Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-11-2008, 04:02 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
1,373 posts, read 3,119,257 times
Reputation: 573

Advertisements

I'm pretty sure it is now. If you don't cuss, dress like a punk, and listen to crude music you're "straight-edge", which is like radical now.

I'd say maybe by 1995 or so, class was out the window.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-11-2008, 04:10 PM
 
8,978 posts, read 16,532,515 times
Reputation: 3020
VERY interesting question....IMHO, the notion of "class" was dealt a pretty serious 'death blow' in the great upheaval of the 1960's, when virtually ALL social norms were called into question and many were rejected. Along with prejudice, segregation, and institutional 'snobbery', we also threw out a lot of 'manners', customs, and social graces. We learned to 'let it ALL hang out', and if others disapproved, they could just 'deal with it'. I'm intimately familiar with all this, because I 'came of age' right in the midst of this, and I 'saw both ends'.

Again, very good subject, with lots of far-reaching side-issues. Society was WELL over due for some changes, for sure.....but in many ways, we "threw out the baby" along with the "bath water".

If you must have a single, defining moment when American society "lost its class", here's my vote...I'd say it was on one of the early episodes of the controversial TV sitcom "All In The Family", when the opinionated, racist, bigoted, hard-headed star of the show, Archie Bunker, made the VERY FIRST on-air "TOILET FLUSH" in the history of American television. Now THAT'S low-brow culture...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2008, 04:17 PM
 
4,604 posts, read 8,216,887 times
Reputation: 1266
I think it mostly depends on where you're sleeping.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 12:57 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
1,373 posts, read 3,119,257 times
Reputation: 573
I agree. The late 60s were when it ended except in the professional world. By the mid 90s it was gone altogether, now it's like a novelty, our world is so hard-edged, being genteel and soft is actually controversial!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 01:12 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,772,693 times
Reputation: 36643
January 27, 1956. The day "Heartbreak Hotel" by Elvis Presley was released. The next day, hundreds of radio stations (the US "Media" of the time) had to make a decision whether they were going to play the record, or not. Elvis and his instant fans won, and for the first time, we had a national hero who had no class.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,665,850 times
Reputation: 24861
Behaving with 'class' is pretty much set by the people that do not have much to worry about except how they behave. This distinguishable behavior pattern served principally to exclude the many from the company of the few and was pretty much the cultural manifestation of ‘class economic warfare’.

Before the 60’s only the working poor wore denim and sneakers. Successful factory workers wore twills and the professionals wore wool. The very rich had the flannels and sports coat uniform. These visual markers served to prevent cross class interaction and protected privilege. Since the 60’s these visual markers have become less apparent as most anyone wears denims for instance.

There used to be a distinctive difference in speech as well. Along with a drawl the use of cursing and foul language marked a person as lower class. One of the things that finally allowed the Kennedy’s to become upper class was the children’s ability to speak with a upper class preppy New England accent. Money originally derived from smuggling booze to the upper class drinkers during prohibition, also helped. Now the only distinctive characteristic of the upper class is money, not breeding. This has greatly diluted the more socially useful concern for the people that created the classes’ fortunes and replaced it with people that are little more than rich thugs and bootleggers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 08:19 AM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,564,096 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Behaving with 'class' is pretty much set by the people that do not have much to worry about except how they behave. This distinguishable behavior pattern served principally to exclude the many from the company of the few and was pretty much the cultural manifestation of ‘class economic warfare’.

Before the 60’s only the working poor wore denim and sneakers. Successful factory workers wore twills and the professionals wore wool. The very rich had the flannels and sports coat uniform. These visual markers served to prevent cross class interaction and protected privilege. Since the 60’s these visual markers have become less apparent as most anyone wears denims for instance.

There used to be a distinctive difference in speech as well. Along with a drawl the use of cursing and foul language marked a person as lower class. One of the things that finally allowed the Kennedy’s to become upper class was the children’s ability to speak with a upper class preppy New England accent. Money originally derived from smuggling booze to the upper class drinkers during prohibition, also helped. Now the only distinctive characteristic of the upper class is money, not breeding. This has greatly diluted the more socially useful concern for the people that created the classes’ fortunes and replaced it with people that are little more than rich thugs and bootleggers.
I don't think it's about money or clothes etc., it's about behavior. While you may say that it's only people who have nothing to worry about that worry about behavior, it's naive to think that one's behavior has nothing to do with their opportunities for money.

I agree with with macmeal about when it was lost. We went from being respectful to others to saying others should just deal with it if they don't like my behavior. To a point, that's good. However, it reaches a point where it becomes self-absorbed and lacks class.

Last edited by Rggr; 09-12-2008 at 09:15 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,665,850 times
Reputation: 24861
Classy is as classy does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 08:28 AM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,564,096 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Classy is as classy does.
Good response.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 09:14 AM
 
8,978 posts, read 16,532,515 times
Reputation: 3020
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Behaving with 'class' is pretty much set by the people that do not have much to worry about except how they behave. This distinguishable behavior pattern served principally to exclude the many from the company of the few and was pretty much the cultural manifestation of ‘class economic warfare’.

Before the 60’s only the working poor wore denim and sneakers. Successful factory workers wore twills and the professionals wore wool. The very rich had the flannels and sports coat uniform. These visual markers served to prevent cross class interaction and protected privilege. Since the 60’s these visual markers have become less apparent as most anyone wears denims for instance.

There used to be a distinctive difference in speech as well. Along with a drawl the use of cursing and foul language marked a person as lower class. One of the things that finally allowed the Kennedy’s to become upper class was the children’s ability to speak with a upper class preppy New England accent. Money originally derived from smuggling booze to the upper class drinkers during prohibition, also helped. Now the only distinctive characteristic of the upper class is money, not breeding. This has greatly diluted the more socially useful concern for the people that created the classes’ fortunes and replaced it with people that are little more than rich thugs and bootleggers.
VERY good observations. The 'great upheaval' of the 60's was largely about 'throwing out pretensions'. It was about 'honesty and openness'. Earlier, even the tough 'blue collar' types recognized how to 'act'. They 'watched their language' in mixed company, and they dressed in neat clothing when 'off work'.

In just a few years, our cultural 'ideal' moved from the hyper-stuffiness of "Leave it to Beaver", to the ultra-vulgarity of the "Roseanne Arnold" show. Whereas Mrs. Cleaver never raised her voice, ALWAYS wore earrings, and worried what the neighbors thought, Roseanne appeared in dumpy "sweats", arguing with her opinionated kids, and was PROUD of her 'dumpiness'.

I don't know if Mrs. Cleaver ever felt like 'burping' nor suffered from flatulence..but I know the audience never saw it. On the other hand, I'm sure Roseanne did BOTH...and anyone who objected could just "Stuff It".

Remember "Harper Valley PTA"?...a 'pop' song that enjoyed such HUGE popularity that it spawned a movie..(and a sit-com? Don't recall). The entire PREMISE of the story was "yes, I'm a single mom....and my daughter MAY be just a LITTLE trashy..but NOBODY better look down their noses at us...because THEY are just as trashy as WE are...they just hide it better". Harper Valley PTA could serve as a 'study' in itself, of thew huge changes in which America 'lost it class'..for better or for worse.

Whereas once, even the lowest 'blue collar' type aspired to at least LOOK 'quality' whenever the chance arose, today, the "quality" (affluent class) aspires to LOOK 'trashy'..sometimes astonishingly so. Even millionaires now show up in public...unshaven, ungroomed, hair in disarray, dressed in 'sweats.....Class? hmmmm..I don't know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:06 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top