4 ms·

> We need shared values and deep understanding of the principles that govern our countries. This is the mainstream prescription since there has been bellyachin

> We need shared values and deep understanding of the principles that govern our countries. This is the mainstream prescription since there has been bellyaching about the woes of the age (i.e. forever, or provably, since the invention of writing). One idea that I think is more interesting is Machievelli's - he pointed out that the Roman state was at its most dynamic and powerful when it was locked in permanent internal contradiction: between the landless and landed. One can easily carry the analogy along. The 60's, in its time, was seen as a moment of social disintegration and civilizational collapse. In retrospect however, we can see that an america that had not had the 60's would be a scary, oppressive place, a perpetual 1955 of the human soul.

verisimi 5y ago
Honestly, 1955 seems like a distant dream....
- kixiQu 5y ago
  Or, to others, a nightmare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  So long as you're a white, protestant, male adult with no significant or visible disabilities.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Every time someone says anything good about any year prior to 1980 or so someone shoots back with this low effort quip. I think it's obvious that anyone praising the 1950s in 2022 can be assumed to be saying "like that but for everybody" unless there is a specific reason to think they want to exclude certain groups.
    - pasabagi 5y ago
      I don't understand your comment. The whole reason why most nightmarish historical moments are considered nightmarish is because they give certain groups drastically elevated rights, and others none. Talking about an apartheid society without talking about privilege is nonsensical.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >The whole reason why most nightmarish historical moments are considered nightmarish is because they give certain groups drastically elevated rights, and others none. Talking about an apartheid society without talking about privilege is nonsensical. The 1950s were not nightmarish for anybody actually living in them. Racial minorities, though still mistreated, were mistreated a heck of a lot less than in decades prior and had much more economic opportunity though they were starting from lower on the ladder on average than white people. That economic opportunity is what everyone wants back. The fact that you can consider the 1950s in the US a "nightmarish historical moment" is nonsensical, to put it very, very charitably.
        pasabagi 5y ago
        > The fact that you can consider the 1950s in the US a "nightmarish historical moment" is nonsensical Well, you can go upthread and read about the lynching of Emmet Till, or familiarize yourself with any of the many ways in which the Jim Crow laws were formally and informally enforced. You can look at the photograph of Emmet Till, even, before or after he was lynched. Maybe you have thicker skin than I, but I think living in a community where you could be brutally killed for any or no reason, and knowing that your killers would not be convicted, is a nightmare.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >ell, you can go upthread and read about the lynching of Emmet Till, Funny you mention that. I was this >< close to preempting your comment by mentioning him but figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. Ask yourself, why do you even know Till's name? Why did Till's killing spark national outrage when 20yr later that would have gotten barely a peep out of people? Because times changed and that kind of behavior was no longer excusable. >but I think living in a community where you could be brutally killed for any or no reason... Till was killed for violating social norms (that he presumably was not sufficiently aware of). His death was no different than that of a peasant 1000yr earlier killed for bad mouthing a local lord. It's tragic. But it wasn't without reason, though we may think the reason flimsy and disagreeable. And this time I am going to head off the inevitable reply by pointing out that I am not defending or justifying Till's killers, just explaining the context. Those who fail to understand history...
  - familymart 5y ago
  - PolygonSheep 5y ago
    What will people in 2092 think of 2022? I won't be around to see it unless Bezos makes a breakthrough in immortality research but I really doubt this decade will be seen as the magical time when we finally figured everything out. Our grandchildren will probably not look on our time any more fondly than we look on the '50s. I doubt people in the '50s thought "we are evil and we enjoy being evil so we shall be evil". If you read contemporary magazines and newspapers they actually thought they were quite modern and progressive. And why not? 1955 was as modern in 1955 as 2022 is today. It's only in retrospect that it looks backward and barbaric. Many things that were seen as modern and progressive then are looked on in horror now (lobotomy, gay conversion therapy, insulin coma therapy, using asbestos in cigarette filters, segregation, redlining, anti-miscegenation laws, blacklisting communists, anti-sodomy laws, many others). What will the list of "Oh my god can you even BELIEVE people did that?" look like in a couple of generations? I've got some ideas but they're almost certainly wrong because I can't see the future any more clearly than the 1950s people could. I would however bet my life savings that some of the values held by all right thinking decent people now will be seen as abhorrent in 70 years. I just can't tell you which ones. Conversely some things seen as shocking now, stuff that will get you ostracized from polite society, will be believed by all right thinking decent people in 2092. Again I can't tell you which ones (nor do I think it will even be related to race, disability, or LGBTQ+). But this does seem to be the pattern. To be clear I am not saying consensus views were more right then, or that we are wrong now, or that I wish X, Y, or Z thing would make a comeback. I'm just saying I don't think we've finished history yet and we should wait till history is over before patting ourselves on the back.
    - pasabagi 5y ago
      Alternately, Tolstoy would be viewed as unusually progressive, even today.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Bears repeating, because it got a sibling comment flagged to death: Or, to others, a nightmare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
  - jquery 5y ago
    Read the letters to the editor at the bottom after reading this article: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/till-killers-confession/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/till-ki... Only one was an embarrassed Southerner. The rest were nonplussed or outright angry that the article and confessions were published. There are black people alive today who were alive then, it hasn’t been that long.

verisimi 5y ago

Honestly, 1955 seems like a distant dream....

kixiQu 5y ago
Or, to others, a nightmare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
paulryanrogers 5y ago
So long as you're a white, protestant, male adult with no significant or visible disabilities.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Every time someone says anything good about any year prior to 1980 or so someone shoots back with this low effort quip. I think it's obvious that anyone praising the 1950s in 2022 can be assumed to be saying "like that but for everybody" unless there is a specific reason to think they want to exclude certain groups.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    I don't understand your comment. The whole reason why most nightmarish historical moments are considered nightmarish is because they give certain groups drastically elevated rights, and others none. Talking about an apartheid society without talking about privilege is nonsensical.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      >The whole reason why most nightmarish historical moments are considered nightmarish is because they give certain groups drastically elevated rights, and others none. Talking about an apartheid society without talking about privilege is nonsensical. The 1950s were not nightmarish for anybody actually living in them. Racial minorities, though still mistreated, were mistreated a heck of a lot less than in decades prior and had much more economic opportunity though they were starting from lower on the ladder on average than white people. That economic opportunity is what everyone wants back. The fact that you can consider the 1950s in the US a "nightmarish historical moment" is nonsensical, to put it very, very charitably.
      - pasabagi 5y ago
        > The fact that you can consider the 1950s in the US a "nightmarish historical moment" is nonsensical Well, you can go upthread and read about the lynching of Emmet Till, or familiarize yourself with any of the many ways in which the Jim Crow laws were formally and informally enforced. You can look at the photograph of Emmet Till, even, before or after he was lynched. Maybe you have thicker skin than I, but I think living in a community where you could be brutally killed for any or no reason, and knowing that your killers would not be convicted, is a nightmare.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >ell, you can go upthread and read about the lynching of Emmet Till, Funny you mention that. I was this >< close to preempting your comment by mentioning him but figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. Ask yourself, why do you even know Till's name? Why did Till's killing spark national outrage when 20yr later that would have gotten barely a peep out of people? Because times changed and that kind of behavior was no longer excusable. >but I think living in a community where you could be brutally killed for any or no reason... Till was killed for violating social norms (that he presumably was not sufficiently aware of). His death was no different than that of a peasant 1000yr earlier killed for bad mouthing a local lord. It's tragic. But it wasn't without reason, though we may think the reason flimsy and disagreeable. And this time I am going to head off the inevitable reply by pointing out that I am not defending or justifying Till's killers, just explaining the context. Those who fail to understand history...
- familymart 5y ago
- PolygonSheep 5y ago
  What will people in 2092 think of 2022? I won't be around to see it unless Bezos makes a breakthrough in immortality research but I really doubt this decade will be seen as the magical time when we finally figured everything out. Our grandchildren will probably not look on our time any more fondly than we look on the '50s. I doubt people in the '50s thought "we are evil and we enjoy being evil so we shall be evil". If you read contemporary magazines and newspapers they actually thought they were quite modern and progressive. And why not? 1955 was as modern in 1955 as 2022 is today. It's only in retrospect that it looks backward and barbaric. Many things that were seen as modern and progressive then are looked on in horror now (lobotomy, gay conversion therapy, insulin coma therapy, using asbestos in cigarette filters, segregation, redlining, anti-miscegenation laws, blacklisting communists, anti-sodomy laws, many others). What will the list of "Oh my god can you even BELIEVE people did that?" look like in a couple of generations? I've got some ideas but they're almost certainly wrong because I can't see the future any more clearly than the 1950s people could. I would however bet my life savings that some of the values held by all right thinking decent people now will be seen as abhorrent in 70 years. I just can't tell you which ones. Conversely some things seen as shocking now, stuff that will get you ostracized from polite society, will be believed by all right thinking decent people in 2092. Again I can't tell you which ones (nor do I think it will even be related to race, disability, or LGBTQ+). But this does seem to be the pattern. To be clear I am not saying consensus views were more right then, or that we are wrong now, or that I wish X, Y, or Z thing would make a comeback. I'm just saying I don't think we've finished history yet and we should wait till history is over before patting ourselves on the back.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    Alternately, Tolstoy would be viewed as unusually progressive, even today.
klyrs 5y ago
Bears repeating, because it got a sibling comment flagged to death: Or, to others, a nightmare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
- jquery 5y ago
  Read the letters to the editor at the bottom after reading this article: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/till-killers-confession/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/till-ki... Only one was an embarrassed Southerner. The rest were nonplussed or outright angry that the article and confessions were published. There are black people alive today who were alive then, it hasn’t been that long.