Newspapers were a big thing as well, but the placement of articles within the paper in space and time telegraphed their relative importance. For example, as bad as it sounds, something like most of the Black Lives Matter cases would have probably been second or third page news, and several days after the fact. That is, if they even made the paper at all. Most probably wouldn’t have made the television news at all.
But in the age of the Web, they were all news instantly, and became a huge thing for a long time.
Same thing with mass shootings and child abductions. They’ve always happened, but in the case of mass shootings, the internet/24 hour news cycle has actually exacerbated it by publicizing them well beyond what used to happen.
I think whoever said that we had a shared cultural experience was on to something; I’ve started to find myself somewhat less engaged with co-workers than I used to be, mostly because now I can ensconce myself up in my little bubble of the TV shows, books, video games, etc… that I like, and unless I find a coworker with a common interest, I’m sort of on my own. There aren’t really the cultural touchstones that there used to be- movies and TV in particular. (don’t ever remember books being that way during my lifetime).
Yes there was segregation but that lead to a vibrant black community. Black owned banks, grocery stores, car dealerships, black doctors and dentists, etc… Black economic growth was comparable to whites and better in places.
Schools were segregated but that doesnt mean they were inferior. The black community ran the schools and didnt allow misbehavior. The black students scored just as high on many achievement levels. I used to work with teachers who came from all black schools. MLK himself had reservations about desegregation because he didnt want black childrens education to be run by whites.
Most important the black family was strong with few children being born to fatherless homes.
Now we tell black kids that everything “black” in the past was bad.
This post may be lost in the possible furor over the posts immediately preceding it but I wonder if it was only we rural kids who were the beneficiaries of the amazing free range parenting of the era (I was born in '53). Were those of you raised in the burbs and towns allowed to run loose as much as we were out in the sticks?
There wasn’t much else about this era that was superior to what we have today, however. I remember lots of boredom and good information was hard to access.
I grew up in Brooklyn and Queens and was pretty free range in the '70s. Probably too free range as I had my bike stolen from out from under me when I was 6, while my friend was beat up, by a bunch of older kids.
Urbanredneck, I think you should read up on the segregation era a little more.
Not in New York. And probably not in LA or San Francisco. Where I grew up we were a majority, and any kid uttering anything snti-Semitic would have had the shit beaten out of him.
Not everywhere. Certainly in the south, but not New York or California at the very least.
Hell yes. We went three or four blocks to the candy stores as long as I could remember - probably starting in second or third grade. I went to the NY Worlds Fair with friends, no adults, when I was 12. I went to my doctor halfway across Queens by myself in junior high.
I’m not forgetting, but I suspect that the situation w.r.t. ethnic papers wasn’t materially different than it currently is, which is that THE big papers in an area have the vast majority of readers, and the others are insignificant by comparison.
I’m mainly trying to say that for your average person in say… 1987, something like that wouldn’t have been on the radar, because it was in a different state.
I was born in the early 50s.
I think the reason people always use the 50s for the “good old days” is because of the 30s. I remember my parents talking in the 50s about how things were in the 50s. They remembered the 50s fondly-though they had no trouble remembering the problems (McCarthyism really scarred anyone who was even close to it. Even those people who weren’t accused, they were very afraid). Anyway, what I remember is that the 50s were great compared to the depression. My family was never on a breadline or anything, but it was a tough time. The 50s were economic heaven after living through economic hell. They really felt it was deliverance. And of course the whole WW II thing. That was quite a relief to get through. So 20 years of disaster and terror followed by 10 years of good times. I think that is why the 50s are so fondly remembered.
As for the general proposition of longing for the good old days: “ever had a mule step on your foot?”
Anyone else know the source of that quote?
[Heinlein. I forget the title of the story]
Not so many years ago, my cancer would have led to a radical mastectomy, with radiation that would have left my skin permanently discolored and with potential damage to my heart and lungs, and quite likely chemotherapy that would have made me dreadfully ill. Instead, I have a scar on my affected breast, which is a little smaller than it used to be, and the only visible reminder of my radiation, which stopped at my ribcage, are 5 small tattooed dots. And no chemotherapy at all, thanks to a genetic test that didn’t exist even a decade ago.
Urbanredneck, you couldn’t pay my black ass any amount of money to go “back in the day”. I will concede that segregation wasn’t the absolute worse thing to ever happen to black Americans (300 years of slavery gets that award). But it wasn’t the idyllic thing you’re making it out to be either.
I do remember one boy who had diagnosed celiac disease, and he always had a note pinned to the back of his shirt stating this and that he could not eat bread. I also remember that lots of kids got allergy shots, something that we know now have, for the most part, dubious efficacy.
Plus, celiac disease and sprue were often thought to be disorders of fat digestion and it was believed that children outgrew it.
My folks are a mixed race couple during that time, and it wasn’t very fun for them, at least based on what they tell me. I also was like wtf from that post. Honestly, I don’t see how anyone could think that blacks (or any other minority race) had it better or even ok during that time, except perhaps in comparison to earlier times in the US where it was even worse. It’s not that great today, but it’s so far better today than it was in the 50’s that it’s hard to even gauge how far we’ve come.
And by mixed-race, I mean ANY kind of mixed-race, which would include white/Asian, black/Hispanic, etc. as well as perceived mixed marriages.
I had a friend in high school whose parents married during WW II (she was a perimenopausal surprise) and the wife’s family was opposed to her marrying a swarthy man of Portuguese descent because as far as they were concerned, he was black. They were one of the happiest couples I ever knew, regardless of what they looked like.
Interracial adoption was also just not done, at least not until the 1950s when the Korean War created a lot of orphans.
White asian was fine, so long as he was white and she was an exotic from Japan or Korea he met during the war or the Occupation. Because that was kind of in God’s plan.
I think the sexism won out over the racism.
Eh, I am a far-leftist Wobbly communist, and I see where he’s coming from. Black urban communities had their own doctors, lawyers, accountants, pharmacists, and other professionals, ran their businesses, etc. Could live peacefully without white people fucking with them. Middle to upper class incomes. Good educations, even if Princeton wouldn’t let their kids in.
I’m no segregationist, but I can understand some of the advantages of keeping well away from the honkeys.
