"I Walked Out in Berkeley"- Reflection

This poem by Schmorleitz and Paik caught my interest because I think it was thoughtfully put together. The beginning seems like it stars out from an objective viewpoint; the writer notices and observes an old man whom happens to be the "traditionalist" Chancellor of Berkeley. The writer makes note of the mans physical features and condition: shaking, upset, "sad and dejected." The writer (a boy student) sits down with the man and hears him out which signal to me that he is a little unsure of himself. He must have no real "place" at this time of extreme separation between radicalists and traditionalists. He probably fell somewhere in between the middle of the two-- so each group, the man representing the traditionalists and the freedom speakers representing the radicals, had equal opportunity to sway this neutral student. The boy never gives lead to which side he's on because he leaves opinion out of the matter. He's more objective; describing the scene of his day. However, the "freedom speakers" seem to have won him over, and I think I might know why.


The old man is full of complaints and fears. He needs to insult and dismiss the freedom speakers in order to gain his credibility. When I put myself in the position of the student boy, I think that although the old man was clearly on a side (of the traditionalists) he was not confident. He was physically and mentally terrified that he had lost his power-- and to the students. On the other hand, the student makes no mention of WHAT the freedom speakers had said. He just implies that he was touched by it because he had "learned something at Berkeley that day." This implies a real part of the radical attitudes during the 60's. They did not CARE about the traditionalists; they were confident because they had nothing to lose. The spirit of hippies/radicals/freedom speakers out shined and over powered the conservatives in many ways. I can see how a teenager would be drawn into the movement-- things just appeared better on the radical side-- regardless of whether or not that was the case.

Silent Spring- commentary

It’s no wonder Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring sparked the environmental movement. After reading the first chapter, A Fable for Tomorrow, I can see why people became extremists on the issue. Their beautiful environment, which they enjoyed and used, was being destroyed by the very same enjoyment and use of the people. The chapter has kind of a dark sarcasm to it because Carson explains the situation by writing, “some evil spell had settled on the community.” But then on the next page, Carson contradicts herself by writing, “No witchcraft, no enemy action had silenced the rebirth of new life in this stricken world. The people had done it to themselves.”
This juxtaposition is very accusing and confronting. The chapter made me feeling that nature is beautiful, and it’s a beautiful thing that people can enjoy it and benefit from it. However, the chapter takes a turn when it addresses the “strange blight” that fell over the land. I as a reader immediately thought, “It’s the people that caused this destruction because nature doesn’t just destroy itself…” Suddenly the playful, happy use and enjoyment of land didn’t seem so innocent. However, I don’t think that is the point that Carson was trying to get across. I think her chapter and book serve more as a warning for what can and will happen if people don’t limit themselves and the ways they commodify the land. I think that innocent interaction with nature does exist but so does harmful interaction. The two are both realities, but Carson implies that the two physically cannot exist at the same time.

Reading the chapter The Problem That Has No Name by Betty Friedan reminded me of the movie Stepford wives, where all the women are beautiful and perfect but they turn out to be robots. Even though it’s sad to admit, making the women as robots really was a good representation of the women in the 50’s and 60’s, although I don’t think it was their fault. Women were completely brainwashed by society that their true role in life was to be a good mother and wife. The women even brainwashed themselves by trying to silence their inside voices and convince themselves that everything was just the way it should be. Women knew that there was hardly an option other than being a housewife, and the women that chose to stray from this position were ridiculed for being the most horrifying thing of all: effeminate. I personally just think the men felt threatened that women would become equal and perhaps jeopardize their “manly” careers.
There were hardly any options available for women because mass media targeted them towards domestic training rather than educational training. And the woman became obsessed with this phenomenon because when you’re limited to one “purpose” in life, you pretty much want to be perfect at it—you want to excel and the one thing you’re allowed/ suppose to be good at. I imagine I would have been the same way but thanks to women’s rights activists like Eleanor Roosevelt and Betty Friedan I’m not—and neither is the rest of female population. In modern society, if a woman chooses to be a stay at home mom it is because she wants to and most people respect that decision. On the other hand, if a woman chooses to be a physician it is because she wants to, and because she qualifies just as much if not more than any man. And once again the woman earns the rightful respect—at least in most cases, but if not then a whole other can of worms is opened.

Commentary on Thomas Merton's poetry

The "Original Child Bomb" by Thomas Merton was my favorite reading this time around. When I first started reading it, it didn't sound like a poem at all but more like a bunch of factual paragraphs. The introductory information even characterizes Merton's writing as "flat, undramatic language." I kind of disagree with this statement because although Merton uses the "facts" like the ones we would find in history books, he throws in sarcasm and irony that do bring drama to the poem. These little twists bring meaning to the poem for me because they show a sharp contrast between government/ military vs. the anti-war protesters/civilians.

Stanza # 26 is one that stood out to me. Merton gives the run through of the history of the bomb: how it was made, the judgements about it, the power that government knew it had. One thing about the bomb that was definitely certain was its power to kill and perhaps destroy the entire city. In a literal sense, the bomb = death. So then in stanza 26, Merton describes the soldiers on the night before the bombing--"They were as excited as little boys on Christmas Eve." Merton won me over with this line. I was both disgusted and bewildered as to why/ how people can be so cruel.


Merton might have considered his poem a historical background, but the simple facts alone are horrifying. However, I'm sure the opposite side/ different telling of the story could sway people a different way. I think the key to it all is the way things are written. Anti- war authors during the sixties such as Merton definitely knew how to get people on their side- apply to common pathos. Once people's emotions are involved, they take it personally--they are hurt by it. I think this describes some feelings towards the government during the sixties-- they were hurt because the government was portrayed as first and foremost a murderer, over all other things.

Hippies were in love with each other

For people that wanted so badly to separate themselves from mainstream culture, it’s amazing how even hippie teenagers were followers of one another. Famous people like Leary and Kesey were so into drug culture and in many ways fed off each other. Because they were famous they were also idolized by teens who wanted to be hip just like them. Drug culture, behavior and fashion was mimicked and spread through the hippie generation.

I think it’s funny the way they thought about the drugs they took. They thought these drugs made them part of this special group that allowed them to separate mind from brain and have other super-human qualities. But I think they got so caught up in the drugs that they underestimated or forgot the capabilities of the “sober” mind. I especially like the part where the Hell’s Angels, the Pranksters, and a few others held a meeting to debate the anti-war movement. All of them were tripping on acid- except Ginsberg- and it was he that reached the negotiation by singing a song that everyone else joined in with. The rest of the meeting’s attendees where probably all loving their trip too much to even remember or care about the purpose for the meeting in the first place. Drugs united them all in some way...perhaps by making them forget their differences in beliefs. All that mattered was that they were high and loving life.

Also, page 91 informs about the introduction of new fashion shops like Hung on You and Granny Takes a Trip. These shops were able to real people in because they had the clothing that defined people as “hippie”/ “cool.” People couldn’t even see the clothes from the outside of Hung on You but instead needed to climb down a pole in order to even get into the shop. This weird entrance route was probably set up to distinguish these clothes wearers as “special”… part of the elite group of teens that distinguished themselves from mainstream society… but really they were being reeled into just another group that suffered from conformity regardless of their intentions. The hippies may have been able to separate themselves from mainstream/ conservative culture but they were followers of each other… conforming to the fashion trends and behaviors of the generation of hippies.