Are all pacifists hippies?

Post Reply New Topic

I was wondering if one needs to be a hippie, on order to be a pacifist. I've just made a discovery while sending my closest WrongPlanet friend that I'm a pacifist. Are all pacifists hippies, and are all hippies pacifists? Do you need to be a hippie to be considered a pacifist?

Not necessarily. Many pacifists are hardcore religious types, and I don't think religion is very compatible with the hippie way of life to say the least.

I'm not a pacifist but I am a "hippie" if you need a label. Funny, though, a belief in "peace" and such 'negativity' attached to it, eh? Why is that (peace) bad?

I dont know (I have an excellent theory)

I am a pacifist, but not a hippie.

I am most definitely not a pacifist, however I have always understood the words pacifist and hippie to have distinct and different meanings. In theory one could be a hippie (whatever that is, I do not feel like looking the term up ), and a pacifist, but one does not have to be. The reverse is also true. While "hippies" are often identified with pacifism, during the Vietnam War, some "hippies" openly supported the Vietcong or North Vietnamese Army. By supporting a particular side in a war, one is not engaging one is traditionally prescribed as pacifist behavior.

So it can go any and all ways.

Not all pacifists are hippies but most hippies are pacifists. The pacifistic non-hippie is probably more noticeable than the hippie non-pacifist as the label usually goes towards people who are rejecting traditional ideas, including and especially war and violence. Looking at jimservo's post though, I can see that hippies can in some cases go to war.

I think, Corvus, the reason why these pro-peace people get bad labels is for the following reason: the people described are usually considered extremists and those on either extreme of the war-peace issue get negative names, in fact, most people on any extreme get some negative label, it would be odd if the strongly pro-peace got excluded.

Thankyou for clearing that up, for me.

Honestly we're not ready for a pacifist society yet. It's a good idea but it's unrealistic, people won't break ignorance unless theyr intimidated into it. This should be sociological civil rights 101. When you live in a society of apes, diplomacy has no use. I'm not supporting terrorism, but aggressive activism is neccessary.

(bear in mind some of these groups have became disgustingly radical, but it prooves my point) tribes that have succeeded in their goals by being aggressive:

Christians
Muslims (in the middle east)
feminists
blacks (but they actually did the right thing for themselves, they sought equality, not dominance... so did the feminists **in the beginning**)

Now, the ONLY example of pacifism working is with Ghandi, this is because he basically held himself ranson by fasting to get his followers to stop defending themselves. It's a sheer miracle it worked, because people don't work that way. The hippies in the 60's kept politicians on their toes, BUT, they didn't really make alot of long term change in the political spectrum the way they had intended because they weren't aggressive enough.

We have to take strides to make this kind of world possible first, which means people need to evolve.

Most people on the war extreme get elected.



You forgot Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela.

Last edited by headphase on 22 Jan 2007, 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I wonder how many of those hippy activists from the 60's became democratic politicians of today?

I think a pacifist is someone who opposes violence and keeps their mouth shut

Not necessarily. Barry Goldwater is an example of that as democratic political advertisement was often based upon the idea that he would start a war. Not only that, but most people on either extreme don't get a political office as they are extreme. The people that usually do get offices are more moderate. The cases in which the war extreme tends to dominate tend to be when the people of the area are in more dire positions or with traditional foes.

can you supply us with any well known examples of feminist violence? the only one that comes to mind at the moment would be valerie solanas shooting warhol and her s.c.u.m. society, and that actually was more to do with a personal grievance than strictly feminist issues. i am sure there must be more, but my mind is currently drawing a blank...

Nelson Mandela started out with a pacifist strategy but he changed to a strategy which included bombing civilian targets.

Mahatma Ghandi, for most of his life, was not a pacifist or indeed anything close to it. It is highly debatable whether or not his strategies actually led to Indian independence.

http://nzmera.orcon.net.nz/femvioln.html