Reaction to Dylan

First and foremost, I love Bob Dylan. I have seen him in concert so many times that I have lost count. What's interesting about this excerpt in The Portable Sixties Reader is that I actually heard Dylan play "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" when I saw him at the University of Pittsburgh a few years back. I remebered listening to that song a lot on his "The times they are a changin'" album but I never realized what it meant. I had no idea that the song was about an actual historical event. I can just hear him speak the words like a poem......

I also want to point out how wonderful a writer Dylan is. He writes descriptively, personally and in a matter-of-fact tone. It seems appropriate that he didn't wrap himself up in writing about current events because I do not think that he would have taken so seriously. His words are powerful and carry a lot of meaning, but they aren't forceful like CSNY's lyrics are. I think that Dylan is definitely one of the forerunners of socially consciouos lyrics of the sixties and seventies and maybe even still today.

Now that the song carries new meaning for me, I will have to listen to it in a new light.

Reaction to Woodstock (the movie)

Usually I would post my blog about the reading from the weekend but I want to take the time out right now to pay some homage to the movie, Woodstock. Watching the movie made the event REAL for me; the masses of people, the need for food and water, the filth, the drugs and the music. I had no idea what 300,000 people looks like crowded in a random field in New York. It was unreal to see how many people were on the roadways in attempts to get to the festival. What I also didn't know is how utterly filthy it was there, especially after the rain! It was really nasty to see some of those people just lay in the dirt and mud like it was nothing! As far as the drug scene is concerned....everyone was high!! But, it is interesting to note how peaceful it was there despite the fact that everyone was on some kind of drug, at some kind of intensity. I really thought that was cool. I loved the music! It was awesome to see CSNY on stage back then and compare it to them on stage now. Back then, it seemed like they were doing the whole music thing on stage for its beauty. Now, it is much more mainstream, even instituitionalized! Jimi Hendrix was GROOVY too!! I thought that watching the movie was a good way to better understand the magnitude and reality of the music festival!

Reaction to Barthelme

In "The Police Band", I found it very interesting how subtle the drug references were. Barthelme tells the story about a group of individuals whose "efficacy will be demonstrated in due time" under the instruction of the mayor who, "took a little pill from the box". Later on, he writes about how the mayor "had a little drug problem of his own". It is so strange to me that the author insists on the mayor, a man of authority, has a drug problem. In today's society, if we found out that a person in a position like the mayor's had some kind of connection, it would be a huge deal. It would be all over the media and every news source around. Yet here, it is so nonchalantly spoken about. As the mayor sneaks some pills here or there, it is not a focus of the essay. Since I am reading it from a 2009 perspective, it is not so nonchalant to me. It was the first thing that grabbed my attention.

It is very interesting to note how attitudes toward drugs have changed so much since the 1960's and 1970's. Its not to say that mayor's and presidents all over the U.S. today don't do drugs, it is just that they hide it. Also today, people in those authoritative positions focus more on infidelities then they do on thier drug use! Forty years ago, it was all just part of the experience!

Reaction to Andrew Gordon

This story was pretty 'groovy'! It really shows how social drugs can be within a society. Whether it is because people are gathering together to break the law or that they all want to kick back and reach a higher state, they all have something in common. Weed especially, is a drug that you do with other people. You call your friends up, they bring some friends, and you all get high together. What is interesting about it is that you can smoke with anybody. They don't necessarily have to be your friend, or even someone you know. It could just be someone that wants to get high, just like yourself. That's how this author felt. Although he had so much in common with Pynchon, he did not find it absolutely necessary to share those feelings with him. He was happy 'communicating' through the drugs. It is interesting how drug use in the sixties still remains true today. People continue to smoke weed communally as a way of communicating. It is a means of nonverbal interaction between everyone involved.

Reaction to Alexie

This story about a Native American family wrapped around music, shows how influential some periods of people's lives can really be. I found it really interesting to hear a Native Americans point of view about Woodstock because it is the first time the thought of it crossed my mind. It made me shiver when he talked about influential Jimi Hendrix is. He relied on the music to get him through arguments, sad times, and places in his life that he felt alone. I couldn't believe how improtant The Star Spangled Banner was to him. But it makes sense. The song really carrys so much connotation; peace, war, love, hate, freedom, unity and America. I could only imagine the energy from the crowd when he played this! It makes me want to listen to this song!

A little off subject, it was really creepy when the author spoke about listening to his parent's lovemaking and enjoying it. It was strange how he would think about Jimi Hendrix while they made love.

Reaction to Goines

Goines' essay, "From the Free Speech Movement", he describes his arrest at Berkley after a peaceful demonstration. What I found interesting is how uniform and united the whole group of students were. Even though they denied the rules and regulations that society, and especially the police, had for them, they created thier own and followed them. Their rules were very explicit and detailed, addressing every situation that they would be faced with as demonstrators. This really shows how wholesome and unified these people were. Everyone looked out for each other and didn't always do things in thier own best interest. I really like this concept. I feel like the rules of today reflect the selfishness of our society. For example, if a bunch of kids got pulled over and had some drugs in the car, most likely nobody would fess up to it. As a result, whoever owned the car would be responsible for the drugs. This happens all the time. If this were to happen in Berkeley, I think that everyone would claim the drugs so that one person alone doesn't get the hit. The hippies were much more focused on community then we are today. Also, I thought thier songs and thier lyrics really showed how they were a unified group of people who were trying to better thier lives. These people demonstrated to better everyone's life, not just the people at Berkeley. It is an interesting concept, I just don't understand why people today can't bend more towards community and the good of all instead of just themselves. We are very much a selfish soceity!

Reaction to Kampf's Song

Richard Kamps's, "Hey Mr. Newsman" is an interesting depiction of how journalists treated the hippies. It basically says that they are more focused on the hippies long hair, dirty clothes, strange style, and their free spirits then they are on what these kids were fighting for. This brings up a good point because it seems like society was less interested with the causes the hippies were fighting because of who they were. The History Channel movie that we are watching in class also shows how the hippies were just disregarded and often times not taken seriously as a subculture. The Reporters talk about their long hair and how unconventional it is, instead of reporting on the what of the argument. I wonder if the hippies didn't distinguish themselves physically as a group, would society have taken them more seriously? Would they have been heard? Or is it that the hippies had to distinguish themselves to be heard? Whatever the reason, the hippies fought for causes that were almost all worth fighting. If it weren't for this counterculture, would we even have civil rights? Equality?

Reaction to Momaday

I found N. Scott Momaday's essay interesting because of the rich religious practices of the Native Americans. It is clear that the Native Americans are the only group of people that wholly identify themselves through thier religion. Unlike Catholics, Jews, Protestants or any other religious affiliate, the Native Americans all believe in the same thing. That is, they believe in the same Gods and believe that everything put on this earth has a purpose. They cherish all the living creatures and live off thier land with no outside assistance. Unlike the Native Americans, many organizd religions have affiliates that are very serious about the religion and some people that are only 'kinda Catholic'. The Indians aren't like this, they believe whole-heartedly in ever aspect of thier faith. They believe it, thier children believe it, and so on. In contrast, the organized religions also tend to stray further from thier faith the farther you go down the genetic chain. Why do the Indians feel so passionately about thier faith? Why did they still hold true all thier values despite all the opposition they have from the other settlers?? God Bless the Native Americans and their faith!

Reaction to Let Sleeping Dogs Lie

This essay was very interesting because he showed the two different kinds of men; those who want to fight for their country, and those who don't. In today's society, men have the personal choice on whether or not they want to fight for their country. Unlike the Vitetnam war where nobody had the freedom of chioce. I thought it was really sad that the young man had to go to so much trouble to evade the war. Although he did shed some sarcasm and some humor in his attempt to not get drafted, it is a reality that many men faced during this time. A lot of times you just hear about the brave men and women that fought for our country, those who died, and those who were heroes, but you never hear the other oppositions side. Is this because it is thought to be shameful to not want to fight for your freedom? Or is because these people were so looked down upon? Whatever the case is, its unrealistic to think that every man in the United States in the mid 1900's wanted to go to battle. With that said, I hope that our national security is never in as much danger as it was during Vietnam because I would hate to see my brother, who is totally anti-war, be forced into battle. It really is a shame that our men were unwillingly taken from their regular lives to fight a war they didn't believe in fighting.

Reaction to Seeking the Magic Mushroom

Overall, this article is intereting because it addresses an even larger cultural revelation. It generates the idea that while some cultures love and embody the magic mushrooms, others reject it entirely. Why is this true? What kind of cultures promote thier use? Deter their use?

Various secluded Indian tribes commonly used the mushrooms as consultants. They believe that the fungus revels with illnesses and recoveries, thieves and robbers, while "holding the key to what we call extrasensory perception". Thier supernatural powers are sacred and have been practiced for hundreds of years.The Indians, and other foreign cultures alike, are very different from our society in that they openly use the mushroom, as it is legal, don't use them in excess, appreciate thier natural powers, repect them, and infuse thier capabilities into their culture. Why is thier culture so different from ours?

Now America is the complete opposite. We are that culture that is ignorant. We view psychedelic mushrooms as illegal, ridiculous and bad for your body. Is that because we, as Americans, use the drug in excess? Or because we use it for our own personal un-soberness at a party. Americans see the mushrooms as a drug, not as a powerful and natural substance.

The question is...how can one culture think so highly of a substance when they other tries so hard to control it?

Reaction to Moody

Anne Moody's text was an intense and powerful piece of text that conveyed her struggle as an African American in a white world. One of the most vivd image she created was that of the time her and her fellow negroes were left in the paddy wagon in 100 degree weather with the heat on and the doors locked. The thought of that in my mind was utterly disturbing. Picturing those people with sweat pouring down thier bodies while fear overcame thier minds. The inhumanity put forth by the policeman not only to do such a thing, but also to smile and walk away from the van when he saw how badly tortured they were. Obviously, the white policeman of that time could do whatever, whenever they wanted to the black people. They didn't enforce the law, they broke the law. In fact, there was no set 'law' they followed. They treated the blacks however they felt like they wanted to depending on the mood they were in that day.

Moody also makes an incredible connection to the treatment of the blacks and a concentration camp. I never thought to look at it through this lense, but yet it makes perfect sense. Both the Jews and the blacks were the minority group, oppressed by the majority, executed/beaten/tortured simply because of thier societal classification, segregated, isolated from thier oppressors, and lived in fear, scared that it might be thier last day. This connection is profound. What kind of people are we? We just let this ridiculous shit happen!

Reaction to Bukowski

I want to dedicate this blog to Bukowski's Notes of a Dirty Old Man, but I do want to shed some insight on something else that caught my attention. Even though I read the text days ago, I still can't stop thinking about the part that said how all the employees of the one establishment all took off work on Mondays to take LSD. I can't imagine shutting down a bar/restaurant to trip on acid!! What kind of sign do you put outside on your window, 'closed due to acid testing'? I guess I didn't realize how pertinent drug use really was in the 60's!

Now to my original focus; Bukowski. Of all the reading, this one was my favorite. I didn't realize at first that the women that hung around the store were prostitutes, let alone African American prostitutes. I didn't know that prostituition was a part of the negro population in the sixties. Was this a common practice?? Were there a lot of prostitutes?? Were they all black?? If they were black and Hank was white, then why did Hank treat them so good. Obviously, there were some non-racists back then that didn't judge you by your skin color. It almost seems to me that Hank loved Elsie, and felt some sort of friendship for the other women.

Also, I found it interesting how the author portrayed the tension between the blacks and the italians, in fact so much so that the Elsie murdered him. And yet the reaction to the murder is quite calm and is delievered in a nonchalant, 'it figures', kind of fashion. I was appalled at how unreactive Hank was, it appeared that he was an empty man despite his lame tear he shed.

All in all, the piece was interesting due to its story, its lazy grammar and its choice to reverse the roles of the races. The blacks killed the Italians, the italians bossed the whites around, and the white man was submissive and fell in love with a black woman......what a strange story.

Hello ENG400