The golden generation

[HydrogenBond]

This idea is not orginal but was borrowed from an AM radio talk personality, Ray Bortz. He was talking about the Golden generation, those who went through the great depression and WWII, but maintained a high level of character and honor, right to their ends. Their children and grandchildren, baby boomers and forward i.e., silver, brass and tin generations, complain a lot more about how hard it is currently, even though they have it easy by comparision to the Golden generation.

The point he was making is that these later generations complain more about how tough things are, now, even though it is far easier to live now than then. To justify their claim, they are making up things to worry about to create the impression that life is so hard. Like all these new fad disorders and social proessure to show how tough it is. Or that two parents having to work puts terrible strain on the family. In WWII, women worked the factories and men were at war, yet the family stayed strong and the kids weren't plagued by disorders that need special care and treatment.

The "war on terror" is chicken crap compared to the Nazi's or the Soviet Union, yet it is marketed as a major defining point. It is almost like the pretense of things being so tough is an excuse. Because these are such terrible times, beyond what any other generation had to endure, we are giving ourselves an excuse to be 2nd rate adults. Just food for thought.

[Freddy]

I agree. Tom Brokaw called them The Greatest Generation in his book of the same title. You could apply the term to the Russian generation that helped to defeat Hitler, but only then to be rewarded with more Stalinism.

[InfiniteNow]

Each successive generation, regardless of the subjective interpretation of them by the older populace, has substantially different problems to face than those that came before. The world changes very quickly, and technology has shifted in such a way as to render previously minor groups to major threats with which to contend. The problems are different, hence so must be the approach.

Should we look back on previous generations and respect the ways that they overcame strife and learn from the manner in which they did so? Absolutely. Should we waste our time complaining about the way things are now, degrading the accomplishments of those in the present by twisting interpretatoins of the accomplishments made by those in the past? No... that's just disrespectful. You're comparing apples and oranges here (or Ray Bortz is and you're buying into it).


And who listens to AM radio? Talk about reprogramming the sheep...

[HydrogenBond]

The point was that if one compares absolute challenges, instead of relative challenges (which are subjective) there is no comparison between now and then. If we list the top 10 greatest challanges of 2007, many are based on pseudo-science to create the illusion of a major problems that need to be overcome. In other words, if history began to repeat itself, say with China using its new wealth and technological advances to start a campaign of imperialism, terrorism would look like small fries. It is big fries today so we can pretend things are so tough. If this is so tough, these times would be overwelmed with real WWII level challenges.

[InfiniteNow]

We still have 93 years to catch up... I'm sure we'll have some very real problems, but this does not indicate that problems around the world right now are any less significant.

It seems we are just interpretating the same things differently, that's all.

[Boerseun]

I see where you're coming from, and I have to agree in broad terms. But then again, the fact that no records exist of them having any mental illnesses during WW2 and the 30's depression doesn't say that it didn't exist. They simply didn't diagnose it properly, because it was yet to be defined.

But I, personally, think that 99.999% of all the modern illnesses that has an acronym is horsecrap. That's my personal opinion. Every guy graduating from med school, pursuing his PhD, has to come up with original research. And what better way than to define a set of symptoms that happen to happen simultaneously in the same patient and then call it a syndrome and name it after yourself. I think it's crap, but you're free to think what you want. If your name is Smith and you fart every time you eat baked beans, you get to call it Smith's Syndrome, and you can even start a support group for it and get federal research funding so that we can stop this farting epidemic. Also, it has been proved that every single person who suffers from Smith's syndrome eventually dies. I have earned my PhD in less then thirty seconds.

...and that makes the current generation not any worse than any previous generation. They used to buy snake oil, we buy all the crap the doctors tell us. Same thing, really, just a different package. We're all humans, and humans are gullible.

But the modern world is paradise for anyone with even a slight hypochondriac bent.

Another quick thought:

All people who are exactly 60 years old today, are in the same generation, right? And all people who are 20, are in another generation. But people who are 59, are also in the same generation than the guys who are 60. And people who are 21 are in the same generation as the 20 year olds. But someone who is 59 is not in the same generation as someone who is 21. But the same could be said of the 58 year olds, and the 22 year olds. So where's the borders between generations? Somewhere in the middle, they must meet, and they have to be the same generation. Eventually, one has to flow into the other. If there's a definitive cut-off line, then someone who is 55, say, must be in another generation as someone who is 54. But then there's days and weeks in the year seperating them, and the same issue applies. To the point where you must say that everybody born before 8:15AM on the third of March 1972 is of one generation, and everybody born after that specific date and time, is of the next generation. If you can't do that, then clearly the division doesn't mean much. But someone of 80 is still clearly in another generation as someone of 20. And everybody in between is just different shades of grey as far as generational identity is concerned, not?

Are we not simply talking of 'old' people and 'young' people, and those in between? And trying to 'label' them, same as the doctors are doing with seemingly innocent illnesses? Does the term 'generation' have any meaning, after all?

[Dov Henis]

I spent 1942 (16 yrs old) to 1946 in the British 8th Army, first in N.Africa and later, attached to the USA 5th Army, in Europe.

My then personal experiences as a microscopic cog in WWII do not lend any weight to any observations re WWII.

Personally they had a very distinct effect on me, an adopted world-view comprising a sober realization of what are life and humans, what to seek and value in life, and what in life and humans to dismiss for what reason.

Dov

[HydrogenBond]

Let me give one an example of making things harder than they have to be so we can pretend it is more difficult. In WWII we had two heavy weight contenders duking it out (two teams). With the war on terrorism we have taken the reigning champ, tided his legs together, and put one arm tied behind his back, with the other arm in a lsing with only the wrist poking out, to make it a fair fight. Under those handicapped conditions, of course is is a tough fight.

Another bonehead handicap that was added to culture was "lets break up the nuclear family so we can handicap all the children." This will make even easy adaptions of old, much harder, so we can pretend we got it so hard.

[jackson33]

any US history major, will acknowledge the true heroism of the "greatest generation". there has nor will there ever be, any other generation that overcame all they did, for the pure benefit of their descendants. from ending of the first world war, through the depression, the second WW, on into the Korean conflict and the cold war. yet still managed to build the greatest social and economic society the planet ever will know. this was the total involvement of all the peoples, as well. Women worked the fields and factories, while the kids did the dishes and kept house. there were no laws to govern child labor and it was a joy to join in the work force at 8 or 9 years old. almost every one that could, pulled their weight and those that couldn't voiced support. these folks never complained, came home from war in wheel chairs or missing limbs, memories we couldn't handle and built what i said. no one stood in line for government hand outs and when a tragedy happened it was cleaned up in hours.

Infinite; maybe those that listen to Hennedy, Limbaugh and Bortz are patriotic and enjoy a little taste of what they feel and have long felt thinking they were alone. if we are sheep, its a mighty fine herd to be in and i for one will take them any day over the doom and gloom of Gore and his kind.

Dov; you have been rewarded by your God, with long life. i thank you and you generation for the life i have had. the opportunity for current and future generations has been given. what they do with it is now up to them....

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by jackson33

any US history major, will acknowledge the true heroism of the "greatest generation".

Well, one would hope. If they do not, then they are incredibly lacking in an accurate representation of said history.

there has nor will there ever be, any other generation that overcame all they did,

You see, you've cut the feet off of your own argument. You cannot say that with any certainty. How do you know what future generations will and will not accomplish, and what those successes might entail?

first world war, through the depression, the second WW, on into the Korean conflict and the cold war. yet still managed to build the greatest social and economic society the planet ever will know. this was the total involvement of all the peoples, as well. Women worked the fields and factories, while the kids did the dishes and kept house. there were no laws to govern child labor and it was a joy to join in the work force at 8 or 9 years old.

Well, since history has been brought into the mix, we may as well discuss it correctly. There were, in fact, laws governing child labor, and I think you'd be hard pressed (let's say you were given a time machine) to go back and find many kids who found their labor joyeous. The issue was the enforcement of existing laws, or more appropos, the lack thereof. Also, the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938, and upheld by the supreme court in 1941, hence prior to the second world war. Anyway, here's a few good links to catch you up:

• 04.01.08: The History of Child Labor in the United States: Hammer v. Dagenhart
• Child Labor Laws and Enforcement (Sourced through Yale, presented in .pdf)
• Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as Ammended (Courtesy the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), presented in .pdf)

almost every one that could, pulled their weight and those that couldn't voiced support. these folks never complained, came home from war in wheel chairs or missing limbs, memories we couldn't handle and built what i said. no one stood in line for government hand outs and when a tragedy happened it was cleaned up in hours.

Sounds like an idealized memory, sorely lacking in the salience of the counter points which hold equal validity. I, by no means whatsoever, wish to dimish the accomplishments made during the mid-20th century by all of the brave men, women, and children who lived through those times of trouble and helped make it better.

I simply ask that 1) you speak accurately, and in such, recognize that there are many examples in high frequency to counter the rose-colored reflections you've presented on the past, 2) you do not disrespect the problems faced by the current generation, and 3) you do not claim to know what greatness is possible in the future.