punks vs. hippies (was shmuck explained)

[Mitch Gart <mg>]

anthonyr wrote:

> I got it. They're really hippies, and you're a punk. No argument there.
> But then, Patti Smith doesn't seem like much of a punk, either,
> nowadays. Was she ever, then, by that distinction? (The distinction
> being, if you show signs of hippieness, you can't be a punk.) Are
> Hippies and Punks mutually exculsive? I didn't know that. Please explain
> again.

Wayne Kramer talked about punk in "Please Kill Me".  Don't have it at hand
but he said he started seeing articles on Punk Rock while in jail, and he
flushed them down the toilet, because in jail "punk" is someone who gets
raped, and he didn't want to be known as a punk.

Anyway aside from the flames there's the kernel of an interesting discussion
here:  what are differences and similarities between hippies and punks.
Ed seems to take the Johnny Thunders line, saying punks hate hippies, and
it seems like that's based on the hippie attitude of peace and love and
passivity.  Punks were different because they were aggressive and hard-edged.

There's also the class issue.  At least in England, punk was a working class
thing and hippies were middle class.  Mostly.  In the US class is harder to
discern and harder to discuss.

But there's so much the same in the two groups.  Like the ripped jeans and
not taking baths and sleeping anywhere.  Like the sense of alternative anti-
fashion that became fashion.  Like the "fuck the establishment" attitude.
If you look at pictures of Patti & Robert Mapplethorpe together, or any of
the PSG throughout the 70's, they look a lot more like hippies than punks.
Joey Ramone looks & dresses a lot more like, say, Jerry Garcia, than Sid
Vicious.

I know those two groups had a lot of differences and hated each other but
looking back from the perspective of 20 years later, they look like two parts
of the same movement, sort of like Civil Rights protesters of one era and
Black Power and Weather Underground militants of the next era.

- Mitch