted in the face of tragedies, including their own.Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's his opinion. Mine is that the old definition for the Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation probably would apply to him too. 141.152.51.53 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're right, that's a rant. Gerald de Groot's criticism and Hatch's response is one of the missing puzzle pieces for the legacy section. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested to see how you will manage to summarize it all. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Straight" in "Hippie" slang

To the best of my own knowledge, "straight" in hippie slang means "not stoned". Any hippie can be straight, if the bread gets tight. I don't believe it is a derogatory term for "others" or "not like us" (except maybe among certain of the self-styled "freaks", but not most hippies) The closest thing for most hippies would be "square" and there are certainly plenty of vintage instances of hippies using this term in the media, along with "the man", "the system", "the establishment" etc. so it was not strictly a "beatnik" term either. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, if you said a person was in the moment "straight," that meant he or she wasn't stoned. However in general the term was used to mean "enmeshed in conventional society." See for example Lewis Yablonsky's THE HIPPIE TRIP, p. 103 where he says "...They were dressed in "straight" (regular shirts and cotton pants) clothes..." (Emphasis is Yablonsky's.)

Also see John Bassett McCleary where he refers to the word "hippy" and says "...it was the media and straight society that popularised the term."

"Square" probably never disappeared during the hippie era, however it was never the primary word that was used to refer to conventional society, at least among hippies.Apostle12 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps "straight society" literally meant "not-stoned society" (non pot-smoking society) at first... "straight clothes" sounds like clothes intended to look less like a stoner... over time, the term may have come to have less to do with mind altering substances. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so. Of course now the word clearly means "not gay," so for clarity's sake it might be better to replace it with "conventional" in this context. Apostle12 (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Summer of Love/Acid House

I'm very surprised that there isn't the merest mention of the Acid House movement of 1987/89. Surely this in many ways was a revival of much that happened twenty years earlier but in a very unselfconscious way. Suddenly in the UK anyway many of those aged 18-25 were wearing hippy type clothing, becoming part of a movement where certain drugs were freely available and based on a philosophy of freedom/love/peace etc and even in the chillout rooms playing certain old late 60s/early 70s music. There were even a few much older figures on the scene who had actually been around on the "hippy" scene in the late 60s. to me this is an extremely obvious connection - the Summer of 1988 even being called the Second Summer of Love in the UK and the obvious use of the word "Acid".It was also a mass movement probably bigger with the average 18-25 year old than any youth movement since the late 60s. Even the use of the word Rave was a revival of a use it had occasionally had (at least in Britain) in the 60s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.33.246 (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff for the legacy section, if you can find the sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hippies and Drugs

Um, this page affends me a little becuase I'm a hippie but I don't take druge and many groups have people on drugs wide spread but they don't have sectons about them taking drugs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.83.146 (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting point and worth pursuing, especially in the legacy section where it would be acceptable to state that modern hippies use less drugs than those in the 1960s. Of course, you'll need to hunt down some refs, but that shouldn't be too hard to find. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Right Wing Is Revulsed

Being non-traditional, hippies are universally reviled for their impact on society by social conservatives: questioning Authority, protesting The War, not wearing proper business attire (dark suit, muted neckwear, dark socks on suspenders, wingtips), calling a spade a spade. This point is important and should appear in the main article. --72.75.115.102 (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A sourced variation on what you are trying to say used to appear in this article; if it doesn't, then it must have been moved to history of the hippie movement. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Source help entreaty

I'm wondering if the regular watchers of this page can help me out finding sources for a related article. I've been working on Hair (musical), getting it to GA and, hopefully, FA. I'd like to add a section on the show's effect on the counter-culture of the 60s, specifically regarding the widespread use (I would assume) of some of the songs at protest marches and whatnot. Any help at all would be appreciated. And, of course, more sets of eyes at that article would always be appreciated.... — MusicMaker5376 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not the place to look for such help. The regulars here have fought against adding sources to this article for several years, insisting instead upon original research and unverified claims, which has prevented this article from getting anywhere near GA status. (see GA nom failed and peer review) Looking at the work you've done on Hair, you've done a fine job. Consider yourself lucky that you don't have to deal with the regulars on this page. Your article is heading towards FA status soon, and I look forward to seeing it on the main page. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That sucks. Well, thanks for the response! — MusicMaker5376 14:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Last call

The original research in the legacy section is holding up a GA-Class assessement. If it isn't sourced in the next week, I will remove it per the peer review...again. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The list

• and others have helped perpetuate and continue the culture as well as creating an environment of peace and networking for the greater good.
  • Left unsourced for more than six months. Editorial opinion about Rainbow Family Gatherings, Community Peace Festivals and Woodstock Festivals. Viriditas (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Drugs at Stonehenge

Heroin, for example, was banned from the Stonehenge Free Festival.

Aside from personal websites which conflict on this issue, I could not find any RS on this topic. Nevertheless, it's tangential to this article. Viriditas (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Politics redux

• Hippies were often pacifists and participated in non-violent political demonstrations, such as civil rights marches, the marches on Washington D.C., and anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, including draft card burnings and the 1968 Democratic National Convention protests.[citation needed]
• In addition to non-violent political demonstrations, hippie opposition to the Vietnam War included organizing political action groups to oppose the war, refusal to serve in the military and conducting "teach-ins" on college campuses that covered Vietnamese history and the larger political context of the war.[citation needed]

This has been unsourced for years with no sources forthcoming. Were all hippies politically active? Were all teach-ins conducted by "hippies"? It seems like the term "hippie" is being used generically here, as in "counterculture" or "protester". Scott MacFarlane in the The Hippie Narrative (2007) writes:

The hippie phenomenon was not metamorphosing into the New Left or radical black politics. The counterculture had many overlapping movements. Leftist politicos-such as Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin-tried with limited success to appropriate the energy of the hippie phenomenon into overtly political causes and, while many highly political activists came to consider themselves hippies, many hippies were apolitical or not leftist.

MacFarlane's position appears to be supported by people like Ken Kesey, Timothy Leary, etc. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the above text does not state that all Hippies were politically active; in fact, the use of the words "Hippies were often pacifists and participated..." is a statement that they were not ALWAYS those things. Nor does anything above imply that they were the only people who conducted "Teach-ins"; Stephen Gaskin's Wednesday Night Meetings in the Haight are famous examples of hippie-conducted teach-ins, but teachers and professors across the country and Europe were experimenting with this method of interesting students in dialog and making learning more relevant to them.

I agree that there were many overlapping movements, and some of their members would not have called themselves hippies. Political and social-activism hippie organizations include the Students for a Democratic Society and the Youth International Party (Yippies), but I would not put that label to the Black Panthers, though they were certainly counter-cultural. Womens' Liberation and the Gay Activist Alliance had plenty of hippie members, but were not hippie political movements or organizations. One might speak of political positions popular among hippies (social libertarianism, socialized aid to many types of people in need, nuclear disarmament, the end to the war in Viet Nam, marijuana & psychedelic drug legalization, etc), but they were not organized as a group enough to be said to have a "platform", and many were either apolitical or even anti-political. Pacifism was often more of a social orientation than a political position for them; many (like a lot of "flower children") had "dropped out" of all that "working within the system" stuff. Others were very politically engaged, and ran their own candidates for office (like Timothy Leary) or supported those they believed sympathetic to their desire to live as they wished and promote a utopian (in their views) society (like Bobby Kennedy). Rosencomet (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hippies were often pacifists. True.

'Hippies often participated in non-violent political demonstrations, such as civil rights marches, the marches on Washington D.C., and anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, including draft card burnings and the 1968 Democratic National Convention protests. That's a beautiful mess. On the one hand, the editor is making a sweeping claim about hippies participating in non-violent demonstrations, while at the same time claiming that hippies are engaging in violent protests and riots. Why do I find these kind of crazy, unsourced contradictions in this article and nowhere else? Viriditas (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence lacks clarity and that it should differentiate between the various events that are listed since they were different in character and focus.

However, in using the phrase "crazy, unsourced contradiction" you seem to be implying that hippies participated in violent protests and riots in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, which is a very common misperception promulgated by contemporaneous stories in the national press. More recent analysis of the events reveals a very different picture--that the violence was perpetrated almost entirely by the Chicago police at the behest of Mayor Daley. In fact the Walker Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence assigned blame for the mayhem in the streets to the police force, calling the violence a "police riot." I suppose hippies did "participate" in the violence and riots, but only in the sense that they became unwitting victims of the Chicago police. The footage in Brett Morgen's documentary "Chicago 10," which played at last year's Sundance Film Festival, is especially revealing in this regard. Apostle12 (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That was precisely my point and the sole reason I noted the problematic passage. For some reason, you seem to think I was taking the opposing view. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I did think you were taking the opposing view. I guess, then, I don't quite get what you are saying. Can you clarify, please? What do you think the article should say about hippie participation in political protests during the 1960s? Apostle12 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As an editor, I try to read and edit articles with beginner's mind. This artificial (at first, it becomes natural over time) perspective enables one to "see" the content from the POV of someone who doesn't know the topic. If you read the material quoted above with that viewpoint, you will see the problem. In other words, if hippies were pacifists and apolitical (explained in the text) but also engaged in non-violent demonstrations, including draft card burnings and riots at the 1968 protests, then there is a contradiction in terms. Many sources take great pains to separate the American Civil Rights Movement, the Free Speech Movement, the New Left and the Yippies from the hippie movement. Depending on those sources, it may be acceptable to state that hippies were members of some, many, or all of these groups, but making blanket statements about the political beliefs of hippies in relation to these groups continues to be problematic. Let's stick to the sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused on your point myself; perhaps you are responding to something other than the text quoted above. I don't see the word "apolitical" there, and I see no contradiction in saying that hippies were pacifists and they engaged in demonstrations against the war, burned draft cards, etc.

The first paragraph states that hippies were OFTEN (it doesn't say always) pacifists, and lists 5 examples of non-violent political action. I agree with Apostle12 that the Chicago Democratic convention of 1968 can be included, since the violence was perpetrated on them, not committed by them. The second paragraph lists political action groups, refusal to serve in the military, and teach-ins. I still see no contradiction in terms.

Now, I'm not saying the section shouldn't be reworded. I think it mixes pacifism with civil rights marches, for instance, and seems to be confused as to whether it's about hippies' political positions or specifically about their stand on the Viet Nam war, or even war in general. I believe there was more unanimity among hippies on civil rights than on the war, including protesting the draft; conscription being an issue that transcends this particular military conflict. But I don't see the quoted text as, in your words, "claiming that hippies are engaging in violent protests and riots". These are NON-violent protests, at one of which they were attacked by violent cops.

BTW, I agree that hippies were not "not metamorphosing into the New Left or radical black politics". Their detractors often tried to depict the hippies as communists or communist-sympathizers or anarchists, and certainly some of the most vocal hippie celebrities like Angela Davis and Jerry Rubin professed such political stands and used violently anti-establishment rhetoric. But the Youth International Party and the Black Panthers never spoke for the hippie movement at large; IMO, if it ever appeared that they did, it was because NOBODY spoke for them, so the public had only the loudest and most visual individuals to go on. Most were more social activists than political activists, when they were active at all. "Make Love, Not War" isn't a political platform. Rosencomet (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself again. We've over this, again and again for several years. Let's see the sources. Viriditas (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For what? I'm just saying it's not a contradiction in terms, and the text never said both "hippies are pacifists" and "hippies are engaging in violent protests and riots". If you think it's not sufficiently supported or needs citations, that's different. Rosencomet (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not different, it's what I've been saying all along. This has been unsourced for years with no sources forthcoming. Look at it again. Viriditas (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Legacy section questions

1. Is the interest in vitamins truly to be credited to hippie legacy? Health food stores and herbal remedies perhaps. Maybe nutritional supplements. Herbal teas, I’d say for sure. But the craze for “vitamin-enriched” products predates the hippie movement.
2. In this sentence: “Hippies inspired many other changes — the decline in popularity of the necktie which had been everyday wear during the 1950s and early 1960s; in literature, books like The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test;[72] in music, the blending of folk rock into newer forms including acid rock and heavy metal; and in television and film, far greater visibility and influence, with some films depicting the hippie ethos and lifestyle, such as Woodstock, Easy Rider, Hair, The Doors, and Crumb.”

What does “books like The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test” mean here? How does it relate to the phrase “Hippies inspired many changes”? The book was written DURING the hippie movement, so it’s not part of a legacy. Does the author mean “stream of consciousness” novels, or books with an anti-establishment message? Is this really a statement that part of the legacy of the period is books written during it about it? Also, the film Easy Rider was written and released during the movement. The others could be called part of a legacy. Or is the author saying the existence of hippie works of art still appreciated today is the legacy? If so, what's the change that was inspired? Rosencomet (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No idea how both of those slipped into the article. Every time I turn around, someone is adding someting here or there and changing the original intent and sneaking in OR. I'll look at earlier versions and see if I can restore what it originally said. Viriditas (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I just checked out the source for the vitamin claim on Google books, and it doesn't say that vitamins were credited to the hippie legacy. It does say that hippie food cooperatives and chains that grew out of the movement became "important purveyors" of vitamins and other supplements. I think the wording needs to be changed to reflect the reference. Viriditas (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the source for "books like The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" in the legacy section, most of these things are "influences" which have been lumped into "legacy". Jon Hunner [6] describe this influence as a literary legacy of lasting cultural impact, noting that a book from 1968 is still being widely read 40 years later. Viriditas (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Variety of English

Til Eulenspiegel argues that this article does not fall under the "strong national ties" provision of WP:ENGVAR. Maybe not; fair enough. However the main fallback position is then the original variety used in the article. As far as I can tell from the history, that's American English. The very first version of the article, already too long to be a stub, contains the word publicized. Therefore flavour should be changed to flavor. --Trovatore (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Even more important, to me anyway, is that the lead section states that Hippie is an American ideal. It also goes on to mention that the word 'hippie' derives from 'hipster' - another American English word. That coupled with the original variation (American English) gives no footing, that I can see, behind changing it to 'flavour.' I look at ENGVAR and I do think this article has strong national ties - just as strong as Tolkein's book, which is used as an example. Maybe I'm missing something, which is quite possible, but what is the argument from the other side of the issue? All this over a 'u'...:] ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 08:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, certainly if there are strong national ties, then they can only be American — I don't think anyone is going to propose a different nation and argue that hippies have stronger ties to it. But what I'm saying is, even if there aren't, we still reach the same conclusion. The article is mostly in American English, started out in American English, and probably has always been mostly in American English, though I'm certainly not going to wade through the entire history to check the third claim. --Trovatore (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How ironic so much work goes into the hippie article ;) This early revision (non-stub) uses 'color.' There is a clear standard that the article was written in US English, so the MOS says we leave it be. Ya dig? :P ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 08:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I reach. --Trovatore (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to change it back. I'm not thrilled with Til referring to my edit as 'edit warring' in the edit summary. I simply undid an edit - which anyone is free to do. The MOS is clear that it's not in the interest of anyone to change the variations arbitrarily. As far back as I can tell, there has never been the use of anything other than American English. This should be a clear case of the MOS ruling over any potential nationalistic views. ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 08:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a message on Til's talk page in an effort to get the editor involved in this discussion, as they are insisting on reverting and using edit summaries in lieu of any consensus. ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 11:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)