|
Posted by Edgar on March 26, 2008, 12:30 pm
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>> [edited/snipped]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was exactly my point. Anyone living during that period is well
>>>>>> aware of the passive nature of the hippies, and thats exactly why
>>>>>> those rednecks targeted those 2.
>>>>>> Peace man. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole point of the movie wasn't that they were "passive hippies"
>>>>> it was that they were free. Passifism had nothing to do with it.
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean "pacifism" or "passivity"? A better word would have
>>>> been "pacifist"; OTOH, Hippies were pretty passive, at least when
>>>> they were toking - pot is very different from alcohol in that it
>>>> renders one pretty much incapable of violence (if one is only using
>>>> pot - not sure what happens when mixed with meth or PCP or
>>>> whatever...)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, pacifism was the word I wanted. Yes I know what hippies were, I
>>> know how pot works, but we're discussing a movie and it's
>>> implications, and it's interpretations. I submit that the directors
>>> didn't intend to say "hippies are pacifist, therefore they got shot by
>>> violent people". Instead they said, "These guys were free and thus
>>> they scared people who didn't know true freedom, and therefore were
>>> shot by those people because of their fear, and the fact that they
>>> were really lying to themselves about their own freedom". Do you agree
>>> or disagree? I'm not talking about real life here.
>>
>> OK, it's just that I see the non-violence aspect as part of what the
>> "good guys" (so to speak) were pertty much about, although that's is
>> admittedly going from memory. IOW, they might have gotten rowdy ehre an
>> dthere, but they weren't about harming poeple. ALl in all, they were
>> just "doing their thing". SO, yes, it's freedom, but that (IMO at least)
>> includes other things.
>>
>> It's hard to separate it completely from real life, because the
>> characters and situations were drawn from real life - and any work of art
>> is not only itself, but also, at least art which is also commentary is a
>> part of, an extension of?, the context/culture/times (not sure which word
>> is best) that existed during its creation.
>>
>> SO, I'm not jsut trying to split hairs for the sake of being annoying,
>> jus putting my ownsnippets "out there" so to speak.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> They shot them because they were too free for middle America. They
>>>>> would have shot anyone with the same attitude, and in fact the same
>>>>> ilk killed a lawyer. Just some dude in a suit who had no connection
>>>>> to hippies or this "pacifism" but did have a connection to the
>>>>> freedom.
>>>>
>>>> Or just going along minding one's own business...?
>>>>
>>>> ALso, why do you say "middle America"? Most of "midle Americans" are
>>>> not prone to such wanton violence. WHy not speficy "narrow-minded"
>>>> people, or "reactionaries", or "prejudiced people", or heck,
>>>> "nitwits"?
>>>>
>>>> Sauing "middle America" is sort-of like saying "everyoen who isn't
>>>> either rich, or poor"... That's a heck of a lot of people, many of
>>>> whom are non-violent.
>>>
>>>
>>> We're talking about somebody's interpretation of the 60s in Middle
>>> America, But you do not want me to say Middle America.
>>
>> It's not at all a matter of "me not wanting you to say" this or that.
>> I'm exploring some of this as I write, and seking some, what, refeinement
>> of the ideas?, definition? - perhaps better to say "accuraciy" or
>> "rational exploration"...?
>>
>> Whatever. I just am trying to say that, even at that time, "Middle
>> America" meant "the establishment"/"the herd mentality" *but* not
>> necessarily violence - not that it didn't have its violent sectors of
>> course, and also not to say that the imposition of certain cultural
>> standards couldn't be expereinced (by those imposed-upon) as a form of
>> violence. But the pressure was more like being slowly smothered by
>> ultra-refined bleached white flour - crushed underfoot by boredom, so to
>> speak.
>>
>> At the same time, one of the lessons, IMO, is that the complacent
>> unthinking herd/establishment type of mindset can too easily descend into
>> mindless, and even casual, violence.
>>
>>
>> SO no, it's not me "wanting your to say" this or that. I'm trying to
>> establish a more three-dimensional picture, primarily for myself but also
>> for the sake of clarification. Because rebellion, too, has its dangerous
>> extremes.
>>
>>
>>> Ok, then let
>>> me say violent idiots. But then again you have the whole lynching
>>> mentality of the past, and remember we are talking about the past
>>> here.
>>
>> Well (going off on a bit of a tangent here) and that past is,
>> pathetically (and dangerously, and disgustingly enough) not so much
>> "past" as most people like to think, because the only thing stopping
>> people from starting back in with that sort of horror is their fear of
>> getting caught by "the liberal gummint"...IOW< it's closer to the surface
>> than is often thought...
>>
>> Maybe more accurate to say "Complacent America"...?
>>
>>> Even in the movie Middle America isn't pigeon holed though.
>>> There is an old farmer who takes a liking to their "machines" and in
>>> the end I think "Captain America" really believes this is the only
>>> truly free person left on Earth, doing things the right way, working
>>> hard, on their own little plot of land, and doing their own thing.
>>> Sorry Don but it doesn't mention if the farmer had any guns or not, so
>>> I can't comment on that.
>>>
>>
>> You were going along OK until you interjected that last bit.
>>
>> First off, one of the dangers of farming - and this is from relatives who
>> actually owned and operated real honest-to-goodness farms (rice and
>> soybeans, in Arkansas) - is poisonous snakes. So, sorry, Edgar, but it's
>> rather common for a farmer to have some sort of firearm with him, if only
>> because of the danger of snakes.
>>
>> Maybe (but I'm just guessing) a farmer in the West might also be in
>> danger from Cougers or Coyotes, or even Wolves. WHen I lived in SOuth
>> Carolina in the early 80's, I worked with one fellow who had a small farm
>> as a second income, and he had to occasionally shoot feral dogs
>> (abandoned pets - they were just trying to survive, but he couldnt afford
>> to just let them kill his cows). HE was down-to-eartg, non-violent, even
>> tempered - but hey, he had to protect his cows as amatter of economic
>> survival.
>>
>> That is just plain reality. So, sorry to pop your balloon, but it might
>> very well be that the ol' farmer had a rifle nearby. Also, depending
>> upon just how close to the land he was, and based upon what I've seen
>> here and there, he probably wasn't above popping a squirrel, racoon, or
>> other critter to put into the stew pot. This info comes in part form
>> someone who spent a couple summers as a kid helping pick the cotton - I'm
>> not making that up. My own grandfather never resorted to store-bought
>> meat, and as a kid, I had venison, woodchuck, and who knows what else,
>> when we visited his place. It's an urban, 8not* rural, idea that guns
>> are *always* evil or are *only ever* used for criminal reasons. In many
>> areas, they remain part of one's survival toolkit.
>
> Last winter when I was working on my garage I saw a guy coming down the
> road with camoflage on and an orange hat and a rifle slung over his
> shoulder so I walked out to the end of the drive to chat with him. He was
> my neighbor to the north whom I hadn't met and he was going to an old
> treestand in the woods across from our house to shoot a deer. His rifle
> was an old muzzleloader, 58 caliber, and he spoke of these things matter
> of factly. I had to stifle a chuckle cause such a thing is unheard of
> where I'm from. The only time you see guns around here is when they are
> about to be used, for a purpose, and use them they do. Can you imagine,
> where you are right now, dressing up in camoflage and walking down the
> street in broad daylight with a loaded gun? I've seen people walking along
> the road with bows, crossbows, rifles, pistols, who knows what all and
> nobody pays it any nevermind. The sheriff himself stood right there on my
> front porch and told me I can shoot guns on my own land. I haven't done it
> though cause it will terrify our cats. But I'd like to, just because.
>
>
>> And yeah, that also can be part of freedom - living off the land, rather
>> than depending upon food to be trucked in to you.
>
> Just today my wife and I were talking about how many people would
> instantly become vegetarians if they had to catch/kill/clean and prepare
> animals for their food.
> I could catch and eat a fish I guess but I think I'd have to get pretty
> hungry before I killed a warm blooded animal. I'm funny that way.
>
>
I'd probably be the same way, but at least I'd have help from my vegetarian
girlfriend :)
Hmm, I wonder if she can truly be called vegetarian if she cooks meat for me
:)
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap