|
Posted by Pat on March 26, 2008, 12:41 pm
Don wrote:
>>
>>>>
>> [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.
Oh, like everyone hasn't stood with a gun in the road in front of your
house. What's the big dead about that.
Our paper runs pictures of the deer when some one drives them down to
the paper's office. My friend, the former editor, said the hardest part
was having his female employees push the tongue back into the deer's
mouth for the picture.
Around here, guns are normal. Camo is everywhere.
Back when I hunted, I always carried a pistol. You don't leave those
things laying about. So if you went into a store for a cup of coffee,
you always took your pistol. It's no big deal.
>
>
>> 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.
Did you hear about the cannibals who were eating a clown. One said,
"does this taste funny to you". Sorry, I couldn't resist.
>
>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap