1950s, Golden Age America - Politics Discussion

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12472) a month ago

It may have been a "golden age" economically, but I really hated the fashions from that era. They aren't as bad as what was worn in 17th century England and France (nobody could top those hideously ugly styles) but I really didn't like what people wore in that era. I hate cat's eye glasses, really don't like bullet bras, the button-up blouses with skirts look like crap, the button-up dresses look ugly, those cardigans and blouses that made all the women look fat when wearing them, those hideous coats with the collars, and the hourglass silhouette they had for women's fashion at the time was ridiculous. The men wore boring outfits that make you think of grandpa, including the office casual all the time, those lousy grandpa cardigans, and dorky, horn-rimmed glasses that make every person who puts them on look like Steve Urkel. And don't get me started on the plaids, good GOD!!

I was also not a fan of the women's hairstyles from that era. Not the ugliest I've seen, but nobody had really long hair back then, all short or shoulder-length and curly at most. The 60s did it a little bit better with long hair and women's fashions, but only just.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13207) a month ago

This woman likely preferred the 1940's...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/24/little-rock-arkansas-school-segregation-racism

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) a month ago

I have no reason to have such a negative opinion of her. I suspect that if you gave her a choice between her personal happiness and millions fighting and dying in war, that she would be happy to NOT have her fellow Americans go though that.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13207) a month ago

"I have no reason to have such a negative opinion of her."

She's hating the 1950's.

I had a history professor (leftist, natch) who taught us that Eisenenhower sat down with Earl Warren (when Ike was going to appoint him to the USSC and make him Chief Justice) and Ike insisted that Warren end segregation. I don't know if Ike was being "woke" or if he was just making sure there were enough fighting men in the event of a "hot war" with the USSR... I know Truman desegregated the military, but apparently that was just an Executive Order.

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/executive-order-9981.htm#:~:text=On%20July%2026%2C%201948%2C%20President,desegregation%20of%20the%20U.S.%20military.

"the last segregated army units were not dissolved until 1954." I'm guessing that happened with the Brown vs Board of Education decision...

[EDIT] Before I get called out on speaking before thinking, I know the Armed Forces of the United States has its own laws, so the Brown decision and the 1954 final desegregation may be merely coincidental... Clearly the President (Ike) wanted desegregation... I think the President, as Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces, could probably implement segregation again today. Would it be politically unpopular? Probably. But at the end of the day it's like Andrew Jackson and John Marshall - "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it..."

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) a month ago

So the army was desegregated during the 50s. Are you saying that ending that is a reason for the 50s to NOT be considered a Golden Age for America?

I disagree. I don't think it is that important to outweight everything else.

Hell, I'm don't even thing that it is a negative at all.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) a month ago

Funny so that time was good for black people? Seems to me you are pointing out how it was good for certain people.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) a month ago

Golden ages is a term that referes to a good situation for a people as a whole.

All my points were supporting that. America and Americans as a whole.

It is you and other posters that want to avoid discussing the whole, or even a majority and only discuss "certain people".

That bears repeating.

You want to ignore the WHOLE, the majority, and define America not by WHOLE, or even by the majority, but by

"certain people".

Would you, could you explain that?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) a month ago

It's a convenient card you have played. White people are the majority. So if they are doing well then as a whole the country is doing well. Thing is if the shoe was on the other foot you wouldn't have that same mentality. Convenient for you to make this claim as a white male.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) a month ago

Judging the country as a whole by looking at the country as a whole is a "convenient card"?

Wtf?

I've shown that I am willing to discuss blacks, in the context of this topic, but you peoplea are the ones that want to IGNORE the whole and focus only on the part.

AND, might I add, not really even look at them seriously.

Just to look at their grievances, and use that to ignore everything else.

That's... not reasonable.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) a month ago

I said it's convenient given your obvious position. If you were in a black persons position you wouldn't look at things that way.

Also there another eras which have better aspects as a whole. Hard to determine the true golden era really. I personally am not a fan of the 50's era.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) a month ago

1. White or black I can see how the massive economic expansion of hte era led to massive increases in the standard of living, and the creation of a large and comfortable middle class.

You have not explained why looking at the whole to judge the whole is... not right.

2. The only other age mentioned as a contender was the Gilded Age, and I respectfully disagreed. What other era(s) are you thinking of and what aspects?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) a month ago

So since that was the golden age according to you should we reverse the civil rights and go back to making the laws the way they were before? Go back to the laws before Jim Crowe?

We will get to that once I am clear what you are stating.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) a month ago

My primary point has been on the massive explosion of the middle class.

I see no connection between Jim Crow and that. Do you?

i see no reason why you would even ask that question. No legitimate reason.

Please explain your reasoning here.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) a month ago

I know but you can't only point out the highlights of the era without taking into account the issues. However your claim is that overall it was better. So since the positives outweigh the negatives should we go back to that? Jim Crow was part of that era. You can't take the good without the bad. That's why it applies. You also talked about overall not just the middle class. Remember judging as a whole.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) a month ago

So, your explanation to why you asked that question, about returning to 1950s era civil rights status, is

1. "You can't point out the highlights of the era without taking into account the issues"

2. "you can't take the good without the bad."

Is that a good understanding of your position?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) a month ago

Yes we are measuring it as a whole aren't we?

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) a month ago

OK.

Soooo..

1. Looking at the overall picture, DOES take in the "issues". There is NOTHING in discussion a "Golden Age" that implies that there are NO issues, just that the good, as you say, outweights the bad to a much greater extent than in other time periods.

2. You CAN take the good without the bad. I have repeatedly pointed to the massive explosion of the middle class during this period. As you jumped ahead to, if we were to discuss what we could learn from this period, the obvious answer to me, would be to try to craft policies to grow the middle class. I see no reason why that would require returning to JIM CROW. You seem to think it does. Please explain to me how you see laws segregating bathrooms or resteraunts to result in a growth of the middle class.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) a month ago

Which is why I asked you if we should go back to that? I mean overall it's better so why shouldn't we go back to that?

Growing the middle class is the only thing we agree on. However there are other issues other than Jim Crow. Are we going to avoid all the flaws? Wouldn't getting rid of Jim Crow laws hurt the working class whites though?

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) a month ago

We SHOULD go back to trying to grow the middle class. And I am certain that there are lessons to be learned from then, that could be applied now.

My mind goes to trade policy and immigration.

Your's goes to opressing blacks.

Explain how you think that "getting rid of jim crow laws, hurt working class whites".

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) a month ago

Ha no we aren't going to do that. The fact that you dismissed my other post and flung all the negatives thing about liberals onto me, then bypassed everything I said was cowardly. Once you explain why you believe the sandy hook shooting was a hoax I will gladly discuss in detail what we should do. Until then you are only getting my answer about working class whites. You don't even deserve that after that stunt you pulled.

I will only address what you said about working class whites. By nature if you don't have the advantage over a race and equality is in place it makes for less opportunities for working class white people, now that equality is in place. It's rather simple. Now answer why you think Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax? If you have an audition for acting and you allow all races to audition as opposed to just one race., it will limit the roles whites receive if you open it up to everyone. You make it only one race allowed then obviously it increases the chance for a certain race to land the role. Did I really need to explain that to you? Oh yeah I forget you are rather slow aren't you?

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 25 days ago

Racial discrimination might advantage certain individuals, but the historical record does not seem to support the idea that it was a major factor in judging the nation or populations as a whole.

If it was that important, then the SOUTH, where Jim Crow was by far the strongest, would have been teh leader in the explosion of the Middle Class during this period, and instead everything I have read on the subject indicates that the South has ALWAYS lagged economicially behind the North, only even BEGINNING to catch up much more recently starting in the.... 70s? 80s?

We are discussing the idea of drawing lessons from the FIFTIES. So... I think that taking the good ideas that seemed to have good results and NOT taking the ideas that didn't... makes sense.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 25 days ago

There is no might, it absolutely does. It doesn't matter the margin the point is it gives an advantage to the group that isn't being discriminated against.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 25 days ago

i get that that is your claim.

I don't agree, and to counter I pointed out that the real growth in middle class was in the INDUSTRIAL NORTH, where Jim Crow was NOT a thing.

And even if there are some individual instances of unfairness, that is not a reason to deny the Golden Age.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 25 days ago

That doesn't dispute the claim. The point stands if there are laws that racially discriminate it gives the race not discriminated against the advantage.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 24 days ago

Why do you want to define the 50s by this...aspect, and ignore all the good?

What about THIS, makes it more important than the massive explosion of hte middle class?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 24 days ago

No don't try to shift away from what you said. You attempted to downplay a race having an advantage, by pointing out it wasn't that big of deal. this isn't about me defining the 50's by this. It's about me calling out your bullshit claim and gaslighting technique. The point stands laws that discriminate against a specific race give the advantage to the race not discriminated against.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 24 days ago

"Gaslighting"? I was disagreeing with you, and I explained why.

What does this have to do with teh topic?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 24 days ago

You disagreed by stating that the effects of the advantage certain races got were minimal and not that severe. That is you gaslighting to downplay that there was advantages to certain races. The point stands those laws gave certain races advantages over others.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 24 days ago

That is not "gaslighting", that is me trying to put your... point in context of the topic.

THe only way that your point was relevant was if you thought it was a major factor in the rise of the middle class during this time, or... something like that.

So, I pointed out that that is not borne out by the numbers.

Why are you so hostile to the idea of an American Golden Age?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 24 days ago

No it was me stating that certain races had advantages over others. So if I was a black person during that era it wouldn't be all that great. You are better off in today's era than back then if you are black. It might be minor but that's beside the point. It's a golden era for most people if you just do happen to fit the side where you have equal rights. If not... Well yeah.

Being hostile is point out out how minorities didn't have it the best in that era? There were lots of good things about it. Unfortunately it wasn't the best for minorities though. It was more lopsided for them.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 24 days ago

1. You pointed out ONE possible obstacle that would effect some blacks in somme places. But you act as though that is...everything for the blacks in question and that THAT somehow defines the whole period. BOTH of those points are false.

2. Yes, hostile. Not letting America or whites have their Golden Age becasue of blacks. That's hostile and with a sort of reason. An unexplained reason, but a reason.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 24 days ago

That's a rather big obstacle. Laws aren't small potatoes here small fry. I never said it defined the era. Don't place words in my mouth. I said that's a big deal for black people.

It's in the past. Me pointing out how it wasn't good for black people isn't taking that away. It's still there. Keep on idolizing it.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 24 days ago

1. We are talking about defining the era. I am trying to define it as the Golden Age. IF that is not what you are trying to do, then I think you sort of missed the boat.

2. You are arguing with me, about defining the 1950s as the Golden Age of America. That is you trying to take it away from me. If you didn't want to do that, you would not be here trying to argue against me. Be honest enough to own your own actions and clear intent.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 24 days ago

You think it's the golden era. For me that reason alone is why I do not consider it the golden era.

I am not taking away I am disagreeing.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 24 days ago

So, you ARE trying to define it, and to take it away from me.

So, when you said you weren't doing that, that was just shit talk.

Got it.

Now, that you ahve admitted to what you are doing, explain is you can, why the minority of blacks define the era more than the majority of whites.

reply

[–] Kowalski (60361) 24 days ago

AGREE WITH YOUR WEIRD THOUGHTS COMPLETELY OR BE ACCUSED OF TAKING IT AWAY FROM YOU...THIS IS A BIZARRE FUCKING EXCHANGE.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 24 days ago

Yeah isn't he a special kind of dumb?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 24 days ago

Nope it was a disagreement dipshit. Someone disagreeing isn't them taking something away from you.

Admit that you lied and we will move to that. If not fuck off.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 24 days ago

What do you want to define the 1950s by, the experience of the nation as a whole having a massive explosion in the middle class or the experience of the blacks that were denied jobs due to jim crow?

reply

[–] corey (734) a month ago

The music was better.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) a month ago

The decay we see in our music today, is certainly a huge minus when comparing today to the Golden Age.

reply

[–] Skavau (9753) a month ago

Lmao, I doubt you know anything about modern music

In the 1950s there was no metal, no alternative, only proto-rock, no electronic music, no hip hop, no punk, most forms of pop music didn't exist, modern forms of jazz and classical didn't exist.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) a month ago

There was not rap, with it's glorification of gang culture that is killing our citizens at an alarming rate.

reply

[–] Skavau (9753) a month ago

And there wasn't any metal, rock (only rock & roll), punk, alternative, pop, dance, electronic music, with no forms of modern jazz, classcial, ambient, industrial etc.

Not all hip hop is the same.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) a month ago

There was certainly classical. And ect. So......

reply

[–] Skavau (9753) a month ago

Not modern classical, not cinematic classical, not post-minimalism.

Most modern music genres did not exist. Music was much less diverse.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) a month ago

Lol please tell me your knowledge on music isn't as limited as it sounds.

reply

[–] Kowalski (60361) 24 days ago

SO...THIS WHOLE THREAD IS A BLATANT TANTRUM AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE...DO BETTER.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 24 days ago

Well, no, it's not. I didn't even bring up the aspect of MUSIC, but the lack of rap is clearly a plus.

reply

[–] Skavau (9753) 24 days ago

Some people like hip hop. It's a hugely varied and experimental genre.

reply

[–] retieredactor (621) 24 days ago

1980s

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 24 days ago

This is your logic.

Person A I think the Sopranos is the best TV show of all time.

Person B Yeah the Sopranos is great but I disagree on it being best of all time.

Person A why are you taking the Sopranos being the best away from me?

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 24 days ago

All analogies are imperfect, but yes, that is a simplified summary of our exchange.

So, what is your point with that?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 24 days ago

So someone disagreeing with someone about the Sopranos being THE best show is taking that away from someone? In what world? It's their opinion it's not stating someone else can't think that.

reply

[–] Skavau (9753) 24 days ago

In addition, his disagreement is by his own logic also taking it away from the other person.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 24 days ago

You are correct. For whatever reason he takes disagreement as disrespect, or that you are not giving credit where it's due.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 24 days ago

And here we get to the flaw in teh analogy.

If we allow the definition of the 1950s as a Golden Age of America, that contradicts those that want to define that era or even ALL of American history by the racial injustices that black people faces. As you did, and admitted to doing.

That is a huge question with political and cultural implications TODAY.

i want to publicly celebrate the Golden Age of American culture, glorifying our traditional American culture and history and point out the GOOD of it, to justify and support protecting and celebrating that, MOVING FORWARD

AND, to use lessons from that time, as lessons to use to craft good policy for our people in the future, hopefully the NEAR future.

You want to define our history by the racial injustice adn to deny the glory of our history and culture so that you can craft policy moving forward that does NOT protect our culture or benefit our people.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 24 days ago

That isn't the only reason I don't consider it the golden era. Music I didn't like as much and cinema was nowhere near it's peak of excitement. You had me point out one of my issues and ran with that being the only reason I don't consider it the golden era.

I never denied lots of positives of the era. Like I said though me disagreeing isn't taking away. There are people who think the Sopranos is the greatest tv show of all time. Does everyone have to bow down and agree with that? You are basically saying everyone has to agree with you or else they are taking away and saying it's terrible. Someone can consider the Sopranos great and not think it's the greatest show ever made.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 24 days ago

It is not just you. I have often heard liberals, when confronted with any discussion of our great history or culture,

counter with an attempt to change the focus to blacks or slavery so some such... negative.

You tried to define the 50s by racial injustice. Then denied that was what you were doing. Then admitted that you were doing that.

America is hte best country in the world. With a great history and culture. THe 1950s were our Golden Age.

I want our future to learn from that time period and to embrace policies and practices that encourage growth and improvement for hte middle class.

SO that future generations can have the American Dream just like my father's generation did.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 24 days ago

No I didn't! I stated that was one of the reasons I don't consider it the golden era. That is one of many reasons. Also you don't get to lump all liberals together. I have heard plenty of dumb shit conservatives say but I address the points you make not conservatives.

America the best country in the world? What makes you state that? Pretty sure you haven't lived in other countries and were groomed to believe that. Could it be? Yes. Thing is we are not the best at everything. Such as healthcare, education etc. Other countries outrank us in those fields and those are pretty big fields.

No you want everyone to agree with anything you say. If they don't you want to consider them anti-American. I know your game.

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 24 days ago

1. Your words. "You think it's the golden era. For me that reason alone is why I do not consider it the golden era."

You want to define it by racial injustice. I want to define it by the good experieces of the nation as a whole, especially the massively expanding middle class.

2. So, I state that we are teh greateest and you HAVE to express disagreement? How telling. If you didn't care about that, if you were not here to "take that away from me" then why respond to that at all?

3. I've spent decades listening to liberasl define America as various forms of evil. Your position, trying to define America by racial injustice, is very much on the same page as them. After hearing someone talk so much shit on a country, one has to come to the conclusion that those people are ANTI-that country.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 24 days ago

I was saying that I don't need to list my other reasons even though I have them. That alone is enough for me. Even though I have a laundry list of why I don't think it's golden era even outside of that.

I asked if we are? Again see anytime someone dares disagree or challenge you it's them taking away. Someone can consider America great but not see it as the best. You have this all of nothing attitude. Either you think it's the greatest like I do or you are some anti-American asshole.

You are talking to me not them. You don't get to take out your bad experiences with other people onto me. Fuck off with that. I've had bad experiences with conservatives should I start projecting their views onto you? Would you like that? I'm not going to address points or claims I didn't make got it?

reply

[–] Corbell (8742) 24 days ago

1. Yep, that ALONE is enough for you. You want to define America of the 1950s by that, instead of by the massive explosion of the middle class.

2. I don't want this thread to turn into somoene like you spending page after page bashing America. You disagree. Got it.

3. Save your hissy fit for someone that cares.

4. OK. so, you disagree. You made your reason(s) plain. It was pretty much what I expected. Do you have anything new to say?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (708) 23 days ago

No that just makes it not the golden age for me personally. You are more than welcome to disagree.

I didn't bash America. I disagreed, learn the difference.

You had the hissy fit dumbass.

Yep I do. Disagreeing doesn't mean you are taking away from something. That's only in your stupid mind.

reply

[–] Kowalski (60361) 24 days ago

😂👍🏾

reply