Sometimes as a history teacher, students will ask you unanswerable questions. For instance, just a few months ago I received this one: "What is the single biggest moment in world history?" On the list of tough questions, that is undoubtedly at the top. Initially, my Amero-centric mind started thinking of great moments in American history like Yorktown, Appomattox, D-Day, or Armstrong's stroll on the moon. Then it dawned on me that yes, the world did exist before 1776, and there were ample other choices from which to choose. Finally I answered (outside of school hours so as not to anger the ACLU) that either the birth or the resurrection of Jesus Christ was without question history's most significant occurrence. Silly me.
If only I would have waited a few more months to respond, I would have come across the TIME magazine article that had already answered the question forty years ago by declaring that Woodstock was "History's Biggest Happening." I'm so embarrassed. How did it not dawn on me that 400,000 rebellious young people collectively rejecting decency, morality, and hygiene trumped all other world events, including the moment when the Creator took on our injured flesh and dwelled amongst us?
With this year marking the 40th anniversary of the pig sty in upstate New York, there is a renewed effort by ex-hippies to make their "movement" into something meaningful and deserving of recognition. While New York Times columnist Gail Collins lamented that today's youth will never have such a truly "cut off" experience like Woodstock, author Paul Krassner writing at the Huffington Post suggested that the gathering was a "mass awakening" of young people who were "deprogramming themselves from a civilization of sadomasochistic priorities." He posited that Woodstock amounted to an "evolutionary jump in consciousness." Right. If Mr. Krassner can honestly conclude that a half million pampered brats stealing their way into a ticketed event, engaging freely in sexual promiscuity, abusing illegal drugs, and complaining about society's expectations that they grow up is a "higher consciousness," perhaps he is still suffering the aftereffects of the $6-a-capsule LSD that he admittedly used at the event.
Despite the best efforts of Krassner, Collins, and so many others, anyone capable of even a modicum of research can uncover how much of a sham it is to consider Woodstock some sort of "counterculture revolution." Simply compare the reality of Woodstock to what the participants were supposedly rebelling against, and you realize the insanity associated with attaching any meaningful significance to this drug fest.
First, the hippies claimed to reject the unjust and immoral capitalistic system that disproportionately hurt the poor, and benefitted the corporate elite. Never mind that the entire event was financed by Ivy League educated businessman John Roberts (the heir to the Polident fortune), and was held on the land of uber-wealthy conservative Republican farmer Max Yasgur. Yasgur made $75,000 for renting this unused portion of his property to the lefties. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sure sounds like capitalism.
Even the psychedelic rock bands participating in the event were contaminated by such "capitalist greed." The Who charged over $10,000 for their appearance alone. One wonders if it ever dawned on the enlightened liberal masses there in the mud pit of degradation how many of the victimized poor they could have fed with ten grand?
Secondly, the "make love not war" crowd saw Woodstock as an opportunity to crystallize their intense opposition to American involvement in Vietnam. They grumbled against the American military as a vehicle of subjugation and dehumanization. That is, until they needed them. In what has to be one of the greatest ironies in American history, the spoiled children of Woodstock ran out of food...and turned to the National Guard to feed them. As Michael Tremoglie wrote, "The Left needed those warmongering, baby killing, murdering monsters of the military establishment to drop food from helicopters to save them."
Perhaps that, more than anything else, is what makes me bristle when I hear those who mocked responsibility and scoffed at morality propose that we erect a monument to their hedonism and teach the importance of its impact. We already have a monument to honor those from their generation who are worthy of honor: it's a wall in Washington, D.C. with roughly 58,000 names of those who stood for something far greater than depraved self-gratification.
On second thought, perhaps the self-obsessed ex-hippies are right...perhaps there is something meaningful to note about Woodstock. It stands as a national embarrassment and blight on an entire generation of otherwise responsible citizens. Citizens who chose honor over squalor, duty over rebellion, sacrifice over self-indulgence, and discipline over immaturity. It reminds us of that age-old reality that while some choose to set aside childish things, others choose to define their existence by them. That is the true legacy of Woodstock...and it's certainly not one worth celebrating.
