On Counter-culture, and the importance thereof

I find it fitting to write about this subject today; being the fourth of July, the American independence day. Indeed, the whole month celebrates this. The first of July (sometimes celebrated on the second) is Canada's version of independence day, called Canada day since the late 1970s, when some of the last vestiges of English influence were shed (now it is simply tied to the British Royal Crown, nothing connects it to Parliament or the like), but since the 1800s, it marked the day that this process was started. The fourteenth of July is France's Bastille day. While the revolution neither began nor ended on that day (I suppose much like America's Independence day), it is a pivotal moment in Frances, and Europe's, first transition from monarchical to constitutional/republican rule.

But what does this have to do with counter-culture?

Well, they all represented a time that a group of people forced their version of culture to replace the dominating version of culture -- to put it in terribly simple terms. It represents what was then the counter-culture taking over and becoming just culture. A revolution cannot happen without counter-culture. How can the system be replaced if there is nothing with which to replace it.

It is important to note that oftentimes, in fact most of the time, the counter-culture must make compromises if it wishes to become dominant. The minority must reach out and attempt to change itself in order to accept more followers. A radical force must be made to see the limits, and to push the limits, establish the limits, but the majority should never come close.

Hunter S Thompson is, to me, a good example of this. He pushed the limits of what American freedom is. No normal person would come close. He almost became sheriff of Aspen with his freak power party. But there was always an intent. He served to show what was really underlying in society; what was underlying both politically and culturally. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas begins as a sports article (as it in fact did, commissioned by Sports Illustrated to cover a motor cycle race), but becomes the search for the American dream. Raoul Duke never finds it, he's simply too drugged out to realize anything. And I think that's the point. The hippies at the time had recently failed. They were close to changing from counter-culture to culture, and just couldn't do it -- doomed to permanently be on the fringes of society. Why? They had ideals, but were satisfied to get high and drop acid while talking about them. The few that practiced them simply became too few.

But what does this have to do with it? He showed by example. By being a member of the counter-culture himself, we could see through his eyes the inabilities of the movement itself to take over, to move on and progress. And you know what, the 60s counter-culture has not moved very far in 40 years. Politically they were unable to make compromises, and thus were unable to court older voters. Their political ideals were never realized.

PETA (and many other groups of the ilk) will encounter the same problem if they are unwilling to compromise. The total and complete separation from involvement with animals? Absurd. Without animals the human civilization could never have taken its first steps forward. Cattle became valuable as both a food source and a worker. Dogs became useful originally in hunting, and in many other things later. I mean, to take all of this away would simply be absurd. PETA doesn't even want blind people to have seeing eye dogs; its slavery apparently. You know what, yes, factory farming is awful and could potentially put us all in poorer health, but that's what's called a start. Start with that, and maybe see where that goes. Fur hunting, try and fix that too why not, just don't call anyone who opposed you a murderer.

If anything is to be accomplished non-violently in the political/social/cultural realm, and have lasting effects, it must be done slowly. It must be done in steps.

-Knuttel