Geesie said:Be that as it may, saying "things were better then" is just plain false if you're not a white male.
I wouldn't say this is across-the-board plain at all. Sorry. Its true in some ways and untrue in others.
Geesie said:Be that as it may, saying "things were better then" is just plain false if you're not a white male.
V.C. Brunswick said:I was passed by, encapsulated and irrelevant before it was cool!
I'm trying to write that into a song. What rhymes with encapsulated???
Senator Jack said:Emasculated, which is pretty much what happened to men after 1969.
Senator Jack said:Emasculated, which is pretty much what happened to men after 1969.
Widebrim said:Getting back to '50s-'60s Fedora Lounge, as Lady Day commented, this forum was originally started with a general time-frame of 1930-45 in mind.
Widebrim said:Yet would a separate '50s/'60s "Stingy Brim" Fedora Lounge be of value? Judging by many of our comments, sure would be! Maybe someone will design and promote one someday...
Lincsong said:Emasculation got into full force with the banning of metal lunch pails in schools. That began the onslaught of emasculating two and three generations of boys.
Brad Bowers said:Marc,
As a trained historian and college instructor, I have to offer up a correction to what I perceive to be a misconception.
The professor may or may not be a relativist, but that's not the point he was trying to get across. He was talking to his students about avoiding "Presentism," which is a term historians use to describe the act of judging the past through the prism of our modern values. Presentism is not part of the methodology that historians use. As a human being, it's fine to say that those people were racist, but historians are social scientists, and try to adhere, as much as possible, to scientific practices.
In the study of history, historian judge others in the past within the context of the time and society in which they lived. It does no good to judge others in the past within the context of today, because that's like equating apples and oranges.
For instance, historians aren't saying that the Eugenics movement of the '20s and '30s was okay because those folks in the past were okay with it. It's about understanding the context in which these people lived that enabled these ideas to become as prevalent as they did.
Yes, I've been one to say I hate the Sixties, but that's not the historian in me speaking, it's the conservative.
Brad
Doran said:and after seeing the film Idiocracy, eugenics will never be the same to me.
Widebrim said:And another :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap
Very well said, and this statement needs more exposure!LizzieMaine said:the advances on the Civil Rights front didn't just flare up out of nowhere in the sixties -- and they certainly weren't a *product* of the sixties. Instead, they were the culmination of continuous pressures that had been building for years, especially since the end of WW2. And it was, more than any other, the generation born between 1910 and 1930 that made those changes happen.