5 ms·

No it is just sour grapes. "It doesn't matter that most people remember it fondly, they shouldn't" gist of the article is ridiculous. Cut me a break. I will re

by rpiguy 7y ago

No it is just sour grapes. "It doesn't matter that most people remember it fondly, they shouldn't" gist of the article is ridiculous. Cut me a break. I will repeat it was peak America. Interstates, television (and the cultural cohesion it briefly engendered), post war confidence, manufacturing boom, steel boom, automobile boom, petroleum boom, and a huge swath of people going from having no to little material security to having a path to security. Nostalgia in this case is thoroughly based in the zeitgeist of the time. There is no reason it should not be looked as a great time in American history. Soviets put a satellite up first, but couldn't feed their people and crammed everyone into cinderblock apartments. Racism has existed since the beginning of time, is rampant today, across all cultures and races. Because we were still struggling with civil rights as a nation is no reason to not celebrate our accomplishments. I was the child of a mixed marriage and my parents experienced their share of racism. I grew up in a farm town where no one could say my last name correctly even though it is literally spelled out phonetically. I hate racism, but I am strongly averse to viewing history through the lens of race.

eesmith 7y ago
It was peak America mostly for straight, white, Protestant men. It was not peak America for gay people. Or for blacks. Or for women. Just a few years later, America was worried about having its first Catholic President. But, who wrote the stories, and directed the films, and set the cultural memories about that time? Why weren't the Roaring Twenties peak America? Quoting Wikipedia: > This period saw the large-scale development and use of automobiles, telephones, movies, radio, and electrical appliances being installed in the lives of thousands of Westerners. Aviation soon became a business. Nations saw rapid industrial and economic growth, accelerated consumer demand, and introduced significantly new changes in lifestyle and culture. The media focused on celebrities, especially sports heroes and movie stars, as cities rooted for their home teams and filled the new palatial cinemas and gigantic sports stadiums. In most major democratic states, women won the right to vote. The right to vote made a huge impact on society. Why isn't now peak America?
- 8456523 7y ago
  >It was peak America mostly for straight, white, Protestant men. >It was not peak America for gay people. Or for blacks. Or for women. It makes me sad how often discussion of any particular social question on this site gets derailed into a discussion of identity politics. In 1950, Americans owned 75% of all the cars in the world. Surely, black Americans owned cars at a lower rate than white Americans did, but they probably owned cars at a higher rate than whites in Sweden, France or the UK did. The point is that there are major influences on prosperity that cannot be reduced to the same old identity-politics tropes.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    So why is car-owning a relevant statistic for "peak American"? Why not, for example, miles of passenger-rail tracks? Can that measure be extended to judge "peak Germany", when in the 1880s Germany had 75% or more of the world's production automobiles? No, clearly not. All of this is a question of how you want to choose your numbers. I'll point out that this isn't a "this site gets derailed into a discussion of identity politics" issue for two reasons: 1) The term "American" is identity politics. Benjamin Franklin is rightly called "the first American" because of his identity politics concerning colonial unity. 2) the opinion piece itself mentions "the pervasive racism and sexism", so further discussion of that topic is on track.
    - rpiguy 7y ago
      1920s were not peak America. Post WW2 left us as the only untouched industrial power and our share of global GDP was incredible. The US was 90% white in 1950, if it was a good time for white people than it was a good time for the vast majority. Civil rights were moving the right direction, I’d rather be proud of the progress on Civil Rights at that time. I won’t judge the period for not having gay friendly policies. There were no gay friendly countries in the 1950s, lol.
      - eesmith 7y ago
        Then why weren't the 1990s peak America? Post Cold War left us the only remaining superpower, with military bases all over the world, and unparalleled economic influence over other countries. There was the relief that nuclear Armageddon was no more, the optimism that the internet boom would lead to social improvement, the prosperity of the stock market boom (remember 'Dow 36,000'?), the promise of VR and nanotech just around the corner, and much more. That's the entire problem with this topic - it's easy to pick stats which let you conclude that the 1950s was "peak America". But at least as easy to pick other stats which conclude it wasn't. Your definition of "peak" can only be applied to the most powerful countries. For example, when was peak Iceland or Finland? That suggests it's a pretty weak definition. I can't help but think that your phrase "good time for white people" omits out the white women who had to deal with the widespread sexism and misogyny of the era. What fraction of those women had to deal with “the problem with no name”, as Friedan called it - "the widespread unhappiness of women in the 1950s and early 1960s" quoting Wikipedia? Your phrase "a good time for the vast majority" doesn't ring true. If 100% of the 10% black population, and 60% of the 45% white female population, and 4% of the 45% gay white male population faced discrimination, then that's 39% of the population. That's a majority, yes, but not a vast majority. And that's just back-of-the-envelope numbers. What about a white men who wanted to marry a black woman but couldn't because of anti-miscegenation laws? A white man in a position like Loving, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia , was certainly not having a good time in the 1950s. If 1% of the population is in abject slavery, in order to make the other 99% very happy, is that truly just? I would prefer to think I would be one of the ones who walks away from Le Guin's Omelas.

by rpiguy 7y ago

eesmith 7y ago

It was peak America mostly for straight, white, Protestant men. It was not peak America for gay people. Or for blacks. Or for women. Just a few years later, America was worried about having its first Catholic President. But, who wrote the stories, and directed the films, and set the cultural memories about that time? Why weren't the Roaring Twenties peak America? Quoting Wikipedia: > This period saw the large-scale development and use of automobiles, telephones, movies, radio, and electrical appliances being installed in the lives of thousands of Westerners. Aviation soon became a business. Nations saw rapid industrial and economic growth, accelerated consumer demand, and introduced significantly new changes in lifestyle and culture. The media focused on celebrities, especially sports heroes and movie stars, as cities rooted for their home teams and filled the new palatial cinemas and gigantic sports stadiums. In most major democratic states, women won the right to vote. The right to vote made a huge impact on society. Why isn't now peak America?

8456523 7y ago
>It was peak America mostly for straight, white, Protestant men. >It was not peak America for gay people. Or for blacks. Or for women. It makes me sad how often discussion of any particular social question on this site gets derailed into a discussion of identity politics. In 1950, Americans owned 75% of all the cars in the world. Surely, black Americans owned cars at a lower rate than white Americans did, but they probably owned cars at a higher rate than whites in Sweden, France or the UK did. The point is that there are major influences on prosperity that cannot be reduced to the same old identity-politics tropes.
- eesmith 7y ago
  So why is car-owning a relevant statistic for "peak American"? Why not, for example, miles of passenger-rail tracks? Can that measure be extended to judge "peak Germany", when in the 1880s Germany had 75% or more of the world's production automobiles? No, clearly not. All of this is a question of how you want to choose your numbers. I'll point out that this isn't a "this site gets derailed into a discussion of identity politics" issue for two reasons: 1) The term "American" is identity politics. Benjamin Franklin is rightly called "the first American" because of his identity politics concerning colonial unity. 2) the opinion piece itself mentions "the pervasive racism and sexism", so further discussion of that topic is on track.
  - rpiguy 7y ago
    1920s were not peak America. Post WW2 left us as the only untouched industrial power and our share of global GDP was incredible. The US was 90% white in 1950, if it was a good time for white people than it was a good time for the vast majority. Civil rights were moving the right direction, I’d rather be proud of the progress on Civil Rights at that time. I won’t judge the period for not having gay friendly policies. There were no gay friendly countries in the 1950s, lol.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      Then why weren't the 1990s peak America? Post Cold War left us the only remaining superpower, with military bases all over the world, and unparalleled economic influence over other countries. There was the relief that nuclear Armageddon was no more, the optimism that the internet boom would lead to social improvement, the prosperity of the stock market boom (remember 'Dow 36,000'?), the promise of VR and nanotech just around the corner, and much more. That's the entire problem with this topic - it's easy to pick stats which let you conclude that the 1950s was "peak America". But at least as easy to pick other stats which conclude it wasn't. Your definition of "peak" can only be applied to the most powerful countries. For example, when was peak Iceland or Finland? That suggests it's a pretty weak definition. I can't help but think that your phrase "good time for white people" omits out the white women who had to deal with the widespread sexism and misogyny of the era. What fraction of those women had to deal with “the problem with no name”, as Friedan called it - "the widespread unhappiness of women in the 1950s and early 1960s" quoting Wikipedia? Your phrase "a good time for the vast majority" doesn't ring true. If 100% of the 10% black population, and 60% of the 45% white female population, and 4% of the 45% gay white male population faced discrimination, then that's 39% of the population. That's a majority, yes, but not a vast majority. And that's just back-of-the-envelope numbers. What about a white men who wanted to marry a black woman but couldn't because of anti-miscegenation laws? A white man in a position like Loving, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia , was certainly not having a good time in the 1950s. If 1% of the population is in abject slavery, in order to make the other 99% very happy, is that truly just? I would prefer to think I would be one of the ones who walks away from Le Guin's Omelas.