|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 28, 2009 9:51:36 GMT -5
As you all know, I was one of the early baby boomers. I'm 63 now, and was born about 10 months after my father returned from WW2. I have heard a lot about the "baby boom" generation, both positive and negative. We've been described as spoiled children, undisciplined, amoral and have been blamed for most of the ills of our current society. That being said, I would like to make a few points concerning "boomers", where we came from, our upbringing and so on.
For most of the folks born between 1946 and 1955 or so, the times were unbelievably prosperous. Our parents came to adulthood during a massive, crippling economic depression, fought a war, and returned to their homes eager to get on with life. To them, crippling poverty was a recent memory, and they learned that hard work and dedication, for the most part, paid off economically, and that raising a family was a viable alternative.
The new phenomenon of "suburbs", the movement from agrarianism to urbanization, also shaped our outlooks, as did real economic stability and sustained growth. Our fathers, for the most part, were the breadwinners, and were often absentee to a certain degree, pursuing the "American dream".
These factors, more than any, contributed to our outlook. We came to believe that the pursuit of the "American dream" had diminished us as a people. Materialism amidst the double standard of overt and covert racism, and the social ills that created showed the hypocrasy.
The rebellions of the late 1960's had their roots in this idea. Writers of the "beat" generation understood this dichotomy of wealth and prosperity, in a land of plenty, juxtaposed to crushing poverty and oppression in inner city slums as well as oppression and poverty in the rural south.
The rebellions of the 60's began with two issues, really, ie civil rights and the "ban the bomb" movement, boomers being the first generation to live under the imminent threat of nuclear anhilation, and able to observe oppression, first hand, on TV news. I am talking about the 1959-63 period here.
Then, JFK was murdered, Johnson took office, the civil rights bills were passed and the Vietnam war was escalated. What we had been taught, as children, was that we were entitled to happiness, more freedom and a civil society. The events from 1959 to 1963 shattered that idea, and the Vietnam war cemented the sense of betrayal we felt.
At the same time, youth culture grew enormously, and the singers, artists, poets and writers that we listened to and read, made these issues their own, and therefore, ours too. They popularized protest against the status quo. This simply blossomed into what we now refer to as the "60's".
What is everyone's take on the rebellion of the 1960's? Are their paralells to it in history? I am particularly interested in two sorts of responses, from those who actually participated in the events, and from my children's generation, those who are now 30ish or so, the children of baby boomers.
Have I totally misinterpreted the causes? I know I've simplified them, but I am sure that during any discussion, these points will be amplified and expanded upon.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Mar 28, 2009 12:32:44 GMT -5
Its always interesting what happens to the youth generation that was born immediately after the war.
I think the generations that came after you, the Gen Xs and Gen Ys may be much more self-centered though (I'm 21 so I fall in the Gen Y category). While the artistic innovations you described really blossomed when you were a teenager, by the time we came along all this was regular stuff. We were born into opulence, technological innovation, and an "only-me" mentality perpetrated by the onset of MTV. Gen Y people, especially, now have the ability to create their own identify via social networking sites like this one.
We might see the younger Gen Ys and the generation they produce return to a baby boomer ideal though. Your generation was spurred by the Vietnam war, artistic awakenings and the desire to change. We see nearly the same thing occur today, especially during the Obama election. Young men and women were spurred to do something in the face to rising unemployment, a deep recession, global warming and the Iraq war. The maturing generations who are still in high school and college will be spurred into doing more for the world, and not just themselves, just like the Baby Boomers.
*BTW, Generation X are the children of the Baby Boomers, born around the late 60s, 70s and early 80s. The Gen Ys are those born in the 80s and 90s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 28, 2009 12:58:09 GMT -5
:blush:
ex hippy/bohemian here
I even helped organise large hippy festivals , crikey got some funny stories from that , but anyway
Totally agree that the Vietnam War basically crunched the civil rights movement. It was a huge excuse to take funding away.
But just enough money trickled down so that the black working class had that little bit more money, which they spent on educating their children. These children became the new black educated middle class of the eighties and beyond..
( this time , the late sixties, was also the time of peak wages in real terms for all the working class, it's been down hill ever since)
|
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 28, 2009 13:51:21 GMT -5
Well I'm actually an inbetweenie. Too young to be a Boomer, too old to be Gen-x.
My Siblings were all Boomers, and it's funny how much difference there is between them. One went hippie, one went stoner, and one went "Leave it to Beaver".
And yeah, I sort of see the early 70's as a 'golden era'. High wages, free love, I hate to say it but it seems that in some ways there was less prejudice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Mar 28, 2009 21:56:53 GMT -5
I don't think I can comment too much on it, but I do at least want to share my limited view. Oh, I'm GenY/Millenial for what it matters. Link to generational names and timesframes.
From my viewpoint, it's been the Boomers who have been orchestrating change and more progressive development, pushing for better services, more functional government, equality between people despite differences, and lessening of religious control on society.
The Silent Generation though it's what's fought hard to keep past doctrines and practices, keeping hard distinctions between the different "have" and "have not" groups (based on economics, religion, race, gender, etc.). They grew up in the depression, fought WW2, and worked on rebuilding society into a "perfect" image of what they wanted, without paying attention to how many people couldn't reach such for whatever reason.
As the Baby Boomers have gained more political power and leadership even more changes have been happening. More for equality between race, gender, and now sexuality, more for stability instead of "get rich quick" schemes, more for diplomacy instead of trying to bomb the shit out of people not bowing to your will, and more for technological advancement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mantorok on Mar 28, 2009 22:28:28 GMT -5
See, I don't agree with those definitions because the generations get shorter. Unless most people's parents were 10 when they were born that isn't possible. Each generation should stay roughly 20 years, so we'd have: 1943-1962 - Baby boomers 1963-1982 - Generation X 1983-2002 - Generation Y/Millennials 2003-2022 - Generation Z/New Silent Generation |
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Mar 29, 2009 13:16:39 GMT -5
Personally I am unconvinced that the arbitrary distinction of the 'generations' are meaningful in any way or have any explanatory power; we're talking millions of people across multiple countries. For me, this is too many people to find any trends we can be really confident about. That said, my aunties and uncles and parents are all baby boomers, and they talk about themselves using the phrase and it seems to give them a sense of camaraderie and they certainly perceive trends about their generation that are meaningful. Maybe they know better than me. I'm young after all. And I don't blame that generation for anything, a lot of the people I love are part of it! |
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 29, 2009 13:31:50 GMT -5
The terms are rather arbitrary, but, specifically, I referred to those born between 1946 and 1955, give or take. That generation, specifically, were the backbone of the 60's rebellions.
I guess I'm trying to find out if anyone thinks it (the 60's rebellions) made any difference at all in the way things are done now, people's attitudes about race, religion, politics and so on. Is that a little clearer?
From a personal perspective, I got my draft notice about 2 weeks after graduating my undergrad degree. I chose to enlist in the Marines, since I'd heard the food was better. (crock o' shit, that). I spent Christmas of '67 in-country, and rotated out in November of 1968. I came back radicalized, politically. I finally left the U.S. in 1970, disgusted. In that interegnum, I was actively involved in the anti-war movement, and really looked the part of the stereotypical "hippy", engaged in the lifestyle and so on.
Personally, I think we, the anti-war movement, caused the end of the war, the departure of Johnson and the eventual departure of RM Nixon, in a more oblique fashion. It is for the generations that followed to decide if we had any real impact beyond that.
So, thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 29, 2009 15:03:11 GMT -5
nah, China threatened to use nukes and everyone backed off
since fucking when have marches done anything but caused sore feet
and the gen timelines are for the US, in other countries it's a bit different.
I was born in 61 in Oz , that makes me a gen x. well, pretty much on the cusp.
|
|
|
|
Post by trike on Mar 29, 2009 17:55:49 GMT -5
I was on a long bus ride once and sitting next to an older gentleman who had told me his story of being drafted into Vietnam, coming back as a free-spirit (not quite a stereoypical hippy) and he expressed disappointment in his generation that they had done so much (getting civil rights, protesting the war, etc) but then, as they got older had eased into the status quo and weren't fighting anything anymore.
I'm not sure how widespread that feeling is, as I've talked to few boomers about it (I'm in my 20s and my parents, who are boomers, don't talk too much about how they feel their generation turned out). I quite admired the 60s and 70s, as from the documentaries I've watched and the people I talked to it did change how people thought about young people and brought some issues to the forefront that weren't there before (specifically, I am thinking about drugs, equality between the sexes and the like).
|
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 29, 2009 20:52:08 GMT -5
What's hard to get across is the feeling of, for a better word, solidarity. There really was an "us and them" feeling. Not necessarily in any sort of violent way, rather, there was a spirit of cameraderie amongst "freaks". Freak was the common term used to describe someone who was into freedom, long hair, rock and roll, drug experimentation, the anti-war sentiment and youth counter-culture. There was a time, from about mid 1966 to about 1970, when it was a wonderful movement. We really believed we were changing the world.
I recall getting very angry at the movie "The Big Chill", where former radicals had become yuppies, and the movie tried to justify it. I had an enormous argument with a woman I loved very much about the issues that movie brought up. The idealism and altruism, which were a part of that time, were abandoned in the pursuit of materialism.
That is where I feel the movement failed, ultimately, and allowed the Reagan/Bush years, which set us on the disaster course we followed after Carter, to negate many of the gains made in that short time. Of course, we are seeing the tail-enders of the baby boom running the show, now, and my hopes are lifted somewhat that perhaps what we talked about, way back then, is still possible.
I'm not talking about "universal peace and love", more that we hold our leaders responsible for their actions, that we expect more from them. We expect our leaders to show some of that spirit of altruism, and lead by example.
I guess what I'm trying to say, to the generation that includes my own children, is that the 60's were not about long hair, drugs, rock and roll, free love and sex in the park. Those were elements of a larger movement, aimed at uniting people, freeing them from their pre-concieved notions of themselves, putting an end to agressive wars, liberating the altruistic spirit, that, ultimately, bonds humanity. That's what the 60's were about, to me, at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 29, 2009 21:55:10 GMT -5
I was born in 72 and in Canada, so obviously, my views are going to be skewed somewhat.
It really seems that America was dumped on its ear and thrown into a lot of turmoil that you boomers had to deal with. The old order was gone, and you as a generation stepped up and said what you thought the new order should look like.
I think eventually you collectively burned out. The big battles were pretty much won anyways and so you stepped back, started thinking about yourselves, and turned into yuppies. Perhaps America had been in turmoil too long or perhaps it was disillusionment that despite your best efforts the world still sucked.
At that point it seems like as a country America needed to get back to its longstanding mythologies of the cowboy that resolutely faces down any enemy and that it is the land of opportunity where anyone can pull themselves up out of poverty if they try. And along came Ronnie to give it to you. My political awareness coincided with the MAD doctrine and his ramped-up rhetoric about the evil commies.
I don't know, is it even fair to blame you boomers for Reagan, or are other demographics and other factors to blame?
|
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 30, 2009 11:41:13 GMT -5
What's hard to get across is the feeling of, for a better word, solidarity. There really was an "us and them" feeling. Not necessarily in any sort of violent way, rather, there was a spirit of cameraderie amongst "freaks". Freak was the common term used to describe someone who was into freedom, long hair, rock and roll, drug experimentation, the anti-war sentiment and youth counter-culture. There was a time, from about mid 1966 to about 1970, when it was a wonderful movement. We really believed we were changing the world. I recall getting very angry at the movie "The Big Chill", where former radicals had become yuppies, and the movie tried to justify it. I had an enormous argument with a woman I loved very much about the issues that movie brought up. The idealism and altruism, which were a part of that time, were abandoned in the pursuit of materialism. That is where I feel the movement failed, ultimately, and allowed the Reagan/Bush years, which set us on the disaster course we followed after Carter, to negate many of the gains made in that short time. Of course, we are seeing the tail-enders of the baby boom running the show, now, and my hopes are lifted somewhat that perhaps what we talked about, way back then, is still possible. I'm not talking about "universal peace and love", more that we hold our leaders responsible for their actions, that we expect more from them. We expect our leaders to show some of that spirit of altruism, and lead by example. I guess what I'm trying to say, to the generation that includes my own children, is that the 60's were not about long hair, drugs, rock and roll, free love and sex in the park. Those were elements of a larger movement, aimed at uniting people, freeing them from their pre-concieved notions of themselves, putting an end to agressive wars, liberating the altruistic spirit, that, ultimately, bonds humanity. That's what the 60's were about, to me, at least. There was that feeling and it was an innocent feeling. As you say the movement has been made out to be about free love and sex but it wasn't like that. In the movement I was in it was more about trying to live an ideology rather than be political or work for civil rights. And the idea it was young people only is wrong too, it was all ages. Maybe it was naivette. In some ways we spoke a lot of radical stuff. But were we that different? Instead of wearing "square" clothes we wore indian skirts and toe thongs but we were still buying things. IOW, how much of the sixties was fashion , how much ideology? And why I identified myself as mainly a bohemian, someone who follows the ideology rather than the fashion, there was a difference even then. I still have my Mary Quant blouses put away as keep sakes. Anyway, not sure that the midwest was ever as radicalised as the east and west coasts. MU was an exception. btw, where were the blacks in The Big Chill? |
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Mar 30, 2009 18:55:28 GMT -5
I'm early Digital Generation, and while I totally feel the whole generation-gap-type thing that was going on back then (kinda parallels today's fights against homophobia and environmental degradation), I can't bring myself to admire the hippies. Mainly because SO DAMNED MANY of them now believe the exact opposite of what they stood for as young adults. You'd think they'd notice the parallels--the sweeping changes, the end of a major economic boom, the unpopular war...
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 31, 2009 2:00:11 GMT -5
I guess I'm trying to find out if anyone thinks it (the 60's rebellions) made any difference at all in the way things are done now, people's attitudes about race, religion, politics and so on. Is that a little clearer? It had one, very immediate long-term political effect. The United States could not assemble as large an army, nor could she commit them for as long or as brutally or as often. That effect is still continuing. I think that the anti-war movement of the 60s-70s had much less an effect on religion than the 80s one did, with the whole Catholic-South American solidarity. From a personal perspective, I got my draft notice about 2 weeks after graduating my undergrad degree. I chose to enlist in the Marines, since I'd heard the food was better. (crock o' shit, that). I spent Christmas of '67 in-country, and rotated out in November of 1968. Didn't you spend some time in Khe Sanh? From what I've heard (not being alive by some 23 years at the time) from Veterans, that meat grinder would have turned pretty much anyone off the war, and probably wars in general. Personally, I think we, the anti-war movement, caused the end of the war, the departure of Johnson and the eventual departure of RM Nixon, in a more oblique fashion. I think that is as much of a historical truth as there can be. The anti-war movement really was an astounding moral movement- the real moral majority- as well as an example to all other, subsequent groups (greenies, third world solidarity, modern anti-war). The feats of organisation alone are astounding. |
|
