Well, I don’t know.
I will say that I am completely dumbfounded how any kid today can say they are “bored”, which I hear quite frequently.
Mid 30s. Millennials begins with kids who graduated in 2000. So 36ish year olds.
And yep, complaining about the youth of today is very, very old.
I don’t know about that. Certainly I can say that the teens of the older millenials were a time of “security” in the US, at least. Cold War was over and 9/11 hadn’t happened yet. China and India weren’t as much on the average person’s radar, and the US was the undisputed world power (in our heads, at least). Don’t think I can say that about prosperity - real wages (purchasing power) have been stagnant in the US for decades (well before Millennials were born). Easy credit, OTOH, became much more available by time the eldest were grown. Income disparity has been increasing - at that’s not just “perceived.”
Obviously, none of that is applicable to other countries, but I don’t know if the term “millennials” is widely used elsewhere.
And adults were amazed kids of your generation could be bored. Isn’t that remarkable.
Wait, wait, wait. I though GenX were the slackers too bored to care.
Nevermind, whatever.
Hah, I can’t believe I missed another glaring error in the first post - Baby Boomers were the generation born in an era of unprecedented prosperity, not Millennials. While the 90s and 2000s were not nearly as bad as, say, the 1940s, it wasn’t the booming postwar economy where the GI bill was sending lots of people to school and a high school diploma was all you needed for a factory job good enough to buy a house and car and support a wife and kids.
“Generations” generally cover a 15-20 year span, and that’s the upper bound of Millennials. Pew research defines Millenials as people born 1981-1996, and that seems a reasonable block to me - and it’s a block that’s reasonably described as ‘late 20s to early 30s’ as a general range.
I graduated from High School in 1969, and I always find it hilarious when someone from my generation complains about the younger generations as not being as well behaved as we were.
We never much worried about being able to find a job. My daughter, who graduated HS in 2000, always worried. And we both went to good colleges. Millennials were one of the first generations who grew up with massive layoffs and the disruptions they caused being common. (Not counting Depression-era kids - my father suffered more than me or my kids did.)
Terrible performance for her. She was just a child then, and she was mismanaged back then. She became a superstar when she gave up the wholesome bit.
I meant top-end is mid-30s, not early 30s. 1981 can be 37 years old - that should never be called “early 30s” - early thirties ends at 33. Then 34-36 is mid-thirties, then 37-39 is late thirties.
Of course I’m not saying that those traumatic developments didn’t matter. They were hugely important in terms of their social, political and economic impacts. I’m just saying that in terms of a national sense of cultural upheaval, society-crumbling hell-in-a-handbasket pervasive alarm, the 1920’s and 1960’s seem to me to have hit some high points that the intervening eras didn’t quite reach.
No, of course I’m not saying that Vietnam “eclipses” any of those things. I’m just disagreeing with your hyperbolic assertion that Vietnam is only considered important because of alleged “Boomer narcissism”.
Calm down. Nowhere did I say that the Vietnam era is more important than earlier eras, much less try to compare its importance with that of any unknown future situations.
I’m just pointing out that it did have its own quite exceptional characteristics, and that consequently talking about the Vietnam war as a pretty significant national trauma is not merely owing to “self-centeredness” on the part of baby boomers. Plenty of pre- and post-boomer-age historians and other writers have regarded Vietnam as significant too, including Neil Sheehan (b. 1936), Stanley Karnow (b. 1925), and Nick Turse (b. 1975).
I have no problem with Millennials.
As long as they continue to avoid my mowing area.
And I’m saying that Boomer narcissism or gross ignorance is the only way someone can claim with a straight face that level of cultural upheaval and society crumbling hell-in-a-handbasket pervasive alarm experienced by boomers in Vietnam is so much greater than that experienced with the era that had the Great Depression, new Deal, World War II, and the start of the Cold War. Have you read The Grapes of Wrath and other accounts of people living through the Great depression? Or a history about the huge, nasty disagreements about The New Deal and Roosevelt’s shenanigans to get it passed? Or about how controversial women and blacks in the workplace was?
You’re “disagreeing” with an assertion that you made up out of whole cloth; I never made any such assertion.
Well, it seems that we disagree about that.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Well, this is the remark of yours that I was referring to:
If you feel that that’s substantially different from an assertion that "Vietnam is only considered important because of alleged ‘Boomer narcissism’ ", then allow me to clarify: I disagree with you that Vietnam has no other, more serious claims to “special status” besides the fact that “it was a controversy that affected Baby Boomers”.
Emphasis added. It occurs to me on rereading this that you may have misinterpreted my statement right from the get-go. Of course I didn’t claim that the “cultural upheaval” I was talking about was restricted to the personal experiences of baby boomers who were actually in Vietnam. What I said was this:
I was referring to the whole sixties phenomenon when I spoke of “cultural upheaval”, and Vietnam played a large role in that for non-boomers and non-servicepeople as well as those who actually served.
The term is “yellderly”.
Psychology studies show that spanking kids results in similar outcomes to child abuse
So, maybe it’s good that we frown upon it these days.
I don’t get the sense that “taking something of value away” is frowned on these days.
Of course, maybe the whole concept of generational cohorts is meaningless.
It’s frowned on by people who think spanking needs to be involved.
But what if you’re trying to raise your kid as a masochist? Then taking away something of value means that the kid has to give up spankings…
“If you feel” is nonsense. The two statements are substantially different, no ‘feel’ about it. I simply did not make the claim that Vietnam is only considered important because of Boomer narcissism, or indeed any claim that Vietnam was not actually an important event.
It occurs to me on rereading that I didn’t misinterpret your statement at all. The idea that ‘the sixties phenomenon’ involved social upheaval on a level massively beyond that experienced in the 30s phenomenon of the Great Depression and New Deal, or the 40s phenomenon of World War II and women and blacks taking a greater, more equal role in the Us workforce is just absurd. It requires a narcissistic tunnel vision to ignore the huge political and social changes sweeping through the US in those decades, changes which incidentally “the whole sixties phenomenon” depended on. The Boomer idea that the social upheaval they are personally associated with is so extreme and super special that nothing their parents or descendants went through can compare is typical of their self-centered nature.
Perhaps the 30s and 40s were more disruptive in the large, while the 60s were more disruptive in the small. Certainly living through the Vietnam era was nowhere near as significant as living through WW II. But women who went to factories during WW II and were more independent than before tended to go right back home afterwards, as society at that level hadn’t changed much. Whereas in the late 60s and early 70s we went from very strict rules about members of the opposite sex visiting dorms to co-ed dorms.
It’s not like we invented sex, we pretty much invented not sneaking around if you were nice respectable and middle class.