would you live back in time?

[Rachael]

While I have no doubt that had I been born in an earlier generation I would have thrived in that time, given the choice I would stay where I am.

This is due to a combination of things, some deeply philosophical and some frivolous. For starters, I really truly enjoy the technology and quality of life advances made in the last century. As one who demonstrates as a living historian, I do spend about three weeks (cumulative) each year in a full immersion historical setting. And yes, I do enjoy and feel enriched by this experience. But yeah, that long hot shower followed by a good movie in my own living room is looking good after about day three.

In the deeper end of the pool, I truly believe that each and every soul is placed in a location and time for a purpose. No matter how much one may yearn for a different set of socio-economic circumstances, or family, or place in time, to willfully change one's place in history would be to walk away from why one is here in the first place. Now don't get me wrong; I'm not about sitting like a lump due to fate, karma, etc. It is the human obligation to contribute to oneself and to one's world. But we are all here now for a reason and none of us would have met had we any of us been born a day earlier than we were.

Back to the shallow end of the pool. I like microbrews and Starbucks. Couldn't live without either. I'm stayin'.

 

[Minerva]

Actually, California was one of the later states to allow inter-racial marriage, in 1959. Eastern seaboard states had done away with those laws a few years earlier, starting in the later 40's, I think. Before that, inter-racial marriage was illegal in all states. The south, as would be expected, delayed until the federal government forced all states to allow inter-racial marriage in 1967. At that time, as I recall, there were still about 12 or 15 states which had not abolished those laws until forced to do so.

Slightly off-topic, but this is not quite correct. There was a brief time in the 1870s in which interracial marriage was legal in Louisiana. My great-great-grandfather took advantage of it and married his second live-in (the daughter of one of the neighbor's manumitted slaves), as did at least one of his brothers. My great-great-grandmother, as I understand it, didn't take it well that he didn't marry her instead.

It was also not precisely illegal until after Louisiana became a state in 1810. You weren't really supposed to, but people did. And if you had the means and position, who would say boo about it? Of course, there was also ways around the law if one party or the other wanted to 'pass'.

To be more topical, it sounds like an interesting time to have lived in.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Actually, California was one of the later states to allow inter-racial marriage, in 1959. Eastern seaboard states had done away with those laws a few years earlier, starting in the later 40's, I think. Before that, inter-racial marriage was illegal in all states.

Actually, here in Maine the racial marriage laws were done away with in 1883 -- a considerable number of Northern states repealed them between the height of the abolitionist movement and the post-civil-war Reconstruction era. Other states and territories eliminating such laws between the 1840s and 1880s included Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington. Several states/territories never had such laws at all, including Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska and Hawaii.

Most of the Western states indeed maintained such laws until the 1950s -- California's was found unconstitutional in 1948, and the rest followed over the next ten years. Only 16 states -- all in the South but Delaware -- maintained such laws into the mid-1960s, and these were abolished by the Supreme Court in 1967.

 

[Miss Caroline]

being from the uk, and of somewhat mixed heritage i find it almost facinating that such laws existed until so recently.
frightening really. I was just researching but i don't think england has ever had any such laws, atleast not since slavery was abolished. in 1807.
correct me if im wrong.

 

[Lauren]

If I'm not mistaken, around the time of the gold rush in California it was normal, too.

Slightly off-topic, but this is not quite correct. There was a brief time in the 1870s in which interracial marriage was legal in Louisiana. My great-great-grandfather took advantage of it and married his second live-in (the daughter of one of the neighbor's manumitted slaves), as did at least one of his brothers. My great-great-grandmother, as I understand it, didn't take it well that he didn't marry her instead.

It was also not precisely illegal until after Louisiana became a state in 1810. You weren't really supposed to, but people did. And if you had the means and position, who would say boo about it? Of course, there was also ways around the law if one party or the other wanted to 'pass'.

To be more topical, it sounds like an interesting time to have lived in.

 

[Miss Crisplock]

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...

How about this:

Er, I prefer that Pearl Harbor never happened. Or Nazi Germany.

There. All better now?

No need to muddy the waters with truth when it is a matter of preference and opinion.:eusa_doh:

 

[Lauren]

I think you missed my point. My point is that things happen in history. There is nothing we can do to change the fact that these events happened in the past. The point of this thread was not to criticize each others views on the past, but to say, with what you know, would you choose to live back then. I'm not trying to say that things didn't happen that were horrific in history. I'm not saying anyone's right or not right, but I think we're getting way off base in this particular discussion and not getting anywhere with all the bickering. There is a way to inform someone you believe is misinformed, but getting our tails all ruffled over what should be a decent conversation doesn't get us anywhere and is ruining the point of this thread. There are other places to debate historical events more in-depth, and even then, no matter what, with all the accounts of what has happened and with all the different views no one will agree in entirety.
It's not a matter of saying what in history we prefer would not have happened, because, obviously, the list would be gigantic- but to state, knowing what you know of the past, would you choose to live back in time.

 

[reetpleat]

being from the uk, and of somewhat mixed heritage i find it almost facinating that such laws existed until so recently.
frightening really. I was just researching but i don't think england has ever had any such laws, atleast not since slavery was abolished. in 1807.
correct me if im wrong.

I think if I were black back in the day, I would have moved to europe as did many.

 

[reetpleat]

I think you missed my point. My point is that things happen in history. There is nothing we can do to change the fact that these events happened in the past. The point of this thread was not to criticize each others views on the past, but to say, with what you know, would you choose to live back then. I'm not trying to say that things didn't happen that were horrific in history. I'm not saying anyone's right or not right, but I think we're getting way off base in this particular discussion and not getting anywhere with all the bickering. There is a way to inform someone you believe is misinformed, but getting our tails all ruffled over what should be a decent conversation doesn't get us anywhere and is ruining the point of this thread. There are other places to debate historical events more in-depth, and even then, no matter what, with all the accounts of what has happened and with all the different views no one will agree in entirety.
It's not a matter of saying what in history we prefer would not have happened, because, obviously, the list would be gigantic- but to state, knowing what you know of the past, would you choose to live back in time.

I dare say, fifty years from now, someone may well be having a discussion along similar lines, and express an opinion as to how much they would love to be in our era and experience the start of the Obama years first hand (Okay, Mccain will do a well) but they may express concerns about getting drafted into the middle east wars, and decry the racism, exism, specieism, environmentism? and other oppressions of the day, and express a fear of trying to mingle with such unenlightened folks as us. Agree or disagree as you see fit. On the other hand, they might long for it as a golden era of manners and civility as opposed to the terrible habits of the 2050s.

 

[Miss Crisplock]

I think you missed my point. My point is that things happen in history. There is nothing we can do to change the fact that these events happened in the past. The point of this thread was not to criticize each others views on the past, but to say, with what you know, would you choose to live back then. I'm not trying to say that things didn't happen that were horrific in history. I'm not saying anyone's right or not right, but I think we're getting way off base in this particular discussion and not getting anywhere with all the bickering. There is a way to inform someone you believe is misinformed, but getting our tails all ruffled over what should be a decent conversation doesn't get us anywhere and is ruining the point of this thread. There are other places to debate historical events more in-depth, and even then, no matter what, with all the accounts of what has happened and with all the different views no one will agree in entirety.
It's not a matter of saying what in history we prefer would not have happened, because, obviously, the list would be gigantic- but to state, knowing what you know of the past, would you choose to live back in time.

I believe that it is exactly to the point of a discussion on "living in history to question what "history" are you proposing to live in.

The one where Pearl Harbor happened prior to WWII or after? The one with Nazi concentration camps or the WWII in which the holocost did not happen?

I assure you that not only is the option of choosing the past one prefers is available, but they are being lived out today by numerous people. I remember when the first "Holocost didn't happen" books came out and were dismissed. It really isn't so funny now.

If prior events are only options, opinions, and "views on the past" that may be debated (but not in polite company) and are not actually "real" events that happened to "real" people, I fail to understand your concern.

Since you can not say what did or did not happen, nor can you say who is right or not, what exactly is your point?

If you can't say that the facts are incorrect, how can you question them?
If everything is simply a matter of opinion, am I not entitled to my own?

From your response, I postulate your point is

"No one is allowed to bring up inconveinent truths, and you wish I wouldn't".
While I quite understand your point, I really wouldn't be much of a history buff (or human, really) if I allowed censorship on such a flimsy excuse.

I am less than pleased with the diminishing, demeaning, and marginalizing comments peppered throughout your post and wish to respond:

FYI, madam, I do not bicker.

I do not have a tail. Hence, it does not have the opportunity to "ruffle".
The use of the word is to render dispute or disagreement "cute" in order to diminish a serious subject to one that is frivolous, and merits no further thought.

Furthermore, "There is a way to inform someone you believe is misinformed." There are several. Some are more insulting than others. Yours, for instance, does not please. I assume that again, you wish that I wouldn't say anything you do not like/ be more politically correct.

As to the question: I find that living in a reality of one's own making is a questionable endevor and quite possibly on the AMA list of symptoms. The past, now, that is a different kettle of fish.

 

[reetpleat]

Judge not lest you be judged and it might be in a much worse light.
Santayana simply said to learn from history---not to judge it based on what is currently de rigueur. [huh]

One may or not agree with Santayana, but it is pretty welll held as good advice. How can you learn from something if you do not place value judgements on it? if you don't decide that some things in history are not worth repeating, what good is it to know history.

 

[reetpleat]

We really do want to keep this thread open.

Appologies. I actually deleted my last post right after I wrote it, thinking better of it. But somehow it didn't get deleted. It is the second post I have deleted, and in the future, lan to not even get that far as having anything to delete on that particular subject.

 

[Lauren]

Miss Crisplock- I am sorry if I did offend you, I was also offended. I did not mean to make you believe my post was directed at you, and I'm sorry if you believe it was. I was just trying to explain how this is getting off track and all the posts between people with misunderstandings are really getting us nowhere. My post had the opposite effect of what I was intended and I am really sorry for that. I'm going to bow out of this conversation now.

 

[reetpleat]

An excellent simple overview of the Zoot riots, including primary source newspaper clippings, can be found here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/zoot/ The newspaper clippings are especially interesting -- Hearst journalism at its most inflammatory, and unfortunately typical of the overall tone of West Coast journalism at the time. There's no question that whatever incidents may have occured before the riots erupted, they were fanned into flame by irresponsible journalism. (Neither the first, nor the last time that would happen, alas.)

What was hearsts agenda on this. Was it just to sell more newspapers, or did it involve an oversupply of immigrants durring the depression. One of the reasons for the villification of Marajuana was based on lack of jobs and a desire to get rid of Mexican immigrants, according to a documentary I saw anyway. I know there were also issues of mexican fascist and communist sympathies, and the fear that Mexico might be friendly to Germany. Wee there other issues involved? Or was it mainly good old fashioned racism and a desire to sell newspapers.

We know that Hearst, as much as he liked to sell papers, also used his papers to bring us into war and otherwise influence public opinion to support his interests and whims.

 

[jamespowers]

One may or not agree with Santayana, but it is pretty welll held as good advice. How can you learn from something if you do not place value judgements on it? if you don't decide that some things in history are not worth repeating, what good is it to know history.

Values are specific to individuals--that is the difference. Some things in history are fairly obviously not worth repeating. Wars, genocides etc. To know history is to know what is not worth repeating. I did not say you couldn't decide what is not worth repeating. In fact, Santayana's point is to know history and learn from it---that entails choosing which is worth repeating or not. However, judging someone's actions 60 years ago based on hindsight and today's standards does not work and even impedes learning to replace it with blame.

 

[Miss Crisplock]

I dare say, fifty years from now, someone may well be having a discussion along similar lines, and express an opinion as to how much they would love to be in our era and experience the start of the Obama years first hand (Okay, Mccain will do a well) but they may express concerns about getting drafted into the middle east wars, and decry the racism, exism, specieism, environmentism? and other oppressions of the day, and express a fear of trying to mingle with such unenlightened folks as us. Agree or disagree as you see fit. On the other hand, they might long for it as a golden era of manners and civility as opposed to the terrible habits of the 2050s.

Ten years from now they will be debating the question did 9/11 happen, and if so wasn't it our fault for bombing Mecca in 2000?

 

[LizzieMaine]

What was hearsts agenda on this. Was it just to sell more newspapers, or did it involve an oversupply of immigrants durring the depression. One of the reasons for the villification of Marajuana was based on lack of jobs and a desire to get rid of Mexican immigrants, according to a documentary I saw anyway. I know there were also issues of mexican fascist and communist sympathies, and the fear that Mexico might be friendly to Germany. Wee there other issues involved? Or was it mainly good old fashioned racism and a desire to sell newspapers.

We know that Hearst, as much as he liked to sell papers, also used his papers to bring us into war and otherwise influence public opinion to support his interests and whims.

All the Hearst papers had a similar jingoistic, xenophobic point of view, so I don't think it was so much a singling out of Mexicans as it was the idea of promoting his own narrow view of "Americanism" -- which certainly did have a racial component, but it wasn't the only element. Hearst did have a special bone to pick with Mexico, having gotten caught up in a huge scandal in 1927 when documents he published alleging plans for a Mexican invasion of the United States were proven by the Mexican government to be forged -- making the Hearst papers a global laughingstock, so this too may have been a part of why the events of 1943 were covered as they were.

Hearst was primarily a 19th Century-style nativist/populist lingering on well into the 20th Century, and that was a worldview that dragged its roots all the way back to the "Know Nothing" movement before the Civil War. But Hearst was, by the mid-forties, a cultural dinosaur -- an old, embittered man openly snorted at by the sharper minds of the day, but obeyed without question by his editors, to whom he personally dictated policy. The Herald-Express and Examiner in Los Angeles were among his flagship papers, and carried a disproportionate influence on the other papers in the city -- who felt to compete with Hearst, the only way to go was to be even more shrill and jingoistic.

Los Angeles was very poorly served by its papers -- until well into the sixties it was known for having the shabbiest grade of journalism of any major city in the US.

 

[BegintheBeguine]

Okay, I have been thining how I could remove a lot of variables so this can be examined as a straight forward question. let's say someone came to you and offered to assist you in jumping into an alternate universe. In this universe, it is (the year of your choice)

Only in this alternate universe, it is just different enough that nothing you know about sports, the stock market, technology, etc will allow you to make money on knowing hte future. No betting, no buying stock, no getting patents. You would just have to be a regular guy. Nothing you know about the future could benefit you in any way. But if you are en expert engineer, you could be an expert of the era. etc.

However, in this alternate universe, your spouse, partner, and all your friends, and everyone you know exists and knows you. The only difference is they all are regular folks of that era.

However, the universe is similar enough that there is an adolph hitler, and everyone else that is good or bad. There will be a world war, you will run the risk of being drafted, killed by a bomb etc. You also will run the risk of dying of diseases they can now cure.

lastly, you can take with you, your net worth translated into then dollars. So if you own a house, you can buy a similar house. If you hve a lot of money socked away, you can have that amount adjusted for the time.

Am I missing any other caviats that would be necessery to distill the pure question of weather you would want to live now or in a past era?

Oh, you can't come back.

So, would you? Where and when would you want to go?

Yes, I would. Set me down in 1940 in Winchester, Tennessee. I want the big house on the corner.

 

[reetpleat]

Values are specific to individuals--that is the difference. Some things in history are fairly obviously not worth repeating. Wars, genocides etc. To know history is to know what is not worth repeating. I did not say you couldn't decide what is not worth repeating. In fact, Santayana's point is to know history and learn from it---that entails choosing which is worth repeating or not. However, judging someone's actions 60 years ago based on hindsight and today's standards does not work and even impedes learning to replace it with blame.

I don't think we disagree completely. I do not think it is worthwhile to condemn an individual for being a terrible person, because they followed the acceptable mores of their time. However, I do nt believe it is out of line to look back and condemn behavior by our own standards.

in other words, I can understand the hysteria of the internment. Heck, I can understand how Hitler was able to get people to go along with his whole agenda. But I can condemn both as wrong, no matter what the given standards of the time were. Were they wrong for the time? Well, that can not be answered because right or wrong can not be applied to a specific time in taht way. But I can say they are wrong as far as I am concerned and invite others to join me. FOr what it is worth, my decision as to weather they wre right or wrong means nothing to the people of the time, but it matters now as in, would I vote for a candidate for office that thought this was alright? No. And while I meant this to be purely hypothetical, internment might actually have some relation to a modern political issue. I think we must pass judgements on the past at least as behavior we should or shouldn't repeat. Weathe we call it or people doing it right or wrong is pretty meaningless really.

 

[reetpleat]

Ten years from now they will be debating the question did 9/11 happen, and if so wasn't it our fault for bombing Mecca in 2000?

ten years. Many are debating such things now. Not did it happen, but why and how?