Pre-owned? Translate this into English please.

[sheeplady]

Exactly why I loathe the term "vintage." It's used around here in exactly this way whenever any pointed criticism is made of contemporary culture: "Ah, but XXXXX went on in the Era, so it's VINTAGE." Doesn't make a dime's bit of difference -- I would have been just as disdainful of it in 1912, 1942, or 1962 as I am in 2012. "Vintageness" is irrelevant to the issue.

But then it's not really a criticism of contemporary culture, and more a criticism of something else: the act or movement itself. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that something is deeply routed in our society or had it's origins way back when. Failing to understand history and all. I do get what you're saying, however; that something itself has a value and shouldn't matter if it is vintage or not- that's a poor judge of what is good or bad.

One of the things that makes me quite regularly angry is the idea that "vintage people" (those who were born or lived during the 20s, 30s, and 40s) were all of one mind and thought process. There are lots of people who steadfastly believe that *everyone* during that time period was a racist or sexist or anticommunist or whatever. Which not only defies common sense (not everyone today is a non-racist, non-sexist, etc.) but historical sense as well (where do these people think feminism, the civil rights movement, etc. and it's leaders come from?). I don't know where the heck this idea comes from, but it's incredibly damaging. It't especially damaging to those of us who like the era(s) as it's often assumed we're of a similar persuasion to their assumptions. So the diversity in opinion and beliefs is always something I love to point out.

 

[nice hat dude!]

Ah life would be so simple if we could paint each group of people with the same brush...the powers that be must hate the word diversification.Just a little food for thought?

 

[LizzieMaine]

But then it's not really a criticism of contemporary culture, and more a criticism of something else: the act or movement itself. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that something is deeply routed in our society or had it's origins way back when. Failing to understand history and all. I do get what you're saying, however; that something itself has a value and shouldn't matter if it is vintage or not- that's a poor judge of what is good or bad.

One of the things that makes me quite regularly angry is the idea that "vintage people" (those who were born or lived during the 20s, 30s, and 40s) were all of one mind and thought process. There are lots of people who steadfastly believe that *everyone* during that time period was a racist or sexist or anticommunist or whatever. Which not only defies common sense (not everyone today is a non-racist, non-sexist, etc.) but historical sense as well (where do these people think feminism, the civil rights movement, etc. and it's leaders come from?).

Anyone who looks at the thirties beyond the art-deco and the fine tailoring would recognize in a second that the thirties were the sixties -- except without the prissy self-righteousness and grotesque music.

An important thing I like to point out to people is that the leading figures of the Civil Rights Movement were born before 1930. They weren't boomers, by any means. They were, if you'll pardon the expression, "vintage people."

 

[John in Covina]

More and more items come up for sale on eBay as: Pre-owned, Pre- worn and even Pre loved.
What's wrong with the description used or secondhand? JohnnyTee

There are things that are used as sales technics because used sounds so droll. If we we going PC it might be "ownership challenged."

 

[sheeplady]

Anyone who looks at the thirties beyond the art-deco and the fine tailoring would recognize in a second that the thirties were the sixties -- except without the prissy self-righteousness and grotesque music.

An important thing I like to point out to people is that the leading figures of the Civil Rights Movement were born before 1930. They weren't boomers, by any means. They were, if you'll pardon the expression, "vintage people."

My favorite thing is when people say that the civil rights movement was fueled (or worse, started) by the boomers. If you look at the start of it as the mid-1950s (and there are those who say it started earlier than that) that's a bunch of really ambitious 8-9 year olds (or 3-4 year olds). Sure, there were boomers involved (particularly as the movement went into the 60s) but it was neither fueled nor started by the boomers.

It's even more funny when a boomer is telling you this with a straight face.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

My favorite thing is when people say that the civil rights movement was fueled (or worse, started) by the boomers. If you look at the start of it as the mid-1950s (and there are those who say it started earlier than that) that's a bunch of really ambitious 8-9 year olds (or 3-4 year olds). Sure, there were boomers involved (particularly as the movement went into the 60s) but it was neither fueled nor started by the boomers.

It's even more funny when a boomer is telling you this with a straight face.

If you can remember the '60s you weren't there.

I remember during the 1992 L.A. Riots Arsenio Hall was making an appeal for calm and said that he was at Kent State so "he knew what the National Guard was all about." The only problem is that in 1970 he was only 14 years old! :doh:
he graduated from Kent State in 1977 after two years as a transfer student

 

[LizzieMaine]

My favorite thing is when people say that the civil rights movement was fueled (or worse, started) by the boomers. If you look at the start of it as the mid-1950s (and there are those who say it started earlier than that) that's a bunch of really ambitious 8-9 year olds (or 3-4 year olds). Sure, there were boomers involved (particularly as the movement went into the 60s) but it was neither fueled nor started by the boomers.

It's even more funny when a boomer is telling you this with a straight face.

Indeed. The boomers jumped on board the bandwagon as it was rolling past, but they had nothing whatsoever to do with starting it rolling.

And neither did it start in the mid-fifties: it got media attention with the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Little Rock affair, but the movement itself was well underway before the war: King's march on Washington in 1963 was originally planned by A. Philip Randolph in 1942, and the only reason it didn't happen then -- aside from transportation difficulties -- was because the Roosevelt Administration mandated race-blind hiring in the defense industry.

Neither was Rosa Parks the first notable case of an African-American resisting segregation on a bus: an Army lieutenant in Texas in 1944 refused to move to the rear, was court-martialed for insubordination, and was exonerated of all charges. That officer, Jack Roosevelt Robinson, would be one of the most admired men in America by the end of the forties.

 

[Espee]

Did you happen to save the diaper you were wearing, the day you suggested to Truman that the armed forces should be de-segregated?

 

[nice hat dude!]

Espee ,I can only speak for myself but I find your comment to be very derogatory and very rude no matter toward whom it was directed.If nothing else I feel at least an apology would be in order,we all have the right to disagree with each other about any subject but to be rude about it as far as I'm concerned is unacceptable behavior on your part.
Sincerely Bob Kirschman


PS.To the Moderators of this forum I realize it was not my place to post what I did and that I'm out of line for doing so,please forgive me this discretion,but I felt it needed to be said.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think what he was saying was that the Boomers were still in rubber pants when Truman desegregated the army, and could thus claim no responsibility whatever for this major Civil Rights initiative. The same could be said of Brown vs. Board of Education -- Boomer children living in parts of the country subject to legal segregation were *impacted* by school desegregation but they were in no way driving the movement to abolish it.

I think a big part of the reason why the perception exists that the Civil Rights Movement began in the fifties is that Boomers became aware of it at that time. They'd never heard of A. Philip Randolph or Executive Order 8802 and all they knew about Jackie Robinson was that he was getting old and that Junior Gilliam could get around better at second base.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I think what Boomers (like me) were very aware of was not only the historical specific events taking place during the 50's & 60's in what seemed like rapid succession..but the accompaning distruction that went along with it. Surrounding cities even here in Indiana trashed with riots and fear. It was a time of uncertainy and turmoil for a teenager in the mid '60s..especially for a small town kid. The pace of changes and upheavel. Race..spacerace..assassinations...drafted into some faraway 'WHY' war to destroy dreams...free love..hard rock..drugs..young marriage...all culminating at once(it seemed). Perhaps that's why some Boomers feel some extra ownership in a way. It all came to a head and the world has never been the same..for better or worse.
HD

 

[sheeplady]

I think a big part of the reason why the perception exists that the Civil Rights Movement began in the fifties is that Boomers became aware of it at that time. They'd never heard of A. Philip Randolph or Executive Order 8802 and all they knew about Jackie Robinson was that he was getting old and that Junior Gilliam could get around better at second base.

Even if it started in the 1950's the boomers would be too young to participate. The first boomers were born in 1946 or 1947 (there is some contention about the start date of the baby boom). In 1950, the oldest boomer would be 4 years old. In 1960, they'd be 14. Although I can imagine that there were children involved in the movement, they certainly were neither leading it nor were they the driving force in that age group.