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.
Are you misrepresenting the argument? Because that would be intellectually dishonest. I don't recall anyone arguing that it was ideal. Best and ideal have different meanings.
I think what (s)he was actually trying to say was that the "bad portions" were being left out of the discussion, only the good things were being mentioned. In order to have a complete, balanced and honest discussion - you have to have both.
Are you misrepresenting the argument? Because that would be intellectually dishonest. I don't recall anyone arguing that it was ideal. Best and ideal have different meanings.
Really? Are you speaking a different version of English than I am?
The dictionary says they're synonymous...
And HiW, i realize you're going for character assassination, but what I can't figure out is why...
Did you have a point somewhere in there? Was there something that refuted my argument that 1880 was not some mythical golden age?
I probably missed it. I'm very busy today, indoctrinating my homeschooler to hate successful people. LOL
Last edited by itsMeFred; 05-07-2015 at 09:03 AM..
The sky was the limit in 1889 for ambitious men and women. Hetty Green didn't whine about ''oppresed'' groups in order to explain her own failure. She didn't fail; she was one of the most respected investors of the time.
The authors of the following articles try to find fault when none is there. However, the facts are there. It does reaffirm the old saying that failure hates success.
That was my first thought as well.
I also like being able to vote, own property and determine my own course as well as that of my children...
I doubt that Hetty Green worried about voting. Apparently her ''educators'' were too busy telling the poster how to indictrinate children that they forgot to mention history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsMeFred
Additionally, there were huge swaths of Americans denied the most basic of rights; Indians, blacks, Jews, gays, etc, etc. The most heinous of child abuse was tolerated, people were allowed to live and die in abject poverty, there was no such thing as workplace safety (think Triangle factory or The Jungle), etc, etc.
I have such a hard time with this whole notion of romanticizing some aspect of history while blatantly ignoring the underbelly. I prefer to just say, "I like to limit my use of technology."
The underbelly is the home of the underclass. Does anyone but the poster (if she remembers her post) consider this to be a balanced statement? There's nothing in it but whining and screaming. The above was her first post on this thread. It's dated 6/7/14. It's as disingenuous as her last post.
Now, let's briefly chuckle at her ignorance and return to our discussion of dynamivc times and dynamic men and women.
Black people, Jews, gays, and women are the "underclass?"
Wow.
I don't even know what to say...
Though undoubtedly it bolsters your argument to speak about me in the third person and encourage people to laugh at me. Attacking arguments is one thing, pointing out holes in ideas or understanding...but attacking people is shameful. I would have thought you were a better than that.
Clearly I was mistaken.
1880s composers and painters haven't been mentioned. There were many.
Berthe Morisot painted this in 1880 using only her feet while both hands were chained to a kitchen stove.
It's worth looking at additional works of Marisot. I've always been a fan of French Impressionists. We musn't forget the men of the time, however; women weren't the only geniuses. My next thumbnail sketch will probably be a man.
Really? Are you speaking a different version of English than I am?
The dictionary says they're synonymous...
And HiW, i realize you're going for character assassination, but what I can't figure out is why...
Did you have a point somewhere in there? Was there something that refuted my argument that 1880 was not some mythical golden age?
I probably missed it. I'm very busy today, indoctrinating my homeschooler to hate successful people. LOL
Ideal = perfect, flawless, absolute perfection
Best = the superlative of good, better than the others in quality or value, desirable
Perfect without flaw and better than the others are not synonymous.
Quote:
My contention this entire has been that all eras have their pluses and minuses and to romanticize one as somehow better than another only reflects a poor grasp of history
Your contention is that no decade was better than another. No decade was worse than another. Can you show some examples how they all equal out? It might be more productive for discussion than to just repeat an ideology over and over.
I can think of worse decades than the 1880s. The 1860s decade immediately comes to mind. The Triangle factory fire was in 1911, not 1880s. Did the factory even exist in the 1880s? I would include the 1910s among the worst decades: WWI, flu pandemic, Titanic
The 1880s was a prolific decade. There was an abundance of art, literature, music and ingenuity. So much from that decade is desired and revered by millions today. They have stood the test of time because they are high quality and enrich lives. Something sparked creativity in more people. Something may have been better.
The 1880s was a prolific decade. There was an abundance of art, literature, music and ingenuity. So much from that decade is desired and revered by millions today. They have stood the test of time because they are high quality and enrich lives. Something sparked creativity in more people. Something may have been better.
Yes. I couldn't rep you again. But "good times" do seem to ebb and flow. They weave in and out of decades with seeming abandon. Same with bad times. But once in a while, remarkable people, high energy levels, creativity, political peace and economic opportunity coalesce to produce a 'window of opportunity' for significant strides to be made in indusrty, the arts, and social mobility.
I agree that the 1880's occurred during one of those times. There are indeed better times than others.
Looking at writing of the time by those who lived it is perhaps the best way to learn of the times. I never completely trust the writings of historians (not saying I don't read it, but I read it critically) because it seems to be extremely difficult for most authors to write in a transparent manner (meaning the author himself/herself does not influence the content) or without an agenda of some sort in mind. I call this Thesismania. Can't anyone simply write of the times, telling the truth best as they can determine, without attempting to make some sort of point? I swear there are "historians" these days who could follow me around for a day, going about my mundane routine, and turn me into some sort of anti-Christ.
Of course, in reading authors from the time, it is necessary to filter for sour grapes or idealization. It's generally quite obvious when a disaffected writer is describing his/her times by simply engaging in a political or social rant. There is a difference between decribing legitimate problems and demonization. Same goes for pie-in-the-sky writers. I'm not going to mention several good overviews of the times written by authors who lived those times, because we are all familiar with them and I don't want to debate their merit. Suffice it to say that I am far more comfortable reading their description of the world and society around them than I am reading an angry, socialistic, agenda-driven "historian" from a hundred fifty years after the fact, whose only motivation is to smear North American culture of the time.
It might be a good exercise on this thread to make one list of true historians from our day who write of the times in an honest, scholarly manner, and another list of social reformers whose only wish is to rewrite history and demonize society at the time.
Surprising as it may seem to those who have endured public education within, say the last forty years, not everyone in the 1880s hated women, despised anyone who did not look like them, was violent and shot their neighbor for snoring too loud, and was otherwise afflicted by one of the myriad of "-isms" and "phobias" we have come up with today to describe those who do not think exactly as our modern society mandates.
Bottom line is that most folks went about their daily routines not all that unlike most folks do today. Ignoring the big history-making events from both times, I suppose it's really a matter of which "daily routine" appeals to you more--because I'd doubt you would be a history-maker in that time any more than you are a history-maker in our time.
Looking at writing of the time by those who lived it is perhaps the best way to learn of the times. I never completely trust the writings of historians (not saying I don't read it, but I read it critically) because it seems to be extremely difficult for most authors to write in a transparent manner (meaning the author himself/herself does not influence the content) or without an agenda of some sort in mind. I call this Thesismania. Can't anyone simply write of the times, telling the truth best as they can determine, without attempting to make some sort of point? I swear there are "historians" these days who could follow me around for a day, going about my mundane routine, and turn me into some sort of anti-Christ.
Of course, in reading authors from the time, it is necessary to filter for sour grapes or idealization. It's generally quite obvious when a disaffected writer is describing his/her times by simply engaging in a political or social rant. There is a difference between decribing legitimate problems and demonization. Same goes for pie-in-the-sky writers. I'm not going to mention several good overviews of the times written by authors who lived those times, because we are all familiar with them and I don't want to debate their merit. Suffice it to say that I am far more comfortable reading their description of the world and society around them than I am reading an angry, socialistic, agenda-driven "historian" from a hundred fifty years after the fact, whose only motivation is to smear North American culture of the time.
It might be a good exercise on this thread to make one list of true historians from our day who write of the times in an honest, scholarly manner, and another list of social reformers whose only wish is to rewrite history and demonize society at the time.
Surprising as it may seem to those who have endured public education within, say the last forty years, not everyone in the 1880s hated women, despised anyone who did not look like them, was violent and shot their neighbor for snoring too loud, and was otherwise afflicted by one of the myriad of "-isms" and "phobias" we have come up with today to describe those who do not think exactly as our modern society mandates.
Bottom line is that most folks went about their daily routines not all that unlike most folks do today. Ignoring the big history-making events from both times, I suppose it's really a matter of which "daily routine" appeals to you more--because I'd doubt you would be a history-maker in that time any more than you are a history-maker in our time.
In 1876 the country was really two countries - the industrialized and increasingly educated/sophisticated East and the unconquered West - cowboys, farmers, ranchers etc. The level of violence was not very high in the West, contrary to popular belief.
Every history book should cite references at the end - so you can verify the actual sources of the material. But, you already knew that
One of my favorite characters of the era was Lizzie Borden, well-known to me because my wife was born and brought up in Fall River, MA. We've seen the house (now a B&B), but I never had the nerve to stay at it, or even walk inside!
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.
