Regarding life phases: It must be pointed out that those who go to (four-year) colleges wouldn't graduate until they are 22 (or at least during the calendar year in which they turn 22). As far as the onset of middle age goes - the youngest President of all time (JFK) took office at that age; and a recent criminology study strongly suggests that recidivism declines sharply at that same age. And the start of "elderhood" is being changed legislatively, as the age for getting full Social Security benefits will be 67 - not 65 - by the time the first Busters get there. All of this only strengthens my argument in favor of eight generations (even if only four archetypes) per saeculum: In no case can parents and children in the same family realistically belong to the same generation, without some qualification (with both S&H's Transcendentals and G.I.s this could have easily happened, in myriad families nationwide). And Kevin, what do you mean over your dead Boomer body? You don't have a Boomer body! That sentence should have read "over my dead BUSTER body!"

Speaking of which, my web site is being designed right now as I write this - within ten days to two weeks it will be up and running. From all appearances the URL is going to be http://www.babybusters.org (some doctor up in Canada reserved babybusters.com, although no site with that address has actually been activated), although this has not officially been finalized.

Anthony, If Kevin thinks he's a baby boomer, he has as much right to that thought as you do to yours that you are a Buster. Most social interpretations have included 1959 in the Boomer birth years. Ive seen Boomers delineated as 1946-1964, 1947-1964, 1945-1960, 1945-62. The closest ive evr seen people use your Buster aproximations were one that said Boomers were born 1945-59, and another that split the generations into these categories. Boomers (1945-1955) Busters (1955-1965) Xers (1965-1981) and Millennials (1982-1999).
So much of the argument is in favour of Kevin thinking he's a Boomer. We could probably find facts to say any year starts a different generation if we really tried. As for Generations having children of their own generation, Ive seen it done. I have an 80 friend whos Mom was born in 1964, and an 81 friend whos Mom was born in 1965. Both were very Xer by characteristics, and thought of their Moms as older sisters rather than mothers. However I feel like early 80s kids with Xer parents usually seem more Millennial . For example I knew several early 80s cohorts at school who had parents born in 60, 61, 62. They had a different upbringing than I did, because My parents were first wave Boomers, and I was surrounded with more Awakening mindsets, opinions, and people. Even if my parents didnt leave the hashpipe out around the house, my Parents Friends certainly did. I knew some sketchy parents as an adult. Our neighbor was a total druggy, he had two sons, born in 74 and 78 that I would play with. My other neighbor was some psycho Vietnam-vet who never really recovered. He has two twin daughters that were born in 80. In fact ALL our neighbors had some sort of trouble or addiction. In 1984, I guess the Awakening era had still left some pretty big wounds. Most of the adults around me were pretty messed up, as well as my brothers friends (late 60s/early 70s cohorts) who were the biggest bunch of bad asses you had ever seen. Im rambling, its time to get off.

On the old forum, I introduced a thread called "Parenting Your Own Generation and Other Oddities." Actually, its not that odd for certain generations: GIs, being an extra-long generation, were often parents to GI children. After GIs, I think it's common to see first wave Xer parents of last wave Xer children and only slightly less common to see first wave Boomer parents of last wave Boomer (Joneser) children. The former is slightly more likely because the generation was very slightly longer than the latter. Silents are not likely to be parents of Silents, for the simple reason that this was a shorter than average generation. Millennials, having low rates of teen pregnancy, are not very likely to parent Millie children, but I am acquainted with an 18 year old who has a two-year-old.

Another oddity (that is increasingly less odd) is parents and kids three generations removed rather than the more usual one or two. It's not unusual today to find last wave Boomers who may very well be parenting the first new Artists--and they don't seem to be winding down anytime soon. Madonna, born in 1958, just had a baby last year, as did Annette Bening, also born in 1958. Later menopause, better health, and fertility drugs will help late Boomers and first wave Xers, whose reproductive years would normally be coming to a close, be able to keep having children for a while longer if they wish to have them. Silent women who had rebelled against "family" in the 70s to pursue careers, often started second families in the 80s just in time to spawn a few first wave Millennials. In fact, Silents seem to have kids spanning the widest age range, from Boomers through Millennials. This was humorously illustrated in a New Yorker cartoon last year, where a Silent guy was saying to his Silent buddy, "My 7-year old is a prince. My 47-year old is a pain in the ass." There's also the increasingly common situation of grandparents raising children three or four generations removed.

I am going to suggest to the Webmaster to reactivate this topic on odd parent-child generational pairings.

On the subject of parenting one's own generation, Back in 1983, when I was in college, I had a Xer girlfriend born in 1962 who had an Xer son in 1981. She was EXTREMELY overprotective of that little boy, hell-bent and determined to steer him away from the sort of mistakes she made in her just-do-it young adulthood. (She actually had "Just DO IT!!" on her license plate frame when I first met her in 1979....by '83 it was replaced with [what else but] "Baby on Board"!) I haven't seen either of them since Andrea got married in '85, but I can somehow imagine Jason (now 20) being more of a Hero archetype than an out-and-out Nomad like his mom.

Another instance was my sister's friend Leslie (actually a friend of her best friend's sister :smile who was a wild-and-loose Xer born in '61, had a daughter Robyn in 1980. I recall my sister and her friends doting on that baby, painfully concerned about the little girl's future. (One of the friends, Nicole, went so far to say as "She's such a sweet, sweet, SWEET little baby....God it's too bad that her mom is a wh*re.....). It would be interesting to find out how this mom-and-daughter pair fared in the Unravelling.

Oh, yes..before I forget...

Anthony wrote: "And Kevin, what do you mean over your dead Boomer body? You don't have a Boomer body! That sentence should have read "over my dead BUSTER body!"


Well, um, yes I can have a Boomer body. There is no choice (don't I wish there were!), for the very simple reason that there is no such saecular generation as the Busters.

Busters/Jonesers are a transgenerational cohort group comprised of late Boomers and early Xers, but for the one hundred and eleventh time they are NOT a generation unto themselves. Do you actually believe that there are eight-- EIGHT!!!-- generations per saeculum?????? How silly. By your own admission there are only four archetypes per saeculum. Well, using S&H's definition of "Generation" -- and that IS the one we are using on this site-- there is only one and only one generation per archetype per saeculum. Period.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2001-07-16 19:13 ]</font>

Silents DO have children spread out over generations. I have two friends who's dads fought in the Korean War! How bizarre is that.
Those kids are definitely Xers, both 80 cohorts. Its the 81 cohorts with the late Boomer/early Xer parents that are truly leading Millennials. I knew two at school, two girls, volunteered everywhere, poised to become future bureaucrats...totally freaked me out. I wont even get into the 82 cohorts.
The best example I can give of this difference was at a party where the local catholic priest attended (theyre religious)
He was a 64 cohort, they were all 81 and 82 cohorts, and I was watching my mouth as not to offend their protected sensibilities. Well, somehow I referenced Friday the 13th movies and me and the 36 year old priest got into a big conversation about Jason, while the 81 and 82 cohorts had no clue what we were talking about! We both grew up in the 80s, whether he was 24 and I was 9, we were in touch with a common culture that millies didnt share, because...i dont know what they were doing. They are so weird, it must be weird to have the late 80s as part of your childhood. You might think its part of mine, but it feels like part of my adolescence. I feel like i had a totally different childhood than them, like i lived another life before they came around, like im part of another era, part of a different tribe of kids.
Its odd how it works, I have more in common with those fifteen years older than me than with those 3 years younger, its bizarre. I feel alienated by the Millies. They are ambitious. When I was a teenager I connected to people through my emotions, the crap we were going through, we were all pretty depressed. These kids connect through their activities, what theyre doing ,what theyre attending. Its a very alienating experience. Thats why I prefer older company.

Maybe Kevin is a Boomer after all, birth years notwithstanding. I can see my attempt at humor failed miserably - and Boomers have no sense of humor, at least not by Buster standards!

Seriously though, when I was talking about generations in a family context, I was trying to confine the discussion to realistic, plausible examples - and I'm surprised nobody brought up the 9-year-old Brazilian girl who gave birth about a decade ago. If you figure that 21 was the legal age for getting married without parental consent (and it was until about 1970), then add nine months to that, any generation lasting more than 21 3/4 years would appear to be of excessive length - without some sort of subdivision being in order. All this relates to a post I made a while back about the subtitle of Doug Coupland's first book - "Tales For An Accelerated Culture." My main contention was that first-wave and last-wave Boomers are far more different from one another than first- and last-wave Missionaries were, with the same going for the Lost vs. 13ers and so on. It is my belief that this phenomenon started with the present saeculum (the Interbellum/G.I. split that have mentioned in numerous posts has a different origin - namely, the overdue timing of their Crisis catalyst). So a two-fold division of today's Prophet (Boomers vs. "Boomlets") and Nomad (Busters vs. Post-Busters) makes sense where it would not have in previous cycles.

And, maybe a bit surprisingly, my letter (see previous post) got published; it's in today's edition of the San Francisco Chronicle.


Lyrics to live by:
"Oh well, whatever, never mind"
(Kurt Cobain [1967-1994], "Smells Like Teen Spirit")




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-07-17 09:03 ]</font>

13ers have yet to really become a generation where you can talk of first and last waves. The last wave has just entered young adulthood, so its easier to tell the difference between a 37 year old and a 22 year old. I suspect, however, that in ten years it will appear fairly seamless. looking at my own peers I see them easily being absorbed into the current 13er idiom. Just give us some time to lose our hair.
As for 13er waves, i break it either in half or into four maybe.
For half I agree my wave starts somewhere around 1971-72 and continues to 1980-81-ish.
Im not sure about the first wave.
But four small groups, theres the 1961-65 group, the 1966-70 group, the 1971-75 group and the 1976-81 group, all these dates are approximations.
By the way, Doug Coupland is just an author.
We all have ideas just as valid.

Jenny Genser asked that her post be moved here.

Posted: 2001-07-17 13:22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony says: If you figure that 21 was the legal age for getting married without parental consent (and it was until about 1970), then add nine months to that, any generation lasting more than 21 3/4 years would appear to be of excessive length - without some sort of subdivision being in order

Jenny replies: During human history, it has been very common for women at least to marry soon after reaching physical maturity. Men, its true, often waited until they were financially able to support a family. But 18-year-old brides have always been very common until recently. So I don't think a 21-year-old legal age of marriage is that pertinent when you consider that throughout most of history, marriages were ARRANGED by the parents and brides were expected to be young, nubile, and fertile.

What you have in our modern post-industrial society is saecula and turnings becoming shorter, age at marriage rising, and childbearing becoming increasingly separate from marriage. I don't know where that leaves us in terms of generations and turnings, but there you have it.

About people having children who are a number of generations removed. A few hardy women have always borne children in their early to mid-forties. Eleanor of Aquitaine was 44 when she had John. Of course, John was the last of about a dozen kids. And of course, men have been siring kids well into elderhood. So having a sixtyish Silent siring a new Silent born around now is not such a bizarre concept.
_________________
Time is non-recuperable. -- Maharaji

[Anthony:] My main contention was that first-wave and last-wave Boomers are far more different from one another than first- and last-wave Missionaries were, with the same going for the Lost vs. 13ers and so on.

[Mike:] How can you know this about a generation 80 years ago? Much of the differences between the waves are discernable to contemporaries (especially when they are sensitized to the whole idea of generations). How much of the differences between Busters and Boomers are going to be apparent to historians 100 years from now?

[Jennie] During human history, it has been very common for women at least to marry soon after reaching physical maturity.

I don't believe this is true. If I remember correctly average age at marriage of women before the 20th century was usually around 24 and for men about 26. It *is* true that the nobility in Medieval times often married very early (especially women), but this was not the norm for the rest of the population.

Remember that one of the key points in generational change is that when a new generational mind-set announces itself, it typically does so at college campuses and it is the children of affluent parents who play this role. It certainly was that way in the '60s, and, I maintain, also in the late '70s, when drug-taking, socially-conscious idealists disappeared from campus life and were replaced by a bunch of alcohol-guzzling, fraternity-joining "mall rats" (i.e., the Busters).

So the tie-in between this and parental age becomes readily evident: Children whose parents were teenagers when they were born - and, in most cases, not married to boot - are unlikely to be heavily represented among the privileged class of youth that typically ignites generational change.

And a definite point needs to be made about "splitting" archetypes (megagenerations) into two smaller units (mesogenerations): Boomers would certainly benefit from this, as the "classic" 1940s cohorts could no longer be pilloried as "hypocrites" as a result of the evangelistic bent so palpably observable in the 1950-57 cohorts, if they are not considered to be in the same group ("Am I my [younger] brother's keeper?" - these Boomers could then say). And I'm waiting for someone to propose a new "generation" of late Boomers using, say, 1952 through 1960 as the birth-year parameters; I guarantee that there would be a lot of support for such a thing (although not from me, of course) as this would allow this segment to disassociate itself from the pinko flag-burners they remember as kids.

What is your problem?
Flag burning doesn't have anything to do with generational change. I know many so called busters and post busters that have burned flags in protest.
I think the true sign of boomerhood is preachiness, which you seem to immerse every one of your posts with. Unlike most 13ers, you have very strong feelings about the Vietnam War, which also continually ties you to an Era that most 13ers either vaguely remember or dont remember at all (anyone in the last wave of 71-81)
it had an effect on us, but not one where we would be willing to be so judgemental about the events, because we werent really there.
we were watching captain kangaroo and romper room.
However your description of fraternity joining alcohol guzzling mall rats sounds just like my high school class of 1998.
I give you props for that one, one that doesnt exactly sound like the class of 2001.God what a difference three years makes.
Im sure these kids will join frats for the pleasure of association, not to party and get laid.

I hate to say I agree with Justin. While I agree with Anthony's "buster" cause (though I don't like the term "Buster") in that 1958-1960 cohorts should not really be classified "Boomers" (at least not in the sense usually meant by that word), Anthony's strong right-wing opinions on the Vietnam War and communism, and preachiness in general, defeat his cause and make him indeed seem Boomerish at times. Anthony, if you want others to consider you a true Nomad, tone down your rhetoric and listen to others for a change, even if you don't agree with them. No one is going to think of 1958 as a Nomad year if you continue to act like a Prophet. I would also like to add that Boomers and Xers cannot be separated by their political ideology. You seem to feel that all Prophets are left-wing, flag burning dope smoking hippies, and all Xers are straight laced Republicans. Not so! Many of the most rabid conservatives in America today are Boomers, and Justin himself is an excellent example of a radical Xer. He is far from the exception too, I might add.

Not to change the subject, but I had a flash of insight this morning.


Every now and then on this thread, someone ponders the Gen Boundary between Millennials and Xers, as well as the mood-shift trigger event that began the current Unravelling era. For example most of us are inclined to accept S&H's 1982 beginning year for the Millies, possibly because they comprise the High School Graduating Class of 2000. However, from time to time it is suggested that many/most 1981 cohort members seem to conform more to the Hero archetype than the Nomad.


Regarding the boundary between Second and Third Turnings, many of us have expressed skepticism over the 3T trigger event given in "The Fourth Turning"-- Ronald Reagan's truimphant landslide re-election in 1984. Since the outcome of the election was somewhat expected all along, E84 seems too anticlimatic an episode to begin the Unravelling of the entire post-war era. I'm inclined to agree.


I believe that it was Justin who most recently wondered "Can't there be a better one than that?" in regard to what event triggered the end of the Awakening. In response to his question, I offer you THE EXPLOSION OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER!!!

Many if not most Americans remember exactly where they were on January 28, 1986. I for one have a vivid memory of that entire day-- the pin-drop stillness at the office, the eerie lack of traffic congestion on the drive home from Downtown L.A. to Pasadena (with Johnny Rivers' "Poor Side of Town" playing on the radio).

So I'll bet do most of the tens of millions of children who sat in school that day eagerly awaiting the launch of the first American schoolteacher into space, only to see her and her crewmates blown to bits 73 seconds after launch. To them, the Challenger tragedy would have confirmed what they were already beginning to suspect: that despite Mr. Reagan's cheerful "Morning in America" optimism, the adult world was definitely NOT working, that society was beginning to Unravel at the seams and spiral out of control. It is easy to understand how witnessing this disaster could have deepened -- or even formed -- the "whatever" cynicism of young Nomads, and how younger kids who weren't in school that day would be less encumbered in developing a "can-do" Hero mindset.

The youngest kids in school that dreadful would have been 5 years old, going on 6-- the 1980 birthyear cohort. Was Challenger, then, the event which firmly separated Generation X from the Millennials? Does the Millie Gen begin with the 1981 cohort rather than 1982? Did the Third Turning begin in January 1986 rather than November 1984?


I believe the answer to all three questions is a resounding "YES"!!!

Comments?

I was in my local public library when the explosion took place...I had a sinking feeling that this would be repeated over and over and over and over again by the media.


It set a pattern for OJ, Diana, JFK Jr. with its tedium of recitation without any further insight into the human condition. It may be that this was a key... the 3T began with a bang and ends with more than one whimper. HTH

I agree with Kevin that 1984 may not be the right place to draw the unraveling line. It was one of the first questions I had when I first posted here. In hindsight, 1984 may look like the beginning, but I don't think anything was felt or realized until 1987 or
1988. The Challenger explosion and the Stock Market crash I think ushered in the Unraveling "feeling".

The Challenger explosion was kind of like the JFK assassination for us. Not that it was as important, but it's that "thing" that we all remember where we were and what we were doing when it happened. Also, let's not forget the jokes. I know at my school the jokes drove the teachers crazy.

Now wait a minute! Who ever said that all 13ers are "straight-laced conservatives?" There are both liberal and conservative Xers, the same goes for Boomers; but Xer liberals are liberal for different reasons than liberal Boomers are - and the same thing goes for the conservatives.

For example, the most common "liberal" strain among Xers deals with cultural issues - and I was totally on board with this, siding 100 per cent with 2 Live Crew against Tipper Gore (and I also opposed the Gulf War - the same war that Boomers, more than any other generation as per S&H, thought it was "the right thing to do" to get involved in). And there is a clear difference between what Julia Roberts said about George W. Bush at the Oscars and the things Jane Fonda said about Nixon (calling him a "retard," among other things). And from Day One I have always thought the so-called "Christian Right" are the biggest hypocrites that walk the Earth! And I am totally at one with Justin when it comes to this "globalization" business - if conservatives want low marginal tax rates, they have to allow wages to rise on the free market, instead of sending all the jobs to some Third World country where they can get away with paying 50 cents a day or some such thing.

And there are plenty of "preachy" Busters - you don't think "fat rights" activist Marilyn Wann - born 1966 - is "preachy?" And what about serial abortion-clinic bomber Eric Rudolph, also born in 1966? You can't get much more "preachy" than the acts he's committing! The difference is that when Busters do it, the subject matter somehow comes across as "trivial" - and I guess it is, at least compared with what Boomers preach about (or at least used to preach about). No one in their right mind would compare agitating for wider seats on airplanes (as Wann does) with ending a controversial war or cleaning up the environment (and there is nothing inherently "unpatriotic" about the Prophet archetype: The Missionaries certainly weren't - pushing the U.S. into the Spanish-American War; and neither were the Transcendentals, who came up with the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" that has "justified" America's flexing its muscle all over the world for the last 150 years).



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-07-19 04:59 ]</font>

David McGuiness uses the 1986 Challenger explosion as his divider between the Awakening and Unraveling.

I favor an earlier date for two reasons, one based on trends and one based on campus politics. Most of the "awakening trends" such as crime, and recreation drug use had either flattened out or were in decline by the early 1980's. Crime peaked in 1980, fell, and then returned to just about its 1980 level in 1990. It has fallen since. Alcohol consumption peaked in 1980. Marijuanna use/acceptibility peaked in 1978. In my cycles scheme, modern awakenings are associated with liberal eras (e.g. the progressive era and the enviromental decade) and with inflationary periods. Politics shifted to the right in 1981 with the elction of Reagan. Inflation rate peaked in 1980 and interest rates in 1981. I prefer the 1982 recession as the end of the awakening, just as S&H picked 1844 (during the "Hungry Forties" depression) as the end of the Transcendental Awakening.

My other reason is when I was in college/gradschool in the late 1970's through early 1980's, I watched a sea change in campus politics (left to right) begin in 1981, which was completed in 1983. It was very noticeable and I commented on it at the time (of course I didn't know what it was). Dave Krein reports feeling this same shift, as well as shift in the mid-1960's and just recently with the coming of the millies. Justin has also described the almost palpable shift in campus mood (over a very short period) asociated with the comming of the millies.

These shifts are correlated with major bull/bear movements in the stock market. The mid-1960's shift (noticed by Dave) was associated with the Jan 1966 peak that started a 16 year bear market that ended in August 1982, during the second shift (noticed by Dave and I). I believe that the bull that started in 1982 ended in August 2000 during the shift noted by Justin and Dave.

I believe we will retrospectively date the start of the crisis as last year.

I totally agree with Susan in her comments about Anthony.

Regarding the change from 2 to 3T, I agree with the authors, even though I too initially reacted that "there must be something more than that." Remember, RR's re-election was just the most noticeable in a whole confluence of trends in 1984 that set the mood of the Unravelling and turned us away from the Awakening mood, such as the Olympics, pop phenomena such as Bruce Springsteen, etc. I think it was our recovery out of the early 80s depression that launched the mood. Until then we weren't sure of the Reagan-era mood of confident, cynical self-indulgence, and sleepy acceptance of and "feel good again" about American society, rather than outspoken protest, experiment and questioning. It was all put together in Lee Iaccoca's ubiquitous commercial for his new minivans, which featured Springsteen's song "Born in the USA", the Olympics, and the whole bit of "recovered confidence", which was really the end of the Awakening mood of questioning authority and looking for alternatives to American society as it was.

I think 1844 represented a similar mood shift, and the "hungry 40s" started not then but in 1840 or 41. 1844 was the year of "54-40 or fight" and railroad booms, and a mood of let's forget about problems and conquer the frontier. 1908 was similar too, as Taft put a damper on progressivism, and it became more of an institutional thing than a popular movement.

Entry into the passive and prosperous turnings, the 1st and 3rd, are less traumatic and obvious, than entry into the active and unstable turnings, the 2nd and 4th. The challenger explosion did not set a mood for anything, but was an isolated event. I don't see what connection it has to our unravelling era mood. It didn't end the questioning of authority, it didn't open a period of scandal mongering and distraction of the public with silly news stories, it didn't cause a paralysis of institutions by bickering, it didn't revive confidence in the status quo and the economy, which is strong, at least for the well-off, during unravellings.

I have to agree with Mike Alexander and Eric Meese about the timing of the transition between the last Awakening and Unravelling. As a young adult in the early eighties, I noticed a huge shift in culture. Disco went out in the early eighties. Around 1982, babies became hot. In 1983, everyone became aware of AIDS, which put cold water on the sexual revolution.

In 1983, I participated in a huge march in Washington D.C. (I'm from here, so its easy for me to go to marches). It was in honor of the 20th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech". The whole feeling was much different from earlier anti-war marches I had participated in. Maybe it was because it was 100 degrees that day, but it seemed less idealistic and more sedate than a decade earlier. Sure, there was excitement about Jesse Jackson's run for the Presidency (lots of "Run Jess Run!") and very funny anti-Reagan material, but it was much more unravelling than earlier marches.

I know that in 1982, I was living in an ashram, and by 1984, I was back in school with a steady boyfriend, a clear career goal, and a strong desire for marriage and family. For me, the awakening ended around 1983.

On 2001-07-19 05:16, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
<snip>

My other reason is when I was in college/gradschool in the late 1970's through early 1980's, I watched a sea change in campus politics (left to right) begin in 1981, which was completed in 1983. It was very noticeable and I commented on it at the time (of course I didn't know what it was). Dave Krein reports feeling this same shift, as well as shift in the mid-1960's and just recently with the coming of the millies. Justin has also described the almost palpable shift in campus mood (over a very short period) asociated with the comming of the millies.
<snip>

I agree with Mike in the mood on campus. In addition to the liberal to conservative movement, the goal of college seemed to change from that of exploring yourself to gaining the skills needed to get a job.

Hmmm....lots to think about. Even I must admit that in many ways my personal "Awakening" ended in late 1983-84 with my graduation from college in December, starting my first professional job in March and moving out of the house the following September. And Eric makes a very good point that Challenger didn't end the Awakening era's challenge (NPI) of "the Establishment", which was indeed a hallmark of the Consciousness Revolution.

Then again, I remember well the mood in 1985-- stale, like everything there was to be done had already been, waiting for something new to happen-- like an Unravelling, perhaps. Tying into Jenny's comments, I pretty much sat out the sexual revolution until the Summer of '85. (Cynical proto-Xer that I am, it became obvious at that time that there would be no fairy-tale princess for yours truly to wake up with a kiss). For me, becoming a non-virgin at age 25 seemed to be the Awakening's last hurrah. Six months later, the Challenger disaster turned America's Reaganite optimism on its head, and it was then that I noticed the country's mood beginning to sour in line with my own.

Being a end-of-the-last-wave Boomer, it seems logical that my major life changes should mirror the mood-shifts that herald new Turnings. I suppose we won't know for sure when the Unravelling began until we know for sure when the coming Crisis begins. If the Crisis trigger turns out to be E2K after all, I'll be inclined to retreat back to the author's belief in a Jan. '85 beginning date for the Unravelling, since a fourteen-year-long 3T seems rather too short for me. OTOH, if 4T doesn't occur until the latter part of this decade, Challenger looks much more likely to be the 3T trigger.

We'll have to wait and see.

Well, here goes.
I think the Unravelling can be dated back to 1984. But I think that the 1984-86 period signalled a mood shift.
In 1984 our photos were still mat, I still had those Oshkosh overalls, 70s mushroom haircut, and I still played Atari. Everynight I said goodnight to the huge poster of ET on my wall. We still had a record player, and air popper (no microwave) a rotary phone etc. My parents ( i just learned this) would give my brother and I triaminic or extra strength tylenol to put us to sleep so they could go out and have a good time. Our neighbors were still fairly new agey, burn outs, leaving the pipe out, we had twenty channels on our TV, shag carpets etc.
In 1986 our photos were glossy.I wore dayglo clothes, had a new improved shorter haircut,
and we had a nintendo in the house.
we had a cd player, a microwave, and an answering machine.my parents would still go out, except less often, and the parents were way more responsible. our neighbors were alot of young couples with brand new babies.
oh and we had nice carpets like the ones you have today.
For everything to look different, the technology to be different, and the people around you to act different, certainly signaled something.

Oh and I was in a classroom during the Challenger explosion. The first grade teacher next door came in and told our teacher. I remember them searching for the bodies, i was very interested if they found them. my mother said they only found "tissues" I had no clue what that was.
After the challenger, and then Pan Am 103 (third grade watching the chipmunks)
nothing was shocking, even JFK Jr.'s death.

In the 1948 film "Sorry, Wrong Number," a woman asks Barbara Stanwyck, "Have you ever been to Staten Island?" If you ever have, the "Prophet" tendencies I admittedly exhibit at times would take on a logical context.

Saecularly speaking, Staten Island is like a place that doesn't observe "Daylight Saving Time" when the rest of the country does. When I was growing up, my older brother (born in 1955) used to tell me these stories about his peer group and how various segments within it were treated - and the pattern that emerges more closely resembles what one would expect to find in the Class of 1953 - not 1973! I met a lot of his friends, and to them it was as if TV shows like "Happy Days" and movies like "The Lords of Flatbush" laid out a lifetime agenda for them or something! Oh yes, they subscribed to the outward trappings of Boomers in matters like hair styles and music, but they were rather like the Tory Awakeners of the 18th Century in that, philosophically speaking, they were totally out of step with the rest of their generation. And all the flak my father gave my brother is what one would expect from a G.I. father - not a Silent one (he was born in 1930).

Enter the "Guido" stereotype. About the best way to describe it is to equate it with the mind-set of a Boomer who was a cop or, better yet, a National Guardsman in the '60s - hopelessly intolerant and "macho." This imagery entered the lexicon during the Carter years and was put on full display in Bensonhurst after the murder of Yusuf Hawkins there in 1989. Silent columnist Pete Hamill did an article entitled "The Lesson Of Howard Beach Was Lost On The Punks Of Guidoville." Toward the end he mentioned that nightclub comics do "Guido" routines and that even (Buster) Eddie Murphy does a brilliant Guido bit ("Here come da moolies").

So the point is, if I was really a Boomer, everyone would be noticing "Artist" streaks in my posts, since that's how most Boomers who grew up on Staten Island think (even if they don't look the part). And this "lag" is readily evident in the island's Post-Busters as well - teen-age girls in the '90s on Staten Island looked and acted just like vintage Buster-era "Valley Girls" - the make-up, the jargon and everything.

Come October it will be ten years since I moved away, so I guess I will always be "behind the times."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-07-20 00:39 ]</font>

Anthony, you should go see the Spike Lee film, "Summer of Sam" they have negative and I think fairly accurate portrayals of Italian Americans from Brooklyn in it. Being an Italian American myself I think its funny as hell. In one seen several of these guidos are walking through the East Village when they come upon a punk whos throwing up in the gutter.
"Who's your favorite baseball team?"
They all demand.
"Boston Red Socks" He answers.
Then they beat the crap out of him with garbage cans.
Sound familiar?