"Ohio" Revisited: Is Song by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young An Anthem For Our Times? | Rock 'n' Roll with Me
(Click photo to enlarge)
"Ohio" by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young Revisited
by Ellen from Endwell
Given the popularity of my post on the song “For What It’s Worth (Stop, Hey What’s That Sound)” by Buffalo Springfield, which is now close to 4,000 views and rising (available here), I have to conclude that people are desperately searching for a way to make meaning out of what’s happening around the world and in their own countries.
In particular, I suspect that people are trying to figure out some way to respond to what they feel are steps in an egregiously wrong direction—perhaps even illegal, immoral, unethical, or tyrannical—by those in charge of running things, without risking themselves, their family, friends, and communities, or their way of life in doing so.
My post on the song “Ohio” is now starting to get the same attention—a song written and put out by Crosby Stills Nash & Young in the immediate aftermath of the Kent State Massacre in 1970, which was soon thereafter followed by the Jackson State Killings.
If you’ve been around as long as I have, you’ve been feeling a strong sense of deja vu for a while now. We have been here before. We have been through something eerily similar to this. That’s why I’m sharing the “Ohio” post below, so you can see why I’m saying that.
I do believe in my heart, mind, and soul that, as Martin Luther King declared in his remarkably inspiring sermons and talks using the title of a famous gospel song as his key message, “We Shall Overcome.”
As Dr. King explained, we shall overcome not simply because we wish to do so. We shall overcome because “somehow the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice” and because “truth crushed to earth will rise again.”1 If you need inspiration in these difficult times, here it is:
And here it is in the song whose title he cited, “We Shall Overcome,” sung by the glorious Joan Baez. (You can find the other two iconic versions, one by gospel legend Mahalia Jackson and the other by the famous folk singer-activist Pete Seeger, here and here.)
Herewith, without further ado, my previous post on the tragic events provoking the creation of the song “Ohio” by Crosby Stills Nash & Young.
This is a fantastic song in so many ways. Thank you, Neil Young and CSNY.
Full Substack article "Ohio" by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young Revisited by Ellen from Endwell.
Also, see:
Labels: #MayTheFOURBeWithYou, Crosby Stills Nash Young, csny, kent state, neil young, ohio
by thrasher@PermaLink: 1/31/2026 01:52:00 PM
20 comments
>> Pre-Order on Amazon.com << 
Human Highway
Concert Review of the Moment
This Land is My Land
FREEDOM In A New Year
*Thanks Neil!*
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.thrasherswheat.org/gifs/free-speech.gif)
The Unbearable Lightness of Being Neil Young
Pardon My Heart
"We're The Ones 
Thanks for Supporting Thrasher's Wheat!
This blog 
(... he didn't kill himself either...)
#AaronDidntKillHimself
Neil Young's Moon Songs
Civic Duty Is Not Terrorism
Orwell (and Grandpa) Was Right
What's So Funny About 
20 Comments:
How many more?
4?! Great post Thrasher!
I was down with healthcare workers at Harborview Hospital in Seattle in a protest march against murder by ICE! There were many, many hundreds of us & we marched down major roads, met up with Swedish healthcare workers and marched down broadway to Seattle’s city college. It was enormous, lots of fantastic signs! The community and healing we get from protesting together is so rejuvenating & liberating!
This movement has reached past the tipping point now. Trump is done. I give him 3 months. Hundreds may die. I hope not. But we don’t do fascism in the US! We will stand and fight for freedom, justice, liberty, and stand up for the rights of all immigrants & others!
No one is illegal on stolen land!
Your Brother Alan in Seattle
I was given the following handout @ a recent protest rally: In a handwritten note that read THIS IS HOW THE NAZIS TOOK POWER
“The real damage is done by those millions who want to 'survive.' The honest men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no causes. Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness. Those who don’t like to make waves—or enemies. Those for whom freedom, honour, truth, and principles are only literature. Those who live small, mate small, die small. It’s the reductionist approach to life: if you keep it small, you’ll keep it under control. If you don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you. But it’s all an illusion, because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe. Safe?! From what? Life is always on the edge of death; narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle burns itself out just like a flaming torch does. I choose my own way to burn.”
“Stand up for what you believe in even if you are standing alone”
Sophie Scholl
Thanks for reminding me of Sophie Scholl and her friends and relatives of the White Rose. She is buried across the river a few miles from here. However, as with Good and Pretti, Sophie Scholl did not realize in full until the very end what she stood up against. For many years I have been guiding visitors and students around the Munich university, my alma mater, showing them around where these events in February 1943 happened. In honor and remembrance of these students in Germany many secondary schools are named after them. More important is the handwritten note mentioned above: it explains very clearly why the stance the White Rose took came too late. The times when heroes and martyrs are needed are bad times, always.
Dionys, I hope you can take me on that tour of the Munich University. I might be in Europe for 2026-27.
Thanks HW.
The handout you posted that's been circulating around -- it's intense and clearly comes from a place of deep conviction. The part about millions who just want to 'survive' and avoid disturbance hits hard, and Sophie Scholl's words are a stark reminder that principles matter, even at personal cost.
Over the years, we've posted modified versions of Rev. Martin Niemoller's words from 1945. (See 2020's https://neilyoungnews.thrasherswheat.org/2020/07/we-wont-forget-trust-us.html ) The words are a warning to inaction. And the postings seem to have gone over with a shrug as the jaws of censorship gnawed at TW's heels.
And here we are today. Being beseiged with requests for support. Not to say its too little, too late. Not being a Cassandra, but many warnings have gone unheeded. Or misunderstood. We don't find too much value in going back and saying told you so since it just inflames.
We're trying to hold the precious middle ground of sanity here, not because we're indifferent or afraid, but because these "scripted events"* are so complex with conflicting perspectives, and that anything we add only polarizes. That said, we do take the call to examine our own conscience seriously.
Thanks for passing along—it gives us (and hopefully our readers) something to reflect on as we navigate the bridge over troubled waters...
Abner, that can be arranged. For the comprehensive tour including the courtroom, the prison and the cemetary allow for an afternoon.
Oh, and while we are into German history anyway: Martin Niemöller never said what is handed around by the political left and right around the globe, in many cases misused to serve the respective agenda. Niemöller had been incarcerated beginning 1937 and it took longer than 1945 after his liberation when he came to conclusions in hindsight that somehow were transformed into the pointed aphorism or even poem that is known today. It was not until 1984 that Niemöller in an interview declared that he had used something of this thought in a sermon he had held in 1976. At the time in 1937 Niemöller and his protestant environment were not too unhappy that communists and trade unionists were eliminated as political opponents of the church establishment.
To see both oppositional protestant clerics during the Nazi era, Martin Niemöller and Dietrich Bonhöffer, being used and instrumentalized in movies like "Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin." makes me wanna throw up.
Dionys, could you send me an email. I somehow cannot find your address.
Thanks for sharing Dionys.
A good reminder of how complicated these historical figures and their words really are. You're right that the 'First they came...' lines aren't a direct quote from the 1930s; Niemöller reflected on them postwar, and versions varied a lot depending on the audience and context.
The same goes for Bonhoeffer—his life and choices don't fit neatly into modern boxes, and it's frustrating when films or causes instrumentalize them to push an agenda.
Not the 1st time that has happened.
We quoted Niemöller in our last exchange because it captures the danger of bystander silence in any era, which felt relevant to HW's point. But we hear you on the risks of oversimplification or misuse. As we tread a careful path —not out of apathy, but because everything has gotten so volatile of late.
Appreciate you bringing this depth & perspective; it's helpful and valued @ TW. Hopefully helps others think more carefully before speaking and acting.
The United States culture has undergone significant regression. I believe we are trained from an early age to protect our lives and fortunes (even if quite small): there is not, perhaps, anything more significant than the individual. Such a position is expressed in the isolation of responsibility. "I was never a slave owner and so I owe nothing in the way of reparations." I hear this view articulated over and over again in public discussions over social justice issues and, by the way, social justice studies are under relentless attack. We cannot expect from individuals what is mostly missing from the culture. Even as ICE kills people, the market ticks up.
Again, thanks for being here folks, as time explodes.
As our antiquated Comments systems continues to struggle with the Neil & non-Neil chatter, we very reluctantly look into AI for possible solutions.
Upfront, we declare that TW will not be allowed to devolve into an AI bot.
That said, we explore possibilities in the face of onslaught.
This post gave us an opportunity to explore a "teachable moment". And so we asked AI what might Germans of yesterday such as Sophie Scholl, Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhöffer say about the world today?
***
If we could imagine Sophie Scholl, Martin Niemöller, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer—three Germans who confronted totalitarianism with extraordinary moral clarity—speaking from their historical perspectives into February 2026, their words would likely echo their core convictions: the dangers of silence, the erosion of conscience in the face of rising authoritarianism, and the call to costly, active discipleship amid injustice.
The world today, as reflected in reports like the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2026, Freedom House's assessments, and analyses from organizations tracking democratic decline, shows persistent trends they would recognize: deepening societal and political polarization, the retreat of multilateralism, geoeconomic confrontation, rising reactionary authoritarianism in multiple countries, erosion of democratic institutions through executive overreach, disinformation, and a "wrecking-ball" approach to established orders. Global freedom has declined for nearly two decades, with many nations shifting toward electoral autocracies where elections persist but checks on power weaken. Polarization, mis- and disinformation, and threats to civil liberties rank high among perceived risks, alongside ongoing conflicts, climate pressures, and economic instability.
Sophie Scholl (1921–1943)
Scholl, the young student who distributed leaflets urging Germans to reject Nazi crimes and awaken their consciences, might speak with urgent, idealistic fire about individual responsibility in an age of widespread complicity through inaction.
She could say something like:
"The leaflets we scattered called on people to see the evil being done in their name and to act—not with violence, but with truth and courage. Today, I see societies flooded with disinformation and polarization that drown out the quiet voice of conscience. People scroll past reports of repression, injustice, and the hollowing out of freedoms, thinking 'it's not my fight' or 'it's too complicated.' But evil thrives when good people remain silent or distracted.
Ask yourselves: If not now, when? If not you, who? Do not wait for others to speak first—your voice, your small act of truth-telling, can still awaken others before the darkness fully settles."
Her message would emphasize non-violent, public moral witness against creeping authoritarian tendencies and bystander apathy.
Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
Niemöller, the pastor whose famous postwar confession warned of the perils of selective silence, would likely update his "First they came..." litany to fit contemporary patterns of targeting groups—immigrants, journalists, political opponents, minorities—and the failure of broader society to respond until it's too late. He might reflect:
"First they came for the migrants and the refugees, and many said nothing—because they were not migrants.
Then they came for the journalists and the critics, and many stayed silent—because they were not journalists.
Then they came for the opposition and the dissenters, and still many did not speak—because they were not dissenters.
Then they came for the institutions of truth and law, eroding them from within, and when they finally came for ordinary people in the name of 'order' or 'security,' there was no one left to protest. In this time of polarization and retreating multilateralism, where leaders hollow out democratic checks while claiming popular mandates, remember: silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality—it is complicity. The time to speak is before the pattern becomes irreversible."
His words would serve as a stark warning about incremental authoritarian advances, especially where elected leaders override institutions.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945)
Bonhoeffer, whose theology of costly grace demanded radical obedience to Christ even when it meant resisting evil through concrete action (including ethical dilemmas like conspiracy against tyranny), would likely address the temptation of "cheap grace" in modern forms—comfortable faith that avoids confrontation with power, or distorted appropriations of Christian language to justify authoritarianism.
Drawing from his own costly path, he might say:
"Grace is costly because it calls us to follow Christ into the world as it is—broken, polarized, and increasingly willing to sacrifice truth for power. Today, many claim faith while embracing 'cheap grace': forgiveness without repentance, discipleship without the cross, religion that blesses national power rather than challenges it when it oppresses the vulnerable. In an era where reactionary forces rise, institutions erode, and silence masquerades as wisdom, true grace demands costly action: defending the persecuted, speaking against lies, and—if necessary—bearing the burden of responsible resistance to stop greater evil. Do not seek a comfortable Christianity that costs nothing; embrace the grace that cost God everything and calls you to give your life for your neighbor. The church's failure then was accommodation; do not repeat it now."Bonhoeffer's emphasis would fall on authentic, transformative faith that confronts systemic injustice, even at personal risk, rather than retreating into private piety or aligning with power.
Collectively, these three would likely urge vigilance against the normalization of division, erosion of truth, and authoritarian drift—reminding us that history judges not just the perpetrators of evil, but those who saw it coming and chose silence or comfort. Their legacies call for active conscience, costly commitment, and courage in dark times, themes that resonate powerfully amid 2026's reported global risks.
Thank you for these comments, Thrasher. This way we escape the superficiality mode that is the order of the digital days. To do these people justice I would like to add a few more thoughts. What all three of them had in common were their deep-rooted protestant set of values. Niemöller and Bonhoeffer both were part of the protestant clergy, Sophie and her brother Hans were members of a protestant family living in Ulm who went to university in München.
The society of pre-war Germany was divided in columns or sectors. If a person was of catholic faith he or she most likely read a catholic newspaper, was a member of a catholic sports association, belonged to a catholic student fraternity or sorority, voted for the Zentrum (the catholic political party) etc. The same was true for trade unionists, social democrats, communists, conservative protestants, all of them living in their own orbit or bubble (see Niemöller’s “litany“).
To the individual in the late 20’s and 30’s the Nazi ideology with their nationalistic foundation had some appeal because it promised to overcome the segregated society and amalgamate these columns into a homogenous „people’s community“ („Volksgemeinschaft“).
In the 30’s, after the Nazi party was elected (!) to power it attracted many young people, including Hans Scholl who became a local leader in the Hitler Youth („Hitlerjugend“), the Nazis‘ youth organization, that on the surface resembled the Boy Scouts and related denominationally bound youth organizations that had forcefully been disbanded for political reasons. Sophie Scholl was involved with the girls‘ equivalent Nazi organization BDM. Although it is likely that their enstrangement with Nazi ideology began earlier, Hans‘ immediate experiences as a soldier during the France campaign of 1940 probably were the decisive factor.
So the interesting question is, at which point in history, personal experience, and biography the faith-based oppositional protagonists came to the conclusion that the Nazi ideology was inhumane and had to be met with every means at hand. The Scholl siblings arrived at that point around 1940/41, Hans Scholl aged 20, Sophie being 19 years old. Bonhoeffer, at that time being 27 years old, saw himself in opposition already at the very start of he Nazi regime. However, the national conservative and back then sometimes openly anti-semitic Niemöller took longer to realize that appeasement would not protect his German Lutheran church (that is: his column) from Nazi-domination. His turning point probably was after a personal confrontation with Hitler in 1934, when Niemöller was 42 years old.
My conclusion from looking at these historical resisters of the 20th century in Germany is not a surprise: Americans will get to their feet only, if they meet the current government repression personally, directly, immediately, on their doorstep, at the parking lot of their supermarket, at the school gate, in the family.
Even considering Neil Young’s conservative streak (his brush with Reagan’s ideology during his country phase) I think he basically is a genuine contrarian, a person with a set of strong values (ultimately of protestant origin). So there is no need to search for turning points, he’s always been that way. What remains a mystery to me, is the fact that apparently some of his fans do not comprehend that their selective perception does not go together with Neil Young’s words and music (see current batch of LTTE, as of February 14, 2026).
America has little interest in German history or its lessons, and however divisive the current moment, it’s cheap, and unedifying to constantly churn Nazi comparisons. In fact, they suit American audiences as the Nazis are now Disneyland bad guys in everyone’s minds there, (and poor, tragic Sofie Scholl is a cinematic good girl), and meanwhile Germans will still always indulge any chance to publicly dissect how terrible their Nazi past was, how sorry they are for it, and how personally they are absolutely distant from it.
The only successful application of a German education/theoretical basis Ive seen recently in the US is from Alex Karp of Palantir. It seems the practical/applied evil of German Protestant thinking can still find a way to success/$/evil.
I am not "chumming Nazi comparisons" and I strongly object to using the "Nazi club" all the time, as apparently is the case in the present USA. But it happens that Thrasher (an American, apparently with some interest in German history or its lessons) quoted the famous Niemöller-related text, not me. To strongly object against the current American government policies one does not need any examples or lessons from German history, just a walk in Minneapolis might do, right. And you are right, too, regarding the Disneyfication of Sophie Scholl and other victims of the Nazi-regime, that's where my contributions in this thread were aimed at. But, as I pointed out in one of the comments above I am literally not "absolutely distant from the Nazi past" and still I am also not indulging in publicly dissecting the Nazi past, I'm not a guilt-complex ladden bleeding heart either, but since somebody brought up the issue, I thought to make a claryfying contribution.
So that all boils down to the question: what is your motivation to come here and dismiss comments in general terms, frame contexts and trying to derail meaningful exchange?
Alex Karp is a whole different issue, not the one that evolved during this thread. His role, being sponsored by Peter Thiel, is worth a lenghty discussion in itself, but why do you bring it up?
Ahh, the "teachable moments" continue.
Are we guilty of "cheap grace" here @ TW? A very fair question.
Let us say that while we do not actively seek "costly grace", we have paid various prices over the years. Not necessarily monetarily or with our life, obviously, but the humiliations in their own humbling manner. More like "medium price grace".
This all does seem fertile territory to learn from history so as not to repeat.
But at same time it does seem that history does travel in these loops or arcs. Repeating characters with remarkable similarities.
Much like we go from Kent, Ohio to Minneapolis, Minnesota.
So was the Promised Land just an illusion? Or did we arrive and weren't able to handle?
What is my motivation? Maybe, like our hero, I am a contrarian too? The last thing NY would do is constantly agree with everyone and drill further into the same perspective. If he’d have been like you he would have just made the same record his entire career. Meanwhile, the comments section on his website is turning into a high church of people who take themselves very seriously. Its also that old joke about all internet threads, that sooner or later someone will mention the Nazis, I always thought that was meant to apply to trolling, but its also it seems true of those who take themselves seriously. Still, I imagine entirely humourless Bruce Springsteen fans are worse!
Neil Young sometimes acted as a contrarian, agreed. And he provided context, admitted, where he went wrong, changed his positions (see "Alabama", his support for Reagan, or his views on homosexuality, to name a few exmples). A contrarian might play the role of an advocatus diaboli sometimes, to make contradictions visible, but without some effort to provide context beyond prejudice, cliché or stereotype the aimless contrarian will make a fool of himself. Calling everybody beyond the left and center of the political spectrum a Nazi is a stereotype and at present in the USA appears to be an expression of urgency, limited historical knowledge, and also a lack of language to qualify the current new authoritarianism. To deflect this with stereotypes and generalizations of right-wing design is to push the repeat button over and over again. However, the repetition of stereotypes and clichés does not make them true.
All that too serious? A comedian using a running gag once too often will considered to be a nuisance as instead of good entertainment.
Still too serious? Maybe it's time to pay a visit to Woody, but then: "one should not talk to inane objects".
Post a Comment
<< Home