What we've lost since the Golden Era

[resortes805]

Not if you were African American.

ZING!!!!!

I love it!

 

[skyvue]

I'd say the main thing we've lost is common sense at all levels. It's been lost in everything from doing aerials on a crowded dance floor to doctors recommending starchy, sugary diets even for diabetics (starch breaks down into sugar) to issuing or taking out mortages that can't possibly be paid.

There was all kinds of crazy medical advice given back in the day, jitterbugs were hardly sedate in their dancing style, and financial missteps have been with us forever (see: the Great Depression and the actions that led up to it).

People are people, then, now and always.

Was it common sense to deny women the vote, to prohibit adults from drinking alcohol, to treat people of color as second-class citizens (or worse)?

Honestly, the notion that people once had the answers, and we've forgotten them all is farfetched.

Some things were better then. Others were worse. It has always been thus and will always be.

 

[Silver Dollar]

You forgot World War 1

WHOOPS!!!! You're right about that. There goes my memory. I just turned 60 earlier this month and it looks like I'm starting to act like it. shakeshead

 

[LizzieMaine]

The past was no different than today in that people suffered, dealt with unpleasantness, and sometimes found themselves frustrated, defeated and broke. The difference is they *expected* such things as a normal part of life, and when it happened, they just braced up and started over. (And yes, before the wise guys start in, some people jumped off buildings or stuck their heads in the oven, but they were the exception rather than the rule.) Nowadays, *any* setback or defeat or adversity is too often seen as an intolerable cataclysm.

I suggest that, as a people, we've lost our ability to take setbacks and defeats and failure in stride. Most of us are not going to get to do everything we wanted, have everything we wanted, and be everything we wanted to be. *Deal with it.*

 

[missjo]

Every era has its good and bad sides, some bad sides seem less bad to some then to others.
And life was different to different kinds of people in different places on the earth.
Here people often mention that life was less fun if you were black, this would be the case in most of the US but a lot less in many European countries.
If for instance you were a black person living in a big city in my country in the 1930s you would find life a lot less troublesome.

Most of us are middleaged or at least no longer teenagers, but we forget to look at the Golden Age that way.
If we had lived then, if we had been (like me) in our 30s back then we would not be jitterbugging, not much charleston-ing, doing coke while wearing flapper dresses, etc.
To us going to a party would mean dancing properly, ballroom stuff and we probably would have shaken our heads at the crazy young people showing their knees and jumping up and down.

I don't care much for some of the good things we have today and I don't mind some of the bad things we had back then.
So comparing is easy.
I have no tv, don't need much medical care beyond what they had back then, I don't need most of the stuff we have today and wouldn't mind most of the bad stuff they had back then.

In 'my golden era', I would have had the vote, I would have been able to run my own company or shop, I could have been a old spinster without much social negativity, etc, etc.

Some things though have truly changed and can be described as being progress or regress.
In the olden days there were lots of naughty songs on the wireless, but they would be full of double entendre.
Today people sing about the rudest things, using words that make a sailor blush.
People walk around half naked and with their underwear sticking out, they shout into their mobile phone or listen to loud mobile music.
Things that simply didn't happen back then and that annoy me beyond compare.

That is why I call myself a Neo Traditionalist, someone who takes the best from the past and the present and combines them into a new future.
When it comes to some things we can indeed learn from the past, in other cases we should keep things as they are today.
Some things really were better back then, many were not.
Why should we have to choose?

It is a fact that here where I live education has gone downhill drastically since the 1950s.
More people seem to have more education but learn less.
Something went wrong there.

For me the golden era were the late 1930s.
In my little country crime and poverty was no worse than it had been for centuries, we didn't have big mob gangs, we didn't have drive by machinegunnings, we didn't have the dust bowl, we didn't have concentration camps, etc, etc.
We had problems, of course, but no worse then today or a century ago or two centuries ago.

Anyway, I love these then vs now debates, I think it is funny that people choose one side over the other because they both have good and bad points.
But.... if one is to give me a timemachine I'd be gone tomorrow.
The bad things of the 1930s to me personally are less bad then the bad things of the modern world.
Choosing the past is a personal matter, because what is important to one and impossible to live with can be unimportant or even a joy to others.

 

[missjo]

The past was no different than today in that people suffered, dealt with unpleasantness, and sometimes found themselves frustrated, defeated and broke. The difference is they *expected* such things as a normal part of life, and when it happened, they just braced up and started over. (And yes, before the wise guys start in, some people jumped off buildings or stuck their heads in the oven, but they were the exception rather than the rule.) Nowadays, *any* setback or defeat or adversity is too often seen as an intolerable cataclysm.

I suggest that, as a people, we've lost our ability to take setbacks and defeats and failure in stride. Most of us are not going to get to do everything we wanted, have everything we wanted, and be everything we wanted to be. *Deal with it.*

Exactly!
I think we can safely say that as humans living in the West we have been spoiled rotten since the 1950s or so, yes that includes us.
The modern human seems to be less able at dealing with poverty, shortages, critique, hardship, etc, etc.
People before us grew up with more hardship, I think it made them better or at least stronger.
I see this in the elderly people I meet a lot.
I guess it is the price we pay for progress and living in a consumption society where we have everything we want and more.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Exactly!
I think we can safely say that as humans living in the West we have been spoiled rotten since the 1950s or so, yes that includes us.
The modern human seems to be less able at dealing with poverty, shortages, critique, hardship, etc, etc.
People before us grew up with more hardship, I think it made them better or at least stronger.
I see this in the elderly people I meet a lot.
I guess it is the price we pay for progress and living in a consumption society where we have everything we want and more.

Well said as always. Your point about people today being less able to deal with being critiqued is especially cogent -- we see that all too often in the very threads dealing with this subject. People take the arguments as personal attacks on their worldview and respond accordingly, and all hope of a reasonable conversation goes out the window. So far that hasn't happened in this particular thread, but the longer it goes on, the better the chances that it will. I've seen it happen too many times before.

 

[missjo]

I consider it to be my duty to make the world a better place and so I say something when I see people misbehaving.
I am pretty sure that this was a less risky thing to do a few decades ago but in todays charming civilized society it seems that telling someone in a very polite manner that they shouldn't cycle on the footpath, shouldn't litter, etc, is a good reason for people to swear at you, wish you all sorts of illnesses, want to beat you up or even try to kill you.
People go absolutely nuts if you even dare to say something about anyone's behaviour these days.
Not that I care or that this stops me from saying something about bad behaviour, so be it.

 

[Fletch]

The past was no different than today in that people suffered, dealt with unpleasantness, and sometimes found themselves frustrated, defeated and broke. The difference is they *expected* such things as a normal part of life, and when it happened, they just braced up and started over. (And yes, before the wise guys start in, some people jumped off buildings or stuck their heads in the oven, but they were the exception rather than the rule.) Nowadays, *any* setback or defeat or adversity is too often seen as an intolerable cataclysm.

I suggest that, as a people, we've lost our ability to take setbacks and defeats and failure in stride. Most of us are not going to get to do everything we wanted, have everything we wanted, and be everything we wanted to be. *Deal with it.*

Sister, have you ever opened up a large-economy-size tin of fat, protein-packed nightcrawlers with that little exegesis. I would love to have a debate with you about it sometime - preferably over pastramis on rye, a crate of choice dance band platters and a 6 pack of Narragansett. Till then, fwtw, a few thoughts.

...For the sake of cantankerous contrariness, what you call "dealing with it" I'm going to call coping. It's a more positive idea, whereas "deal with it" kind of says, "There's me and the rest of us. You don't matter."

...Do you think the sovereignty of the individual is part of the problem? Do we just have more to be disappointed about with the popular myth that success, wealth, egg in our beer, etc., is our birthright? In a way, that's punishing as hell on those who don't succeed. It makes failure, of any kind, seem ordained, karmic, profound.

...Is the helping/therapeutic culture of the past half century, perhaps, another part of the problem? Is coping something that can only be learned, never taught? Or do we just need to open up the frame and get the focus on something outside the individual - ie: where s/he stands in a place, a circle, a life? If not, should we instead dial up the hardness and indifference just a tick or two and let the baby cry itself to sleep?

...Is the way we're unkind or cruel to each other different today? Is there less honesty to our unkindness - more phony smiles and underhandedness? Is it harder today to know where you stand with others, and what you should or shouldn't do about it?

...Does each of us - not as selves wanting to be individuals, but as people in the world - matter less today? There are so many more of us. For all our individualism, we're caught in the same currents a lot of the time. One person might have more power to be themselves, but can one person make as much of a difference in a community?

...Are we just too self-aware for our own good? And what the hell could anybody do to be less in touch with themselves - even assuming they should? Maybe this is where resignation is in order.

To cop a line from Lewis Mumford, "I'm asking, that's all. Just asking."

 

[Paisley]

There was all kinds of crazy medical advice given back in the day, jitterbugs were hardly sedate in their dancing style, and financial missteps have been with us forever (see: the Great Depression and the actions that led up to it).

People are people, then, now and always.

Was it common sense to deny women the vote, to prohibit adults from drinking alcohol, to treat people of color as second-class citizens (or worse)?

Honestly, the notion that people once had the answers, and we've forgotten them all is farfetched.

Some things were better then. Others were worse. It has always been thus and will always be.

1) According to what I've read, aerials were pretty much limited to performances.

2) Mortgages required a down payment.

3) A hundred years ago, it was fairly commonly known that a starchy, sugary diet caused weight gain. Doctors did their best to get diabetics to limit their carb intake.

In civil rights and medicine, ordinary people were making progress. Maybe that's how I should have put it: we seem to be going backwards in certain important respects.

 

[ScionPI2005]

Before anyone talks about the"good old days", we need to remember this. The late teens--the deadly flu epidemic of 1918.
The 20's--prohibition, rampant crime, drive by machine gunnings,
The 30's--The Great Depression, Dillinger, et al. The Dust Bowl, concentration camps in Germany (Dachau, 1934)
The 40's--WWII ( this was more than enough)
The 50's --The Korean War, the nuclear end of the world threat, Communism.
The 60's --Drugs, sex and rock and roll, Viet Nam, national political unrest
the 70's--The rest of Viet Nam, increasing crime, Disco :rage:
the 80's-- Iran, -----------

Were there really good old days or are we just kidding ourselves?

Lizzie, Shangas, I agree with everything you two said. (Except for the pork chop. I'm Jewish)

I have to agree with this, and similar viewpoints. I think all eras have their good and bad points. In all reality, it's more than likely a "grass is greener" concept. We strive to remember only the highlights and the good points of something, and ignore and forget the not so great points.

The turn of the century past WWII really had it's rough times.

If anything though, I do agree that there may have been a better sense of community back then. I DO think community is something that has, maybe not been lost, but has suffered.

 

[Paisley]

Unless someone is my employee or child, I don't believe it's my business to correct them--outside of telling someone they're driving down the street the wrong direction. Littering can get you a big fat fine here in Colorado, but I'm not a cop.

As for critiquing ideas, I do my best to do so in a How-to-Win-Friends-and-Influence-People way (speaking of the Golden Era), although I'm sure I don't always succeed.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Sister, have you ever opened up a large-economy-size tin of fat, protein-packed nightcrawlers with that little exegesis. I would love to have a debate with you about it sometime - preferably over pastramis on rye, a crate of choice dance band platters and a 6 pack of Narragansett. Till then, fwtw, a few thoughts.

...For the sake of cantankerous contrariness, what you call "dealing with it" I'm going to call coping. It's a more positive idea, whereas "deal with it" kind of says, "There's me and the rest of us. You don't matter."

By "Deal With It" I mean "accept the reality of it." Whether we like it or not, none of us are the Center Of The Universe, God's Own Perfect Little Gift To Humanity, Entitled To Everything The World Has To Offer. We're just one of four or five billion bits of compressed dust on the planet, whatever the number is now, and none of us are more *entitled* to happiness than any other, by right of birth or position or anything else. The sooner people realize that, the better off they'll be -- because they won't take every little setback that comes along as an affront to their entitled place in the world. Deal with it.

...Do you think the sovereignty of the individual is part of the problem? Do we just have more to be disappointed about with the popular myth that success, wealth, egg in our beer, etc., is our birthright? In a way, that's punishing as hell on those who don't succeed. It makes failure, of any kind, seem ordained, karmic, profound.

The culture does too much navel gazing and not enough Dealing With It. The reality is when we're born the only thing we're *entitled* to is air. Everything else you gotta work for, and sometimes you're not going to get it.

..Is the helping/therapeutic culture of the past half century, perhaps, another part of the problem? Is coping something that can only be learned, never taught? Or do we just need to open up the frame and get the focus on something outside the individual - ie: where s/he stands in a place, a circle, a life? If not, should we instead dial up the hardness and indifference just a tick or two and let the baby cry itself to sleep?

Well, my mother used her copy of Dr. Spock to beat my backside when I got out of line, and somehow I survived.

...Is the way we're unkind or cruel to each other different today? Is there less honesty to our unkindness - more phony smiles and underhandedness? Is it harder today to know where you stand with others, and what you should or shouldn't do about it?

Very much so. A lot of the "kindess" and "gentleness" of modern culture is nothing but patronizing feelgoodism, the sort of thing where you say "Oh I'm so sorry you're having trouble" to someone you barely know, and go on merrily about your business.

Are we just too self-aware for our own good? And what the hell could anybody do to be less in touch with themselves - even assuming they should? Maybe this is where resignation is in order.

Well, it's tough to navel-gaze when you've got your nose to the grindstone.

 

[Feraud]

What we've lost since the Golden Era

Cool hats and clothes.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

By "Deal With It" I mean "accept the reality of it." Whether we like it or not, none of us are the Center Of The Universe, God's Own Perfect Little Gift To Humanity, Entitled To Everything The World Has To Offer. We're just one of four or five billion bits of compressed dust on the planet, whatever the number is now, and none of us are more *entitled* to happiness than any other, by right of birth or position or anything else. The sooner people realize that, the better off they'll be -- because they won't take every little setback that comes along as an affront to their entitled place in the world. Deal with it.



The culture does too much navel gazing and not enough Dealing With It. The reality is when we're born the only thing we're *entitled* to is air. Everything else you gotta work for, and sometimes you're not going to get it.



....



Well, it's tough to navel-gaze when you've got your nose to the grindstone.

This....I come from a family who probably had mostly unhappy people in it for various reasons individual to them....if I were them I would have been mortally unhappy....

but honestly...other then one example who drank himself to death.....

most of them just got on with things and did what was required....to feed kids, to have a roof over heads..etc..and chose not to be visibly unhappy about these sacrifices.

There just was not time to contemplate that sort of stuff when you had to work and then go home and cook and feed...etc...

 

[missjo]

Unless someone is my employee or child, I don't believe it's my business to correct them--outside of telling someone they're driving down the street the wrong direction. Littering can get you a big fat fine here in Colorado, but I'm not a cop.

I think it is my duty to do so because I am part of society, society is all of us and we all have to work to make it a good place to live, we are all cops.
Today we live in our own little worlds, shielded and hiding from the rest, running home to close our curtains and turn on the tv.
If I see someone doing something I disagree with, something I feel that makes society less fun to live in, I shall tell them so.

 

[missjo]

Just a little addition.
As a young nostalgist I fell in love with the 1930s and was pretty sure it was a horrible era.
Like everyone I learned that era only consisted of poverty, depression, crime, war threat, etc, etc.

BUT then I became a researcher and collector, I started learning a lot more about daily life in that era in my country and the more I studied this subject the more positive I became.
I learned that bad stuff was happening as well but a lot of good lovely stuff as well and just 'depression and poverty' was not the way to describe the 30s, it was a lot more then that.

As a researcher I read about all sides of daily life back then, I read confidential police reports on crime, incest, child abuse, etc, etc.
A eye opener indeed.
All the bad things happened then as well as they do today, but nevertheless it was a different world.

You should see the past as a different country, the same people but with different attitudes, morals, ideas.

We are spoiled and spoiled people are generally not easy to live with.
I have read a 1920s police report on a bunch of kids misbehaving, racing cars, drinking too much, breaking stuff, harassing people, partying all the time.
These were rich kids, kids who could afford to do this, who had too much time and too much money.
Modern people remind me of these kids.
We have it all.

Another thing we lost is social cohesion, community back then was much more tight, people were more involved with each other.
You met your neighbours almost daily at the same little shop, your kids went to the same school, they hang out together.
In big cities neighbourhoods were like little villages, today we're all just a bunch of individuals living on our own.
Socially a lot has changed and this all had an impact on many other things in society.
How we behave, why we are scared of others, why we are isolated, consumerism, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Puzzicato]

Oh thank you Glad I brought you joy, Silver Dollar.

Another thing which I think we've lost from the Golden Era is simple education.

By this, I mean that children are being taught to run before they can crawl. They're taught Information Technology, computers, the internet, how to use calculators, how to do document analysis in English...

...But the basics, like reading, writing and arithmatic...are things of the past. Kids can't write properly, and they sure as hell can't spell properly. When I was in school, which still wasn't that long ago (less than 10 years), we learnt reading, writing and arithmatic. And now?

Give a kid a pen and you get block-printing. What happened to learning cursive? And then, they can't spell, because no emphasis is placed on it. I find it so sad. When I chat to people online who are my age (in their teens and twenties), all I get is...:

"Oh I dont type properly because its not important".

Yeah? Good luck finding a job where proper command of written English is important.

That may be the case in the Western world (and it has certainly been my experience) but I am pretty sure global literacy rates increased steadily throughout the 20th Century.

 

[Fletch]

1) According to what I've read, aerials were pretty much limited to performances.

The kind of social dancing that prevailed then - a venue for genteel m-f interaction - is now all but gone. The swing, lindy, etc., that survives does so because it fills a more specialized need. The point is the moves, the intricacies, the stuff that takes work - ie, dancing is itself an outlet for performance. Probably, some enthusiasts don't know what it is to dance without performing - they would find it dull, and the music bland and oversweetened.

3) A hundred years ago, it was fairly commonly known that a starchy, sugary diet caused weight gain. Doctors did their best to get diabetics to limit their carb intake.

Sadly, it wasn't quite so benign as that. The usual method was to maintain a state of near-starvation - early death was considered inevitable, but a bit gentler that way than thru loss of sight, limbs, etc. Anyway, my point is that nowadays carb cutting is part of pretty much any decent diabetes control program. One can't deny that a lot of diabetics still don't get or exercise good care, but it's not an issue of lost medical knowledge.
(Type 2, 7 years; pardon the digression.)

In civil rights and medicine, ordinary people were making progress. Maybe that's how I should have put it: we seem to be going backwards in certain important respects.

This isn't the place for the debate, but I suspect the priorities of society these days are not quite so focused on ordinary people's progress. Even the common folks often ask no more than "bread and circuses."

 

[Fletch]

Oh, and Lizzie, I've read your last and will respond. The beer is chilling.