I disagree. I think that this is about David realizing just how bigoted and self-destructive the hippy movement really was. He puts himself in the role of the one who sacrificed so much to make a change, yet was betrayed by the very people who were his compatriots in the cause. This was the feeling of many women who were part of the hippy movement, when they realized that the men who they protested and fought alondside didn't care if their newfound freedoms extended to women or not, hence the feminist movement didn't really get off the ground until the late 60's/early 70's. This feeling of betrayal is why so many feminists were/are so hateful. David is the Thinker who sits alone growing bitter as he reflects on all the sacrifices he made for a bunch of ingrates. His verses all start out by saying "so much has gone and little is new" meaning that while he thought that the hippies were different and sought a new way of life, in actuality they were no different than the "old rich" they tried to cut down, much like Robespierre and his band of butchers in France. He recants for us the attitudes of the hippies as they speak of someone who they don't really like or think much of, but because they are useful, they will use him and drain him as long as they are able. David goes on to describe the ironies of the hippy message of love and peace. He they used this front to attack and degrade their opponents and try to claw their way up. He uses the phrases "stabbed the backs of fathers" and "stoned the poor" which clearly show his condemnation of their actions. The slogans he quotes are increasingly ironic, going from the seemingly benign, "Wish you could hear" to the blatantly hostile "Screw up your brother or he'll get you in the end." With this progression, he is illustrating how step by step, the hippies got further and further away from their ideals and eventually completely rejected with their actions the ideals they once held dear. The hippy movement became the "love machine,... ploughing down man, woman,... but not hearing anymore" How ironic that the hippy movement, which had such loftly aspirations, degraded into a corrupt "love machine" in the course of just a few years. David feels betrayed and he wants to believe, but he can't anymore. "I bless you madly, sadly as I tie my shoes." An expression of tired irony. A man who is drained and exhausted moves on.
Exactly. One of the things that is often overlooked about Bowie is that his antipathy towards the hippies and the Left more generally was quite consistent through 1970-1977. It's not just personal, it's political: the lyrics of 'Cygnet Committee' explicitly align the hippie movement with totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is a recurring preoccupation, most notably on 'Diamond Dogs.' There is even a kind of playing with right wing ideas on 'Station to Station' and 'Heroes,' (with its title cut's polemic against the Berlin Wall) and the interest in Nietzsche, sometimes thought of as a right wing figure, is a constant throughout...
Exactly. One of the things that is often overlooked about Bowie is that his antipathy towards the hippies and the Left more generally was quite consistent through 1970-1977. It's not just personal, it's political: the lyrics of 'Cygnet Committee' explicitly align the hippie movement with totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is a recurring preoccupation, most notably on 'Diamond Dogs.' There is even a kind of playing with right wing ideas on 'Station to Station' and 'Heroes,' (with its title cut's polemic against the Berlin Wall) and the interest in Nietzsche, sometimes thought of as a right wing figure, is a constant throughout his career. In 1978-80 there seems to be a shift, and 'Lodger' and 'Scary Monsters' seem to be a swing to the Left, and after that he never quite goes to where this song goes again. Whether this is fair to the hippie movement or not is another question, but at the very least there is an issue with internal conformism that was discernible from the beginning, which would later get referred to as 'political correctness.' Bowie was always deeply suspicious of people who wanted to save the world, thinking that more likely than not, the individual would need to be saved from them.
@hairyliberal Agreed. The "protagonist" in the song started a movement with intentions to change the world for the better, by spreading messages of love and peace... only to find that movement usurped by extremists who will use violent means to achieve their goal, making them no better than the society they were fighting against. I think "we can force you to be free / we can force you to believe" is the most powerful line in the song... took to mean if you don't agree with any part of the movement's message, including the more extreme parts, then they'll force...
@hairyliberal Agreed. The "protagonist" in the song started a movement with intentions to change the world for the better, by spreading messages of love and peace... only to find that movement usurped by extremists who will use violent means to achieve their goal, making them no better than the society they were fighting against. I think "we can force you to be free / we can force you to believe" is the most powerful line in the song... took to mean if you don't agree with any part of the movement's message, including the more extreme parts, then they'll force it.
I see it today, among both conservatives and liberals. The authoritarians of each group are all about forcing their views upon other people. It's noble and right to vouch for women to pursue whatever career goals they have. It's extremist and authoritarian to shame women who choose traditional roles. It's noble and right to seek religious freedom. It's extremist and authoritarian to require science teachers to teach creationism in the classroom. David Bowie's message is clear to me: Be wary of those who agree with your message, but vow to kill or maim anyone who disagrees with it.
I disagree. I think that this is about David realizing just how bigoted and self-destructive the hippy movement really was. He puts himself in the role of the one who sacrificed so much to make a change, yet was betrayed by the very people who were his compatriots in the cause. This was the feeling of many women who were part of the hippy movement, when they realized that the men who they protested and fought alondside didn't care if their newfound freedoms extended to women or not, hence the feminist movement didn't really get off the ground until the late 60's/early 70's. This feeling of betrayal is why so many feminists were/are so hateful. David is the Thinker who sits alone growing bitter as he reflects on all the sacrifices he made for a bunch of ingrates. His verses all start out by saying "so much has gone and little is new" meaning that while he thought that the hippies were different and sought a new way of life, in actuality they were no different than the "old rich" they tried to cut down, much like Robespierre and his band of butchers in France. He recants for us the attitudes of the hippies as they speak of someone who they don't really like or think much of, but because they are useful, they will use him and drain him as long as they are able. David goes on to describe the ironies of the hippy message of love and peace. He they used this front to attack and degrade their opponents and try to claw their way up. He uses the phrases "stabbed the backs of fathers" and "stoned the poor" which clearly show his condemnation of their actions. The slogans he quotes are increasingly ironic, going from the seemingly benign, "Wish you could hear" to the blatantly hostile "Screw up your brother or he'll get you in the end." With this progression, he is illustrating how step by step, the hippies got further and further away from their ideals and eventually completely rejected with their actions the ideals they once held dear. The hippy movement became the "love machine,... ploughing down man, woman,... but not hearing anymore" How ironic that the hippy movement, which had such loftly aspirations, degraded into a corrupt "love machine" in the course of just a few years. David feels betrayed and he wants to believe, but he can't anymore. "I bless you madly, sadly as I tie my shoes." An expression of tired irony. A man who is drained and exhausted moves on.
Exactly. One of the things that is often overlooked about Bowie is that his antipathy towards the hippies and the Left more generally was quite consistent through 1970-1977. It's not just personal, it's political: the lyrics of 'Cygnet Committee' explicitly align the hippie movement with totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is a recurring preoccupation, most notably on 'Diamond Dogs.' There is even a kind of playing with right wing ideas on 'Station to Station' and 'Heroes,' (with its title cut's polemic against the Berlin Wall) and the interest in Nietzsche, sometimes thought of as a right wing figure, is a constant throughout...
Exactly. One of the things that is often overlooked about Bowie is that his antipathy towards the hippies and the Left more generally was quite consistent through 1970-1977. It's not just personal, it's political: the lyrics of 'Cygnet Committee' explicitly align the hippie movement with totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is a recurring preoccupation, most notably on 'Diamond Dogs.' There is even a kind of playing with right wing ideas on 'Station to Station' and 'Heroes,' (with its title cut's polemic against the Berlin Wall) and the interest in Nietzsche, sometimes thought of as a right wing figure, is a constant throughout his career. In 1978-80 there seems to be a shift, and 'Lodger' and 'Scary Monsters' seem to be a swing to the Left, and after that he never quite goes to where this song goes again. Whether this is fair to the hippie movement or not is another question, but at the very least there is an issue with internal conformism that was discernible from the beginning, which would later get referred to as 'political correctness.' Bowie was always deeply suspicious of people who wanted to save the world, thinking that more likely than not, the individual would need to be saved from them.
@hairyliberal Brilliant!
@hairyliberal Brilliant!
@hairyliberal Agreed. The "protagonist" in the song started a movement with intentions to change the world for the better, by spreading messages of love and peace... only to find that movement usurped by extremists who will use violent means to achieve their goal, making them no better than the society they were fighting against. I think "we can force you to be free / we can force you to believe" is the most powerful line in the song... took to mean if you don't agree with any part of the movement's message, including the more extreme parts, then they'll force...
@hairyliberal Agreed. The "protagonist" in the song started a movement with intentions to change the world for the better, by spreading messages of love and peace... only to find that movement usurped by extremists who will use violent means to achieve their goal, making them no better than the society they were fighting against. I think "we can force you to be free / we can force you to believe" is the most powerful line in the song... took to mean if you don't agree with any part of the movement's message, including the more extreme parts, then they'll force it.
I see it today, among both conservatives and liberals. The authoritarians of each group are all about forcing their views upon other people. It's noble and right to vouch for women to pursue whatever career goals they have. It's extremist and authoritarian to shame women who choose traditional roles. It's noble and right to seek religious freedom. It's extremist and authoritarian to require science teachers to teach creationism in the classroom. David Bowie's message is clear to me: Be wary of those who agree with your message, but vow to kill or maim anyone who disagrees with it.