would you live back in time?

[Hemingway Jones]

ever see the movie “Empire of the Sun”? Well it was about an American family that lived in Asia and they were interned into a camp by the Japanese during the war…

Not to be pedantic and for your own edification, but the family depicted in "Empire of the Sun" were English.

Back to the premise, would I be emotionally invested in a time period that is not my own? Could I possibly integrate into a world that I only know through second sources; movies (that are a dim reflection of the time with their stylized language, settings, and costumes), books, and stories from people who were there? I imagine it would feel like a child lost in an amusement park.

The bottom line for me, I am having too much fun living, affecting change, and making connections now to contemplate leaving it behind for something I could not possibly know or comprehend, until I was there.

 

[carter]

A Baby Boomer perspective

I truely hope this is the case and you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the people that lived through WWII and made decisions at that time for reasons that you have not attempted to understand.

That being said, unless PT is willing to do some homework and truly understand the events leading up to Pearl Harbor there is little basis for discussion.
Not only was this an attack during peacetime (the USA was not at war with any nation), the verifiable history of Japanes noncombatants spying on Oahu as well as Japanese diplomats in Washington, D.C. having prior knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor is indicative of the subterfuge involved.
To judge the reaction of the American people and their government in response to this attack as anything other than prudent self-defense is nonsensical.
To judge the US involvement in WWII as anything other than humane and for the greater good of mankind would be equally nonsensical.
For those who are fond of alternative history, consider what the world we live in would be like had the Axis nations been victorious in WWII.

Oh yeah, I'd have no problem living in the post-WWII years. I remember them well.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

Here is the thing.

There are -two- sides to any reasoning about the things that are being argued here.

It is my fundamental belief that the ability to -look- at both sides of the -reasons why-things happened the way they did...is -all- Pigeon Toe is advocating.

Someone was not looking at both sides, and so she gave the counterpoints. Plain and simple. I agree with most of her facts.

Just as you all are now telling her to do research, maybe following that advice until you understand both sides is a wise choice for all of us.

By saying that she is not looking at it clearly, you have 'picked' an 'right' just as clearly as anyone else has.

So unless we all -really- want to sit here debating how to interpret historical events in their context....and I finished with University a while back and would rather talk about -fun- stuff.......

Maybe we should ALL go back to merely stating whether we would want to live back then, rather then trying to decide which side in very complex historical issues was -right-.

 

[Edward]

Something I would like a crack at.... did anyone see the BBC series in which a family grouping lived for a period of (I think) three months as if it were 1939? A previous series was set in the Victorian era. I'd like to take part in that sort of an experimnt, especially if somehow I could work in my own job (University lecturer in law) in period conditions.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I was a huge fan of that series -- "1940's House", and thought it was especially interesting how much of a lasting impact the experience seemed to have on the people who participated: they seemed to become much more mindful of how wasteful modern culture was, and became a lot more careful about how they spent their money. I really got a kick out of the scene in the last episode, where one of the kids bemoaned the fact that their grandmother "used to be all hip and trendy," but now she wasn't! lol

 

[pigeon toe]

There are -two- sides to any reasoning about the things that are being argued here.

It is my fundamental belief that the ability to -look- at both sides of the -reasons why-things happened the way they did...is -all- Pigeon Toe is advocating.

Someone was not looking at both sides, and so she gave the counterpoints. Plain and simple. I agree with most of her facts.

Just as you all are now telling her to do research, maybe following that advice until you understand both sides is a wise choice for all of us.

By saying that she is not looking at it clearly, you have 'picked' an 'right' just as clearly as anyone else has.

So unless we all -really- want to sit here debating how to interpret historical events in their context....and I finished with University a while back and would rather talk about -fun- stuff.......

Maybe we should ALL go back to merely stating whether we would want to live back then, rather then trying to decide which side in very complex historical issues was -right-.

Thank you.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Just as you all are now telling her to do research, maybe following that advice until you understand both sides is a wise choice for all of us.

By saying that she is not looking at it clearly, you have 'picked' an 'right' just as clearly as anyone else has.

So unless we all -really- want to sit here debating how to interpret historical events in their context....and I finished with University a while back and would rather talk about -fun- stuff.......

Maybe we should ALL go back to merely stating whether we would want to live back then, rather then trying to decide which side in very complex historical issues was -right-.

Exactly. And it's also important to bear in mind that opinions were not monolithic -- racism and sexism and other isms existed and must be acknowledged, but not everyone then endorsed those views. (Here in New England, for example, for some time the majority of members of the NAACP were white.) Not all Americans supported the internment of "enemy alien" American citizens -- some vocally opposed it. Few Americans outside of Southern California were even aware of the "zoot suit riots", so can they be blamed for not vocally condemning them, or attempting to learn what actually happened? How, exactly, would they have even done so, had they been so inclined -- when all of the news coming from the scene was being filtered thru the especially xenophobic lens of the LA press? (Even with that, though, it should be noted that there *was* public condemnation of the racial aspect of those riots -- from no less a personage than Eleanor Roosevelt.)

The past happened. Nothing we can do or think or argue today will ever change it. All we can do -- all we have any right to expect anyone else to do -- is try to understand. And that means being open to views other than the ones we're most comfortable accepting.

 

[Lauren]

There are -two- sides to any reasoning about the things that are being argued here.

It is my fundamental belief that the ability to -look- at both sides of the -reasons why-things happened the way they did...is -all- Pigeon Toe is advocating.

Someone was not looking at both sides, and so she gave the counterpoints. Plain and simple. I agree with most of her facts.

Just as you all are now telling her to do research, maybe following that advice until you understand both sides is a wise choice for all of us.

By saying that she is not looking at it clearly, you have 'picked' an 'right' just as clearly as anyone else has.

So unless we all -really- want to sit here debating how to interpret historical events in their context....and I finished with University a while back and would rather talk about -fun- stuff.......

Maybe we should ALL go back to merely stating whether we would want to live back then, rather then trying to decide which side in very complex historical issues was -right-.

Totally agree. The point is to state our preference. Big things happened back then. Fact. Some things really sucked. Fact. Things are different than now. Fact. The question is, would you choose to go back knowing these things? Obviously not everyone will agree...

 

[Ace Fedora]

Going back to something a little lighter...

Left foot on the clutch, all the way in, turn key, right foot smartly on the starter button, and down smoothly to the gas as it catches. (If it's cold out you might need to pull out the choke a bit.) Move shift to the upper left for reverse, let out the parking brake with the left hand, ease up the clutch until you're moving, roll out of the driveway, clutch again, move shift down to lower left for first gear, ease up clutch, ease down gas, and you're on you're way! Easy breezy!

I stand by my statement -- there's no way I'd be able to start a car in 1945. My first car was from the age before fuel injection, and I would flood the engine regularly, especially when it got a little cold. Just couldn't manage the "down smoothly on the gas."

(Of course, if I lived in 1945 I'd be able to use the streetcar. )

 

[K.D. Lightner]

Well, that's one thing I could do if I went back in time: drive an old car. My first cars had chokes and clutches.

I still drive a stick shift, much prefer it over automatic. Automatics are for wusses.

Back in the late 40's, early 50's, they made wonderful semi-automatic cars, my first was a 1949 Chrysler Royal. The thing was so big and heavy, you could have put a machine gun on top and had yourself a tank. In 1964, when I owned the car, I would be pretty much the only one out on a blizzardy day, just me and a few VW bugs. And I didn't have snow tires.

They stopped making them by the mid-50's. Why? Because they lasted too long and were made too well.

karol

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, that's one thing I could do if I went back in time: drive an old car. My first cars had chokes and clutches.

I still drive a stick shift, much prefer it over automatic. Automatics are for wusses.

Back in the late 40's, early 50's, they made wonderful semi-automatic cars, my first was a 1949 Chrysler Royal. The thing was so big and heavy, you could have put a machine gun on top and had yourself a tank. In 1964, when I owned the car, I would be pretty much the only one out on a blizzardy day, just me and a few VW bugs. And I didn't have snow tires.

They stopped making them by the mid-50's. Why? Because they lasted too long and were made too well.

karol

I learned to drive in a semi-automatic -- a '68 Volkswagen -- and when I tell people about it, they refuse to believe such a thing ever existed, so thanks for proving it!

That's about as close to an automatic as I've ever come -- on the few occasions where I've had to drive someone else's, my left foot goes crazy looking for something to do, and I always end up slamming the brake by mistake.

 

[Flivver]

The semi-automatic was made popular by Chrysler in the 1940s and early 1950s. It was the conservative Chrysler engineer's answer to the fully automatic GM Hydra-Matic. Chrysler felt that many customers would rather have the option to shift gears on occasion instead of being forced into 100% automatic drive. And, the semi-automatic was cheaper and quicker to develop.

It's interesting, though, that the industry brought back the semi-automatic in the late 1960s as the Baby Boomers were entering the car market. In addition to the VW version that Lizzie mentions, Chevrolet offered one on the Nova called Torque-Drive. The idea behind these 60s versions was to offer cost effective clutch free driving for entry level buyers.

Today, manual transmissions make up less than 10% of the new vehicle market because most drivers today don't know how to drive one.

By the way, I hadn't heard the term "three-on-the-tree" for years, until I read this thread today. It brought a smile to my face!

 

[Forgotten Man]

I don't like to be told I'm very miss informed, as Miss Pigeon said I am. I was trying to lay out the other side when she was painting her side... everyone feels that things happened only because whites didn't like blacks or whatever races you wanna pick. The book that Pigeon mentioned was written from the Hispanic perspective; not exactly an unbiased opinion is it? Two sides to everything, and what I wanted to get a crossed was the side that was being over shadowed by the over generalization that all service men of the time were white males who just hated any race and felt it fun to beat them up.

It's ok for most to state their opinions, why not my opinion? Why am I always the bad guy?

There were plenty of people back then who didn't care about races... and I would be one of them! If I went back right now to 1939, I would have no fear of being drafted because of my age and flat feet. lol I would be perfectly happy being a block warden or something... that would be me.

So, let those who wanna stay here in 08, let them look forward to the future, because, I for one am not excited about the future of this country. If you believe in God or the Bible, it's only goin' to get worse.

I'll be working on how to travel back in time, and for those interested, I'll be selling tickets.

First stop: Southern California, January 1st, 10am 1928.

 

[Rachael]

I learned to drive in my Gram's semi-automatic VW bug. When Grandpa couldn't work anymore Gram went to nursing school. The first thing she bought was a shiny new Beetle, and named it Betsy. She was white, with a polka dot interior.

When all 9 of us grandkids said we wanted to inherit her, Gram sold Betsy and went on a cruise. She was very practical and couldn't live with bickering. Besides, seeing her off enjoying herself was worth more to all of us than any car ever could have been.

 

[Miss 1929]

All the above prejudices and more angered me to the point that it catapaulted me to become a radical feminist in the early 70's and fight for the rights of women and minorities.

If I did find myself back in time, boy, would I put up a fight.

karol

And because of people like you, a lot of people have rights that they wouldn't have back then!

We can be as nostalgic as we like, but unless one is already a racist/sexist/homophobe, I doubt that one would really like it back then.

I will be perfectly happy to keep my Golden Era stuff to the aesthetics, thank you.

 

[jamespowers]

By the way, I hadn't heard the term "three-on-the-tree" for years, until I read this thread today. It brought a smile to my face!

No problem. Us car nuts love all modes of moving people around.
I learned to drive in converted four on the floor 57 Chevrolet. I still have it but it now has the original Powerglide in it. My days are spent driving my 57GMC with the original four on the floor in it. That old M-20 gave 50 years of service before finally needing new synchros and such. I know because when it was rebuilt a week ago, it still had the factory tags on the gearbox case! Imagine an automatic giving you that many years of service before needing a rebuild. [huh]

 

[Forgotten Man]

And because of people like you, a lot of people have rights that they wouldn't have back then!

We can be as nostalgic as we like, but unless one is already a racist/sexist/homophobe, I doubt that one would really like it back then.

I will be perfectly happy to keep my Golden Era stuff to the aesthetics, thank you.

Funny, I'm none of those things... and I strongly feel that I'd fit in rather nicely. Why you ask? Well, because I'd educate those I come in contact with and defend the right thing no matter what. I'd set the example, and not be one of the sheep!

That's what I have noticed people saying they'd be forced to believe one way if they lived back then... Not true! America was a free country then, that's why so many different people moved here in the 20th Century!

You know I don't fit in with the world today, I dress in 30s-40s fashion, I drive an old car, I really do little that most people do today, but, are there people making fun of me? You bet there are! I endure my own kind of predigest... people who don't understand me for who I am. We know we get screw ball comments from people today because we like what we like!

Just because everyone is jumpin' off a cliff don't mean you have to!

 

[jamespowers]

I think we need to step back and not paint an era with such a broad brush. After all, like it or not, we were raised by people who had roots in that era---parents and grandparents. Somehow they managed to create this generation with all of the values we have to day---good and bad.
I don't judge people in the past by present day standards just as I would not want to be judged by the standards of 60 years into the future. Without the historical context and knowing every single person from that era, you have no idea who was what. Let's just step back and take a long look in the mirror before we start casting those isms around.

 

[Forgotten Man]

I think we need to step back and not paint an era with such a broad brush. After all, like it or not, we were raised by people who had roots in that era---parents and grandparents. Somehow they managed to create this generation with all of the values we have to day---good and bad.
I don't judge people in the past by present day standards just as I would not want to be judged by the standards of 60 years into the future. Without the historical context and knowing every single person from that era, you have no idea who was what. Let's just step back and take a long look in the mirror before we start casting those isms around.

:eusa_clap

 

[Lauren]

I don't like to be told I'm very miss informed, as Miss Pigeon said I am. I was trying to lay out the other side when she was painting her side... everyone feels that things happened only because whites didn't like blacks or whatever races you wanna pick. The book that Pigeon mentioned was written from the Hispanic perspective; not exactly an unbiased opinion is it? Two sides to everything, and what I wanted to get a crossed was the side that was being over shadowed by the over generalization that all service men of the time were white males who just hated any race and felt it fun to beat them up.

It's ok for most to state their opinions, why not my opinion? Why am I always the bad guy?

There were plenty of people back then who didn't care about races... and I would be one of them! If I went back right now to 1939, I would have no fear of being drafted because of my age and flat feet. lol I would be perfectly happy being a block warden or something... that would be me.

So, let those who wanna stay here in 08, let them look forward to the future, because, I for one am not excited about the future of this country. If you believe in God or the Bible, it's only goin' to get worse.

I'll be working on how to travel back in time, and for those interested, I'll be selling tickets.

First stop: Southern California, January 1st, 10am 1928.

I don't think you're the bad guy at all! I think Denise's comment wasn't saying that she was right or you were right, or anyone else who joined in that conversation was right- but that all sides have their reasoning for what they believe and that should all be ok because it's a matter of preference. Saying everyone was just one way then would be like saying something is just all one way now (and I know I'm not wearing mini skirts with leggings and listening to R&B and living in a house with granite counters and being politically the same way as everyone else, etc lol) Don't know if that all makes sense. I think people should just respect everyone else's preferences as their own and call it a day... otherwise it just gets too serious and not fun anymore!

And I'll take two tickets for a visit, please!

And p.p.s. Thanks so much for your nice comment about how I could make cool costumes back then. It was very sweet.