Yes, it’s true. I hate “the Sixties.”
This is mainly because of what popular culture has done to it. It’s all “peace, love, and happiness,” tie-die, pot smoking, free love, Jimi Hendrix, and youth culture. While that’s a slice of what “the Sixties” was (well, the late Sixties), it was just a small slice, and perhaps not a very important one.
So the first thing I do is un-teach “the Sixties” by showing them Halloween costumes of “the Sixties” from today–flower girls mostly–and say, this is not enough. Then I show them a picture of a certain someone being inaugurated in 1968. Did all those hippies really vote for Nixon? Why would they do that?
Another reason “the Sixties” are difficult to teach is because they are still very much alive. For instance, it’s hard not to interpret the presidency of Bill Clinton as a referendum on the period. Did he or did he not inhale (of course he did).
To get past all this, there is the vomit approach–let’s spill out everything and show them. A useful website that takes this approach is too monstrous to be useful to the student, but might be useful to the professor looking for lecture material or the advanced undergraduate looking for a research topic.
On the other hand, I’ve come to see the 1960s as a debate about the meaning and limits of freedom that takes the same narrative form of the 1920s. Lots of cultural change going on with Nixon and “law and order” as the response, a la the Immigration Act of 1924 and the Second Ku Klux Klan. Every parallel has its limits, of course, but teaching “the Sixties” this way repeats a narrative they’ve already encountered and keeps the larger story intact.
Vietnam comes next. How do you do it?
Kevin,
I won’t say yet how I tackle Vietnam (but let’s just say that Errol Morris’ *Fog of War* documentary figures prominently in that–screening with a study guide, and vigorous discussion after).
On the Sixties generally, I boil it down to a few things: generational conflict, personal liberation (per your meaning and limits of freedom motif—which includes sex and the counterculture), alienation (which means I discuss 1960s intellectuals like Goodman, Mills, and maybe Marcuse), and the legacy of the Sixties (which I often try to make personal for them by asking about their parents and, gulp, grandparents).
– TL
The document I will be discussing is from chapter 13 document 5, “Folk Singer Malvina Reynolds Sees Young People in “Little Boxes,” 1963.”
This song is pointing out the stereotypical ideas of the perfect society created in the 50’s. With a boom in suburban life and the modern family, everyone was striving to be the perfect American family. Reynolds sings, “And they’re all made out of ticky tacky, And they all look just the same.” Everyone lived in the same kind of house, had similar jobs and led the same lifestyles, which is what Reynolds is pointing out as something that has come and gone. It was the 60’s now and people were no longer trying to fit in with society and be like everyone else. It was now a time to be who you wanted to be and stand up for it.
My question is what was the public’s reaction to this song? Was it an instant hit or was it rejected by society?
Kelsey Rodocker
p.s. This is the theme song for a really good show called Weeds.
The document I will be relating this blog to is from chapter 13 document 6, “A protestor at Columbia University Defends Long Hair and Revolution, 1969.”
Although the whole hippies, peace, and love vibe was a small slice of the 60s I do not believe that it was unimportant. Many people who were part of this hippie culture were college students who were protesting for their individualism and the lives of others. Something as insignificant as long hair on men was deeply frowned upon by the police and the older men but as the protestor points out in his speech, “Medical science has yet to discover any positive correlation between hair length and anything–intelligence, virility, morality, cavities, cancer–anything.” It was the college hippies like this man who pointed out how authorities would try to denounce something as little as long hair on a man just so they can have some sort of control. It was men and women like this who fought hard to shed to light about the Vietnam war and who fought against inequality, such as long hair on a man.
Speaking about the Hippies, Peace, and holding hands, this reminds me of document 2 in Chapter 15 titled, “Country Singer Merle Haggard is Proud to be an “Okie from Muskogee.” In the first verse he sings about Marijuana, LSD, and burning draft cards; actions that hippies took to attempt to get their point across. He says that this is not an acceptable way to express your opinion and that in his small town, that’s not how things are done. He then continues to shoot down hippies and their traditions by speaking about the love and how its not a party and they don’t hold hands and grow their hair out. In that verse, he also brings up San Francisco. In this, you can see him comparing the large city of San Francisco to his little city of Muskogee. He then goes to sing about leather boots and football, typical American symbols that we all know. He also references the colleges, where he shows that in this small city the students still respect their dean and don’t go protesting and making a huge scene, which was happening in certain parts of the country. This all comes together in his chorus as he says he is proud to be an okie from Muskogee and all these lyrics just tell why.
Just the whole hippie and peace and love opening that you bring up reminds me of this article!
-Nadin T.
o While many people talk about the hippies and drug use of the 60’s, document 8 of chapter 13 and its existence seems overlooked. This article is “Psychologist Carl Rogers Emphasizes Being “Real” in Encounter Groups, 1970”. I believe this is an issue to address because it brings to light that Americans are beginning to feel a sense of “isolation, loneliness, pain, and to the extent to which he had been living behind a mask, a façade.” I feel as if the 60’s and before hardened people to not be true to themselves. The feeling of conforming for normalcy’s sake. Rogers discovered that “expression of self by some…have made it very clear that a deeper and more basic encounter is possibly…striving toward this goal.” It marks the demand for individuals to be themselves and not just blend to the “ordinary social intercourse”. I believe this article needs to either be discussed more or can simply be replaced my a more relevant article for the course if not discussion is to be made on its existence in the book.
I also thought the document titled “A Protestor at Columbia University Defends Long Hair and Revolution, 1969” in chapter 13 was interesting because it correlated long hair with being an anti-conformist. Since people coming out of the military had short hair, long hair symbolized people’s beliefs against the war. The speaker correlates how his long hair gives him a bad reputation with his dad’s cadillac giving him a bad association. Long hair wasn’t meant to be a bad association, it was meant to represent peace and the ideals before World War 1. To people with long hair, they are part of a “Revolutionary Biz,” and how their hair length is really an “appropriate badge,” to signify that. How exactly people correlate long hair with a lack of intelligence or morality I don’t really know.
I too will be discussing the document titled “A Protestor at Columbia University Defends Long Hair and Revolution, 1969” in chapter 13. This document interested my a lot due to people who have long hair and anti- conformists. The speaker says how his long hair gave him a bad reputation. Long hair was meant to represent peace and love. It was their ideas before World War !. I do not understand how people hated on people with long hair or thought they were not intelligent.
Daniel’s post is very inline with what I would agree with. I don’t think it should necessarily be “unteached” it’s an extremely interesting era and although it may not explain Vietnam, it is still history. The history of our culture. I thought the excerpt “A Protester at Columbia University Defends Long Hair and Revolution” was pretty cool. In today’s society it’s weird to see someone reflect about being discriminated against, however it could be just my San Franciscan roots talking. In 1969 (not quite the 70s) it’s cool to see this “revolution” get started. I like how he’s so open and all about self-expression which I think was a huge cultural aspect of the 70’s and hippie era. Especially when he says, “I want everyone to see me and say ‘There goes an enemy of state’, because that’s where I’m at, as we say in the revolution biz.” This specific quote is appealing to me because well first of all it’s humorous, but it also represents a common attitude of today’s society. Mostly because many young people are trying to be resilient and form their own opinions about society.
I would like to discuss, “Carl Wittman Issues a Gay Manifesto” because I think his points are powerful, and I think that gay history tends to be overlooked. What I find most powerful about his manifesto is his description of living conditions. He likens gay neighborhoods as ghettos because they have been formed out of the necessity for protection. Gay people have been the victims of countless hate crimes. His point about safety in numbers highlights the realness of the fear that people felt. He also likens the neighborhoods to ghettos because they are controlled by the strait majority. They are both policed and governed by people with little regard for homosexuality. This is both oppressive and dangerous. I also like how the manifesto debunks some common myths about homosexuality. He explicitly states that homosexuality is not about rejecting or hating the opposite sex, but about loving someone of the same sex. He also mentions that homosexuality is not the result of a tumultuous childhood. They were not “created” out of abuse or conflict. I like the manifesto because it speaks of a topic that still makes many people uncomfortable, and is surrounded by many misunderstandings. How long will it take for gay people to receive the same rights as strait people?
Scott Cooper said…
The document I will be discussing is article 2 in chapter 13. I am discussing “President John Kennedy Tells Americans to ask “What You Can Do,”1961”.
This article stood out to me because it was not just for Americans but for all mankind. I feel as if this was to unite all mankind as individual people who can all work together to make the world a better place no matter where you were from, the east, west, south, or north. This article explains the citizens of the world are what makes our final success or failure. In the article it was stated that people should ask what they can do not what the government can do. I feel this is true it is not what one person does but what we all do as a whole. I feel today it is still true for people to do what they can for the country, not ask what the country can do for us. Working from the bottom up the countries people can do a lot more than the few political figures on the top can do. A question I have about this article is was god used in by president Kennedy in his speech to try and get people to believe in God?
“The Sixties” is often portrayed as only about hippies and drugs, but many other important events happened in the sixties as well. For example, the Civil Rights movement and immigration reform in 1965 fundamentally altered America. The Civil Rights movement used the language of Judeo-Christianity to make their case for racial equality. The argument was that in a “Tri-Faith” nation, how could Christians and Jews treat their brothers in faith as African Americans were treated in the in United States? The expanding religious pluralism from the 1940s in the U.S. made this possible. This religious pluralism would continue to expand due to massive influx of new immigrants after 1965. Most of the immigrants were Christian, but many Buddhists, Hindus, and others entered the U.S. as well. When “the Sixties” is taught, we must be careful not to get caught up in hippie mania.