I'll save myself some time. You're clearly not interested in a discussion and I'm in no mood to put up with bad attitude.
I'll save myself some time. You're clearly not interested in a discussion and I'm in no mood to put up with bad attitude.
"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most — that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least."
- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926), five-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President
Now let's take Polly's system and make it into a model albeit with some simplification.
History, Polly claims, repeats itself. It's circular. It's a repetition of opposing generations, each new generation opposing the old. Let's, following Polly, name these opposites progressives and conservatives. Naturally, because they are opposites opposing things must be said about them. Progressives produce peace and posterity; conservative war and poverty. Progressives are avtive; conservatives apathtic. We can put that together as this: Progressive born to war and poverty react as avtivists to produce peace and prospertiy; conservatives born to progressive peace and prosperity react with apathy to produce war and poverty. And thus we have Polly's model of the world:
It's just the magic of words and imagination. It's not real. There is no real association of progressive with peace or prosperity, and vice versa, conservatives with war and poverty. Perhaps progressives are activists, but conservatives are reactionary. And generations? We all know conservatives born to progressives and vice versa; conservative and progressive born to mixed parents; progressive and conservative children born to the same parents. No generation is progressive, and none conservative.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Max Rockatansky (02-25-2018)
Back on page 1, @Chloe mentioned being curious about how the generational observations I offered in the OP might find expression in the current generation of pre-college youth. The student-led movement for gun control that we've seen emerge since the Valentine's Day school massacre in Parkland, Florida is a solid example. It is the first mass movement to be associated with the label Generation Z. It is no coincidence of history that the first political mass actions of the generation born into the post-9/11 world revolve around promoting safety/survival instead of say more personal liberty. Events being planned with titles like the March For Our Lives tell of a mental orientation driven more by fear than by hope.
My generation (Millennials) experienced numerous events comparable to what recently happened at Stoneman Douglas, but never responded. The 1999 Columbine massacre bore a strong resemblance to the recent one at Stoneman Douglas in a great many ways. The firearms employed were similar. The number of victims was similar. Even the political worldview of the shooters was similar to that of this latest one. (Hitler and racist politics seem to be common sources of inspiration for those who wind up committing these particular sorts of atrocities, regardless of who the victims actually wind up being.) That school massacre happened when I was 14 years old: the same age as of some of the victims at Stoneman Douglas. It did not mobilize my generation. The even worse Virginia Tech massacre (also motivated by racism, albeit of a different brand) happened when I was in my college years. That didn't mobilize my generation either. We just trucked on and demanded an end to the Iraq War and the legalization of same-sex marriage while hawking New Atheism. And on and on and on. This generation is responding to the same sort of phenomenon that my generation has been (to my personal lack of understanding) content to tolerate differently (and better, IMO). Methinks the different reaction reflects their being born into and raised in a different overall climate.
The politics of Generation Z will be a survival-oriented politics, I believe, and this is the first clear indication. They will, in general, be practical, not idealistic like my generation.
Last edited by IMPress Polly; 02-25-2018 at 08:48 AM.
Agreed and disagreed. Mostly I agree with Polly's observation about generational difference. There is obviously a major difference in life attitudes between the Depression-Era generation and the Boomers for the aforementioned reasons. It's not a certainty for all people, but would follow a Bell Curve of behavior.
What isn't in the mix is that young people, despite their generation, tend to be more idealistic and liberal than older people who tend to be more conservative. This is cross-generational. Using my generation, the Boomers, they went from mostly liberal idealistic hippies to the "Me generation in the 1980s. Sure, some hippies still existed, but as the generation matured, had both kids and mortgages, they became more conservative. Just not as conservative as their parents because of the reasons Polly initially identified. The Bell Curve exists, but it's flatter than the cycle graphic you depicted, so I agree with you that it's not a perfect match. It's a trend, not a certainty.
IMPress Polly (02-25-2018)