Why doesn't the Golden Era extend to the 50s or early 60s?

[dhermann1]

Good point.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I wasn't kidding when I talked about wastefulness being a sin -- it was viewed as exactly that, a severe moral failing. Those of us who were raised to believe that can't help but find ourselves deeply at odds with modern values.

"Waste proceeds from ignorance, ingratitude and unthankfulness, from luxury and want of compassion. Man could not waste the bounties of Heaven if he considered his obligations to God or the various wants and necessities of his fellow creatures. He who wastes, forgets that he is a dependent and accountable servant and seems only willing to live for himself, to pamper his appetite, to indulge his ease, and to think no more of others. " -- Rev. William Agutter, A. M., 1796.

Old Bill wasn't just whistling Dixie there, folks. But nobody's listening anymore.

 

[John in Covina]

I wasn't kidding when I talked about wastefulness being a sin -- it was viewed as exactly that, a severe moral failing. Those of us who were raised to believe that can't help but find ourselves deeply at odds with modern values.

"Waste proceeds from ignorance, ingratitude and unthankfulness, from luxury and want of compassion. Man could not waste the bounties of Heaven if he considered his obligations to God or the various wants and necessities of his fellow creatures. He who wastes, forgets that he is a dependent and accountable servant and seems only willing to live for himself, to pamper his appetite, to indulge his ease, and to think no more of others. " -- Rev. William Agutter, A. M., 1796.

It's about the sense of good stewardship. A favorite hymn from church is titled 'We Give Thee But Thine Own' which puts forth the idea that all we have is a trust from God that is to be used wisely and for the benefit of not only ourselves but for those around us.

The concept is that God doesn't need our good works, our neighbor does.

"We Give Thee But Thine Own"
by William W. How, 1823-1897
1. We give Thee but Thine own,
Whate'er the gift may be;
All that we have is Thine alone,
A trust, O Lord, from Thee.

2. May we Thy bounties thus
As stewards true receive
And gladly, as Thou blessest us,
To Thee our first-fruits give!

3. Oh, hearts are bruised and dead,
And homes are bare and cold,
And lambs for whom the Shepherd bled
Are straying from the fold.

4. To comfort and to bless,
To find a balm for woe,
To tend the lone and fatherless,
Is angels' work below.

5. The captive to release,
To God the lost to bring,
To teach the way of life and peace,
It is a Christlike thing.

6. And we believe Thy Word,
Though dim our faith may be:
Whate'er for Thine we do, O Lord,
We do it unto Thee.

Hymn #441
The Lutheran Hymnal
Text: 1 John 3:17
Author: William W. How, 1854
Composer: William H. Monk, 1861
Tune: "Energy"

 

[GoldenEraFan]

To me the Golden Era is 1890-1963. The Vietnam War is what ended it in my opinion. Regarding the old days were better than now mindset, my old college professor, who was born in 1934 made this profound statement, "The old days and now are neither better or worse, they're just different".

 

[Ed]

To me the golden era ended in the mid fifties with Elvis and the beginning of Rock & Roll. It changed America and the world forever.

 

[MisterCairo]

From the date of Humphrey Bogart's movie debut to the date of his death.

Why not?

 

[vitanola]

I wasn't kidding when I talked about wastefulness being a sin -- it was viewed as exactly that, a severe moral failing. Those of us who were raised to believe that can't help but find ourselves deeply at odds with modern values.

"Waste proceeds from ignorance, ingratitude and unthankfulness, from luxury and want of compassion. Man could not waste the bounties of Heaven if he considered his obligations to God or the various wants and necessities of his fellow creatures. He who wastes, forgets that he is a dependent and accountable servant and seems only willing to live for himself, to pamper his appetite, to indulge his ease, and to think no more of others. " -- Rev. William Agutter, A. M., 1796.

Old Bill wasn't just whistling Dixie there, folks. But nobody's listening anymore.

 

[Fletch]

Was it perhaps a misstep to begin teaching ethics alongside, or in place of, morals?

Is a society stronger when its members act to honor it in the abstract, and not just as a collection of individual interests?

I don't just mean Me's. I mean You's as well. What's the proper focus on the individual? Should we perhaps maintain a certain debasement of not just Me, but You, for the sake of All of Us?

Consider this:
- Years ago, we were reluctant to blame society for many problems. The fault was thought to rest with individuals.
- Today, we are reluctant to blame individuals for many problems. The fault is thought to rest with society.

Could it be that these two extremes can't really be reconciled? Can a society where some things are individuals' responsibility, and other things are everyone's, maintain any kind of coherence?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Without society, the individual is just 160 pounds of compressed dust, or a lone ant separated from the nest: inconsequential, easy to ignore, easier yet to step on.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

To me the golden era ended in the mid fifties with Elvis and the beginning of Rock & Roll. It changed America and the world forever.

As strange that I'm sure many people would find it, I never really got into Rock but I recently commented on a YouTube video that, in my opinion, Rock was the worst thing that ever happened to music. And someone responded to my comment with, "Rock is the best thing that ever happened to music, you ignorant f***." I can't think of better proof than that comment that the Golden Era is truly gone forever.

 

[Fletch]

Without society, the individual is just 160 pounds of compressed dust, or a lone ant separated from the nest: inconsequential, easy to ignore, easier yet to step on.

I would counter that without individuals - and more than that, without a basic idea of the dignity of individuals - society is not much more than a machine for stepping on ants.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The Cult of the Individual -- the idea that the Almighty Individual stands aloof from any obligation to society -- is the most pernicious means yet devised for keeping the masses helpless and disempowered. Alone, separated, divided by trivialities like race, ethnicity, party, or sect, relying only on our own strength, we haven't got a chance. And the promoters of the C. of the I. know that.

 

[Foxer55]

Lizzie,

The Cult of the Individual -- the idea that the Almighty Individual stands aloof from any obligation to society -- is the most pernicious means yet devised for keeping the masses helpless and disempowered. Alone, separated, divided by trivialities like race, ethnicity, party, or sect, relying only on our own strength, we haven't got a chance. And the promoters of the C. of the I. know that.

Seems a bit contradictory to the ideals of the Golden Era which has a lot to do with individualism: be responsible, be accountable, take care of yourself, do not depend on others, challenge the unknown, endeavor is its own reward.... You won't find those sentiments today.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Take a closer look at the *real* values of the thirties. Not the pseudo-Era-values strained thru the filter of the eighties, but the values that people actually fought for when they marched in Blue Eagle parades, supported sit-down strikes, and told the Liberty Leaguers and the Coughlinites where to get off in 1936. It was an era where the national slogan was "We Do Our Part," not "I've Got Mine."

Or the values of the war era, when people willingly dug down, rolled up their sleeves, shoved their money into taxes and war bonds without whining about it, cinched their belts and put up with rationing, and didn't expect somebody else to go off and fight for them. This was a society that put *US* before *me.* It was an era not of "every man for himself" but an era of personal obligation: to your family, to your neighborhood, to your fellow workers, to your church, to your community, to your country, to humanity. Those are the values that I define as part of *my* Golden Era.

I'll add, too, that it was this personal obligation to society that laid behind so many of the social rules that characterized the era, rules that are so well thought of here. You dressed in a dignified way and treated others respectfully not because you were making a personal statement of how superior you were to the great unwashed, but because you were expected and obligated to do so. It wasn't a question of individuality, it was a matter of doing what society expected you to do. The rise of the Cult Of Individuality replaced a society based on doing what you *should* do because you were expected to do so with a society based on "who's gonna make me?"

 

[Foxer55]

Lizzie,

Take a closer look at the *real* values of the thirties. Not the pseudo-Era-values strained thru the filter of the eighties, but the values that people actually fought for when they marched in Blue Eagle parades, supported sit-down strikes, and told the Liberty Leaguers and the Coughlinites where to get off in 1936. It was an era where the national slogan was "We Do Our Part," not "I've Got Mine."

Sorry, I'm more aligned with individuals like Howard Roark. Looking back I can see his character in those of my grandparents generation and mentors in childhood. They weren't joiners or groupies, they were sometimes tough as nails, sometimes not, but they accepted absolutely nothing and worked quietly and diligently in their own behalf. Were they charitable? I don't know but suspect so to some degree as my mother was a fairly giving person. Nevertheless, my experiences have taught me that tough, arrogant, individualists are winners while all others are just particpants. One thing I learned is anytime you as an individual become a casualty to the extent that someone else has to help you, you are delivering harm to that person by relieving them of resources to help themselves. The meaning of that is to never put yourself in a position of needing to help or needing help from someone else. That doesn't mean not helping if by some fateful event you need to but it does mean paying attention to your own life and taking care of yourself. If you don't, you become one of the casualties and, therefore, a liability.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Not a Randian, sorry. Her views were very much in the minority in the '30s, and I think the ascendency of them today is a sign of what's wrong with the world: an up-yours, I-got-mine sociopathy that ends up demeaning us all. I thought "The Fountainhead" was a pretty good picture, as a movie, but my taste in movie heroes runs more to Tom Joad, and in literature to Clifford Odets.

 

[dhermann1]

I'm with you, Lizzie.

 

[dhermann1]

Ahemmm . . . we seem to be digressing from the topic of this thread . . .

 

[Foxer55]

Lizzie,

Not a Randian, sorry. Her views were very much in the minority in the '30s, and I think the ascendency of them today is a sign of what's wrong with the world: an up-yours, I-got-mine sociopathy that ends up demeaning us all. I thought "The Fountainhead" was a pretty good picture, as a movie, but my taste in movie heroes runs more to Tom Joad, and in literature to Clifford Odets.

I tend to think Rand has been superficially interpreted to suit the wants of some people.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'll agree with you there -- there's a lot of fifteen-year-old boys who take up her philosophy as a substitute for a religion. I would hope that she wasn't so deluded as to believe that it was one.

But whatever the interpretation given her works today, she was strictly a B-list author in the '30s, and represented a worldview that was thoroughly discredited in 1932 and 1936. "Rugged Individualism," as a dominant social philosophy, went out with the celluloid collar around Mr. Hoover's neck. Its most vocal public supporter was Daddy Warbucks, and he was just a character in the funny papers. It wasn't the way most Americans thought -- or wanted the world to be -- in the '30s or '40s.