Barry Miles really knows how to interest me from the very beginning: in this chapter, he opens with a quote, under the heading 'Power to the People', about Janis Joplin by Etta James, when she describes Joplin as "an angel who came and paved a road white chicks hadn't walked before" (304). This, I think think, is very true--Joplin was the first white woman, in the crowd of crooners like Joan Baex and folksy girls like Joni Mitchell, to really delve into soul and rythm&blues. Anyone who listens to her can hear the heartbreak, the intensity of her emotion-- even at Woodstock, when she sounded particularly shrill and, well, obviously doped up on something way more powerful than pot, you can hear how emotionally involved she is in the music and how passionate she is about performing. Using the style performed by many amazing Black singers, Etta James as only one example, Joplin touched soul and showed the world that it takes passion and soul, not skin color, to perform it.
As with the last chapter, Miles couldn't leave my happiness be and had to introduce another horrible act by our government at Berkely. There was unused land on Berkely campus, so a bunch of people got together and made it a park. The head of the college bulldozed it in response, and when the people protested this insane act (apparently Berkely would rather have dirt and destruction over a garden and playground for kids), the State moved in. Like MIles says, "Any reasonable administration would have negotiated with the park builders and permitted them to use the land until funds for student dorms were available" (309). Instead, they threw tear gas and shot at them with buck- and birdshot, wounding many, hospitalizing 100, and killing at least one person. Really, government? Some people build a park and, since it wasn't technically theirs, you're going to just bulldoze it and incite violence? To me, this sounds like the government is afraid of change and People Power (the subheading of this section), two things that made America great in the first place. Oh, that's right, People Power is the little thing that keeps government from having all the power-- and the government needed it all to fight the Commies, right? A great way to support a fascist government-- I have a class on teh Holocaust, and we have been studying how Hitler put himself into power. Know what he did? Basically the same things Communists do-- take power from the people and install it all, completely, in the state. Wonder where we're headed if that doesn't change... soon.
This came to mind while writing this. It's from "Power to the People" by John Lennon.
Say you want a revolution
We better get on right away
Well you get on your feet
And out on the street
Singing power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people, right on
I guess what these posts have proven is that I'm only really interested in the political aspects of the '60s. The rest of the chapter talks about Woodstock (yay!), Altamont (boo! Hell's Angels are not dependable security), the Sexual Revolution (yay!), and John Lennon (eh. He masked his Communism with his support of the Hippie movement, which I think is devisive and dishonest...but I like his music, so there's some argument for a yay! rating). These parts are still very interesting, but as a blog writer, I seem to be taking the political route-- and I really enjoy that. It's helping me understand and solidify my political beliefs.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
'68
I like the way this chapter opens, with a picture of a naked couple sitting in the forest together, the girl leaning on the boy. I think it's a statement of innocence and freedom-- and also a testimony to experience and openness-- all within/amongst nature, all things the Hippies believed in.
However, while the image is easily connected with the discussion of communes, it is contradicted by the latter content of the chapter-- riots and police brutality. In Chicago, for instance, the protestors/Yippies were trying to exit the area-- as the cops, supposedly, wanted them to-- and the cops refused to let them through, later attacking them with clubs and tear gas. Disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach to think that any human being-- regardless of being indoctrinated by the police state-- would inflict unjustified violence on another, like in this situation. If the protestors had been violent, or refused to leave the area (they didn't have a permit), then, perhaps, some form of offensive action would be justified-- but beating and clubbing people in a makeshift hospital, leaving 'great pools of blood on the floor' (285)? That's just sick.
This account of the Chicago riot reminds me of how the subject of police brutality is coming up again-- with videos all over Youtube of unjustified tasings and beatings. As a Libertarian, I believe that instances of police brutality-- coupled with situations 'requiring' increased police presence (Chicago)-- are signs of a degenerate and ineffective government; police are supposed to keep the peace, not incite violence. In my idea of government, the rules should be minimal, easily agreed upon, and simple to follow (don't infringe on another's rights--killing, stealing, etc); the police, in this situation, would only have a limited power scope and excessive uses of power would be rare and illegal (and enforced, which is the biggest problem with police brutality). Instances of police brutality only anger me, because it proves how far our government is from my ideal-- which is 90% supported by the ideas put forth by our Forefathers, which allows me, with some artistic license, to think of how far we, as a country, have strayed from our honest, functional, and revolutionary roots.
The chapter had me bumming a bit until I came across this quote from Stevie Winwood (297): "When you stop exploring with drugs, now that's a bad scene. I never want to stop exploring." I wouldn't go as far to say that drugs are required to 'explore,' but I take a different meaning than the obvious. Exploring, in my view of this quote, means being open-minded, curious, and non-judgmental; when you deny something as powerful and illuminating as drugs, you're done exploring-- you've denied that anything good is possible. Of course, many drugs aren't conducive for exploration, but turning down the entire spectrum because some drugs are abusable and dangerous is to ignore the amazing possibilities of drugs in general. Drugs allow humans to explore life in more forms than the reality, much like art or philosophy, and to ignore that potenial is to ignore possibilities. It's like accepting that the world is flat just because that's what is acceptable-- it's a refusal to question and subvert physical and psychological boundries that can lead to a greater understanding of ourselves.
However, this idea can't be accepted without first accepting complete personal responsibility. Therein lies the problem-- the problem that allowed the government to shut down the 'exploration' in the first place. While I don't think that my response is the only way to consider the quote (I think I made more of it than he intended, lol), I think it's an interesting perspective to think about.
However, while the image is easily connected with the discussion of communes, it is contradicted by the latter content of the chapter-- riots and police brutality. In Chicago, for instance, the protestors/Yippies were trying to exit the area-- as the cops, supposedly, wanted them to-- and the cops refused to let them through, later attacking them with clubs and tear gas. Disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach to think that any human being-- regardless of being indoctrinated by the police state-- would inflict unjustified violence on another, like in this situation. If the protestors had been violent, or refused to leave the area (they didn't have a permit), then, perhaps, some form of offensive action would be justified-- but beating and clubbing people in a makeshift hospital, leaving 'great pools of blood on the floor' (285)? That's just sick.
This account of the Chicago riot reminds me of how the subject of police brutality is coming up again-- with videos all over Youtube of unjustified tasings and beatings. As a Libertarian, I believe that instances of police brutality-- coupled with situations 'requiring' increased police presence (Chicago)-- are signs of a degenerate and ineffective government; police are supposed to keep the peace, not incite violence. In my idea of government, the rules should be minimal, easily agreed upon, and simple to follow (don't infringe on another's rights--killing, stealing, etc); the police, in this situation, would only have a limited power scope and excessive uses of power would be rare and illegal (and enforced, which is the biggest problem with police brutality). Instances of police brutality only anger me, because it proves how far our government is from my ideal-- which is 90% supported by the ideas put forth by our Forefathers, which allows me, with some artistic license, to think of how far we, as a country, have strayed from our honest, functional, and revolutionary roots.
The chapter had me bumming a bit until I came across this quote from Stevie Winwood (297): "When you stop exploring with drugs, now that's a bad scene. I never want to stop exploring." I wouldn't go as far to say that drugs are required to 'explore,' but I take a different meaning than the obvious. Exploring, in my view of this quote, means being open-minded, curious, and non-judgmental; when you deny something as powerful and illuminating as drugs, you're done exploring-- you've denied that anything good is possible. Of course, many drugs aren't conducive for exploration, but turning down the entire spectrum because some drugs are abusable and dangerous is to ignore the amazing possibilities of drugs in general. Drugs allow humans to explore life in more forms than the reality, much like art or philosophy, and to ignore that potenial is to ignore possibilities. It's like accepting that the world is flat just because that's what is acceptable-- it's a refusal to question and subvert physical and psychological boundries that can lead to a greater understanding of ourselves.
However, this idea can't be accepted without first accepting complete personal responsibility. Therein lies the problem-- the problem that allowed the government to shut down the 'exploration' in the first place. While I don't think that my response is the only way to consider the quote (I think I made more of it than he intended, lol), I think it's an interesting perspective to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)