- Joined
- Apr 28, 2015
- Messages
- 85,685
- Reaction score
- 72,374
- Location
- Third Coast
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I don't think up North was quite as bad as down South, but during those days there also was staunch & vehement racism up North too. As Dr. King attested to, when he saw the marches through Cicero Ill. Cicero then was a heavily mobbed-up community adjacent to Chicago's rough & tumble West Side, with a fairly strong Italian-American presence. Cicero also was infamous for being Al Capone's HQ after he got chased out of Chicago proper, and it was wide-open with Outfit run 24/7 vice. The local police were completely in the Outfit's pocket. Anything went, in Cicero during those days.Mansfield TX, as it turned out, was second only to Little Rock in terms of school segregation protests...in FAVOR OF.
I had no idea that the sleepy little town of 68 thousand souls that we moved to had such a sordid and horrifying past.
I've said for years the right is still living in the nineteen fifties where father knows best and mom serves dinner in a dress.
Just have to ask: What was so bad? The movie's idealized nature?
My opinion:
In an era where races often didn't mix, leaving Caucasians with little social contact with men & women of colour, Sydney Poitier did a great deal to advance the besmirched and mis-maligned perception of African-American men. So did Bill Cosby, irrespective of his current fall from grace.
Yeah SoCal, the only way I could rationalize that post was in the context of the movie not being realistic enough, and too idealized. During this era, few parents would have been so calm and considerate in their working through their disagreements to come to a happy agreement.On one hand, it's amazing someone would react to such a ground breaking film like that, on the other hand it's understandable given our history.
The film earned Katharine Hepburn an Academy Award for best actress and was, "...selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant..."
Calling it "pure propaganda" is so over the top it's laughable. Like it's some grand scheme propagated by "The Deep State". Don and his supporters use language in the same way when they call a legitimate investigation by our FBI as, "spying".
Btw, southern states were forced to allow interracial marriage only six months before the film was released. Many people since have dreaded the Supreme Court's Loving v. Virginia decision...
Except that in those Golden Days of Yore conservatives long for so nostalgically, daddy is screwing Gloria from the typing pool, mummy is a functioning alcoholic, young Myron has just discovered the joys of heroin, and the Studebaker Lark is being re-possessed *sigh*.
Just have to ask: What was so bad? The movie's idealized nature?
My opinion:
In an era where races often didn't mix, leaving Caucasians with little social contact with men & women of colour, Sydney Poitier did a great deal to advance the besmirched and mis-maligned perception of African-American men. So did Bill Cosby, irrespective of his current fall from grace.
Calling it "pure propaganda" is so over the top it's laughable. Like it's some grand scheme propagated by "The Deep State". Don and his supporters use language in the same way when they call a legitimate investigation by our FBI as, "spying".
There's one benefit to all Americans with a roll-back to the 50's. There were no fast-food restaurant chains back then, none. If Wendy's, Taco Bell, McDonald's and Burger King just vanished, people would have to cook meals at home again and get healthier while losing weight.
Many liberals see the rise of Trump and far-right leaders in Europe, the Philippines and other parts of the world as a repeat of the fascist rise of Hitler, Mussolini and Francisco Franco. But if history is truly repeating itself, the defeat of fascism in this century will be followed not by a progressive paradise but by a post-World War II-type era of social conservatism and bourgeoise ideals: the “1950s,” a period often mocked and derided by the left.
If the 1950s are coming back, look for woman to focus more on family and children and less on careers. The alphabet soup can of LGBQT will be pushed to the rear of the pantry. The self-segregation by ideology occurring now may be extended to self-segregation by lifestyle and race. The cosmopolitan elites will persevere, but they will lose much of their influence in the media.
While the culture will move right, a liberal amount of government intervention will be required to focus on the family. For example, generous Social Security credits might be given to stay-at-home moms.
View attachment 67256461
I was a teenager in the 1950s.
It was essentially a peaceful era.
No one was concerned about crime.
It was "I Love Lucy" and the start of that new invention called the television.
We had a war hero, General Dwight Eisenhower, as President.
Oh, sure, there were some rumblings of discontent in the country, but no one could have anticipated the explosion that came in the 1960s.
The 1950s had a lot of nice features, so here's hoping that the comments in the OP come true.
Many liberals
Many liberals see the rise of Trump and far-right leaders in Europe, the Philippines and other parts of the world as a repeat of the fascist rise of Hitler, Mussolini and Francisco Franco. But if history is truly repeating itself, the defeat of fascism in this century will be followed not by a progressive paradise but by a post-World War II-type era of social conservatism and bourgeoise ideals: the “1950s,” a period often mocked and derided by the left.
If the 1950s are coming back, look for woman to focus more on family and children and less on careers. The alphabet soup can of LGBQT will be pushed to the rear of the pantry. The self-segregation by ideology occurring now may be extended to self-segregation by lifestyle and race. The cosmopolitan elites will persevere, but they will lose much of their influence in the media.
While the culture will move right, a liberal amount of government intervention will be required to focus on the family. For example, generous Social Security credits might be given to stay-at-home moms.
View attachment 67256461
This isn't about you. This is about the women of the future who, like everyone else, will be governed by the zeitgeist or "spirit of the times" just like the people of today are governed by conflict and partisanship. Free will is an illusion.Why shouldnt women, equal citizens, get to decide what they want to focus on? If that's not your opinion, then please explain that implication from the OP?
History rhymes, it does not really repeat. This era seems to be rhyming with Europe, 1935, not 1955 anywhere. Personally missed 1935 in person by just a bit. Did not miss 1955 at all.Many liberals see the rise of Trump and far-right leaders in Europe, the Philippines and other parts of the world as a repeat of the fascist rise of Hitler, Mussolini and Francisco Franco. But if history is truly repeating itself, the defeat of fascism in this century will be followed not by a progressive paradise but by a post-World War II-type era of social conservatism and bourgeoise ideals: the “1950s,” a period often mocked and derided by the left.
If the 1950s are coming back, look for woman to focus more on family and children and less on careers. The alphabet soup can of LGBQT will be pushed to the rear of the pantry. The self-segregation by ideology occurring now may be extended to self-segregation by lifestyle and race. The cosmopolitan elites will persevere, but they will lose much of their influence in the media.
While the culture will move right, a liberal amount of government intervention will be required to focus on the family. For example, generous Social Security credits might be given to stay-at-home moms.
View attachment 67256461
This isn't about you. This is about the women of the future who, like everyone else, will be governed by the zeitgeist or "spirit of the times" just like the people of today are governed by conflict and partisanship. Free will is an illusion.
Like I said, not sure why people are seeing the 1950's in where we are today. Not there and not headed there. Not even headed anywhere like there.Oh great. The 50s, when a guy could afford to buy a house, send his kids to college and take the crew to Florida in the summer.
Do you really want to compare the litany of racial sins committed every day in this country in the 1930's with 1951? The difference between 1935 and 1951 is that the country in 1951 was going through the great migration of Black Americans from the South seeking work and a better life in the industrialized North. That created a backlash that put to rest notions that they would no longer face racial bias and violence. The only real "difference" they found is that racism had not been systematically institutionalized as it was in th South. But Northern cities were quickly reading their Cliff Notes from the South and learning fast.A little black history may help since it is February
1951
July 11: An estimated 4,000 White people riot in Cicero, Chicago, when news of the community's first Black family—Harvey Jr. and Johnetta Clark and their two children—moving into an apartment in the neighborhood spreads. During their first attempt to move in, the Clarks are stopped not only by angry White civilians but by police officers who demand a warrant, beat Harvey Clark Jr., and threaten to arrest him if they do not leave. The NAACP helps the Clarks obtain an order from Federal Judge John P. Barnes, which grants them permission to move in and police protection when doing so. The family moves in on July 10 as a crowd harasses them from across the road and they flee immediately after getting all of their belongings into their apartment. Overnight, a riot starts when members of the hostile crowd throw rocks into the Clarks' apartment. A mob of thousands of people forms. They destroy the Clarks' apartment and steal their possessions through the night without police intervention.
Finally, by the night of July 12, Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson calls the state’s national guard to subdue the rioters, who are now destroying the whole building. Only 60 police officers arrive to help. The mob hurls bricks and stones at firefighters that arrive on the scene. This race riot lasts for several days and results in the complete destruction of the Clark family's apartment and their belongings, as well as many apartments rented by other residents of the building. The NAACP files a suit against the police involved, who are indicted and fined.
I expect the current era of conflict and fascism to last at least another decade before the resurgence of a 50s-like period where most women will see childbearing as a joy or maybe even an obligation, depending on the spirit of the times. The world is governed by a collective consciousness, which places limitations of different kinds on both men and women. While every era has its rebels, most people don't get to decide what to focus on, at least not in the context of the larger social construct. We are all players on a stage and the script is already written.My questions werent about me. So...why are you avoiding my questions? Try again, it's a starting point, now it's especially one to support your OR the OP premise of what the bold will be in the future.
"Why shouldnt women, equal citizens, get to decide what they want to focus on? If that's not your opinion, then please explain that implication from the OP?"
Btw, rethinking it, the 'implications' are pretty clear. So I guess my question would be...do you think that current and further limitations for women will prevail in the future? And why/why not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?