The key word really is appearance; they didn’t take better care of themselves. I have the misfortune of having to see old women’s feet on a daily basis. Because they had to wear those tortorous pointy-toe/high-heeled/mincy-foot little shoes, most older women have twisted, deformed, constantly painful feet.
The few exceptions to this rule are my patients who immigrated here from Mexico, women who spent many years barefoot or lightly shod. Their feet are in great condition even at 80 or 90 years old.
Those women with the twisted feet just can’t let it go, either. They insist on continuing to wear those horrible shoes, even when this causes them to teeter around precariously and invite broken hips. At the same time, they groan and cry about how badly their feet and joints hurt. I realize I’m generalizing here, but as usual I don’t really care. (And no, I don’t hate old ladies; I love them. I just don’t understand them sometimes.)
Also, I could not tolerate washing my hair only once a week. How vile and repulsive. (shudder)
No, even better: Cecil’s image. I’m setting up a shrine.
A 1950’s TV question: one of my earliest memories (actually early 1960’s) of Saturday morning TV, was a really weird TV show put on by the US Army. If memory serves me, it was called “THE BIG PICTURE”. It seemed to deal with military life, and had lots of pictures of tanks, guns, etc.-I rmember thinking it would be really cool to drive a tank whwn I grew up!
Anyway, what happened to this show-did any videotapes of it survive?
No. That was a very mild reproof. You insist on expressing yourself in a text medium using words that do not convey what you apparently mean. (Your repeated use of the word stupid (indicating an incapacity to learn or a desire to not learn) when you actually meant uneducated or, perhaps, ignorant (not knowing) is a clear example.)
I doubt that anyone will challenge the idea that the math that is offered in high schools, today, is superior to that offered in the 50’s. (Of course, there are a lot of kids today who are not taking those math classes, so it is not possible to say that all kids today are better educated.)
You also couched your discussion in terms of workload, then had to change the terms of the discussion when that backfired on you. Your original statement said
and you have just repeated
The workload is not, necessarily, harder now. Some of the technical subject matter clearly is harder while some of the tools available to students, now, simplify many of the tasks kids do today. Neither you nor I have presented figures showing how many kids actually took the difficult subjects in either era. I won’t drag out hoary stories of walking to school 10 miles, uphill both ways, through 7-foot snowdrifts in July (and liking it) and I am not going to claim that school was harder for the typical kid 40 years ago. For you to make the across-the-board statement that kids then were stupid and school today is harder, however, indicates that you don’t know what school then was like and that you still have some work to do on your communication skills.
You don’t seem to be particularly stupid (as the word should be used), so pay a bit of attention and realize that if you blurt out your thoughts in any word that comes to hand without being sure that the words says what you mean, you are going to get your ears pinned back in this environment. I’m not telling you to go away. I’m suggesting that you post more carefully.
Main Entry: 1stu·pid
Pronunciation: 'stü-p&d, 'styü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stupEre to be numb, be astonished – more at TYPE
Date: 1541
1 a : slow of mind : OBTUSE b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH
2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : TORPID <still stupid from the sedative>
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : SENSELESS
4 a : lacking interest or point b : VEXATIOUS, EXASPERATING <this stupid flashlight won’t work>
stu·pid·ly adverb
stu·pid·ness noun
synonyms STUPID, DULL, DENSE, CRASS, DUMB mean lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions. STUPID implies a slow-witted or dazed state of mind that may be either congenital or temporary <stupid students just keeping the seats warm> <stupid with drink>. DULL suggests a slow or sluggish mind such as results from disease, depression, or shock <monotonous work that leaves the mind dull>. DENSE implies a thickheaded imperviousness to ideas <too dense to take a hint>. CRASS suggests a grossness of mind precluding discrimination or delicacy <a crass, materialistic people>. DUMB applies to an exasperating obtuseness or lack of comprehension <too dumb to figure out what’s going on>.
Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED
ig·no·rant·ly adverb
ig·no·rant·ness noun
synonyms IGNORANT, ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED mean not having knowledge. IGNORANT may imply a general condition or it may apply to lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <an ignorant fool> <ignorant of nuclear physics>. ILLITERATE applies to either an absolute or a relative inability to read and write <much of the population is still illiterate>. UNLETTERED implies ignorance of the knowledge gained by reading <an allusion meaningless to the unlettered>. UNTUTORED may imply lack of schooling in the arts and ways of civilization <strange monuments built by an untutored people>. UNLEARNED suggests ignorance of advanced subjects <poetry not for academics but for the unlearned masses>.
Sorry about the long post, but I think it important for Bored2001 to understand the difference between stupid and unknowing.
Peace,
mangeorge
Hey Bored. Whats your point. If you really believe what you are saying then you must agree that you were stupid when you were in 10th grade.Or don’t I understand your youthful rantings.
In some technical high schools kids could take calculus all the way up to differential equations, even back in the 1920’s.
Sorry, I don’t buy the ‘school is harder’ argument. My grandparents had to memorize the multiplicating tables up to some godawful number like 50 X 50. When I was in school in the 1970’s we had to to memorize the tables up to 20X20.
Another thing kids had to practice then (and don’t now) was penmanship.
My Grandmother took her high school in a rural 1-room school, and she had to study Latin and memorize all the countries of the world. Her handwriting was impeccable, she was very well spoken and well read, and wrote very eloquently.
Today, there are many, many high school grads who cannot construct a proper paragraph, who cannot spell, and cannot relate even simple ideas on paper. The University of Alberta used to require that all students pass a writing competancy exam by the end of their second year. This exam was NOT difficult. You were given a number of subjects, and simply had to write a 700 word essay on any one of them. You were graded on spelling, paragraph construction, and ability to carry a logical argument from start to finish. The grading was pretty lax, and you were allowed something like seven or eight spelling errors in 700 words, plus you were allowed a number of structural errors. The prime requirement was simply that you be able to communicate your thoughts to the reader.
They had to drop that exam requirement because there were too many kids who simply couldn’t pass it, even after several remedial English classes in University. I was a marker back then, and read many of them. The quality of the prose was apalling. There were many, many essays that simply meandered and were totally incoherent. And these were kids who were already in University and supposedly the cream of the crop.
I was just going to drop by and say that fast food did exist in the 50s. But I see that we have moved on from the silly reflecting stage and it is getting ugly so I will leave.
EH??? And just when I thought I was making myself clear. My arguement(revised) is basically that the standards for math and the sciences was generally lower then the standards are today.
~Dhanson
Thats semester 1 of calculus; Derivitives. Read the above, most high schools that I know of offer 3 semesters more and a year of statistics.
Well thats not too hard, break down the numbers and use the shortcuts.
21 * 20 = 21 x 10 = 210 x 2 = 420.
Besides, we have calculators now. Technology aids much. This may seem like it makes school easier, and it probably does, but then more time goes into understanding of higher level mathmatics. Arithmetic is a rather low standard math.
I need to take that class
But anyway, the revelence would be?
As for the rest of your argument; wow, those people are pathetic. But it makes sense for the math and science’s standards have been boosted while the languages have been neglected. Today’s society is based around mathmatics and the sciences.
Hum… I think I backtracked over a little of my own argument here, but it doesn’t matter. The purpose of debate is to change opinions anyway.
English grammar, compared to the grammars of other Western languages, is phenomenally simple. Nouns and adjectives in English do not decline for different cases. English pronouns do decline for case, but English only has two cases: nominative and objective.
(English spelling, on the other hand, seems to have been invented by the Marquis de Sade. Even French pronunciation is more predictable.)
Furthermore, if English is your primary (native) language, learning more English will probably not help you learn foreign languages. Learning your first foreign langauge will, however, make it much easier to learn subsequent foreign languages.
I like to recommend Esperanto as the first foreign language one learns, since it’s not burdened with irregular verbs and draws its word roots from many diverse sources. (Most of its word roots are, admittedly, from Romance languages, but there are some Germanic, Slavic, and even a few Asian root words in Esperanto, too.)
Very slight nitpick here;
Ford went from flathead V8’s to overhead valves in the early or mid 50’s, if I remember correctly.
I actually knew some old “beats” when I was a teenager. Smoked my first “boo” with them. I thought I was pretty cool.
And thanks, for getting this back on topic.
Peace,
mangeorge
Bored: Apparently, you haven’t taken a whole lot of calculus. The ‘differential equations’ you get in an intro calculus course are not what I’m talking about.
I was just about to describe them to you, but after a minor in Math in university and about a dozen university calculus courses, I can’t remember.
You and Neutron are the type I’d like to hang out with, concerned with who a person is, more than their appearance.
Not that I dress in raggedy dirty clothes regularly, but when I do, as when I’m going walking in the park, I think I deserve as much respect as when I’m dressed up for a dinner party.
General Motors made overhead valve engines back in the 40s and probably earlier. I just cannot visualize the engines in cars older than some 40s models. Ford switched to overhead valve engines (V-8 and straight 6) in 1954, IIRC.
I Don’t think that our 49 Pontiac had a OHV engine. It Was loaded with extras so I thought it was probably the cats meow for its time.I know the 46 chevys were not ohv engines.
IIRC the neighbor had a 53 Chevy with a ohv 6 Thats the first I remember.I will readily concede though.
The 50’s were great time to be a kid. I was 8 in 1950. I was in high school during a wonderful time - there was so much happening!
And life was so much simpler. The big temptations were cigarettes, alcohol and sex. VD was curable - no AIDS. My kids were born in the early 70’s and their teen years were much more difficult and terrifying than mine were.
Although I probably would have loved being in high school during the late 40’s, I know how limited my choices would have been as a young adult female in the 50’s. I can’t imagine what it must have been like as a non-white person - black, brown, yellow, didn’t matter much if you weren’t white.
I have fond memories from those days, but it wasn’t necessarily “better”.
Everybody is right! The 1950’s really were a time of repression, fear, and hypocrisy. Therefore, I’ve changed my favorite decade-it is now the 1930’s! Art Deco, fred Astaire, FDR-and men wore hats!!
