The under 30 crowd...


What percentage of the under 30 crowd do you think know anything about what really happened on Cielo Dr? Do they even know anything about Sharon Tate, Charles Manson, or Roman Polanski? From the comments I heard after the movie was over, many of the young people seemed very perplexed about all of it. Funny how something that was so ingrained in our psyche for so long, is just not even on young people's radars.

reply

Very true
1969 news and pop culture is mystery to most under 30
I made my 20 year old son watch a Manson doc befor going to see OUATIH

reply

Bad Parent ! And they will make a funny movie about this. Bad Grandpa, etc.
But 20 is an adult, so I take it back.

reply

Why wouldn’t they know? When I was under 30 I had a good grasp on American History which this event is a part of. In fact, information seems more available because of internet than ever.

Maybe that never saw Manson on Geraldo. :)

reply

Ironically, in spite of the fact that basically all of human knowledge is at our fingertips now due to the internet, the younger generation in the main seems willfully ignorant of anything that happened longer than about ten years ago. Everything from the 20th century is dismissed as old and outdated and kids have a very strange idea of the last half of the 20th century as a benighted, almost primitive era. They're proud not to know about it.

reply

Strange, but true. It is a badge of honor to be ignorant of the past. If you ask them about something or someone from say 1999, they will tell you, "how should I know? I wasn't born yet".

reply

Yeah, I experienced this recently talking to my nephew's friends. Conversation started with my explaining that a pond we were talking about didn't used to be there and ended with them angrily saying that nothing that happened before they were born mattered anyhow. Like in a creepy horror movie kinda way. These kids are gonna mess the world up when they get older.

reply

Must be that they are entitled brats who think nothing of anyone else but themselves. It shows in so many ways, take for instance going to the movies and have to sit there with lighted phones flickering all over the theater. They just totally disregard anyone else around them.

reply

Sure. I've met kids like this from time to time. But this was like, 15 different kids, all from different families and backgrounds, all with the same mentality. Blew my mind. Mind you these are the kids who've all raised themselves on video games where they run around killing each other in non stop murder simulations. Who knows what's going through their heads.

reply


AMEN!

😎

reply

Why wouldn’t they know? When I was under 30 I had a good grasp on American History which this event is a part of. In fact, information seems more available because of internet than ever.


I know this sounds pessimistic, but trust me--this generation doesn't know anything about the past, not even in the most basic sense. All they know is what happened on social media and the internet six weeks ago.

Case in point: I still have my father's Royal typewriter lying around the house. One day, my great-nephew was visiting, saw it, and said, "What's that, and how do you use it?" Now keep in mind, I was a kid of the 70s and 80s and I knew about "old technology". I knew about stuff like washboards, telegraphs, Morse code, etc. But he was, like, 18 years old at the time, and did not have a clue about typewriters.

Another case in point: many of these kids are so clueless, they don't understand that even the most basic technology existed before them. For example, there's footage of the 1955 Le Mans disaster and Great White 1991 Fire on YouTube, and the kids commenting are ASTOUNDED that there could've been footage, because "no one had smartphones." I always wind up blowing a gasket and write something like, "WTF? People had film cameras. They had video cameras? WTF are you talking about?"

When I was under 30 I had a good grasp on American History which this event is a part of. In fact, information seems more available because of internet than ever.


That is because you were forced to be exposed to history. Kids today are not. They can create their own little bubbles where they log into Reddit, YouTube, etc. and never, ever be acquainted with the past.

reply

Well, that's just depressing.

reply

I’m in my mid 40’s so I know where your coming from. Well, that’s a grim outlook but I believe parents need to be involved too. Once you get into history I find it addictive and it’s almost impossible to have a logical look at current events without a grasp of history.

reply

[deleted]

Honestly, I think this is a case of old people complaining about young people, something that has likely gone on forever. I'm sure when you were 20, the old folks had the same complaints about you that you now have about "kids these days."

reply

That’s very true

reply

Yeah, but when the changes to how people interact and what is available to them change in hugely qualitative ways, the complaints may have more merit.

The difference in the way my parents grew up in the late 50s and early 60s was different then me in the 80s (different music, different games and toys (more electronics), more people had cars, etc.) but those aren’t the same kind of dramatic changes that have gone on in The 21st century.

reply

You're sure "that when I was 20?"

So, you have no idea what they said when I was 20? You're just speculating?

This is another thing that's cute about the younger generation. They don't ask the older generation what it was like growing up. They just speculate and then say smug, stupid crap like, "I bet this is what it was like when you were young."

As someone who remembers what it was like being 20, I can tell you with confidence that you have no idea what you're talking about. The only complaint I ever heard about GenX when I was younger were from ex-hippies who whined for maybe three years in the 1990s that we weren't tearing shit up like they did in the 1960s. And the reason why they complained was that in the early 1990s, they were reliving the 1960s because there were all of these anniversary milestones (20th anniversary of Woodstock, Sgt. Pepper, Summer of Love, etc.). They'd reminisce about all the protests and rebellions and whatnot, then look at us and go, "Wahhh why aren't you doing the same?" Keep in mind, I repeat, that this wasn't everyone from the older generation complaining. It was just the ex-hippies. For the most part, everyone else was okay with us.

But that's neither here nor there. I want to know why you think this deflection about what people allegedly said when I was 20 is some kind of magic bullet that's going to shield your generation from all of its faults. All the potshots that you throw at my generation isn't going to change the fact that because of them, yours is the generation lacking the worst in terms of creative input, thought and innovation, since you don't have the past to build on.

reply

I wasn't speaking about you specifically, but about the way that older people on a whole talk about younger people. I don't know what specific encounters you had, or what you heard, but this is something that I have seen not only in my own lifetime, but in art and literature throughout the ages.

It seems we're of a similar age, and I heard all the time from those who were older, be they Boomers, Silents, Greatests, or older, that the young folks of today (the '80s and '90s) weren't as hard-working as they were, how we had no appreciation or awareness of the music or films of the past, how modern music was crap, modern film was awful, and so on. I also heard a lot of people born in the 19-teens and '20s talk the same way about Boomers, and how those hippies and their rock music was so insipid, unlike the great jazz and big band music they grew up with, and how the trash films of the '60s and '70s were garbage compared to the output of the Golden Age of Hollywood.

What you say about Millennials is identical to what I heard said about Gen-X and about Boomers.

reply

It seems we're of a similar age, and I heard all the time from those who were older, be they Boomers, Silents, Greatests, or older, that the young folks of today (the '80s and '90s) weren't as hard-working as they were, how we had no appreciation or awareness of the music or films of the past, how modern music was crap, modern film was awful, and so on.


That is 100%, absolutely not true what you're saying. Besides me just remembering what it was like back then, nothing that you said even makes sense. In the 1980s and 1990s, music and movies were completely dominated by older artists and directors. So, how could we have no appreciation for past music and movies when we were watching movies made by Kubrick, Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron, John Hughes, etc.? When older singers and artists were dominating the music charts?

But again, like I said in my earlier posts, even if we had been slammed the way you say we were, how does this become a magic bullet with which millennials and GenZ can deflect criticism? It's like when back in the day, Boomers excused their drugging by saying, "But you WW2 people drank alcohol." That may have been true, but all the smugness of going, "you too, except different," didn't prevent scads--and I mean millions--of Boomers dropping like flies from overdoses. That is to say, yeah, the WW2 generation drank booze but the Boomers died at greater rates from their drug addiction than the WW2 generation did from alcohol.

The point I'm trying to make is that every generation may have been lectured by the older, but each generation had its specific flaws. When a generation deflects criticism by claiming, "This is the same old criticism with a new bent," it's doing so at its own peril, like when Boomers compared drug use to alcohol use.

reply

I don't think pointing out that old people often criticize young people for being different than they were at their age in any way excuses bad behavior. To me, those are two different things.

I certainly think it's true that most older people believe, and say, that things were better when they were young. I'm not saying all people feel that way, but it seems that most do, and I'm not saying they think it's some blanket, across-the-board truth, but it's rare to meet someone over 60 who says "man, kids these days are so much better-behaved than me and my generation were at their age. And wow, the internet has made life so much better!" That guy might exist, but I've never met him.

You were shocked that your GenZ nephew didn't know how a typewriter worked, but would you have known how to tune in to a station on a crystal set or start a hand crank car when you were 16 or so? Can you do either now that you are in your late 40s/early 50s (I presume)? How deep was your knowledge of silent films in your teen years? How deep is it now?

As for the '80s and '90s-- the directors you listed weren't "old" at all. Kubrick, Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron, John Hughes were all a part of a younger generation of filmmakers, and the old folks of the day had a lot to say about them. "Star Wars destroyed the movies. Now it's all blockbusters!" "Kubrick and his crazy films you can't understand. John Ford knew how to make movies!" "This John Hughes garbage you kids watch-- all sex and dugs-- teens used to watch wholesome movies in my day!" And music? You are telling me you never heard from any older folks how disgusting Madonna was, or how talentless Michael Jackson was? I remember hearing a long discussion between some older relatives about Jackson, and his so-called dancing that wasn't even dancing. Fred Astaire danced! Michael Jackson just squirms like that whippersnapper Elvis. Disgusting that kids these days think that's talent.

Old folks have been hating on young folks since the dawn of time. :)

reply

I think its more important to point out the absolute dominance the babymooers have had and still has on culture. They are the biggest generation and the last generation that become richer then their parents and as such dominates the market.

reply


They have absolutely no appreciation for history, or much of anything outside of social media.

😎

reply

Yes, it's terrifying. I am hearing stories now about kids not even knowing people who were famous in our lifetime, (people like David Letterman, The Beatles, etc.) or being completely oblivious to what life was like before the 2000s. That's never, ever happened before. It's like they exist in some kind of cultural and historical limbo.

reply


Do I detect a hint of sarcasm there?

😎

reply

This event wasn’t really historic. Much more a pop culture thing.

reply

[deleted]

As I watched it, the same thought was running through my mind, except I thought of "anyone" born after the murders and all the publicity they generated. I'll have to ask my daughter, who was born in 1973, how much she knows about any of it.

For me, I remember it vividly, how horrifying it was, and saw the movie as a suspense thriller I knew was leading up to the murders on Cielo Drive.

reply

I was born in the 70’s and I know all about Manson and I would think everyone I grew up with does too

reply

But you aren't under 30. I know all the children of the 60's and 70's are quite aware of Manson and the murders.

reply

If something happens like that in your lifetime it is an extremely different experience than just reading about something awful that happened in the past.

Personally experiencing a tragedy can’t be duplicated by telling someone about it. I don’t know why you expect young people who weren’t alive when this happened to be as shocked or moved by it as people who lived when it did . . .why is that such a difficult thing to understand?

reply

I don't expect younger people to have the same experience I had with the Manson murders, but I do think there is a problem with younger people and their being completely oblivious to it. As a younger person I was well aware of many important events and people of the past and never said, "oh, how should I know or care anything about that? I wasn't born yet". The "I wasn't born yet" excuse is relatively a recent phenomena in our culture. Is it an excuse to be ignorant? Do they think that giving any attention to such events not important to them? Would it bruise their ego to acknowledge the past? Do they think that their music, entertainment or current events are the only things that they should give credence to? Are they just lazy?

reply

I was born in the '80s and heard about Charles Manson my whole life. I mean he was referenced in TV shows, movies, and songs, and there's tons of documentaries out there.

I'm really surprised that kids today wouldn't know who he is, considering he's like the most famous murderer ever in modern American history

reply

There's young people who have no idea who Muhammad Ali was lol. I have a shirt of him standing over sonny listen and 4 people have asked what it is. I tell them and they have no idea. Now that's perplexing lol. I'm 28 btw

reply

The 60s are an ubiquitous part of American culture so I'm pretty sure even a 12 year old today can look the era up online or in a book.

reply

They can, but they don’t...that’s the issue

reply

If you want to get about a specific age group I'd say those born after 2000, not just below 30 because many people in their late teens and 20s learn more about the world in 5 years than they did between the ages of 6 and 18. I can see how a 17 year old who grew up with media via an On-demand/Online platform would not have the historical awareness as someone who's 21 and has a few years away from home and in a college environment learning about US and World History and gaining a broader perspective of the world.

reply

My theory on this:

People above a certain age did not have a constant supply of new shows to watch on TV/the internet.
When those people watched shows in the afternoon or evenings during the week they were mostly watching reruns of old shows, stretching all the way back to the 3 Stooges and the Little Rascals....
And even though this wasn't the reason we in the older generations were watching, by watching the older shows, we just absorbed historical knowledge....How people interacted with each other, the clothes they wore, the tools they used, the family dynamics, etc.
I was born a long time after milk and ice deliveries, but I knew about them from seeing them in old shows.
Today, most young people have so much new content to entertain them, they never consider bothering watching older stuff, and as such, they miss out on that stuff....

reply

Sounds like your a Gen Xer like me.

I too grew up with "hand me down" media from previous eras, even before Television was mainstream but it was available on network and local affiliate TV. It's hard to believe that I picked up on W.C. Fields' wry humor and actually appreciated the screwball antics of the Marx Brothers well before I was even 10 years old. I also remember not being treated as an equal by my adult parents and grandparents unlike today where 12 year old kids are treated like college age debutantes

reply

I am and I remember watching old movies from the 30's and 40's well into the decade of the 70's. Now anything older than 10 years ago is ancient history.

reply

I've had the same exact theory for years!!!!!

I'm so glad someone else sees it

I was born in the '80s, but even in the infancy of cable TV (and before the internet), I grew up watching reruns of "I Love Lucy", "All In the Family", "Good Times", "Leave It To Beaver", and all those other shows on regular TV.

When I was a kid, those shows were on everyday, so I never got this idea that life didn't exist before me.

It's the same with music.

I grew up with old music all around me because there were tons of oldies stations and we were essentially held hostage to listen to our parents music, but now in a world with smartphones and laptops, kids really don't have to share any popular culture with their parents that they don't want to. It's really sad, if you think about it.

reply

The thing is now that with technology, kids today have an incredible amount of access to all those old movies, television shows and music; but, have no interest in any of it for the most part. I have found that the only time they will seek something out that is older is when it is tied somehow to something new; otherwise, it is lost on them.

reply

From the comments I heard after the movie was over, many of the young people seemed very perplexed about all of it.


Then I would tell them to log off of Instagram for 5 minutes and google it, or god forbid, read a book about it.

Just because kids under 30 don't know about it, doesn't mean it wasn't a significant horrible moment in American history. Hopefully they looked up the actual events, and learned what a horribly tragic, sad situation it was in real life.

I'm 36, and I can NEVER remember saying about a point in history, or even a movie about a historical event I didn't know, saying "I don't know about this, therefore I don't care, it's not important, and I don't want to see it."

I really hope most younger kids aren't that self centered, but what do I know.

reply

It seemed that a good number of younger people went to the movie and had no idea what it was about. Maybe they went for Pitt and DiCaprio, maybe they like Tarantino or they just liked the trailer. I have seen it 3 times and each time there were young people discussing it and most of the time they seemed quite clueless about most of the real people portrayed in the movie.

reply

Maybe because it is not the significant historical moment you think it is

We are not talking about Custer’s Last Stand or the Kennedy assassination.

I’ve seen many documentaries and/or movies about these two events. I also remember reading them about them in school.

But how many times has the Cielo Drive assassinations been discussed in history classes or in the media? I sure don’t remember this being discussed. Not even a documentary.

One thing that I have noticed from Tarantino films is that he likes to dig into historical moments that are not really talked about and bring them to light.

At least now more people know about it.

reply

There are countless books in these murders or Manson and many documentaries. He’s given taped interviews from prison and he’s come up for parole 12 times and each was talked about in the news.

I would ask what other criminals who had people murdered without having to do the deed themselves are more well known? Jim Jones comes to mind. Other than that it would be dictators of countries.

reply

I’ve seen and read stuff about Mason. But not about this particular incident. Maybe this one has been drowned out because of the other murders.

reply

The murder of Sharon Tate and her friends along with the Leno and Rosemary LaBianca on the following evening are pretty much the main incident. Not sure what other murders you are talking about.

reply

I should clarify. I know about Manson and that he was a mass murderer. But I didn’t follow on the individual murders. It was just not an issue I followed.

reply

I see. The murder of Sharon Tate was especially sad due to the fact that she was a up and coming starlet who was married to a famous movie director. She was also 8 1/2 months pregnant when she was murdered.

reply

The interesting thing is that Manson wasn't a mass murderer. He never killed anyone. His followers, allegedly on his orders, killed Sharon Tate and 4 others at her home, one of which was her unborn baby. The next day, his followers killed 2 more people, though the police didn't make a connection between the two crimes for months, and that was it. He's very different from the typical mass murderer or serial killer.

reply

Right. Many people do think that he was one of the murderers. Several years ago I had to correct a few people who thought that Manson was the only one responsible for the killings.

reply

"I would ask what other criminals who had people murdered without having to do the deed themselves are more well known?"


The Clintons are fairly well known

reply

I think of the Tate-La Bianca murders as indelible on the public psyche as the Clutter murders that were memorialized by Truman Capote in "In Cold Blood."

I remember reading Helter Skelter in High School as well as documentaries about the Mansion family. Periodically, there are news reports about one of the murderers being up for parole. So it does remain in the news even to this day.

reply

Maybe because it is not the significant historical moment you think it is. We are not talking about Custer’s Last Stand or the Kennedy assassination.


The Charles Manson murders were one of the most significant events of the past 50 years in American cultural history, right up there with Columbine, the OJ Simpson trial and the Jamestown Massacre. Anyone old enough to have lived through it when it actually happened or in the years immediately after knows that. Like others have said, there were many books, documentaries and articles made about this event. In the 1970s, Helter Skelter--the book and the TV series that it was based on--were huge. In the 80s and beyond, Manson and his family members constantly made headlines.

So, it was the historically significant moment that everyone thinks it is. It's just that--true to what everyone is saying in this thread--you don't think it means much because your are completely out of touch with the past. You're so out of touch that you can't even relate to an event that did cause waves and to this day makes an impact for people who remembered when it happened or lived in its aftermath.

I'm not trying to say that to be judgmental, but to reject your notion that everyone is over exaggerating its importance. You think that because you're culturally out of step with the past, not because people are thinking it was much bigger than it really was.

reply

For those who remember the Manson murders ---a question:

Do you also remember :

Charlie Starkweather?
Ed Gein?
The Black Dahlia?

reply

Yes, but not to the level of Manson. The Manson murders triggered something in our psyche that is still there today. I was only five when the murders occurred, but hearing about it on the news deeply affected me and still does today. Watching OUATIH brought all that back to me and the scenes right before the 3 Manson children broke into Rick Dalton's house chilled me to the bone. I also got this overwhelmingly eerie feeling when all the neon lights were set aglow. It was beautifully done, but somewhat chilling also. Anyone else have that feeling?

reply

Yes, but not to the level of Manson.

--

Fair enough. My point(of course?) is that those were some famous killings of the 50's and 40's that supposedly "under 30's" of the Manson era should maybe remember. Or not.

---

The Manson murders triggered something in our psyche that is still there today. I was only five when the murders occurred, but hearing about it on the news deeply affected me and still does today.

---

These were nightmare "home invasion murders" in which all of us could imagine strangers entering our homes and proceeding to tie us up and stab us. (Tex Watson had a gun to control the victims, but more stabbing was done than shooting.) What was particularly scary was that, while the FIRST murders were of "famous people"(Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring, plus others), the SECOND murders were entirely arbitrary -- -- of people who could have been "you or me"(Leno and Rosemary LaBianca.)

--

Watching OUATIH brought all that back to me and the scenes right before the 3 Manson children broke into Rick Dalton's house chilled me to the bone. I also got this overwhelmingly eerie feeling when all the neon lights were set aglow. It was beautifully done, but somewhat chilling also. Anyone else have that feeling?

---

All the neon lights came on just as the Rolling Stones song "Baby, Baby Baby...You're Out of Time" came on the soundtrack.It WAS chilling...its the night of August 9 and Sharon Tate is out of time (in real life.) Even with the "fantasy twist ending" I still thought of the REAL Sharon Tate's fate when the movie reached this point.

And think about it: for about a three-second shot of the Cinerama Dome lighting up, QT had to have the current Arclight RE-CREATED as the Cinerama Dome, along with a 1969 movie being played there -- Krakatoa, East of Java -- all that work for three seconds of film on screen. Along with a fully re-created 1969 adobe Taco Bell stand and Der Weinerschitzel.

reply


I felt, as OAITH entered the final stretch...that one could feel BOTH the pain of the real-life ending for Sharon Tate, and the ecstasy of Cliff and Rick taking on the Mansons and winning. Both feelings welled up at the same time -- sadness over the real, glee over the "fake."

reply

Everything you said I agree with completely. I can't get parts of this movie out of my mind. I have seen it three times will probably go a fourth time to see and especially feel it all once again. Each time I have seen it am transported to 1969 once again. That entire experience is somewhat comforting, but often makes me feel very uneasy and anxious. I have seen other movies about other years, but none has made me feel like this movie has. There are just so many emotions that I go through each time I see it, which leads me to believe that there is something about 1969 that is quite unique. Even as a kid I remember being in my grandmother's kitchen and I just thought about the year 1969 and how strange and transitional this year was. For a five year old to ponder that, you know what a watershed moment that year was.

I really never had feelings like that until September 11, 2001. For a time, during all of it, I felt like that lost and anxious five year old, not knowing where life was going to take us all. Unfortunately, I feel, both periods took us to darker and then even darker places and my feelings of apprehension are well justified.

btw, The short shot of the Cinerama is definitely one that I just can't get out of my head. QT certainly knew what he was doing. It is a beautiful, but eerie 3 seconds for sure.

reply

Great post modica!
I was seven in 1969 and can relate.
In my young mind, the utopian communes of the hippie counterculture suddenly got real dark and scary.
QT was my age at the time and it obviously haunted him forever.
This was his creative mind re creating those events with an uplifting ending. I acsolutely loved this movie and will be going back a third time this weekend!

reply

Yes, to all of them. But I was not alive during the time those murders took place.

reply

The death of Disney and JFK were more memorable, I simply didn't know any of Manson's victims. The only Polanski movie I'd see was fearless vampire killers, but didn't connect it to Manson. Only became interested in Manson in my late teens.

reply

Kennedy was definitely another moment in time that the masses who were around in 63 have not gotten out of their minds. You may not know any of the Manson victims, but they are all of us. This can happen to any of us. Yesterday, people were shot and killed at a Wal Mart and for a moment you are affected by it, but then all of that just goes away as we wait for the next shooting to occur. Back in 69, home invasions were not an everyday occurrence, which why something like the Manson murder has such an effect on people who were alive at that time.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a movie that gives each viewer a different set of emotions and the way the movie ends is especially cathartic to people who actually lived in that time. It is hard to explain to people who weren't born yet.

reply

Polanski himself is mostly know today because of his sexual abuse scandal.

And why is that? Because the media how pounded us with that for years. But apparently, young people are to blame. 🤷🏻‍♂️

That been said, I recommend you see other Polanski films like Rosemary’s Baby and The Ghost Writer.

reply

I think I have seen almost every Polanski film ever made.

reply

So, it was the historically significant moment that everyone thinks it is. It's just that--true to what everyone is saying in this thread--you don't think it means much because your are completely out of touch with the past. You're so out of touch that you can't even relate to an event that did cause waves and to this day makes an impact for people who remembered when it happened or lived in its aftermath.


Lol. That argument is unfounded. I am aware of importance of really important historical events like the ones I mentioned and many others

Apparently, I wasn’t the only one unfamiliar with this event. So, the pattern of people not knowing about this is a testament of the lack of attention this event has received, than about them.

I am pretty sure a lot of the under 30 crowd that doesn’t know about the Cielo Drive murders know about JFK’s assassination, Lincoln’s assassination, Custer’s Last Stand, John Lennon’s assassination, Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust...etc.

But not knowing about this incident means you are out of touch of the past?

Your argument has no merit. Just an attempt to overhype an event and attack those that have little reason of knowing about it. If you want to blame someone, blame the media for not talking about it enough.

reply

“JFK’s assassination, Lincoln’s assassination, Custer’s Last Stand, John Lennon’s assassination, Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust...etc.”

Everything you mention above, in my eyes, carries much more historical weight than the Manson murders with the possible exception of the murder of John Lennon.

These events seem more on par with Manson:

1. David Koresh and Branch Davidions
2. OJ Simpson / Nicole Brown Simpson
3. Rodney King
4. Jim Jones / Jonestown
5. Most famous serial killers

These I’ve listed seem to be more on the same social level as the Manson murders and most people should be aware of them.

reply

Dude, I was born in the '80s and Charles Manson is one of the most famous (if not the most famous) murderer in modern American history. I grew up hearing about him all the time.

You are just out of touch with the past.

Like Manson's in movies, TV shows, music, and the Tate-LaBianca murders are what he was known for.

You must be even younger than me and I'm in my 30s. I have noticed that people even just a few years younger than myself (younger millennials) aren't quite as historically aware as we were forced to be in the pre-internet world.

And I'll bet you a lot of money, most young people don't know about Custer's Last Stand or John Lennon's assassination. They might know about The Holocaust, Lincoln & Kennedy, and maybe Pearl Harbor because they took a test on it.

reply

No, I am not out of touch with the past. I am also in my 30s.

In fact, I am a history buff and have learned about many other events.

This event was simply not that important to me. There are many other events I could recall or talk about.

But not knowing one event does not mean one is out of touch with the past. It is ignorant to think that way.

reply

No it's not ignorant.

Again, Charles Manson is one of the 20th Century's most infamous figures.

If somebody didn't know who Al Capone was I'd say the same thing.

Charles Manson's not somebody you have to "study" to know what he is, just have watched the news, TV, or listen to radio, or consumed popular culture during the past 50 years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCSfdZowUSc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sP1pdcHcwA

reply

Not knowing about one historical figure means your out of touch with the past?

That is not correct and it is ignorant to think that way.

End of story. Accept that you are wrong and move on.

reply

Yes, not knowing about historical iconic figures is the epitome of being out of touch with the past.

reply