The End of an Era.

[scotrace]

Studies I've seen say this is mainly true of men: get a group of 8 or more men together and they will do pretty much anything they are instructed to do.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Studies I've seen say this is mainly true of men: get a group of 8 or more men together and they will do pretty much anything they are instructed to do.

Moreso if coldbeer is involved.
HD

 

[Mojito]

I think that every generation has an element that laments falling social standards - go back a hundred years, and you'd hear a lot of "Kids these days...!"

I know some people who are interested in Liner history who regard the decline of modern civilisation as being triggered by the loss of the Titanic. Jack Thayer Jnr, who survived the wreck, espoused this view:

"There was peace, and the world had an even tenor to its ways. True enough, from time to time there were events, catastrophes - like the Johnstown Flood, the San Francisco Earthquake, or floods in China - which stirred the sleeping world, but not enough to keep it from resuming its slumber. It seems to me that the disaster about to occur was the event, which not only made the world rub its eyes and awake, but woke it with a start, keeping it moving at a rapidly accelerating pace ever since, with less and less peace, satisfaction and happiness... To my mind, the world of today awoke April 15, 1912."

Imagine the shock in the 1920s when young women bobbed their hair, hemlines rose, undergarments were discarded or streamlined, and they drank liquor and applied makeup in public. One author wrote that, when interviewed, her father in his 90s declared that one of the most shocking things he experienced in his lifetime was the age when women sheared off their long locks. And there were plenty to condemn these activities - from pulpits, newspaper editorials, parents, etc. These young people, they charged, had no respect - and many young people retorted indignantly that, as the older generation had inflicted WWI on them, they had lost the right to set the moral standards.

There's a wonderful passage in the book The Name of the Rose when a medieval monk decries the end of civilisation that he believes he is living through - which includes, of course, the disrespectfulness of the youth of his time. Every period is a time seen by some as a parlous state of decline.

Which is not to say that there are some elements of past generations that I think we've lost that we'd have been better to have kept. A sense of community is one - although that had its dark side as well, as anyone who violated the group mores could have testified. I also adhere to certain ideals of honourable behaviour that many today might find quaint. But, on the whole, there's no question in my mind when I'd rather live. Today - where I can enjoy a career as a woman, be financially independent, not have to worry about prejudices based on my Irish-Catholic background, and can work and socialise with people of all races without fearing social condemnation or even physical harm both for them and for myself.

 

[Senator Jack]

Perhaps I'm not following the thought correctly here. Are we saying it is acceptable to exhibit group prejudice and condemning anyone who has the temerity to say it's wrong?

 

[Lady Day]

A basic theory is men being home from war created a lot more babies. These families wanted to give their kids everything they could not have during the war, and focus on them as people, instead of part of families surfaced. It was all about their needs instead of the family unit.

Then other groups (minorities in particular) began to see their needs had not been addressed, and there you go. Mix that in with presidents who had different rules than what people of hte past were use to and there you have it, life.

This is grossly general, but I think its a decent premise to go by.

LD

 

[katiemakeup]

I guess we can find this question of unraveling society and the like, in any generation. There always will be a group of people who will frown upon another's for wanting to experiment, advance or set free what had previously been otherwise staid. It had all been shocking... Maybe for the 20th century- the 50's-70's happened to be that time when it was most notable. Each century has had a time like that- like Neecerie surmised. It all comes down to good vs. bad, treating others nicely and all that jazz. There will always be a village idiot to ruin it all.

 

[Feraud]

Q: How do you know you are old?
A: You long for "the old days" while shaking a cane wielding fist

 

[Novella]

I don't think there ever was a drastic change from the Golden Era to today. And I do think there is always progress in history, even if somethings appear to be regression, it's still a process of moving forward. I think regression is a matter of opinion, while progression is inevitable. Although, and this may come off as contradictory to what I just said, I think people at their core don't change. There is just something about being human that makes things like war permanent fixtures regardless of what society/morals dictate.

I look at other time periods the way I'd look at other cultures. People are human regardless of where/when they're from, they deserve respect. I try to take into consideration the type of conditions they grew up in, the kind of information they had access to that allowed them to become who they were and shape society in the ways that they did. I don't always agree with past actions, but I accept that's what went down back in the day. And as sick as I am of the whole "learn from history, don't repeat the past" line, it's truth merits its repetition. I think some things like war and conflict are inevitables, yet there are things to be learned from past ways of handling the inevitables that can make the present inevitables better (whatever "better" might be).

I think there are more positives today than there were yesterday, and I think we'll be even better off 50 years from now. I think there are a greater number of people today who have a lot more access to information and a heightened sense of awareness. I see that as a big thing that shapes the era we live in, and I hope that it's a trend that continues and spreads. Ignorance isn't bliss, it's a false state that breeds ill attitudes.

My mind is all over the place on this topic, hopefully I made some sense. And of course my opinions are all colored by my early 21st century mind.

 

[akaBruno]

Hey, I liked Bogey's style. But, I dressed like him for Halloween, back in the days when Neil Young was stylin.

Like it or not folks... today is someone's Golden Era.

btw, I think that I still dress more like Neil. It's called metro sexual these days. heheheh

BRUNO

 

[lindylady]

Like it or not folks... today is someone's Golden Era.

*SHUDDER* lol

 

[Elaina]

I think it all started in the 19 teens. Skirts went up, corsets were tossed, women wanted to vote, work, and have it all...and it cumulated since then.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

I agree with the teens. I think the Great War was the tipping point. There certainly was a lot of changes brewing before the war, with the communists, anarchists, suffragettes, etc. WW1 changed everything. It marked the beginning of the end of the colonial era, the demise of the old imperial and royal control over Europe. The success of collectivist ideologies such as communism and socialism.

A lot of attention is focused on how life changed in America after the soldiers came home from WW2, but in reality WW1 is what started those trends. The influx of soldiers returning from Europe coupled with an economic boom, increased social freedom for women and the like, created a whole new society. This is when the "youth" culture began. It wasn't in the 1960s, it was in the late teens and the 1920s.

As to a progression or regression, I think the important difference is between the 19th and 20th centuries. The things we often think of as the traditional cultural hallmarks of the "golden era" are in reality hallmarks of the "long 19th century." (the period between Waterloo and WWI) After the tipping point of WW1, the cultural adhesion to the standards of the 19th century gradually fell away during the 20s, 30s and 40s, etc. There was an increase in the "slide" during the 1960s and 70s but by then it was just a symptom, not a cause. The counterculture was not in reality a counterculture at all, it was just a reaction against a culture which was already moribund.

 

[Dan G]

fftopic: I thought this was pretty funny. Some school of excellence...lol

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JUP9Jm9SqvY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JUP9Jm9SqvY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

[dhermann1]

Women's suffrage

I have a diary my grandmother kept when she was at Mt Holyoke College from 1904 to 08. She describes her friend Jessie being proposed to by her boyfriend. She leaps to her feet at tells him she won't give him answer unless he answers this question: "Do you support women's suffrage? And if not, why not?" They knew what it meant back then, and how!!! (BTW, they DID get married.)
Another example of the dumbing down of education.

 

[Slicksuit]

I have always felt that the baby was thrown out with the bath water. It was good to get rid of segregation, and I certainly appreciate the effect of the birth control pill on women's role in society, but the social rebels of the 60s also got rid of ettiquette, politeness and any respect for authority. Then they spent the 80s and 90s "discovering" all sorts of social realities that their parents could have told them about, if they had been capable of listening.

Given that I wasn't around during the 1960's I am going to have to go on my instincts and a leap of faith to say that the perceived lack of etiquitte and politeness were a necessary evil to change the status quo of the time. It seems like there was two polar opinions at the time: the MLK side of peaceful protest or the Malcolm X side of radical resistance. Depending on the setting and circumstances, both were useful and complimentary to the cause at hand at the time.

While the social upheveal of the '60s was important, I think it equally important to realize the impact of Watergate and its subsequent erosion of respect and confidence in the Presidency. If respect for the highest office is lost, it seems like everything underneath it can be crtiticized, too.

At the risk of glossing over the events of the 80's and 90's, it wouldn't be right to overlook the after-effect of 9/11 and the perception of security on home soil.

In general, it seems like the US has a tendency for its social mores to swing like a pendulum from conservative to progressive. No particular events or artifacts are a complete explanation; nothing exists in a vacuum. Technology, world events, politics, art, music, literature, film, radio, etc. all intermingle and impact each other. If any of these facets were changed from they were in the past, I would think the present wouldn't be the same it is today.

 

[Slicksuit]

I think there are more positives today than there were yesterday, and I think we'll be even better off 50 years from now. I think there are a greater number of people today who have a lot more access to information and a heightened sense of awareness. I see that as a big thing that shapes the era we live in, and I hope that it's a trend that continues and spreads. Ignorance isn't bliss, it's a false state that breeds ill attitudes.

I agree. I was exposed to the following point fairly recently: if you think the last 50 years were siginificant in terms of technological advance, you should see the next 20! People tend to think technological advance as a linear curve, but in many areas, it's exponential. The spread of the personal computer and the internet in the last 10 years are just the tip of the iceberg! Think of what people on this website will be saying in 5, or even 10 years (assuming this website is still around). I think we are in the beginnings of an unprecidented era of easy access to information, ease of communication, and citizen journalism.

 

[Diamondback]

Agreed about the Information Age, but I think some of our problems can be traced to the dawn of the Age of Consumerism--getting and spending, getting and spending, just piling up stuff, keeping up with the guy across the street--there's gotta be more to life than this!

 

[reetpleat]

I agree with the teens. I think the Great War was the tipping point. There certainly was a lot of changes brewing before the war, with the communists, anarchists, suffragettes, etc. WW1 changed everything. It marked the beginning of the end of the colonial era, the demise of the old imperial and royal control over Europe. The success of collectivist ideologies such as communism and socialism.

A lot of attention is focused on how life changed in America after the soldiers came home from WW2, but in reality WW1 is what started those trends. The influx of soldiers returning from Europe coupled with an economic boom, increased social freedom for women and the like, created a whole new society. This is when the "youth" culture began. It wasn't in the 1960s, it was in the late teens and the 1920s.

As to a progression or regression, I think the important difference is between the 19th and 20th centuries. The things we often think of as the traditional cultural hallmarks of the "golden era" are in reality hallmarks of the "long 19th century." (the period between Waterloo and WWI) After the tipping point of WW1, the cultural adhesion to the standards of the 19th century gradually fell away during the 20s, 30s and 40s, etc. There was an increase in the "slide" during the 1960s and 70s but by then it was just a symptom, not a cause. The counterculture was not in reality a counterculture at all, it was just a reaction against a culture which was already moribund.

Yes, but none of that wold have been relevant without the severe changes brought on by the industrial revolution. The big shift from rural living to urban living, a large underclass of landless urban workers, as well s the technology to wage war in a way never before seen.

I would say the industrial revolution started the big shift that is still evolving.

 

[reetpleat]

Here is an interesting thought. If you look back at the fifties or the forties, you would have to concluded that there has been a shift towards more informal dress, manners, speech etc. And of course that time period saw a shift from the habits, dress, manners speech etc from the teens or the twenties, and the eighteen hundreds late and early before that.the question is, how long before that can this be traced .

Was there atime of more liberal speech, dress, manners etc, which became more and more stilted and structured? I imagine so. certainly in the year 35 AD, the customs were maybe not so different from today in many ways. Certainly there wre not people running around in stiff fitting suits, corsets, bowing to each other and speaking in complex language. Although they did speak latin.

My point being, does culture tend to swing between extremes? Or maybe there are multiple streams, as in the habits of the wealthy and the gentry, and the poor working class.

Why are we moving towards more casual culture. If it is so much more comfortable and easy now, why did we ever do otherwise?

While I can see the value perhaps in being able to write eloquently instead of using like every other word, While I love vintage suits, I must admit that jeans and a t shirt are infinitely more comfortable. Would George Washington have worn a t whirt if they had been around and acceptable clothing?

Who knows.

 

[Elaina]

It's the pendlum of everything. Look at the decadence of the late 1700's and compare it to the stifling times of the Victorian age, which in turn brought about the way things are today over a slow period. (I can find the refrences to that if anyone is going to make me.) We're supposedly on the backswing to the more conservative according to that theory, with many people in a younger age group heading toward a more Victorian and staid kind of life.

As to good old George wearing tees and jeans, I doubt it. Look at out politicans now...how many do you see like that? It ruins the image, and lets face it, people trust suits. Banks see this alot. I don't bank at the local place that lets the girls fall out of their clothing, and the men wear jeans, I go to the bank with the men in suits and the women in dresses. Why? Because I feel my money is safer with folks that dress well.