50's and 60's fedora lounge?

[skyvue]

the values that started to permeate our culture in the mid 60's is what most of us (not all, I realize that) are trying to minimize in our own lives.

I think that's a big leap. There's a difference between a fervent interest in and appreciation of life as it was lived pre-1960 and a deeply held conviction that individual and societal values were superior then.

No one appreciates the aesthetics and popular culture of the Golden Era more than me, but I don't buy for a second the notion that life overall was better then. Or, rather, I'm fully convinced that it was better in some ways and worse in many others.

Admittedly, you acknowledged in your post that there are people who feel as I do, but I'm not at all convinced that the majority of people on this board view the Sixties as some sort of tipping point after which society values went to hell in a handbasket. Some no doubt feel that way, but the majority? I ain't buying it.

 

[Artie]

You might very well be right. I fully fess up that I was making a generalization probably based in large part on a projection of my own values. This is a large and diverse group of people who come here for many different reasons.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

... I'm not at all convinced that the majority of people on this board view the Sixties as some sort of tipping point after which society values went to hell in a handbasket.

It's not that the majority of Loungers feel this way. It's that some of the loudest Loungers feel this way.


.

 

[Geesie]

It's easy to romanticize the past, but never forget that when you praise cultural values of the 40s and before, you're praising a lot of racism and bigotry. It wasn't just a little speed bump, it was pervasive in American society.

Whatever politeness and etiquette we may (or may not) have lost since then, I think that not stepping on the neck of African Americans is worth it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I don't think it's a shocking revelation to anyone here that racism and such existed then -- but don't forget, it was the people of that generation who laid the foundation for the civil rights movement. It wasn't baby boomers who led crusades against lynching in the 30s, stood up for Marian Anderson in 1939 or cheered for Jackie Robinson in 1947. To tar an entire generation and an entire society as "racists and bigots" isn't at all fair to the members of that generation who were neither.

 

[jamespowers]

I don't think it's a shocking revelation to anyone here that racism and such existed then -- but don't forget, it was the people of that generation who laid the foundation for the civil rights movement. It wasn't baby boomers who led crusades against lynching in the 30s, stood up for Marian Anderson in 1939 or cheered for Jackie Robinson in 1947. To tar an entire generation and an entire society as "racists and bigots" isn't at all fair to the members of that generation who were neither.

Amen! It is such a silly fall back position to claim all kinds of ills to the past.
All of the same things can be said of the 50s and 60s as well, so it is not exclusive the Golden Era.

 

[Geesie]

I don't think it's a shocking revelation to anyone here that racism and such existed then -- but don't forget, it was the people of that generation who laid the foundation for the civil rights movement. It wasn't baby boomers who led crusades against lynching in the 30s, stood up for Marian Anderson in 1939 or cheered for Jackie Robinson in 1947. To tar an entire generation and an entire society as "racists and bigots" isn't at all fair to the members of that generation who were neither.

Be that as it may, saying "things were better then" is just plain false if you're not a white male.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Be that as it may, saying "things were better then" is just plain false if you're not a white male.

What's the point of trying, Geesie? It's like talking to a defensive brick wall. shakeshead


.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

To tar an entire generation and an entire society as "racists and bigots" isn't at all fair to the members of that generation who were neither.

For Pete's sake, Lizzie...Geesie said "pervasive," not "all-encompassing."


"A lot of racism and bigotry" doesn't mean "100% racism and bigotry."


.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It is indeed like talking to a brick wall. It seems sometimes that suggesting *anything* was better then will immediately bring down a deluge of tutt-tutting and finger-wagging from those who assume that anyone saying so doesn't fully appreciate the delightful stroll thru Candy Land that constitutes modern living. How about a little less of the self-righteousness all around?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

It seems sometimes that suggesting *anything* was better then will immediately bring down a deluge of tutt-tutting and finger-wagging from those who assume that anyone saying so doesn't fully appreciate the delightful stroll thru Candy Land that constitutes modern living. How about a little less of the self-righteousness all around?

True. On the other hand, your words also describe the reaction people get around here when they suggest that certain things about the '70s weren't all bad. It goes both ways, unfortunately.


To wit:

"It seems sometimes that suggesting *anything* was better [in the 1970s] will immediately bring down a deluge of tutt-tutting and finger-wagging from [certain Fedora Loungers] who assume that anyone saying so doesn't fully appreciate the delightful stroll thru Candy Land that constituted [Golden Era] living."


.

 

[Artie]

I think we can all agree there are no utopias, not in the so called golden era and sure as heck not now. There are advantages and disadvantages to both times, certainly African Americans are better off now, unless you happen to be one of the millions who live in our countries inner cities,(anyone been to Detroit lately). Those of us who endeavor to lead a more vintage lifestyle are certainly picking and choosing those things which we find both edifying and enjoyable. The problem with the present and this goes for which ever present you happen to be occupying is that you have no choice but to take the bad with the good.

 

[LizzieMaine]

True. On the other hand, your words also describe the reaction people get around here when they suggest that certain things about the '70s weren't all bad. It goes both ways, unfortunately.


To wit:

"It seems sometimes that suggesting *anything* was better [in the 1970s] will immediately bring down a deluge of tutt-tutting and finger-wagging from [certain Fedora Loungers] who assume that anyone saying so doesn't fully appreciate the delightful stroll thru Candy Land that constituted [Golden Era] living."


.

So, tit for tat, is that what this is all about? Personally, I try to avoid such threads unless I have something substantial or factual to add (or unless I'm in a bad mood and want to grouse,) so perhaps the real solution is to just butt out of threads that you don't like. If you hate Hating the 70s, then move on to something else. You're not going to change any minds, so why bother?

I think what most 60s/70s haters hate is the crude popular stereotype of those decades, anyway -- the pot-smoking shiftless trust-fund hippie or the sleazy disco prowler in the cheesy perm and the powder blue leisure suit. The reality is that these types were both in the minority in those decades, and many of us who lived in those decades and had nothing to do with those lifestyles simply resent being marginalized by, basically, pop-culture caricatures. That's what all the "I hate the 60s/70s talk" really means.

As far as I'm concerened, there *were* some good things in the 70s -- the '75 Red Sox, Marathon candy bars, and not having to wear those blue cotton gym suits in Phys Ed anymore.

 

[Bourbon Guy]

I had a history professor in college who, in each of his history classes that I took, made sure to devote time to making the point that it was specifically NOT a part of the class, and was completely unprofessional as a historian, to drag people from the past out of their dusty graves, stand them before us, and judge them and their actions by our modern values.

 

[HadleyH]

I had a history professor in college who, in each of his history classes that I took, made sure to devote time to making the point that it was specifically NOT a part of the class, and was completely unprofessional as a historian, to drag people from the past out of their dusty graves, stand them before us, and judge them and their actions by our modern values.

I think your history professor had a point.

In 400 years from now... we, people who live now in the year 2010 are also going to be judged.... judged for many sins and faults.... so yes, i think your professor was right.....

and perhaps in 7.000 years from now we will all be considered nothing short of a bunch of savages!

At the end of the day... modern values only last a season... only to be replaced with even better values next, that is the nature of human evolution [huh]

 

[Bourbon Guy]

Yes, it is fascinating, isn't it? What strikes me, though, is how little we actually change. From the Old Testament stories, to Greek tragedies, to Beowulf, to Shakespeare, to Tiger Woods. Values and rules appear to "evolve," but the human story, our emotions and desires and flaws and failures, and how we deal with them and live with them, are timeless. Seemingly the same people, plopped down in different ages.

Apologies. I've completely gone off the thread. Except that in emulating or studying what people wore and how they lived in a certain era, there is often an insight obtained about them that resonates; that has a ring of familiarity; that will make you say "yeah, I get that."

 

[Widebrim]

Be that as it may, saying "things were better then" is just plain false if you're not a white male.

To be more specific, White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant male. Before and during the "Golden Age," things were not always better for Irish, Italian, Greek, Slavic, Jewish, European Catholic, and other White "ethnics." In all fairness, though, many members of the above groups have provided generally positive accounts of their experiences during that time period, my father included...

 

[Lincsong]

Oh geez, here we go fftopic: . Let's not get this thread shut down for being too political. And before it does get shut down, let me put in my two cents worth. If the Golden Era was so bad for all the "minorities" it was sure a lot better living in the U.S.A. than living in some gravel cave in Calabria, a dirt floored house in Madeira, or a famine/flood ravaged village in China and Japan. There was a reason why the unwashed came here....it was a hell of lot better than the crapholes they left.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

So, tit for tat, is that what this is all about?

My point is, this type of disparagement cuts both ways. It does no good to condemn one edge and turn a blind eye to the other.

I had a history professor in college who, in each of his history classes that I took, made sure to devote time to making the point that it was specifically NOT a part of the class, and was completely unprofessional as a historian, to drag people from the past out of their dusty graves, stand them before us, and judge them and their actions by our modern values.

Well, how about judging the actions of, say, certain bigoted 1930s Christians by the values of the New Testament? Certainly those values were around in the '30s.


For better or worse, your professor was a moral relativist.

.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

My point is, this type of disparagement cuts both ways. It does no good to condemn one edge and turn a blind eye to the other.

Indeed....if it were tit for tat...then threads about the 40s would be invaded by those saying 'Man I hated the 40's, they really sucked'...just on principle....

Like any thread that someone starts about the 50s, 60s, and 70's is.

It was mentioned earlier that we discuss plenty of non 'Golden Era' stuff here....and people who don't want to read about Avatar, the latest sci fi film etc......don't go into that thread and basically trash it.

People who want to discuss later decades here, really -cannot- do so in the same way, because when they try, people insist on coming into the thread and being negative.

When the anti-smoking brigade comes into the 'women with cigarettes' thread, they try to stir trouble and they get told not to or their posts are removed, allowing for the pictures to be shared without a moral debate.

Sadly, the same is not true when people invade 'later decade' threads.....they take over and it turns into yet another 'What I hate about....' thread..

So its not tit for tat.....otherwise there would be more invasion of other threads -just- to be negative in them.....