Talk:Hippie

Style

lol, it seems like this article was mainly written BY hippies. Like this:

"Aftershocks (1970–present) By the 1970s, the 1960s zeitgeist that had spawned hippie culture seemed to be on the wane."

doesn't that sound like it was written by a hippie? I'm not complaining, I just think this is interesting. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 18:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You realize you're on Wikipedia, don't you? Jersey John (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Photos

I think some of the photos in the article are not of hippies at all. What proof do we have that the Swedish guy or the girl from 1969, for example, were hippies? There were zillions of people who dressed and wore their hair like that in the late 1960 or early 1970 without them being hippies in any way.--Mycomp (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is that this is representative. It's what people generally think a hippie looks like. If it's necessary to get technical one could get permission to use a photo from Time or Newsweek. I'm sure Gene Anthony (The Summer of Love, Haight-Ashbury at its Highest) would grant permission for one or more of his photos of Lenore Kandel, Carolyn Adams, Jerry Garcia, Ron Thelin or Michael Bowen, etc. to be used. --Bluejay Young (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Suspected" by whom and for what specific reasons? Self-promotion of what, astrology? IP who has made only 2 conrtibutions ever "suspects" something. The image relates specifically to the astrology mentioned in the article's text. I believe that's why it's there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What does astrology have to do with that image, useful or not? The pic seems ok as an illustration of a hippie. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You may have missed the poster on the wall? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that the Swedish guy is definitely not a hippie. The blue shirt with badges, scarf and jeans looks like a typical 70's Swedish scout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.32.53 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have done my best to research the photo, outside of what is given about it at Commons. Anyone knowledgeable would know that hippies in their mode of dress were known to show unconventionality and disrespect toward traditional clothing, especially uniforms etc. Here we have an American cub scout shirt and scarf (not Swedish) used in that hippie's childhood and reused intentionally later as hippiewear in Stockholm. There is also a holster with a squirt gun, in the outfit, which he apparently used in his work and social fraternizing as a disc jockey that summer for a typical hippie-era make-love-not-war message.

Anything else (aboveboard) on your mind, one-time IP contributor? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

merge Flower child to hippie

I can't see that the article (Flower child) offers anything that can't be easily included in this article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this page itself states that Flower child is a synonym for Hippie, so what could be so different in their meanings that would warrant a completely separate article? Dylan (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I kind of like it to be separate. The "Flower Child" article goes into greater detail and explains the relevance of the term to key 1960s events. Apostle12 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Apostle12. It's not an exact synonym, though it may overlap with both "Hippie" and Flower power - note that 'Flower child' is treated as a more political manifestation or subset of certain 1960s movements or trends, while "Hippie" is more general and also more of an "exonym" (I can aver that many who would be labeled or lumped together as "hippie" certainly abhorred that term.) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I third it. Keep them separate. Flower children were a specific type. There were many hippies -- the Thelins, Lenore Kandel, the Diggers -- who would not fit the description of flower children. --Bluejay Young (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was a (no-drugs!) hippie, but never a flower child. The differences are vague to me now, but there were differences. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are differences and they can be sourced they can be explained here. Support the merge. Very little unique content and none that couldn't be included here.--SabreBD (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to suggest at this point that the merge idea be scrapped. If no significant objection arises, I will remove the tag suggesting same. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical Amnesia

Though well-written, the main article lacks analysis which goes beyond the recording of phenomena to assign responsibility for QUALITATIVE CHANGES which the hippies imposed on the stream of American history. Chief among these errors of omission is the assertion that, save for isolated groups and nostalgia-prone survivors of the original era, hippies no longer exist. They do, and they are in the majority within policy-making bodies (official and otherwise) in American government and within society in general. To steal a march from the hippies themselves by calling upon Pogo, "We have met the enemy and they is us!" HIPPIE is not, and probably never was, a length of hair, style of dress, idiom of speech or any other artifact of self-expression; it is, and probably always has been, the sum of motivated actions to undermine and overthrow all that had been standard POV, custom and social practice before the Decade of Dissolution (1960s). This intent is presently expressed and enforced as Political Correctness and countless other forms of mandatoty self-hatred within the United States. Hippies haven't passed into history -- they have simply become "The Man". From what better point to enforce one's Revolution? (14:28, 18 February 2011 76.191.197.15)

That may perhaps be a debatable point of view, but being an open-minded and neutral encyclopedia project, we have this thing called "neutral point of view" that we use for handling points of view that are debatable, or opposed to other points of view. Basically, any point of view can be mentioned as such, provided its significance can be verified in reliable sources. So, if you could find any published sources that match your point of view, we could take a look at their appropriateness for mention. And this complaint makes little sense to me: "Chief among these errors of omission is the assertion that, save for isolated groups and nostalgia-prone survivors of the original era, hippies no longer exist." Uh, the article doesn't actually assert or imply that the hippies no longer exist, and how could it actively assert something it doesn't "by omission"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well said Eulenspiegel. I would add that we contemporary hippies never insist on "political correctness;" the unnamed author above is confused on that point. Perhaps he is thinking of a group that has no official name or historical designation; in the United States they might currently be called "leftist liberals" (with or without the pejorative sneer), though this group knows little of traditional liberalism. He is correct that this group DOES seek to impose its will through intimidation; hippies never did that and still don't. Apostle12 (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Early use of the term "hippie"

In a 1959 article by Lewis Lapham in a San Francisco newspaper publication, the article title: The Poets Cry Out 'Zen Nuts, Hippies, Squares' was about the Mad Monsters Mammoth Poets' Reading for Auerhahn Press!!! that took place on 29 Aug. 1959 in North Beach, San Francisco, CA. So the term was already being used in the late 50's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.105.91 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Good find, it should be added to the associated 'etymology' article. (qv) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done a little more research on this article that appeared in the San Francisco Examiner. The subtitle that includes the term 'hippie' is a portion of a quote from a poem read that evening in 1959 by Beat poet Philip Lamantia (one of the six poets on the bill at the Six Gallery in 1955, that is said to have brought about the birth of the Beat Movement) describing the people he hung around with.