I don't get it. Is the 60’s something to be proud of?
Indeed, having the courage to express oneself is
admirable. But how many of those who upheld the “Love
& Peace” banner of the 60’s knew the true meaning of
love and peace?
Embracing sexual freedom isn’t love, neither is it
true freedom. Rather, I see it as selfishness and self-
indulgence. Don’t you think the many problems of
society today take root from the sexual revolution of
the 60’s?
Speaking of freedom, what’s true freedom? Is it being
able to do as one please? Nature has its law and
order, so is our society. If everyone does as he
pleases, what will the world become? How can peace be
found then?
The youth today may embrace hip-hop without
understanding the soul of hip-hop. How is that
different from those of the 60’s who embraced “love &
peace” without truly understanding love and peace? I
don’t see those of the 60’s being any less
superficial, just a lot more conceited.
Lavina, thoughtful piece of writing and I do think you have your point. However, here are a few thoughts on what you've said...
"I don't get it. Is the 60’s something to be proud of? "
As a collective conscious, yes, the 60's is an era and a time in history that we should be knowledgeable and aware of. There's much we can learn (or, perhaps, forget about) from history though, we, as humans often turn our heads from the past. I don't think anyone attached personal pride to that period of time in any of these replies.
"But how many of those who upheld the “Love
& Peace” banner of the 60’s knew the true meaning of
love and peace?"
I don't think we have any quantitative account of how many people knew the meaning, however, there were many movements that led to action and changes during that period which are still influential today in the peace keeping process. That's history that's been written. How does one measure influence in human history?
"Embracing sexual freedom isn’t love, neither is it
true freedom. Rather, I see it as selfishness and self-
indulgence. Don’t you think the many problems of
society today take root from the sexual revolution of
the 60’s?"
Again, nobody said that embracing sexual freedom is love. Sexual freedom and love are two separate things and were never used in comparison. Whether sexual freedom in and of itself is selfish or self-indulgence is your personal opinion, like you said. Sexual freedom was not born in the 1960's. It was something that existed probably as long as man existed. I'm sure one of sexual freedom's heights was during dynastic Chinese civilization and Roman civilizations? Are there not evils from every era of mankind post-Genesis? 作者: lynh123 时间: 2009-6-30 16:07
"Speaking of freedom, what’s true freedom? Is it being
able to do as one please? Nature has its law and
order, so is our society. If everyone does as he
pleases, what will the world become? How can peace be
found then?"
Are you defending a particular religion or moral concept? Freedom is what you make of it and that definition changes with different societies, eras and governments. Freedom does not mean anarchy or some kind of an existential society defined by Nietzsche. This freedom isn't any extreme definition of the word but the basic human need to express one's self (in a socially responsible manner) without harming others. I don't find this form of freedom offensive, do you?
"The youth today may embrace hip-hop without
understanding the soul of hip-hop. How is that
different from those of the 60’s who embraced “love &
peace” without truly understanding love and peace? I
don’t see those of the 60’s being any less
superficial, just a lot more conceited."
Hip-hop is a form or music or, to some, a form of dress or esthetics. The "movement" of love and peace was a thought, attitude or perhaps, even, ideology. How can these two be compared? It's comparing apples and oranges, which is better?
Perhaps if you wanted to compare the hip-hop and hippie movement and their attached "lifestyles" that would be more pertinent.
Please remember, the hippie movement and lifestyle in the 60's was not a transplanted culture or form, it evolved in the 60's in California. Hip-hop did NOT evolve in Asia. It evolved amongst African-Americans and their lifestyles. Therefore, my point was that in order to truly understand the "soul" of hip-hop (especially being that it's not indigenous to our culture) we need to delve deeper into understanding it's origins and roots. My other point was that hip-hop music would find it difficult to sustain itself in Asia because we've transplanted it's physical elements but not it's inner core. Is there anything wrong with "embracing" these exterior or esthetic elements? Of course not. However, the soul and meaning of things gets lost in time which, to me, is worth lamenting.
This piece was not written to be conceited or offensive but to offer to some people a view into an era that I found very seminal in the making of our modern 20th century world. I was born on the tail of that decade but was a benefactor from it. I didn't expect some of you would take to the defensive on this. I hope this explains somewhat my intentions and motivations. 作者: lynh123 时间: 2009-6-30 16:07
