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.
That would be more or less 1970. My father died in '68 and after living in a couple of apartments in our hometown my mother decided to buy a mobile home in a small park in Florida where a few other people from our town - including some close friends were living. So, I saw these people I already knew and some new friends of my hometowners regularly in these years. Most of these people were born between 1910 and 1920.
About half the time they talked about each other, and the other half they sort of shook their heads over the news of the day, and new fads. Most of the time they didn't seem anything like as seething with anger and hate as is routine on C-D and the internet today. Vietnam War protests angered them, but the war itself seemed to confuse them.
I worked for a very small firm at the time - a man and a woman. Both of them considered that the U.S. had stumbled into the war because of our WW II commitment to the French and that we had just blundered on without much thought. They were liberal about social issues and changes. One of them was very cynical about black politicians in the urban North, and thought that African-Americans were never going to improve and prosper and that racial hostility would continue as always
By the mid-70s I was working for a huge, officially very liberal, urban university. The overall attitude of most of the whites was liberal about gay people, while the blacks were often hostile to or about gay people on the staff. (But while the university had anti-discrimination policies about racial and ethnic minorities, and about woman, it had none about gay people.) I heard quite a bit of hostile talk about whites from lower-level black technical and clerical civil service staff. There were always some very high level positions that were occupied by African-Americans. The university was funded by public funds and its governing board was very keyed into ('glued into' might be better) city ethnic politics and our various constituent colleges often were skewed ethically more of less by demographic accident, or outrightly structured to cater to a specific ethnic community.
I would guess that the overall university environment was on the cutting edge of liberal social policies in that time; however, I can say from twenty years of experience that while I liked working there, between the politicking and jockeying for power, and the sometimes very hostile rank and file reactions to internal policies it made the Byzantine court look like a kids' play school.
In regard to liberalizing trends in American society working at this university could be very rough and tumble, despite the fact that it was surely one of the best known bastions of social liberalism in the area.
But in none of these environments did I experience the level of open animosity, contempt and hate that seem routine today.
The media is not the same today as it was then. Sensational headlines get the clicks. Sensationalist reporters get you sensational headlines. Sensational, exaggerated and the outrageous events/politicians/wars/economies feed the machine. Even if you leave out 90% of the truth it does not matter as long as you get the clicks. Just be first even if your wrong. A race/class/gender/economic war would be a god send to these media outlets and viewers/readers are falling for it. They are creating this frenzy of equal outcomes and duality in truth. Social media being the kerosene as they pit us against one another. This is a different time and have no idea how we stop it.
I graduated HS in 1968. Went to my son’s graduation ~1987, and I was shocked to see pregnant girls getting their diplomas. I don’t know if my anecdote contributed to the discussion, but that is what the OP made me think about.
I graduated HS in 1968. Went to my son’s graduation ~1987, and I was shocked to see pregnant girls getting their diplomas. I don’t know if my anecdote contributed to the discussion, but that is what the OP made me think about.
Perhaps I am misapprehending your point, but if we follow the numbers...
- You graduated in 1968, so you were born in 1950 or 1951.
- Your son graduated in 1987, so he was born in 1969 or so.
- You observed that amongst the graduates there were pregnant girls - presumably around 18 years old.
- Their children would then be born around the time that they themselves turn 19.
- Was this this not also exactly the same time-of-life, at which your son was born?
Growing up Jewish my father told me, we're different and it's ok to be different. These days nobody's different, and everybody's a winner.
I don't mind being different, and every time I've lost at something it's made me try harder next time.
Right, we used to be individuals and that was fine. There was a story on the news today about a real loser:
Kid went to a prestigious Boston area high school, started college in Highpoint NC. Found with newly purchased guns and a plan to kill himself and his roommate if he didn't get into a fraternity.
Was he so spoiled all his life that he couldn't bear to not get his own way? Was not getting into the fraternity really that serious? That important? He would kill for it? No other way to cope, obviously.
Perhaps I am misapprehending your point, but if we follow the numbers...
- You graduated in 1968, so you were born in 1950 or 1951.
- Your son graduated in 1987, so he was born in 1969 or so.
- You observed that amongst the graduates there were pregnant girls - presumably around 18 years old.
- Their children would then be born around the time that they themselves turn 19.
- Was this this not also exactly the same time-of-life, at which your son was born?
What are you asking? The pregnant girls were obviously the same general age as my son. The basis for my comment is that when I graduated in 1968, most girls did not stay in school if the became pregnant. Or maybe they just never go pregnant. Who knows, but I do know that it was not an acceptable situation back then. Within 20 years a lot changed, and it was a shock to me when I realized it. Do you have a poin to make about that?
The point is, that unless I misread your numbers, you would have had to have also been pregnant with your son, on or around the time of your own high-school graduation, or perhaps some months thereafter. And that implies a continuity of situation, across the generations.
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.
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.
