Talk:Hipster (1940s subculture)

Stereotypes

I think the article is biased and mostly based on stereotypes. I think it should be changed. --Juju 15:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

also there are no references whatsoever --Juju 15:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference 3 seems to be incomplete --anon 18:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging

I think that these two subcultures are highly distinct! I frankly do not understand the suggestion to merge them! They hardly resemble each other, and even if they were more similar than they are, I think they would still deserve their separate pages. Cazort 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be merged. If the 2 subcutures were so "highly distinct," modern hipsters would be called by a different name. Hippies still exist even though it's not the 60's. It's the lifestyle -- not just the music.Febrero 20:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the two cultures have some similarities, I wouldn't say they have the same culture or anything close to it. For one, there was a large time gap of well more than a generation in which the term was hardly used at all. Music is integral to both cultures, but the 40's culture centers around Jazz, and the contemporary subculture centers around Indie rock. This alone is enough for there to seem (in my opinion) to be little overlap between the two cultures. People in the contemporary subculture are not trying to emulate the musical interests, styles of dress, cultural values, of the old culture--they merely share some of them in common. I think this is also reinforced by the fact that there ARE contemporary subcultures that emulate the 1940's subculture, and I doubt they would be called "hipster"; they tend to refer to themselves by names more like "hepcat" or such. I hope this doesn't seem like I'm splitting hairs--I think that it's a pretty big distinction (as someone who likes Jazz and can't stand Indie rock!) Cazort 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

They should absolutely be separate. The two subcultures are totally different, the distinction between time periods is important. You might as well merge "hipster" and hippie. Tad Richards 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Tad Richards

The two articles started out together. Go back about 8 months or a year ago. Somebody split it into two articles because whatever anybody wrote about hipsters had to specified, which type of hipster? The 1940's hipster was mostly white people copying black jazz musicians like Dizzy and Bird, they did drugs like heroin and cocain, danced the lindy hop and jitterbug and talked in 1930's black jive. Modern hipsters are nothing like this. They are white kids playing video games and listening to ipods. They don't talk in 1930's black jive and don't even know what hucklebuck means.

Morgan Wright 18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My vote is definitely for maintaining the split. The notion "If the 2 subcutures were so 'highly distinct,' modern hipsters would be called by a different name" is mistaken; the word "pants", to pick a random example, means surprisingly different things in different contexts (either trousers or underwear), even though all meanings share the same root — Lenoxus 04:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be extremely difficult to make the argument for joining these two articles. I should point out for one thing, that the article Hipster (contemporary subculture) doesn't even refer to this discussion at all. And really that should be the case. So i will give two particular arguments for maintaining the distinction. The first is that the difference is important from an etymological point of view. Though it isn't mentioned on the hippie article, the very term "hippie" was an insult that beatnik-era hipsters used as a disparaging remark for the younger kids who didn't quite understand what it meant to be hip. It would be good if there was a solid attribution for the etymology of the word "hippie" to enforce it. And then the second reason (which is somewhat related), is the socio-historical reason that there is a second entry in hipster (contemporary subculture). why perhaps is there a revival of the term hipster? perhaps there is a social movement amongst a younger generation who understand that there is a flaw in how "hip" was transformed through the Baby Boomer generation and the millenial hipster is actually trying to recreate that original version of hip. They are a distinct social movement, and have ended up using the same word for a reason that is not incidental. Foszae 08:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The two are completely unrelated and should remain so. These days the term "hipster" has been co-opted and means merely a trendy-idie-rock-doofus. Hipsters of old dug jazz and had no wish to be follow trends. To be "hip' was to be enlightened, the very opposite of trendy or faddish. Lenny Bruce and Lord Buckley were hipsters. The goofball with the "ironic" t-shirt, trucker hat, and this week's indie-rock throwaway cd has little-to-nothing in common with the word that they have appropriated.

I think the articles should be merged...they completly relate if following the etmology...the word means to see...both of these 'hipsters' see trends before they hit the marketplace. one was more concerned with intellectual growth...while the other consumer related ideas...but nevertheless...they are very similar...--Juju 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, see my "pants" analogy above; just because they share the same root does not make them the same thing. Also, consider that, for example, there is a different article on every significant Christian sect, even though all Christians share certain core beliefs (and are probably more similar to one another in these beliefs than even one "hipster" is to another). $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 10:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

i understand your point. but to me hipster as used today, is just a subnote to what it was in the past. if the hipster movement of today, becomes more then just a marketing ploy then perhaps yes seperate them. but as it is now, it is just a way to market shit to rich urbanites.--Juju 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so it should cover things for what they are. If your assertion that the modern "hipster" is nothing more than a marketing ploy is true, then I think that is actually a stronger argument to keep the two separate, because the older subculture certainly was not a marketing ploy! Also, like I mentioned earlier, there are also people today who draw from and emulate the earlier subculture, and they are largely separate from the modern one. Cazort 02:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

well i think what i am trying to say, is that if more can be written about the modern word hipster then it should be a seperate page, but as of now, not much can be said about it.--Juju 13:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs picture

The article mentions special dress. A picture would be welcome, if anyone can find one in their attics. Did they really look like the black&white pic here, or is it a different subculture? Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Cannabis

While I can't disagree that someone who is hip may have used cannabis there is no reference. Can we get some pictures of some hip people smoking cannabis for reference? --Potguru (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hep or hip?

In most 1940s media, these zoot suiters and jazz enthusiasts are referred to as "hep" rather than "hip". If you mention the word "hipster" these days the first thing that comes to most people's mind is a trendy 20something Londoner with a beard and glasses, and not a swinging American "hepcat" of the 1940s.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:21, 22 January 2016‎ (talk • contribs) Osama57

Well "Osama", what you did there is potentially a highly controversial move that perhaps ought to have been discussed beforehand. Robert the Broof (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the undiscussed move to "hepcat". Most articles with bracketed disambiguations are not "the first thing that comes to most people's mind" for the unbracketed term alone - that's why the brackets are there. --McGeddon (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Very Caucasian-focused

I have to echo an earlier poster's concern, I find it strange that this page is so intently focused on white hipsters and white jazz musicians.

Okay, so the "initial" hipsters were mostly white - why does this page never get around to discussing the later, presumably more diverse hipsters?

The hipsters followed "mostly black" jazz musicians - yet the page names *fourteen* white artists, and only two black ones?

Also, tone - "ought to be included"? That sort of authorial opining does not belong on Wikipedia.

I unfortunately don't know enough about this topic to add the missing information myself, but someone really ought to.