You know you are getting old when:

[BlueTrain]

The Orient Express is still running, although it doesn't go to Istanbul. I'm not sure the Blue Train (the one in France--there are others) still runs or not.

 

[2jakes]

I was in middle school for Watergate, but remember it as one of those events that you knew was important in two distinct ways.

One, you knew that having a president potentially impeached / one who lied to cover up law breaking / one who had to resign was big because you were old enough to understand, at a level, this was big stuff.

But you also could see and feel the real tension, the real concern it brought out in the adults. I was born a couple years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, so Watergate was the first event that I remember the adults being really, truly concerned about in a way that made you question if the country you assumed would alway be there would....

Events that occured which made me question the future of our country and changed forever our way of thinking.

Cuban Crisis was the first event that scared us big time.
The sad and tragic event in Dallas.
Watergate.
Vietnam.
This one changed me from a kid into
an adult super fast when I went over there.
And 911.

 

[BlueTrain]

For some reason I remember the Berlin Crisis better. But I remember all the Kennedy things fairly well, from beginning to end, including Robert. I was in Berlin in the 1960s, too, and went through Checkpoint Charlie. The Berlin Wall was pretty sobering. I spent one Christmas in the Watergate Apartments and in fact, I was married about two blocks away. The rector mentioned that one of the readings around that time happened to have a reference to the Watergate. Not the same one, of course. There used to be a large band shell on a barge anchored right there next to the Lincoln Memorial, the original Watergate (where it was anchored, not the memorial) where the U.S. Navy Band would give concerts. I got to see one there in 1958 or 1959. Now that makes me feel old. Both my wife and her father were born a few blocks from there.

That's all part of how a big city can seem like a small town.

Oh, by the way, none of those things changed my way of thinking. And I don't worry about the future of our country. Not very much, anyway.

 

[tonyb]

I know I'm getting old when I drive my 53 year old car, and not only does it feel perfectly normal, but I prefer it to my 2 year old car.

What? A '64 model? Practically new.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Today, I assume everything could go away in a flash from bombs, to financial collapse, to social unrest, to..., but at ten years old, I subconsciously just assumed things like societal stability and the US would be there. Watergate - mainly from the reaction of the adults - was (I think) the first event in my life that shook that confidence.

I grew up in a ferociously anti-Nixon household, so I actually found Watergate pretty entertaining -- I wasn't exactly cynical as a kid, but I had seen too much going on around me not to have a sense that The Adults In Charge Of Things didn't necessarily know what was best, and I always operated under that assumption. The night Nixon resigned, we all gathered in the living room to watch it, and when he finished nobody said anything for a minute. Then my mother snarled at the screen "There! You dirty SOB!"

 

[Trenchfriend]

You know, you are getting old, when you prefer THIS Leah:

Instead of this Leah:

WHERE IS MY TIME-MACHINE??

 

[ChiTownScion]

For some reason I remember the Berlin Crisis better.

I was in third grade (8 years old) at the time and I recall discussing it with the lady next door. Afterward she apparently told my mom how impressed she was with my knowledge of that then- current event. And I remember thinking, "Why the hell wouldn't I know about the Fidel Castro, Nikita Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis???" I suppose that, like Lizzie, watching Walter Cronkite every night was as much a part of my childhood as watching Saturday morning cartoons and reading Mad Magazine.

 

[Captain O]

I served under Nixon and was proud to do so! I loved the way he handled the Vietnam War. (It was Congress that "defunded" the "bullet-for-bullet, tank-for-tank" promise to the RVA). If you want to blame the fall of Saigon on anyone, take it out on the Democrat-run congress. Believe me, we kicked @$$ and took names until they stopped funding the RVA and the resistance to the VC.

Hell, I was in the Navy. I knew what was happening.

 

[vitanola]

, Democrat-run congress. .

I believe that it is called the "Democratic Party". When anyone uses "Democrat" to describe anything but an individual party member they, --er--, "identify themselves".

Interestingly enough, the declassified historical records of the war in which you served strongly suggest a very different tale, but then it has always been very difficult for a participant to see the entire conflict, and the General officers who are privy to the overall picture often color their memoirs to fit their times.

The hoary old tale told by Secrertary Laird, which has been revived by partisan hacks from time to time has long since been laid to rest by those who consult actual original source materials. I have always found it amusing to note that fokls of authoritarian leanings always seem to turn to some sort of Dolchstoßlegende to explain military defeats. Some Vetern'd organizations fall for them hook, line, and sinker, as witness the Stahlhelm.

An acquaintance of mine, a respected historian who is the official editor of the Nixon Tapes Archive at the Miller Center at UV, and who has spent his career studying in detail the Vietnam and post-Vietnam era, some years ago published an excellent popular article which once again lays the old canard to rest. It is worthwhile reading, I think.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126150

 

[vitanola]

I grew up in a ferociously anti-Nixon household, so I actually found Watergate pretty entertaining -- I wasn't exactly cynical as a kid, but I had seen too much going on around me not to have a sense that The Adults In Charge Of Things didn't necessarily know what was best, and I always operated under that assumption. The night Nixon resigned, we all gathered in the living room to watch it, and when he finished nobody said anything for a minute. Then my mother snarled at the screen "There! You dirty SOB!"

My dear father, a second generation, life-long Republican, simply would not believe that a Republican could be corrupt. He was terribly disillusioned by President Nixon's resignation. He was much less partisan by the 1980's, and was dismayed by the botched handling of the Iran-Contra affair. These days, he just will not watch TV news channels of any stripe, and he has ended his subscription to the local daily paper. That is an indicator of how upset he is by the current situation

 

[ChiTownScion]

I believe that it is called the "Democratic Party". When anyone uses "Democrat" to describe anything but an individual party member they, --er--, "identify themselves".

Interestingly enough, the declassified historical records of the war in which you served strongly suggest a very different tale, but then it has always been very difficult for a participant to see the entire conflict, and the General officers who are privy to the overall picture often color their memoirs to fit their times.

The hoary old tale told by Secrertary Laird, which has been revived by partisan hacks from time to time has long since been laid to rest by those who consult actual original source materials. I have always found it amusing to note that fokls of authoritarian leanings always seem to turn to some sort of Dolchstoßlegende to explain military defeats. Some Vetern'd organizations fall for them hook, line, and sinker, as witness the Stahlhelm.

An acquaintance of mine, a respected historian who is the official editor of the Nixon Tapes Archive at the Miller Center at UV, and who has spent his career studying in detail the Vietnam and post-Vietnam era, some years ago published an excellent popular article which once again lays the old canard to rest. It is worthwhile reading, I think.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126150

Anecdotes always provide an interesting perspective and they certainly are always of value in their own right. However, there is always a danger when equating them as the final word in any historical event or period. They are the snapshots, but never the whole story. And I'd submit that is why the ongoing study of history, even the history which we or those close to us have survived, is so spellbinding. We never really write the final chapter, whether it's the World Wars, the Great Depression, Nam, or any other time. It's an ongoing class in a school in which we may from time to time enjoy a promotion.. but from which we will never graduate. One of the draws of the Fedora Lounge itself, I'd opine.

 

[MisterCairo]

...when you grew up listening to your dad talking nostalgically about car companies and brands he loved that had disappeared - Studebaker, Hudson, Packard, and so on.

I can now name brands Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Plymouth, Mercury, Saturn, and Hummer. Toyota has just discontinued Scion.

Crazy...

 

[2jakes]

You know you are getting old if you remember the telegram.

 

[BlueTrain]

I can remember my father talking with someone about Desotas. That was a long time ago but I also remember there was snow on the ground that day. I may not be remembering correctly of course.

Concerning wars, it is very likely true that the private soldier in the foxhole and trenches may not see the big picture but at the same time, the generals probably don't see the war from the point of view of the man doing all the fighting. The generals get the stars, the soldiers get the scars. I'm not sure if it makes any difference, though. The generals in Vietnam, you know, all served in WWII--on the winning side.

Generally speaking, however, wars are so complicated that nobody knows everything. The big ones are usually won by the narrowest of margins. There are so many lies and exaggerations told over and over about past (and present and future) wars, that we eventually accept them as fact. One of the best examples is the way the Germans walked all over the French army in it's drive to Paris. Everyone knows the French just dropped their weapons and ran.

Only that's not what happened. For one thing, you can drive from Germany too Paris in a matter of hours, unless they're working on the roads because you decided to go through Belgium (based entirely on personal experience, I assure you). But then why did it take the Germans six weeks? Bad roads?

The Germans lost about 45,000 dead and missing and another 110,000 wounded, as well as 1200 aircraft and 800 tanks and armored vehicles. Bad roads, I imagine.

 

[Fading Fast]

...when you grew up listening to your dad talking nostalgically about car companies and brands he loved that had disappeared - Studebaker, Hudson, Packard, and so on.

I can now name brands Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Plymouth, Mercury, Saturn, and Hummer. Toyota has just discontinued Scion.

Crazy...

My dad was born in the '20s and, to him, a Packard represented the pinnacle of America car making. He never owned one, but I could tell a Packard was the car he'd lusted after as a kid at that age when most young boys lust after a particular make or model of car. In particular, I think he wanted a '41 Packard Darrin.

He also grew up at a time when the delineation between makes and models were more defined. To him, a Mercury was a true step up in quality from a Ford; whereas, by the time I started to know cars - in the '70s - that distinction was modest at best as the lines were blurring.

I also remember that he had respect for Hudsons - but don't believe he ever owned one.

In another thread this morning, we touched on incredibly impactful and well-known advertising lines from brokerage houses, I believe - in its day - Packard's "Ask the Man Who Owns One" line was similarly impactful and well known.

 

[BlueTrain]

You are correct about cars. The cars from different makes in GM, Ford and so were different. They had mostly started out as different companies and the differences continued. Each division of GM had it's own engines. But they didn't make as many different models as they did later and when that began to happen, it tended to blur the differences between the divisions. It started to look like it was inefficient. There were later divisions that were totally new, like Saturn, that somehow went nowhere, even though they had, supposedly, a loyal following.

I couldn't speak to what difference the changes made to G.M. itself, which you may recall, was once a target over monopolistic practices. I guess one has to be successful but not too successful. But one impact of closing one division after another is that it leaves a lot of car dealerships looking for another brand to sell and that's not hard to do. So GM and to a lesser extent, the other companies, simply give up market share, essentially refusing to compete the way other companies do.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The automakers have had a hard time letting go of the hierarchy-based approach to branding that is the legacy of the Boys. There was no particular need for Oldsmobile or Pontiac to exist other than the artificially-created marketing niche that these makes filled -- but they kept building them even after that niche disappeared. As far back as the 1950s, auto industry critics like John Keats and Vance Packard were pointing out the inherent wastefulness of such a strategy, and presenting evidence that the "differences" touted in the advertising were mostly just hot air. But Detroit refused to listen, until it was forced to do so by collapsing under the weight of its own inefficiency. Try "production for use" next time.

 

[BobHufford]

My dad was born in the '20s and, to him, a Packard represented the pinnacle of America car making. He never owned one, but I could tell a Packard was the car he'd lusted after as a kid at that age when most young boys lust after a particular make or model of car. In particular, I think he wanted a '41 Packard Darrin.

My Dad had a '41 Packard convertible that his younger brother traded for a '47 Ford while Dad was serving in Korea. It still angers him.

 

[Fading Fast]

My Dad had a '41 Packard convertible that his younger brother traded for a '47 Ford while Dad was serving in Korea. It still angers him.

I understand that.

 

[tonyb]

My good friend Gerry, a fellow I met when we were both in 9th grade and who shuffled off to the Big Car Show Up Yonder in 1995, was a Packard partisan. He had a few, mostly early '50s models and a '48 or '49. (I can't recall precisely which.) He was fond of Studebakers as well. And motorcycles of various descriptions.

I recall him replacing a quarter panel on one of his Packards when we were in high school. That was pretty advanced work for a school kid.

Packards were still in production when people of our age were in our short-pants period, but were an infrequent sight by our high school years. And few youngsters lusted after the things, the way they did bow-tie Chevys, say, or Mopar muscle cars.

Cruising "the loop" in Renton was still very much a thing when we were in high school. (Picture "American Graffiti," but a few years later and several degrees Fahrenheit cooler and generally cloudier.) Among Gerry's vehicles was a pickup truck fashioned from a beat-up Packard sedan -- you know, cut off all the sheet metal from behind the front seat all the way back and then graft on any old pickup truck bed you can find cheap. Gerry didn't craft this piece of rolling sculpture, but we all kinda loved it for its uniqueness and its anti-snob appeal.

Did I mention cruising the Renton loop? We'd throw an old couch in the bed of the Packard pickup and relish the reactions we got from the other cruisers, many of whom wouldn't be seen dead in such a car as that.

Gerry was that way. He didn't go out of his way to tweak noses, but he wasn't about to get his own nose bent by people whose opinions shouldn't matter, and didn't. He was out at a time when that could be dangerous. (Or, more accurately, more dangerous than it is now, seeing how queer-bashing is far from unknown these days.)

His sister, the executrix of his estate, called me after his passing to inform me that he had left his '67 Cadillac Coupe de Ville to me, but that he had sold the car and hadn't updated his will to reflect that. Still, it gladdened my heart to know he had thought well enough of me to leave me the car, even if circumstances compelled him to sell it as his time was running short.

I still want a '67 Coupe de Ville, although not as badly as I once did. My take on cars is considerably more practical now. I'd have collectible cars again if I had plenty of covered parking, and the time and inclination to work on them. All of that is lacking these days. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.