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.
I"m still here. I'm 72 years old and tired of it all. I think the changes of today worry me more, because I believe that if we don't start doing something about climate change, our children and grandchildren might someday be struggling in vain to save the earth's environment and save our species from extinction. Anger might result partially from living on an over-crowded earth, in conditions that strain mankind's ability to adapt quickly enough.
It seems to me that many older people are much more upset/angry about the changes today, than older people were 50 years ago. Yes, I can remember some older people when I was a teen grumbling about "long-haired hippies", but for the most part, I don't remember anyone I knew actually being as upset and angry about those changes as many people are about the changes today. (Yes, many people were upset about racial mixing and desegregation, but by 1970, I think most people had accepted racial integration.)
For example, the changes that occurred around 1970 included:
- Much greater acceptance of non-marital sex (and men and women openly living together without being married)
- Much greater acceptance of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals
- Very relaxed standards of dress (including long hair on men)
- Greater acceptance of interracial dating and marriage
- Antiwar demonstrations and open disrespect for those in authority
Whereas, in my opinion, the changes today are not nearly as radical as those listed above. In fact, the only things I can think of that have changed are (1) a much broader definition of what is offensive speech, (2) a drastic increase in the non-tolerance of anyone who doesn't agree with you on social and political issues, (3) widespread acceptance of transgenders and any other kind of gender or sexual identification, (4) multiple piercings and tattoos for the (mostly) young, and (5) acceptance of immigrants who want to keep their cultural heritage and not assimilate into the predominant "Anglo" culture.
So, in short, do you think that people were more accepting of change 50 years ago than they are today -- or less accepting?
(I would also like to know any of your thoughts and personal experiences related to this subject -- and also please feel free to add more items to either list and to disagree with anything I wrote!)
I'm not so sure it's all acceptance, if you refer to today parts 1 and 2, you have a clue.
My first job as a teen was working at a local company that did road construction/repair and railroad bed repairs—the owner was man in his late 60s probably who grew up in Depression in central TX south of Austin
He was a hard-scrabble guy who made money by marrying a girl from a wealthy family and getting into a business where he could gain political clout...
Sneaky and hard as nails
I remember being at work on day and having him come into the office where I worked with his long-time bookkeeper (lady) and being happy because either Medgar Evers or MLK had been shot
His words were “that coon got what he deserved”
So yes—I do think people in earlier decades were just as angry and upset at having their social boundaries taken down and replaced with those that benefitted people of color...
He was just as sexist as he was racist too
Raising both his sons to be womanizers of the first degree...
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 think that, in a nutshell, is what fuels much of the controversy over views on social changes today vs. 50 years ago.
Viral videos, constant 24-hour news broadcasting streams from more sources than we had back then with TV monitors tuned to one of the all-news stations in public establishments all over the place, along with sensationalized, exaggerated, and selective reporting, serve to influence the public utilizing methods that did not exist a couple of generations ago. You pretty much had to wait until the daily news broadcast came on TV at home, or catch it on the radio, or wait for the newspaper to be delivered and read about events there.
Since the culture wars started around 1990 or so people have taken things too personally. Somehow it becomes a personal injury if gay marriage is legal (or not) or women have absolute control over their reproduction (or not) or kids are allowed to pray in school (or not) even though we are not personally involved in the issue. We have self-defined victimhood as a feature of modern culture. Back in the 1960s there was a different, non-personal, reaction to changes in society.
Since the culture wars started around 1990 or so people have taken things too personally. Somehow it becomes a personal injury if gay marriage is legal (or not) or women have absolute control over their reproduction (or not) or kids are allowed to pray in school (or not) even though we are not personally involved in the issue. We have self-defined victimhood as a feature of modern culture. Back in the 1960s there was a different, non-personal, reaction to changes in society.
We have, I'd opine, self-defined tribal identity based on "values" or belief-systems, just as it became gauche and unacceptable to define tribal identity based on our skin color, or some other physiological attribute. There is, evidently, an essential tendency to cluster into factions, favoring one's own faction and derogating the rest. Then, any time that an opposing faction gains some advantage, we declare our own faction to have fallen victim to some egregious injustice.
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.
First off, I am not a woman, so that blows your theory that I was pregnant. I was born 20 years before he was born, so that blows your other theory. By today’s standards that might be considered having children early, but in the 60’s and early 70’s it wasn’t. I was 17 when I graduated, as well. As far as your commenting on other people just GTH. And, if I may add, that was an Ohio high school where it all happened. Maybe you might want to change your handle now!
I'm not so sure it's all acceptance, if you refer to today parts 1 and 2, you have a clue.
I'm not so sure about the "Anglo" part either.
"Anglo" in that the predominant language of the U.S. was and still is English, and I think that all (or mostly all) of those who participated in the Continental Congress had at least some English ancestry, as did the writers of the Constitution. However, I think it is also true that most of the culture does reflect our mainly English heritage (as opposed to, for example, Asian) because most U.S. residents are Christian and not Buddhist, for example, and most of our customs and manners are part of our English (or at least European) heritage. (I am not saying or inferring anything by that except that this is the actuality, and not that this is a good thing or a bad thing!)
P.S. I am glad that this thread is still generating so many opinions. THANKS to all who have responded!
Last edited by katharsis; 08-31-2019 at 06:19 AM..
The biggest change I've noticed personally is people go from zero to rabidly angry for the slightest perceived offense, young or old.
in the past, the first reaction to an error of words or deed was assumed to be an honest mistake until proven otherwise. Now, the worst possible motive for words or deed is assumed until proven otherwise.
Since the culture wars started around 1990 or so people have taken things too personally. Somehow it becomes a personal injury if gay marriage is legal (or not) or women have absolute control over their reproduction (or not) or kids are allowed to pray in school (or not) even though we are not personally involved in the issue. We have self-defined victimhood as a feature of modern culture. Back in the 1960s there was a different, non-personal, reaction to changes in society.
People marched in the streets to prevent a black girl going to a white school, a school they didn't attend nor their children. People took things just as personally back then.
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.
