My generation

[intothewoods]

What exactly is PC? Is it this horrifying new fangled notion that you should call people what they want to be called? That you can't make a workplace uncomfortable for people?

Shock horror.

Sorry it's uncomfortable for you, it might be a lot better for other people who have been waiting their turn.

I'm trying to remember when the debate about political correctness started. Or backlash? I mean, I think there was some validity to the discussion at one point, but it depends on what we mean by PC. I'm thinking of political correctness and sexuality -- I had some issues with some of these perspectives in college.

And let's not forget why the Black Panthers armed themselves in the first place. And who they picked as targets (the cops).

It's not just the numbers. It's the point and purpose, as you know.

Earlier this year I became sort of obsessed with the history of the DC riots. I read a book written by a Washington Post reporter a few years fter the fact. It's really amazing what a different world we live in now, although this city is still really segregated. So many white people were dumbfounded by the violence -- and it's heartbreaking in that parts of the city were just left to rot -- but really, when you look at the circumstances, it seems almost inevitable. I mean, you can't treat people like second class citizens for that long and expect that there won't be a radical response.

ETA - Although - just to be clear - in the riots themselves, there was very little organized participation by political radicals. There were a lot of different circumstances that led to the total damage.

 

[seela]

I've been lurking for years, but this thread finally made me want to join. So hello everybody, especially the one who has conversed with me briefly on another site.

Born in 1984 in Finland.

Life was easy and safe when I was growing up. Supervision was pretty minimal and we were allowed a lot more freedom than kids these days. I was certainly not a sheltered child, but my family was far more solid and stable than that of many friends of mine.In my early childhood, in the late 80's, the economy was skyrocketing and the situation was financially stable at least in my family. I don't really remember it, but it's a backdrop for what I do remember.

The 90's came and the huge depression hit Finland. One of my most vivid memories from childhood is seeing a demonstration against floating the Finnish Mark. It was spring 1992 and I didn't understand what was going on. I knew it must be something awful and I was sure it would lead to a war. A few weeks after seeing the demonstration my great grandmom died and I told my dad that I was happy she didn't have to see another war. My dad was puzzled and started asking me questions about why I thought that war was coming. He still remembers our conversation and we have talked about it now that I'm adult. He had never thought the political events would have such an impact on a young child.

The early 90's were also the time of the Yugoslavian wars. I remember seeing the refugees first on TV and then on school yard. It felt so close. A war in Europe, not in some remote corner of the world I had never heard of.

I remember most of the 1990's as a somber time with a lot of insecurity because of the depression. It hit Finland really hard, much harder than the Great Depression of the 30's. I was worried my parents would be laid off because many parents of my friends did lose their jobs. It's not even so much the concrete memories and events of the 90's that seem somber, because a lot of great things happened then, but in my mind there is a damp, gray veil hanging over the whole decade. Even the great things I experienced have a bit of this eery loom about them.

I think experiencing the depression of the early 90's has really affected the way I view the world. In a way for me, and many others around my age, the current depression is a normal state. The fast growing economies in between depressions are the exception.

If I compare my life and that of my nieces' and nephews', the first thing I notice is the lack of freedom and independence. Many kids are picked up from school instead of walking home or taking the public transportation. That was totally unheard of when I went to school. We walked, rode our bikes or took the tram or bus to school and back. These days everybody has organized hobbies and kids don't play together outside so much anymore. It's rare to see a large group of kids doing something toghether anymore, unless thay wear matching jump suits of a local hockey team or something. And kids don't read anymore. I'm truly saddened by it.

I general I feel like a lot of the security and trust in other people has been lost in the past 10-15 years. And I feel very privileged having had the freedom in my childhood and enjoying the advantages of the Internet since we got our home connection when I was 11.

 

[Keroin]

I've been lurking for years, but this thread finally made me want to join. So hello everybody, especially the one who has conversed with me briefly on another site.

Born in 1984 in Finland.

Life was easy and safe when I was growing up. Supervision was pretty minimal and we were allowed a lot more freedom than kids these days.

Thanks for coming out of lurking, Seela! Welcome.

I had no idea Finland experienced such economic trouble in the 90's. I'm sure that gives you a far different outlook on the current global situation than most of us in North America.

As for the text I've put in bold, I think this is something that many people of older generations feel. Both my husband and I grew up walking to school and playing outside. He lived in a very rural area so he had to hitchhike to his sporting events in neighbouring towns. Can you imagine a young child hitchhiking these days? LOL.

But what's interesting is that we moved from the city to a more rural area and kids here are growing up very much the way we did - playing outdoors, no supervision, walking to school, etc. So I wonder if the change has to do more with population than anything else?

 

[seela]

But what's interesting is that we moved from the city to a more rural area and kids here are growing up very much the way we did - playing outdoors, no supervision, walking to school, etc. So I wonder if the change has to do more with population than anything else?

Thanks for the welcome, Keroin.

I grew up in Helsinki, which with 585.000 inhabitants is by far the largest city in Finland. But Finland was very remote and sheltered from the issues of the Big World until fairly recently, so even the larger cities here were safe for kids. And in my opinion they absolutely still are. I think the biggest change has been in parents' attitude, not in the surroundings.

 

[DVS]

No they didn't. Not even close.

They started out as a legit organization to champion the black man's position and tried to get laws passed, tried to get police departments to hire blacks, etc. That was the Black Panther Party, in the beginning. But, when they didn't get things accomplished, some within the group took to more hostile means, almost as revenge for what they saw as white control of the black man.

Although they did feel they were justified, they did arm themselves and had many confrontations with police. It's unclear in some cases as to if they started some of those confrontations or if police instigated them, but they were widely seen as radicals by most people of the time.

I didn't mean to imply they were as bad as the KKK because they weren't. The KKK acted completely from hate. I meant they used violence as a tool. The Panthers acted from revenge because of the oppression the blacks were experiencing. The KKK took out their hate on any and all blacks just because they were black, while the Panthers felt they had cause for their radical ways. They were militant and clashed with police because police were the authority figure.

They coined the term "Black Power" and used that as their mantra. They were tired of being oppressed and more were open to use violence as a means of achieving their aims. Their reasons were true, but their methods were often militant. On the surface, they were trying to get things changed for the better through legal means but they used violence, too. As a result, Panthers died and police died. On the surface, they still tried changes through legal means, but for some within the group violence was the answer.

When the Panthers took Muslim names, that bothered many people. Many in the civil rights movement thought the violent actions of the Panthers were not helping. Martin Luther King and the civil rights marches always preached non-violent ways of change. And Panther leader Stokely Carmichael was critical of King's non-violent approach. And maybe it wasn't a true depiction of the Panther's mission but violence of any kind was frowned on.

Violence was still violence and when the news was filled with it, many saw them as evil, similar to the clan. The Panthers said they weren't against all whites, just those who were oppressing the black man. They said it was a class issue, not a race issue. But the violence that often connected with them was hurting their cause.

And violence just fueled more violence. The spin off group of the Panthers was the Black Liberation Army. Although it wasn't sanctioned by the Panthers, it was an underground group made up of radical Panther members, former Panthers and other militant individuals. They were seen as similar to the Weather Underground in that they used bombs and other covert methods against established authority.

I watched the evening news, along with my parents. My parents weren't racist, but they would often wonder why there was so much violence in the black neighborhoods. My parents were like any other mid-American homeowners who saw Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement as a good thing. White Americans in the mid-west knew blacks were being mistreated. But they saw any form of violence as bad. And whether it was violence instigated by the Panthers or instigated by police and blamed on the Panthers, it was constantly on the evening news in the 60s.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Thanks for the welcome, Keroin.

I grew up in Helsinki, which with 585.000 inhabitants is by far the largest city in Finland. But Finland was very remote and sheltered from the issues of the Big World until fairly recently, so even the larger cities here were safe for kids. And in my opinion they absolutely still are. I think the biggest change has been in parents' attitude, not in the surroundings.

As a fellow Scandinavian, I totaly agree. There has been a big debate here about "curling parents" who do their best to make sure the kids have absolutely smooth sailing through life.

I was born in 1971. We use the term Generation X too and I heard it defined as the first generation that couldn´t expect to automatically be better off than their parents.

From my teenage years I remember how the idealism of the seventies gave way to the yuppie ideal. It was about making money and about spending them. Bellbottoms gave way to power suits and painted VW busses to Porsches.

There was much discussion about feminism. Did we really still need it? Can you really be a feminist and wear a push-up bra? Susan Faludi's Backlash summed up much of what we had discussed.

Our Prime Minister was killed and I think the world suddenly became a lot scarier for us

With the nineties came the depression, like Seela said. Grunge followed the big hair and shoulder pads and many young pople lost their jobs or had a hard time to get one in the first place, when many of the new dot coms had to close or let people go. Most of them were very well educated and had more or less been promised great work opportunities in their chosen field, so there was a lot of bitterness.

The war in Yugoslavia felt very close to home and I think it contributed a lot to making us feel less safe.

All in all I think many of my generation feel a bit disillusioned after having grown up with such great expectations and many feel much less safe than people did when we were kids. If we look at the reality though, we are really very privileged and safe compared to most of the world and like Seela I think we are often overreacting perhaps partly because of exaggerations in the media.

 

[rida]

I wonder how many people of my generation remember this film? It was a VERY big deal at the time and I watched it in a social studies class in Junior High.

ETA: You can watch it on the NFB website.

Don't know that movie, but a movie that they showed us was "the day after" about the consequences of a nuclear war. I remember thinking I'd rather not survive, thank you very much.

There is no specific event that I can pin-point the end my care-free childhood days. Perhaps I'm still too care-free or perhaps I was just pretty practical.

I also wonder if living with a grandma that would remember life from the early 20th centuries (lived through both WWI and WWII), a father that also remembered WWII (the war ended just before he would have had to go, but his father, my grandpa that I never met was one of the soldiers that survived the Russian campaign) sent the message that I was living in lucky times and should be thankful but also be prepared, stay under the radar and not count too much on authorities.

seela's post reminded me of the Yugoslavian war! How could have I forgot it! And the fall of the Berlin Wall. And Chernobyll.

As for walking to school as a kid and playing outside unsupervised, that was my childhood too. Nowadays in Italy, it depends a lot on the neighborhoods but you surely are not going to let grade kids go by themselves (plus schools are often far) or roam the neighborhood freely. For that I'm happy that I live in Japan where it is still safe to let your kids walk (or take the subway) to school alone or go to play at the neighborhood park by themselves.

 

[PertPerth]

We use the term Generation X too and I heard it defined as the first generation that couldn´t expect to automatically be better off than their parents.

....Yet my mother, a baby-boomer, keeps telling me how much better I have it than she did. If you look at the average house price and average wage over the decades (at least in Australia) it is MUCH harder to afford your own home now.

I think the biggest thing I don't like to see - the difference between X and Y, is not just the technology but the drugs, alcohol and sex at a MUCH younger age. Admittedly, kids are literally growing faster - I can't beleive how fast my young cousins developed physically.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

There has been a big debate here about "curling parents" who do their best to make sure the kids have absolutely smooth sailing through life.

While I have nothing against parents who want to give their kids the best start in life they can, I do have something against the ones who raise kids who think the sun shines out of their ass and who are unprepared for the realities of the wider world.

I see it too much at work. An inflated sense of entitlement, no skills to offer, a poor work ethic, laziness. Parents still doing the legwork for their 19 year olds.

There's only a 10 year difference between me and them, but it is so utterly foreign and bizarre to me.

I was born in 1971. We use the term Generation X too and I heard it defined as the first generation that couldn´t expect to automatically be better off than their parents.

I think it's because the cost of living has increased, and people have become accustomed to putting many of their 'wants' in the 'needs' category. I had a client in a few weeks ago who said he needed to earn $58,000 or he wouldn't be able to cover his expenses. And I was thinking 'aren't you supposed to tailor your life to your income, not the other way around?"

I mean yeah, I'd love a better computer, better internet connection, pay tv, a fancy car, a bigger house. But I can't afford these things. So I don't have them.

We're not only not automatically better off, but we're also swimming in debt, trying to maintain these ideal lifestyles.

 

[intothewoods]

They started out as a legit organization to champion the black man's position and tried to get laws passed, tried to get police departments to hire blacks, etc. That was the Black Panther Party, in the beginning. But, when they didn't get things accomplished, some within the group took to more hostile means, almost as revenge for what they saw as white control of the black man.

Although they did feel they were justified, they did arm themselves and had many confrontations with police. It's unclear in some cases as to if they started some of those confrontations or if police instigated them, but they were widely seen as radicals by most people of the time.

I didn't mean to imply they were as bad as the KKK because they weren't. The KKK acted completely from hate. I meant they used violence as a tool. The Panthers acted from revenge because of the oppression the blacks were experiencing. The KKK took out their hate on any and all blacks just because they were black, while the Panthers felt they had cause for their radical ways. They were militant and clashed with police because police were the authority figure.

They coined the term "Black Power" and used that as their mantra. They were tired of being oppressed and more were open to use violence as a means of achieving their aims. Their reasons were true, but their methods were often militant. On the surface, they were trying to get things changed for the better through legal means but they used violence, too. As a result, Panthers died and police died. On the surface, they still tried changes through legal means, but for some within the group violence was the answer.

When the Panthers took Muslim names, that bothered many people. Many in the civil rights movement thought the violent actions of the Panthers were not helping. Martin Luther King and the civil rights marches always preached non-violent ways of change. And Panther leader Stokely Carmichael was critical of King's non-violent approach. And maybe it wasn't a true depiction of the Panther's mission but violence of any kind was frowned on.

Violence was still violence and when the news was filled with it, many saw them as evil, similar to the clan. The Panthers said they weren't against all whites, just those who were oppressing the black man. They said it was a class issue, not a race issue. But the violence that often connected with them was hurting their cause.

And violence just fueled more violence. The spin off group of the Panthers was the Black Liberation Army. Although it wasn't sanctioned by the Panthers, it was an underground group made up of radical Panther members, former Panthers and other militant individuals. They were seen as similar to the Weather Underground in that they used bombs and other covert methods against established authority.

I watched the evening news, along with my parents. My parents weren't racist, but they would often wonder why there was so much violence in the black neighborhoods. My parents were like any other mid-American homeowners who saw Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement as a good thing. White Americans in the mid-west knew blacks were being mistreated. But they saw any form of violence as bad. And whether it was violence instigated by the Panthers or instigated by police and blamed on the Panthers, it was constantly on the evening news in the 60s.

You said that the black power movement "tended to go overboard" as much as the KKK did. While violence did play a part in the movement (a lot more talk of revolution than anything else though), it wasn't at all on par with the klan. And of course, the klan used fear, violence and brutality to maintain a position of power in society. The black power movement consisted of people fighting back against centuries of treatment like second class citizens. I'm not justifying violence, but it's easy for someone who hasn't had that history to make that call.

 

[Raisa_Greywood]

You were closer to being a boomer than you think. The actual birth years of the post WW II baby boom were between 1946 and 1964.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/U.S.BirthRate.1909.2003.png/800px-U.S.BirthRate.1909.2003.png

That really just put a crimp in my whole day. It's not nice to remind us how close we are to being boomers - 1966 here.

Bella

 

[DVS]

You said that the black power movement "tended to go overboard" as much as the KKK did. While violence did play a part in the movement (a lot more talk of revolution than anything else though), it wasn't at all on par with the klan. And of course, the klan used fear, violence and brutality to maintain a position of power in society. The black power movement consisted of people fighting back against centuries of treatment like second class citizens. I'm not justifying violence, but it's easy for someone who hasn't had that history to make that call.

I didn't say they were as bad as the KKK. I said the blacks went overboard, just like the KKK went overboard. Both resorted to violence. The 60s were a violent decade. You could use the argument that blacks were somehow justified in their use of violence, but I don't think it helped their cause at all. I saw it with my own eyes. They were viewed as a threat to the peace, in the news coverage.

I think it would have made more sense to drop the Black Power and separatist image and continue with the other things they were doing. I'm sure they felt frustration. I don't know if I could have remained peaceful in that position. They were facing a lot of hate. But King was facing the same hate.

 

[Netzach]

Separatism isn't an image. It's the only logical stance in a society that separates you.

There was no government funded "just say no" the message was just say yes as the smack epidemic was conveniently given a "too bad so sad" from the same government causing it.

The Panthers were campaigning to equate drugs with enslavement and pointing out the way they assist imperialism. They were doing as much to bolster their own community as anything else, but this isn't going to make it onto TV - just zomgz black guys guns.

For all the bagger whining about gun rights not one has been curtailed these a days - but the second black guys showed up with guns in CA back then you can bet the open carry ordinance was about to be up for grabs.

My commutes took me through Harlem in the seventies as a kid. It looked like Beirut. If someone said "you have to live here but you shouldn't want to kill anyone over it" I would have laughed and laughed.

 

[DVS]

Separatism isn't an image. It's the only logical stance in a society that separates you.

There was no government funded "just say no" the message was just say yes as the smack epidemic was conveniently given a "too bad so sad" from the same government causing it.

The Panthers were campaigning to equate drugs with enslavement and pointing out the way they assist imperialism. They were doing as much to bolster their own community as anything else, but this isn't going to make it onto TV - just zomgz black guys guns.

For all the bagger whining about gun rights not one has been curtailed these a days - but the second black guys showed up with guns in CA back then you can bet the open carry ordinance was about to be up for grabs.

My commutes took me through Harlem in the seventies as a kid. It looked like Beirut. If someone said "you have to live here but you shouldn't want to kill anyone over it" I would have laughed and laughed.

King and the other civil rights marchers weren't taking the separatist route. Wouldn't you think they would be getting at least as much separation from the same society?

Gun rights? Nobody said anything about gun rights. Just like today, if someone wants a gun bad enough, they will get it. The issue wasn't that they had guns, it was that they chose that path.

Riots and fires were always on the news. Like I said in my first post, you'd constantly see blacks being sprayed with high pressure fire hoses. I guess those rioters were just rebelling against the separatist society, too? Granted, the times were bad. But rioting and setting fires in their own neighborhoods wasn't bettering their way of life.

I'm not going to continue a debate on something that happened 50 years ago. The history has already been written. For the reasons behind it all, you'll find different answers, depending on who you ask.

All I know is what I saw. I was a teenager in my formative years and the 60s were violent. A large portion of that violence wasn't necessary. It was the same with the The Weather Underground and the Symbionese Liberation Army. Sure, the violence drew attention to a cause, but the wrong kind of attention.

 

[DVS]

stupid double post. More unnecessary violence!

 

[DVS]

That really just put a crimp in my whole day. It's not nice to remind us how close we are to being boomers - 1966 here.

Bella

Sorry, I didn't create the graph. And just for the record, I'm not just close...I'm right in the middle of the boomers. I'm old!

 

[graceanne]

I'm old!

Yeah, but we love you anyway.

Gramps.

 

[DVS]

Yeah, but we love you anyway.

Gramps.

So touching, you love a racist?



Gramps? Watch out. I don't need a cane to walk, but I do own a couple!

 

[graceanne]

Sorry, I didn't create the graph. And just for the record, I'm not just close...I'm right in the middle of the boomers. I'm old!

So touching, you love a racist?



Gramps? Watch out. I don't need a cane to walk, but I do own a couple!

Yeah, yeah. Don' throw me in da briar patch.

 

[JMohegan]

I didn't say they were as bad as the KKK. I said the blacks went overboard, just like the KKK went overboard. Both resorted to violence. The 60s were a violent decade. You could use the argument that blacks were somehow justified in their use of violence, but I don't think it helped their cause at all. I saw it with my own eyes. They were viewed as a threat to the peace, in the news coverage.

I think it would have made more sense to drop the Black Power and separatist image and continue with the other things they were doing. I'm sure they felt frustration. I don't know if I could have remained peaceful in that position. They were facing a lot of hate. But King was facing the same hate.

"Viewed as a threat to the peace."

DVS, everything protesters did (no matter how peaceful) was declared to be "a threat to the peace." Bus rides, sit-ins, rallies, marches, a stroll across a bridge. I heard it with my own ears, on the news, all the time. Didn't you?

As for Dr. King facing the same hate..... indeed, he was. Did you know that the FBI was there when he was killed? Not to protect him (though King was receiving multiple death threats daily.) The FBI was there, because King was under surveillance. His phone was routinely tapped, and he was followed. As a potential threat to the security of America.

 

[JMohegan]

I watched the evening news, along with my parents. My parents weren't racist, but they would often wonder why there was so much violence in the black neighborhoods. My parents were like any other mid-American homeowners who saw Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement as a good thing. White Americans in the mid-west knew blacks were being mistreated. But they saw any form of violence as bad. And whether it was violence instigated by the Panthers or instigated by police and blamed on the Panthers, it was constantly on the evening news in the 60s.

My white mid-American home-owning parents saw themselves are *part of* the civil rights movement. They didn't talk about what "the blacks" were trying to achieve. They talked about the changes that "we" were working to bring about.

What bothered them most about Carmichael was that he didn't want their help. They said they understood why he didn't, but I'm not sure they ever really did.

 

[JMohegan]

For all the bagger whining about gun rights not one has been curtailed these a days - but the second black guys showed up with guns in CA back then you can bet the open carry ordinance was about to be up for grabs.

Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black.

 

[WriterDom]

Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black.

What a bunch of hockey. How many guns do you see at tea parties really? The whole movement seemed to peak about a year from last April. If they were violent people Obama would have something to cry about other than talk radio and Fox News.

If you want to do something useful go to Chicago and protest black on black crime where 7 people can get killed in a 12 hour period.

 

[DVS]

"Viewed as a threat to the peace."

DVS, everything protesters did (no matter how peaceful) was declared to be "a threat to the peace." Bus rides, sit-ins, rallies, marches, a stroll across a bridge. I heard it with my own ears, on the news, all the time. Didn't you?

They weren't viewed as a threat by my family.

As for Dr. King facing the same hate..... indeed, he was. Did you know that the FBI was there when he was killed? Not to protect him (though King was receiving multiple death threats daily.) The FBI was there, because King was under surveillance. His phone was routinely tapped, and he was followed. As a potential threat to the security of America.

Of course I was aware of that. It was the 60s. I'm sure he wasn't blind to it, either.

 

[IrisAlthea]

....Yet my mother, a baby-boomer, keeps telling me how much better I have it than she did. If you look at the average house price and average wage over the decades (at least in Australia) it is MUCH harder to afford your own home now.

I think the biggest thing I don't like to see - the difference between X and Y, is not just the technology but the drugs, alcohol and sex at a MUCH younger age. Admittedly, kids are literally growing faster - I can't beleive how fast my young cousins developed physically.

Yes, it is much more difficult to get your own home and more expensive too. People stay with their parents longer and some have to move back in with them after separations or when they loose their job.

It´s often cheaper to stay in your big home when the kids move out, than getting something smaller, which makes it hard and expensive for new families to find a place to live.

While I have nothing against parents who want to give their kids the best start in life they can, I do have something against the ones who raise kids who think the sun shines out of their ass and who are unprepared for the realities of the wider world.

I see it too much at work. An inflated sense of entitlement, no skills to offer, a poor work ethic, laziness. Parents still doing the legwork for their 19 year olds.

There's only a 10 year difference between me and them, but it is so utterly foreign and bizarre to me.




I think it's because the cost of living has increased, and people have become accustomed to putting many of their 'wants' in the 'needs' category. I had a client in a few weeks ago who said he needed to earn $58,000 or he wouldn't be able to cover his expenses. And I was thinking 'aren't you supposed to tailor your life to your income, not the other way around?"

I mean yeah, I'd love a better computer, better internet connection, pay tv, a fancy car, a bigger house. But I can't afford these things. So I don't have them.

We're not only not automatically better off, but we're also swimming in debt, trying to maintain these ideal lifestyles.

That´s a good description of what you get for curling. There have been cases where mothers wanted to sit in and help their grown children negotiate their wages.
I think it´s absolutely understandable to want to shield your child from any danger or pain. It´s just that many of us are able to do that now to an extent were we have to be careful, not to stand in the way of their development.