I'll never forget it: On July 13th, 1985, folk legend Joan Baez walked onto the stage at Philadelphia's JFK Stadium -- site of the U.S. half of that day's massive Live Aid concert -- looked out over the crowd of rowdy kids, lifted up her voice as if she were a pastor at a revival and said triumphantly, "Children of the 80s, this is your Woodstock and it's long overdue."
I'll also never forget my reaction as I sat on a couch with my teenage friends, all of us watching the show live on MTV:
"Piss off, hippie."
At first glance, my swift and admittedly crude dismissal of an icon of 1960s counter-culture might seem the product of my youth, immaturity and overall lack of ability at the time to appreciate the positive impact that Joan Baez and those like her had on the generation that followed them. You know something though? I'm now almost 40, and although there are those who would tell you that my level of maturity remains that of a teenager, I gotta say -- I don't give any more of a crap about Joan Baez today than I did in 1985. Looking back on it, I still consider her little more than a silly, pompous 60s cliché.
It's standard operating procedure, practically a rite of passage, for each new generation to fiercely rebel against the one that preceded it -- regardless of the optimistic nonsense that Pepsi's highly paid ad agency would have you believe. But for anyone unlucky enough to follow those who came of age in the 1960s, defiance to some extent has felt all but impossible. This is because, quite frankly, the 60s marked a high point in the evolution of American society as a whole and set an inapproachable standard across so many aspects of our culture -- music, art, political activism, even the act of defiance itself -- and it did this despite being one of the most turbulent periods in our nation's history.
And how do we know this?
Because for 40-some-odd years, the fucking Baby Boomers have never stopped reminding us.
Never in the history of this country has there been a generation that's cast a longer shadow without really having done anything to earn it than the children of the 60s -- specifically the so-called Woodstock Generation. For the most part, they're thoroughly undeserving of the immortality they've pretentiously bequeathed to themselves. But for God's sake, don't ever say this to the True Believers in the Boomer-Woodstock nostalgia aesthetic; they'll immediately begin lecturing you on the seemingly self-perpetuating legacy of the 60s protest movement, the brilliance of Abbie Hoffman, and the philosophical importance of shitting outdoors in the mud while Canned Heat plays Going Up the Country somewhere at the other end of the farm.
In case you hadn't already noticed, all this free love for the era of free love has really been pegging the meters lately thanks to the 40th anniversary of what was known officially as the Woodstock Art and Music Festival ("Three Days of Peace, Music and a Complete Lack of Hygiene"). Yes, it was 40 years ago that a bunch of hippies descended on the tiny town of Bethel, New York to drop acid, whirl around in circles and make memories that would last not only their lifetime but everyone else's -- because it was just that important.
If you weren't able to be there for whatever reason (you were part of the oppressive establishment or, you know, hadn't been born yet) the Woodstock folks need you to understand that, dammit, you should wish you could have been.
Such is the real legacy of the 60s, as filtered through the haze of bong smoke still looked back on with fondness by many of those who were there: It introduced the most narcissistic, self-congratulatory, self-indulgent generation this country has ever seen. A group of people political satirist Christopher Buckley jokingly calls "The Un-greatest Generation."
But once again, don't tell them that. As far as they're concerned, they own the world -- and to some extent they do, and have since they first went from being counter-culture warriors to being shallow, shameless Wall Street capitalists in the 1980s. When Wavy Gravy gave way to Gordon Gekko. When the Baby Boomers ascended to a position of real power in America, it was almost a certainty that they would do what they'd done since the 60s: shove their values (which always came down to one thing: them), their culture, and their nostalgia for their own childhood down our collective throats, allowing the rest of us the opportunity to fully grasp and revel right along with them in what they already knew so well -- their lives ruled. It was this gargantuanly egocentric attitude that gave us the "Me Generation" during the 70s and went on to bankrupt parts of this country, both financially and morally, in the 80s and beyond. No wonder "my generation" (no pun intended), the so-called Gen-X, eventually decided that the only way to fight back was to abandon all that phony, ultimately self-serving conscientiousness and just not give a shit about anything.
But we never could escape the warm bath of encomium flowing from a media machine designed not just to chronicle but glorify the Boomers as they made their way through life -- from their self-reflective 30s (the tedious navel-gazing of Thirtysomething and The Big Chill), through their ascendancy to their rightful place at the very pinnacle of American society (the too-much-is-never-enough Clinton presidency), now into their autumnal years (story upon story devoted to how they're "redefining" retirement -- bringing the same level of self-indulgence to it that they've brought to every other period in their lives). To drop a phrase from a generation that existed long before theirs, the more things change the more they stay the same.
The reality is that although the 1960s themselves were an extraordinary time and I'd never devalue some of the truly impressive accomplishments that took place during that era, it would be great if we'd all be allowed to, well, get over it. An adherence to the standards supposedly set in the 60s has at times done far more harm than good. Think the 60s protest movement -- the way in which people are encouraged to protest, highlighting individualism (making my point perfectly) -- really has any relevance to today's climate? You're out of your fucking mind. When what was called for in the lead-up to the war in Iraq -- what would've been truly effective -- was a show of strength through unity and, yes, conformity among activists, what we instead got was what we've always gotten since the 60s: a bunch of dumb-asses in face paint and colorful t-shirts acting like buffoons. Needless to say, this struck fear into the hearts of absolutely no one in the political and media establishment. All it proved was that those who were opposed to the impending war would never be able to get it together enough to make a successful stand against the people calling the shots.
So why did we engage in this thoroughly impotent form of activism? Because we'd been taught since birth that "this is how they did it in the 60s, man!" (regardless of the fact that it can easily be argued that the real reason for the Vietnam protests in the first place was that none of the hippies wanted to get stuck going to war -- 'cause, wow, bummer man).
Big fan of those ridiculous Jesse Jackson-led marches? Do those really accomplish a thing? Not quite. And yet we allow Jackson to continually hijack any real dialogue and chance at lasting understanding simply because he's a 60s icon -- one who's always at the ready to inject himself into any public fight simply because it will get him on TV (making my point yet again). Or how about this one: Think about how every political or cultural scandal since 1972 has ludicrously been dubbed "Something-or-Other-Gate" -- named for the Watergate break-in ordered by late-60s pariah Richard Nixon.
The 60s is the decade that just won't die.
Those who lived it have spent the last four decades looking down their noses at the rest of us and saying, "You're welcome."
Joan Baez's comment at Live Aid was more revealing about an entire mindset than even she probably realized. So much that's happened since the 1960s has been compared against the standard supposedly set in the 1960s. This is especially interesting when you consider something: Live Aid was actually about alleviating world hunger; what was Woodstock about? You guessed it -- them. They came up during a time when maybe being an individual could be perceived as a threat to the squares in the establishment -- but did that ethos have to continue throughout the rest of their lives, even well past the point that they actually became the establishment? Did the Woodstock generation ever really grow up?
Look, Dennis Hopper is now a card-carrying conservative. The last Kennedy brother is dead. American Express is now aiming retirement package commercials at you featuring a smiling, gray-haired couple saying, "Never trust anyone over 90!" -- officially making you a walking punchline. Taking Woodstock came in ninth at the box office over the weekend.
The trip's over. Will you please go away and leave us alone now?
Follow Chez Pazienza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chezpazienza
By the way, what good has your generation accomplished?
The sad truth is we could have come close and even surpassed the sixties had we not been so busy patting 'ourselves' on the back for the great strides made in the 60's.
The "cult of the individual" that rose out of the 1960's, or more specifically the IDOLIZATION of the 1960's, has left its mark on virtually every aspect of our society. When the heroes of an entire generation amount to a collection of disparate quasi-philosophers, (admittedly good) musicians, and the laughable likes of Timothy Leary, it's little wonder their children have to grow up in a world where Bill O'Reilly has forty million viewers and pagan healing gets its own section in the bookstore.
There's a REASON the individual isn't over-idolized in successful civilizations. Because most people's "individual" selves are either crazy, stupid, or phenomenally boring.
- Paris 'Rev' Battle, memeticpress.com
http://www.amazon.com/Home-War-History-Veterans-Movement/dp/0812991036
Oh, and thanks for your service as a true philosopher-patriot who has it all figured out and put it all on the line back then.
That the poorly reviewed TAKING WOODSTOCK tanked at the box office PROVES he's right! After all, the execrably-reviewed TRANSFOPRMERS sequel was still a gigantic hit, thanks to the brilliant taste of the "current generation." And who knew until the rise of rap that melody was an expendable aspect of music?
What a Long, Strange, Thoroughly Obnoxious Article this was.
Hip-hop culture evolved as a direct social response to postindustrialism. Following World War II, a great shift in global economies occurred, as Third World nations began industrializing, while the First World, the United States in particular, started developing service industries resulting in a complete social and fiscal restructuring of urban America. Work focused not on skills necessary to a trade but rather on the academic education required for the typical desk job. Here begins the problem of ethnic inequity: historically, non-white peoples are afforded lesser educational opportunities and thus became unqualified for many American occupations as industry was relocated overseas. This lack of higher or even a decent secondary education resulted in a “sharp divide between an affluent, technocratic, professional, white-collar group managing…financial and commercial life…and an unemployed and underemployed service sector which is substantially black and Hispanic” (Walkowitz 190). High unemployment begets high poverty rates, and as cost of living and inflation increased throughout the 1970s and 1980s, these ethnic minorities were relocated either to low-income housing in the best of circumstances or slums in the worst and more common.
To the second generation of these exiles, however, the ghetto was home, and despite—or perhaps because of—its social isolation, a youth culture, eventually dubbed hip-hop, evolved in order to provide “alternative identity formation and social status in a community whose…support institutions had been all but demolished” (Rose 34).
Or if we don't like a verdict. Or if we want to keep the frathouse party going at 3am.
It just feels good causing a ruckus and breaking glass windows from Seattle to Greece when you're at that age. And picking a noble cause just makes the pigs oink more.
Meh, I don't care, think whatever you want. Just look at all the accomplishments of the Baby Boomers of the 70's, 80's 90's Double otts:
70's: Cocaine, YAY! Recession, Boo!
80's: Breakdown of social business fabric. Gone are lifetime jobs if you work hard. In are takeovers and layoffs to maximize stockholder equity/dividends. Crack! YAY!
90's: Ooh, we get to go to war again. Over and over. Just not to save Africans from genocide. And the perfection of the new business reality (credit default swaps start, btw). Companies don't even need income to make their VC backers billions. Oops, sorry about that crack stuff, we'll make it up to you in the 00's.
00's: Bigger wars, grander wars. Billionaires galore making more billions. Crack is wack, Meth is Beth!
No wonder Gen X'ers most fondest wish is to smoke the demon weed and ignore you and your children's clanging voices about health care shmelth care. Or some bizarre newfound love for communal ethics.
That's right, my mommy and daddy said it too, "Do as I say, not as I do."
The whole article misses the point entirely that you can't sum up a generation as good or bad.
There were people in the Greatest Generation that Brokaw stuck the term on that truly were great, but much of them were closed minded racists that had to be dragged kicking and screaming into equality for all.
Right now the neo-cons and conservatives and the birthers and the health care reform opponents want to bring back "the good old days" and an America for "real" Americans.
Every generation in every country on this mad little blue marble has a majority of nutters in my opinion. It's why what we call progress is always so slow.
Incidentally, every generation is nostalgic about their time in the sun. It may seem like the boomers are more so then others, but that may just be because there are so many more of them.
like costalgal:
"The things that passed on to your generation are invaluable. Just dig a little deeper--you self-serving
egotist!"
Yet their argument boils down to "We stopped Vietnam! We fought for equality! We deserve medicare and Social Security! Never mind that we spent all the money for it 20 years ago, we deserve something back for our selflessness!" ... And that doesn't strike you as the least bit hypocritical?
DIG A LITTLE DEEPER?!?! We just want to dig ourselves out! What you left us isn't invaluable, it cost $38,522.80 per person and rising.
"Every generation blames the one before..."
Mike And The Mechanics
In the Living Years 1990
Mike And The Mechanics
In the Living Years 1990
Some of us, who have kids your age, have just let them be. And look at how
kind and generous you all turned out.
The things that passed on to your generation are invaluable. Just dig a little deeper--you self-serving
egotist!