The Origin Of "The Fifties"

[F. J.]

Well said!

Most of us here are well aware that the Era (note how I refer to it) was not art-deco splendor with Fred and Ginger tipping cocktails on a cloud of Lucky Strike smoke wafting out over a glittering Manhattan skyline. Most of us know that the real 1930s were a time of frowsy, unpainted houses, half-finished abandoned construction projects, mobs dragging foreclosure judges into the street, MacArthur gassing unemployed veterans, and economic royalists claiming prosperity was just around the corner if all those shiftless poor people would just spit on their hands and work a little harder. It was also a time when ordinary working people stood up to fight for their rights -- and *won.* Not without shedding blood, not without many setbacks -- but in the end, they *won.* Whatever prosperity came out of "The Fifties" was built with the blood and the sweat and the rage of "The Thirties."

Small wonder, then, that we find something deeply admirable in the character of the people who endured that period. If there's anything "Golden" about the Era, that's what it is. That's not idealization, that's simple observation.

:eusa_clap Well said, Ms. McLeod, well said.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Most of us here are well aware that the Era (note how I refer to it) was not art-deco splendor with Fred and Ginger tipping cocktails on a cloud of Lucky Strike smoke wafting out over a glittering Manhattan skyline. Most of us know that the real 1930s were a time of frowsy, unpainted houses, half-finished abandoned construction projects, mobs dragging foreclosure judges into the street, MacArthur gassing unemployed veterans, and economic royalists claiming prosperity was just around the corner if all those shiftless poor people would just spit on their hands and work a little harder. It was also a time when ordinary working people stood up to fight for their rights -- and *won.* Not without shedding blood, not without many setbacks -- but in the end, they *won.* Whatever prosperity came out of "The Fifties" was built with the blood and the sweat and the rage of "The Thirties."

Small wonder, then, that we find something deeply admirable in the character of the people who endured that period. If there's anything "Golden" about the Era, that's what it is. That's not idealization, that's simple observation.

In short, you focus on the aspects that you find uplifting, not the depressing parts. That's my point. It's the same for any decade or arbitrary period of time, including the 50's. Not to mention everyone's mileage varies.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

In short, you focus on the aspects that you find uplifting, not the depressing parts. That's my point. It's the same for any decade or arbitrary period of time, including the 50's. Not to mention everyone's mileage varies.

Actually I read Lizzie's viewpoint as focusing on both, since overcoming can't exist without hardship.

 

[LizzieMaine]

In short, you focus on the aspects that you find uplifting, not the depressing parts. That's my point. It's the same for any decade or arbitrary period of time, including the 50's. Not to mention everyone's mileage varies.

In short, you distort my comment. The uplifting parts are inseperable from the depressing parts. You can't overcome something or endure something unless there's something to overcome or endure. History must be taken for what it is, in its totality, without soft-pedaling the bad or sugar-coating the good.

And yet -- "The Fifties" are unique in that they are presented in the public mindset as either a state of utter material and social paradise, a lost Shangri-La of tailfinned postwar innocence -- or they're a black pit of sexual repression, alcoholism, enforced conformity, and racism/sexism. There is simply no nuance from either side -- the caricature versions of "The Fifties" have completely supplanted the actual, historic 1950s, which were a sputtery decade marked with a few highs, a few lows, and a whole lot of jitters.

 

[sheeplady]

The same reason people around here talk about the 1930's as some sort of "Golden Era" rather than the abject misery it was for most people. No one wants to reminded of the bad times.

Then why is Korea the "forgotten war" but Vietnam isn't?

Is it because only 37,000 U.S. soldiers died in Korea, compared to the 58,000 in Vietnam? I certainly hope not.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Actually I read Lizzie's viewpoint as focusing on both, since overcoming can't exist without hardship.

But it's rare that people on this forum focus on hard times aspect of the "Era", which by the way this forum is *defined* as "The Golden Era". It's far more common on the FL for people to bring up what they consider the "golden" part. Not that everyone does, and not all the time. Furthermore, my point is that neither of them are "right" or "wrong", they're simply two different aspects, and one's existence doesn't necessarily preclude the other's. It's easy to understand why people tend to focus on one over the other.

 

[HudsonHawk]

In short, you distort my comment. The uplifting parts are inseperable from the depressing parts. You can't overcome something or endure something unless there's something to overcome or endure. History must be taken for what it is, in its totality, without soft-pedaling the bad or sugar-coating the good.

First, I don't mean "you" as in you personally or in reference to your specific comment. I mean the general tone of people who post on this forum....as a whole.

And yet -- "The Fifties" are unique in that they are presented in the public mindset as either a state of utter material and social paradise, a lost Shangri-La of tailfinned postwar innocence -- or they're a black pit of sexual repression, alcoholism, enforced conformity, and racism/sexism. There is simply no nuance from either side -- the caricature versions of "The Fifties" have completely supplanted the actual, historic 1950s, which were a sputtery decade marked with a few highs, a few lows, and a whole lot of jitters.

I completely disagree with that characterization. Certainly the 50's are idealized for marketing purposes, and tend to focus on a very short few years of the decade. But that doesn't mean the other is ignored, at least not in my crowd. Your brush is entirely too wide.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Then why is Korea the "forgotten war" but Vietnam isn't?

Is it because only 37,000 U.S. soldiers died in Korea, compared to the 58,000 in Vietnam? I certainly hope not.

Forgotten by whom? Certainly no one I know. This speaks to my point about personal experience. It's not black and white.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Certainly the 50's are idealized for marketing purposes, and tend to focus on a very short few years of the decade. But that doesn't mean the other is ignored, at least not in my crowd. Your brush is entirely too wide.

Neither of our crowds are of particular consequence, in the long run. The question is this -- when you pick Dave McRandom off the street and ask him to describe "The Fifties," are you likely to get a discussion of "rolling readjustments" of the Eisenhower-era economy, the mobilization of the National Guard in Little Rock, or the disturbing conclusions of the Kefauver Committee -- or images of June in the kitchen tipping out the Jell-O mold while Ward and Fred stand out on the patio sipping grasshoppers and making plans for golf on Saturday?

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

the Beverly Hillbillies

I was a devotee of the Hillbillies. I remember being put out because my Cub Scout meetings moved to "Beverly Hillbillies" night (I think it was Wednesday).

 

[sheeplady]

But it's rare that people on this forum focus on hard times aspect of the "Era", which by the way this forum is *defined* as "The Golden Era". It's far more common on the FL for people to bring up what they consider the "golden" part. Not that everyone does, and not all the time. Furthermore, my point is that neither of them are "right" or "wrong", they're simply two different aspects, and one's existence doesn't necessarily preclude the other's. It's easy to understand why people tend to focus on one over the other.

But that's the rub- when we talk about the fifties very little of the discussion is actually factual. People aren't focusing on the "good parts." They're focusing on a largely manufactured revisionist history that leaves out huge chunks of our history unlike any other decade in recent memory. Both really important and really disturbing historical events. The discussion centers around a marketed "ideal" that wasn't even representative of the 1950s *when it was marketed.* I can't think of any other decade that seems to be largely remembered as historical fact by the contents of a few advertisements and a couple of TV shows. Especially not a decade that so many people are alive that lived through it.

Forgotten by whom? Certainly no one I know. This speaks to my point about personal experience. It's not black and white.

Enough that it has been labeled "the forgotten war."
See for instance:
1. Wikipedia's page on the Korean War discusses how it is the forgotten war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
2. The Christian Scientist had a nice article on it last year: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0727/The-Forgotten-War-Five-facts-you-should-know-about-the-Korean-War-video/The-truce-took-two-years-to-negotiate

And countless other news articles- many of which quote Veterans themselves.

Interestingly enough, it was called the forgotten war as early as 1951 (when it was actually being fought).

 

[HudsonHawk]

Neither of our crowds are of particular consequence, in the long run. The question is this -- when you pick Dave McRandom off the street and ask him to describe "The Fifties," are you likely to get a discussion of "rolling readjustments" of the Eisenhower-era economy, the mobilization of the National Guard in Little Rock, or the disturbing conclusions of the Kefauver Committee -- or images of June in the kitchen tipping out the Jell-O mold while Ward and Fred stand out on the patio sipping grasshoppers and making plans for golf on Saturday?

Again, it depends on Mr. McRandom's experience. You mention Little Rock Central high school...my father was there as a member of the 101st Airborne, complete with a fixed bayonet and people spitting in his face. If you ask him what it was like in the 50's, it will be one of the first things he mentions. Likewise, if you ask him about the 60's, the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis will dominate the discussion with almost no recollection of peace, love and Woodstock. Of course you will get the Happy Days version, certainly a lot more often, and almost always from those who weren't there. But that doesn't make either of them right or wrong, and I completely understand why people focus on one vs the other.

 

[sheeplady]

or images of June in the kitchen tipping out the Jell-O mold while Ward and Fred stand out on the patio sipping grasshoppers and making plans for golf on Saturday?

Now I want orange jello with madarian oranges in it formed in a bundt pan.

 

[HudsonHawk]

But that's the rub- when we talk about the fifties very little of the discussion is actually factual. People aren't focusing on the "good parts." They're focusing on a largely manufactured revisionist history that leaves out huge chunks of our history unlike any other decade in recent memory.

I reject the notion that the Happy Days version is entirely, or even mostly, manufactured. It wasn't ubiquitous, but it wasn't pulled out thin air either.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Now I want orange jello with madarian oranges in it formed in a bundt pan.

There's always room for Jello!!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Again, it depends on Mr. McRandom's experience. You mention Little Rock Central high school...my father was there as a member of the 101st Airborne, complete with a fixed bayonet and people spitting in his face. If you ask him what it was like in the 50's, it will be one of the first things he mentions. Likewise, if you ask him about the 60's, the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis will dominate the discussion with almost no recollection of peace, love and Woodstock. Of course you will get the Happy Days version, certainly a lot more often, and almost always from those who weren't there. But that doesn't make either of them right or wrong, and I completely understand why people focus on one vs the other.

But -- and I keep coming back to this, because it's the whole point I'm trying to make -- which image is being thrown out there when "The Fifties" come up in the public discourse: when somebody writes an article about social conditions one way or the other and uses "The Fifties" as a touchstone? Or when "The Fifties" come up in the comment section of an article about social conditions? Or when a candidate invokes "The Fifties" in a speech? I don't think, in any of these cases, the historical 1950s are what the writer or speaker has in mind. I've heard enough speeches and read enough of these articles to know what they're pushing -- and it's just as I said before: It's either the Good Fifties or the Awful Fifties, and nowhere in between. It's not just a question of "emphasising the good and downplaying the bad." It's using a manufactured, manipulated image of "The Fifties" to influence the reader or the listener -- and it must work, or they wouldn't keep doing it.

The only Jell-O that's any good is that thick rubbery disk that forms at the bottom of the bowl.

 

[HudsonHawk]

But -- and I keep coming back to this, because it's the whole point I'm trying to make -- which image is being thrown out there when "The Fifties" come up in the public discourse: when somebody writes an article about social conditions one way or the other and uses "The Fifties" as a touchstone? Or when "The Fifties" come up in the comment section of an article about social conditions? Or when a candidate invokes "The Fifties" in a speech? I don't think, in any of these cases, the historical 1950s are what the writer or speaker has in mind. I've heard enough speeches and read enough of these articles to know what they're pushing -- and it's just as I said before: It's either the Good Fifties or the Awful Fifties, and nowhere in between. It's not just a question of "emphasising the good and downplaying the bad." It's using a manufactured, manipulated image of "The Fifties" to influence the reader or the listener -- and it must work, or they wouldn't keep doing it.

The only Jell-O that's any good is that thick rubbery disk that forms at the bottom of the bowl.

I think we all agree that there is an idealized version of the 50's that dominates the marketing of the area, and it's the predominate image for people who were not alive to live it. Furthermore, I think we agree that it ignores a lot of the gritty reality. But I don't think it's fair to extend that to "the idealized version is manufactured". That version *was* reality for a lot of people.

Secondly, this latest discussion stems from Sheeplady's question about why people ignore certain parts of the decade. I don't think it's a mystery at all why. People have an emotional investment in their experience and generally like to be reminded of it in the most positive light. It's simply human nature.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's not just a matter of nostalgic romping, though. You can romp nostalgically in *any* decade -- all of the "we chased fireflies under streetlights and roamed the streets like we owned them, gee wasn't that swell" stuff is just as relevant to kids who grew up in any decade from the turn of the century to the '80s. There's nothing particularly "Fifties" about it, and yet it's indelibly identified as a "Fifties" image in the public consciousness. "All this helicopter parent stuff, boy, it's not like it was in The Fifties."

Interestingly, the big decade for "nostalgic romping" in the historical 1950's was the period from about 1915 to 1925 -- you'd see all sorts of pictures on giveaway calendars, blotters, and things like that showing "The Good Old Days" -- a phrase which *specifically* applied to that period at that time, when kids were really kids instead of all this sitting around watching Rootie Kazootie and Winky Dink and what not. And yet nobody thinks about that era that way today -- the sole and exclusive official province for Nostalgic Childhood Romping is -- "The Fifties."

So -- again the question. Why "The Fifties" as the universal signifier of all that is good and wholesome? Why not the Wilson-Harding era, when, if calendars and blotters are to be believed, was also a pretty swell time to be a kid? Why not the late 1960s, when I can personally attest to the survival of both fireflies and streetlights? Why not 1983, when my kid brother was a super cool dude on the Dig-Dug machine at Cafoni's Pizza? Why, for the better part of forty years, have we been getting the same images over and over and over again of -- "The Fifties?"

 

[HudsonHawk]

It's not just a matter of nostalgic romping, though. You can romp nostalgically in *any* decade -- all of the "we chased fireflies under streetlights and roamed the streets like we owned them, gee wasn't that swell" stuff is just as relevant to kids who grew up in any decade from the turn of the century to the '80s. There's nothing particularly "Fifties" about it, and yet it's indelibly identified as a "Fifties" image in the public consciousness. "All this helicopter parent stuff, boy, it's not like it was in The Fifties."

Interestingly, the big decade for "nostalgic romping" in the historical 1950's was the period from about 1915 to 1925 -- you'd see all sorts of pictures on giveaway calendars, blotters, and things like that showing "The Good Old Days" -- a phrase which *specifically* applied to that period at that time, when kids were really kids instead of all this sitting around watching Rootie Kazootie and Winky Dink and what not. And yet nobody thinks about that era that way today -- the sole and exclusive official province for Nostalgic Childhood Romping is -- "The Fifties."

So -- again the question. Why "The Fifties" as the universal signifier of all that is good and wholesome? Why not the Wilson-Harding era, when, if calendars and blotters are to be believed, was also a pretty swell time to be a kid? Why not the late 1960s, when I can personally attest to the survival of both fireflies and streetlights? Why not 1983, when my kid brother was a super cool dude on the Dig-Dug machine at Cafoni's Pizza? Why, for the better part of forty years, have we been getting the same images over and over and over again of -- "The Fifties?"

My guess is television. The 50's, specifically the late 50's, were the period in which our collective brain was first saturated with the idealized version of life. Not to mention that due to television that version was perpetuated to subsequent generations.

 

[sheeplady]

The only Jell-O that's any good is that thick rubbery disk that forms at the bottom of the bowl.

And Jello skin. Yum.