Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Observation Bar' started by geoff_icp, Mar 3, 2008.
As long as people make respectful posts, why not stay open?
Sometimes, we just figure we'll mop up the blood later.
Finally, someone who gets it! :cheers1:
aw, shucks guys
But wasn't it Mark Twain who said, "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society"?
Ah, touche, my good man...
But let us not forget the venerable Mr. Dickens, who said, "Any man may be in good spirits and good temper when he's well dressed. There ain't much credit in that."...
Ahhhh, now were cooking. .:cool2:
People have been asking that question since the beginning of time. [huh]
Dixon- you brought up a salient point there. It becomes impossible to discuss in detail a society unless we factor in the influence of politics of the given era and its effects. The same goes for times when I've wished to discuss economics of a country or region. Even if I'm forcefully avoiding it someone else brings it up and mucks up the thread to closure.:eusa_doh:
Unfortunately what political discussion ends as is always- "yea for our guy and/or philopsphy- you must be an idiot to believe what you do."
Foofoogal- My blue law days as a kid in 1950s St. Louis were exactly as you describe!
ooh, don't get me started on this. I'm liable to get "political"
*sits on hands to stop typing*
I miss it.
As far as politics I am glad we all vote here in Texas today as maybe they will quit calling me at the worst times starting tomorrow.
One thing worth remembering about Blue Laws, at least as they were enforced in the 20th century, was that they were often less about religion and family values than they were about protecting the interests of small independent businesses against encroaching chain stores. Here in Maine, the Sunday Blue Law remained in full force until about 1984, prohibiting any business over a certain square footage from operating at any time on Sunday. Basically, this meant you couldn't shop at a mall or a supermarket, or even a big chain discount store -- but your local corner grocery, downtown clothing store, or filling station not only was open, but did some of its highest volume of business on Sunday. The independent business lobby fought hard to keep the blue laws in force here, and it wasn't until big chains got entrenched enough here to fight back that they were overturned. So it wasn't always a matter of declining social values as much as it was a matter of dollars speaking louder than words.
I'm always telling my wife that I wish they would bring back the Blue Laws again. I miss my "Lazy" Sundays. Now it's just another busy day filled with errands like the rest.
Another form of Blue Law restricts sales not by time but by place. Up until 1979 in California, it was illegal to sell packaged hard alchohol within a mile of any University of California campus. An exception was made for UC Davis. Because it was a agricultural school, the students presumably had access to horses, so the ban extended to 3 miles. THe town's two liquor stores were exactly at the three mile limit. When the ban went away in 1979 and liquor could be purchased in any supermarket, so too did the two stores.
In my youth in the mid-west I found it was more of a crusade against alcohol useage on Sunday making it more of a religious thing. I'm not certain that Blue Laws actually affected grocery stores being open on Sunday but no one was very motivated to go food shopping on Sunday and I don't think stores were that motivated to be open considering that business would probably have been small.
In the 50s there were no malls or any discount chains. Department stores were the only game in town and they closed Sunday too.
I guess like Lizzie says greed finally overcame everything.[huh]
In fact, you need not even look further than Hollywood to disprove the notion. All you have to do is rewind the reel a little further back, past the living memory that shapes the myth.
Stop in, oh, 1931-'32-'33 and the movies will give you a very different picture. If you can get past the long buzzing silences, crackly overmodulated dialogue and caked-on eye makeup, you may see a more down-to-earth world that has more than two dimensions in it, some of them gritty, seamy, even kind of ur-modern.
I agree...generational differences *are* a huge part of what we are disagreeing about here. My growing up experience in the 1950s would have been very different from that experienced by someone who grew up in the 1990s.
And I must say that I work with two 24 year olds who have a great work ethic and good personal values as well. They also dress better than most baby boomers!
But I do see a decline in the consideration the general public shows for one another today versus what we saw in the 1950s when I was a kid. The politeness that people showed to one another in the 1950s may have been forced by the societal norms of the day, but it *was* there.
David Gelernter, a scientist and an author I (sometimes) like, wrote in his book 1939 that we have lost the heavy hand of "the ought culture" on our shoulders we had in that day.
To him, it might have meant "lashing" a tie to yourself every waking moment and not b!tching if a 60h/wk job wouldn't buy you lunch. But it also meant that you could leave an unguarded pile of dynamite in the middle of downtown and reasonably expect that no one would run off with it and blow up a bridge.
My take is less conservative. I believe that the emperor's clothes began to shine a bit with the depression years and really wore thru in the 50s and into the 60s, when they finally fell in shreds.
The "ought culture," in the end, wasn't holding together and was becoming openly hypocritical. Unfortunately, we didn't react to that problem as much as to the zippy-hippy-sexy trappings of the culture of the 60s, and wound up miscasting the whole mess as a Generation Gap. In reality, it was a Values Gap, and not across generations or eras either. We learned a few positive values and got rid of a few too.
I have met so many hateful/snobbish/stupid (etc) old people in my life--I refuse to believe they suddenly changed when they turned 65. They were not saints just because they fought in WW2 or jitterbugged.
To me this is the essence of the issue at hand, and this is the post that people need to decide upon whether they agree or disagree. I agree with L.M. on this pretty wholeheartedly, and I link it to a lot of other trends.
For the record, although 1968 perhaps may be over-specific, I do not think that it is stupid, ahistorical, or methodologically inappropriate to do the following things:
1. Isolate and identify a cultural change (although precision is necessary), and
2. Identify a time period in which this cultural change seems to have flourished dramatically (or diminished).
If we could not do these two things, we would not be able to write cultural and social history very well. An entire category or genre of history-writing would have to be thrown out or ignored as illegitimate. And I do not think it is illegitimate.
The elevation of crassness seems to be a starting point to fulfill #1, although further definition will be necessary.