English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Please provide sources if you have them.

2007-04-21 14:28:29 · 6 answers · asked by mozartmoment 2 in Arts & Humanities History

please give answers that make sense. thanks.

2007-04-21 15:12:17 · update #1

6 answers

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the consensus opinion here -- Woodstock did nothing to "empower" anybody. It wasn't about empowerment; and anyone who says otherwise is flat out wrong. I realize that millions of people claim this -- but in fact, I WAS at Woodstock. And you HAVE to believe me, NOBODY was talking about empowerment -- we were all talking about sex, drugs and rock & roll.

Woodstock actually happened at the end of the era. By late 1969, the sixties were dying, and so was that mood of optimism. The real empowerment of America's youth occured years earlier, and was sparked by the spirit of optimism that came from the Kennedy Administration. It was later fueled by the injustices revealed by the growing Civil Rights movement, and brought to full fruition in the protests against the Vietnam War. THESE three things were empowering.

Woodstock was simply blowing off steam -- and I should know -- I was there. Cheers.

EDIT FOR "COOLIO":

Let me expand briefly on my earlier comments, as "coolio" has made unsupported statements. I was there, coolio, and I lived through that period. As I stated, the spirit of empowerment grew out of the earlier events of the Kennedy Administration, the Civil Rights Movement, and the hopes of a peaceful resolution of the Vietnam conflict.

By 1969, there was no empowerment left to be had. We'd seen the lies of the Johnson Administration laid bare in the disastrous Tet Offensive of 1968. We witnessed the assainations of Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy. We saw the riots at the Chicago Democratic Convention, and then the election of Richard Nixon.

All of these things happened before Woodstock. By this time there was no more sense of "we have to rally the troops and make the world safe for flowers to grow." By 1969, nobody believed, as the Beatles' song says, that, "All you need is Love." The sixties were dying, and were soon going to give up the ghost.

By the 1970s, that spirit of "Change the World" mutated into what Tom Wolfe called the "Me Decade," in which burned out hippies gave up on the idea of externally improving the world, and instead focused on the internal drive to improve their own lives through excessive self-indulgence.

I'm not trying to be patronizing, coolio, but you wrote a thousand word essay -- congratulations. I lived through this time, and I think I know more about what it meant, and how it mutated.

2007-04-21 23:08:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Any event as large as that coming out of the grassroots of a society is bound to capture the attention and imagination of any astute politician. Every politician in the nation saw the potential represented by the Concert, and in some way responded to it.
Also, just the realization that anything so big could be made to happen was inspiring to the people of the time, and for over a year afterward many things were started across the land that might not have been started otherwise.
However, what really empowered the generation of young people in 1969 was the fact the the other 99.99% of them were home doing their Algebra homework and listnening to the AM radio. We also went to the Moon in 1969, that was inspiring and empowering in its own way.

2007-04-21 14:51:39 · answer #2 · answered by Happy Camper 5 · 0 0

In my humble opinion I think many of the people of that era want to think that Woodstock had a special meaning. For example there is that; Wavy Gravy dude running around, even today, that still hangs on to Woodstock like it was yesterday. I am sure if you could approached some of the original members of the Jefferson Airplane, and other underground rock groups of that era, they might even say it was a religious experience and treat Woodstock like it was the Holy Grail of the 60's movement. However, like others have said here at your post it was all about sex, drugs and rock and roll just like any other rock concert today. If you want to make it about empowerment you will if you try hard enough to find something there. Tell you what, go rent the Woodstock movie and be honest with yourself and after watching it tell us it was nothing more than a naked drug fest. Like some of the others that responded here, I am as well from that era and I can say one thing for sure and that is age makes you more honest with yourself as you get older, unless you are like Wavy Gravy and you are stuck in a perpetual Peter Pan state.

2007-04-22 07:50:12 · answer #3 · answered by Shellback 6 · 0 0

Woodstock didn't empower the youth--
the youth already had the power and
took more. The 60s were a special time
that probably won't ever come again.
Ask your moms and dads or maybe
grandpa. The fanatic liberals of today
were the tune-in and drop out kids of the
60s.

2007-04-21 14:43:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I am not sure it empowered the youth of America at all. They were far too drunk and stoned to be positively affected. That musical festival was a blot on the integrity of young people with its hedonistic goings on.

Chow!!

2007-04-21 15:42:05 · answer #5 · answered by No one 7 · 0 0

i think woodstock totally empowered the youth of america because it proved to the authority figures of the time that they could get together and have a concert filled with drugs and nudity and harsh conditions and maintain some level of sanity...there were no fights or violent outburts. the 3 people that died, did so because one was accidentally run over and the others died from drug overdoses...so i disagree with everybody who has answered this question and totally think that woodstock empowered the youth of america all the way.

2007-04-22 15:23:29 · answer #6 · answered by coolio_carolyn 1 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers