Craig, dont sweat it
Youll know Mahoney when you see him.
Hes in police academy. id check out numbers 1 and 2. especailly two, when bobcat goldthwait enters the picture.

Hey, what happened to Anthony '58? I'm afraid we might have insulted him.

I think he got tired of banging his head against the wall.

Ouch!

he was here to promote one theory and that was that the boom ended in 1957.
when others questioned him or denied his theory he came back with more evidence.
but we werent convinced.
so perhaps he just moved on.

My Own Stab @ Generational Boundaries:
(I'll justify the boundariesin the next post).

1. Millennial (1984-1999)

Transition between X and Millennial (1980-1983)

2. X-er (1964-1979)

Transition between Boomer and X (1960-1963)

3. Boomer (1946-1959)

Transition between Silent and Boomer (1942-1945)

4. Silent (1928-1941)

Transition between GI and Silent (1924-1927)

5. GI (1905-1923)

Transition between Lost and GI (1901-1904)

6. Lost (1885-1900)

Transition between Missionary and Lost (1881-1884).



Also, I'd like to add that these are approximate, and I did not come up with them according to how each cohort felt or what one's mood was, but rather by each cohort's contribution to history. ONe more thing to add: I do not believe that there was such a thing as Civil War Anomaly. I should not be writing about it in this post, but I cannot find any other category. According to Strauss and Howe, the Gilded were Nomad, because they were underprotected, not optimistic enough in their Civil War battles, saw life as harsh reality, and were pragmatic. However, that generation will never be remembered for these qualities unless someone later does extremely deep research into their mood. Those people will be remembered as a generation that fought a decisive war upon which the country's fate/future/survival depended. The Northern Gilded are remebered for bravely protecting the Union and sacrificing for it. The Southern Gilded are remembered for defending the Confederation and fighting to keep the old Southern order. It does not matter that this generation was nurtured underprotectively. What matters is that the Gilded fought (and the Northerns won) a very decisve war. Thus, they are Heroes. Strauss and Howe think of Heroes only basing their personality on that of the GI Generation. GIs were so optimistic and hubristic, because they did not have to fight the war on their soil, but it was not the case with the Gilded. By presidency, the Gilded almost beat the GIs. From Grant to McKinley(whom S&H consider an early Progressive for some reason although he fought in the Civil War) and from 1869 to 1901 US had a president that fought in the Civil War.

I am acquanited with the Russian culture fairly well and if S&H were to go there, they would have found that Russia had a WWII anomaly similiar to the Civil War one. They would have looked at the mood of the 75 + Russian WWII veterans, and solely by that mood,they would have labeled them tough,cynical,pragmatic Nomad. It is true that like the Gilded, Russian WWII Generation was underprotected in childhood. Russians born 1905-1925 were too young to be in the Russian Revolution, and as children, they had to go through terrible times. Their first memories included the terrible last decade of tsar, WWI's affect on morale and the Revolution for earlier cohorts. Later cohorts first saw famines, economic changes and terror made by Communists in early 20's,and NEP. Those kids were abondoned by parents who went off to fight in the Revolution and build Communism. A huge percentage of those kids wandered on Russian streets in 1920's. Lots of kids ended up in orphanges, full of children in 1920's. There is a Russian song sang by an orphan boy around 1925: "Forgotten and abandoned since first days, I'll die and no one will find where my grave is..." Sounds Nomadic, ne c'est pas. Those guys, just like the Gilded were truly decimated in their war. Also, Russian born in 1930's were raised with increading protection, but they did not fight in the war. Still, Russians Gorbachev's age are hubristic, vigorous, energetic, and ambitious, remeniscent of American GIs. Gagarin born in 1934, was the first man in space, and all other Russian astronauts were his age. However, which of these two Russian Generations will be known as Heroes, the one born around 1905 -1925 or the one born in the 30's? Definitely the former, becuase that generation fought and won the war. Russia's WWII Generation might have the mood of Nomads and might have been raised like Nomads, but for their Achievement, winning WWII, they will be remebered as HEroes. Gorbachev's peers might have been raised like Heroes and they do often act like Heroes, but history will remember them as Artists, because during WWII, they were children.

Also, same applies to US in the Civil War. Thsoe guys were Heroes, and Progressives were Artists, because in the long run, they will be (and I think already are) viewed that way. It does not matter what their moods or feelings were, it's what they did.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2001-11-06 21:43 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2001-11-07 07:03 ]</font>

Just testing my new signature line.

Much of the debate about the saeculum concerns "anomalies." But the "anomalies" are generally about an idealized version of the generational paradign. Real life tends to messy. If Russia had a Millenarian turning followed by a Civil War-type "anomaly" (an "anomaly" at least in the sense of Nomads in the Crisis/soldier role-followed by a Progressive-style Adaptive gen)-yet with the country subsequently conforming to the paradign-would suggest that the general pattern is quite robust. So would the Nazi Millenarian turning in Germany, as well as the Irish Potato famine.

I agree.


1. Millennial (1984-1999)

Transition between X and Millennial (1980-1983)

2. X-er (1964-1979)

Transition between Boomer and X (1960-1963)

3. Boomer (1946-1959)

Transition between Silent and Boomer (1942-1945)

4. Silent (1928-1941)

Transition between GI and Silent (1924-1927)

5. GI (1905-1923)

Transition between Lost and GI (1901-1904)

6. Lost (1885-1900)

Transition between Missionary and Lost (1881-1884).

It has been thought that the cycle is driven by a sense-and reality-of progress. Perhaps if the great wheel of progress keeps turning despite setbacks the cycle will recover. This might explain why the classic paradign will reassert itself after a warped saeculum. There may be other types of warped cycle, such as mistimed Crises during Highs or Awakenings.

As I promised earlier, I will now try to justify the boundaries I set for each generation. First of all, there is always a short transition (3 years or so), because one gneration cannot go directly into the next and because one turning cannot go directly into the next without some key chanes and events. FRom how I look at history of the US, it takes several years to go from one era to the next. For instance, since Sept. 11, US is going through a turning transition, which will end around 2004 or 2005, and by that time, US will be in a totally different era. Each generation first remembers the era, and each transition cohort first remembers (@ age 3 or 4) the transition of era.

I started Millennials in my year of birth, 1984, because we do not remember 1987's Stock Crash. Most 1983 cohorts do, but they do not remember Challenger's Explosion (1986). The transition between X and Millennials took place between 1980 and 1983, because those cohorts' first memeory was the recovery from Stagflation and market boom of mid 80's. Those cohorts did not remember the 1982 Recession or hard economic events preceding it.

For X-ers, I ended them in 1979, because they still remembered the inflation and early 80's recessions. I started them in 1964, but really, I should have started them a year later. Thus, '64 and '65 cohorts' first memory was the Great Social Shift of 1968. Core X-ers have no idea what US was like before 1968. Howeven, the transition cohorts between Boomers and X-ers (1960-3)first remember times between Kenedy's assassination and 1968.They remember the building of the Great Society and the rise of hippies and protests, but unlike them, core X-ers only remember the anti-Establishment movement after it peaked in '68.

Core Boomers were marked by me as 1946-59. 1959 cohorts were the youngest to enter workforce before the Stagflation was over. They were the youngest to experience having a jo before the '80s boom. 1959 cohorts mostly remember Cuban Missile Crisis and Kennedy's assassination.
Also, 1946 was the first quintessential Boomer year. They were planned and born after the war, their first memory was around 1949(the time Russia got the A-bomb, which meant the they were first to not live through any of WWII and first not to know USSR as anythig other than America's nuclear enemy. Such 1946 cohorts as Clinton and W Bush definitely represent the essence of Boomers.

1942-5 was my transtion between Silents and Boomers. First of all, of many people I surveyed, only a few consider themselves Boomers.Most of them referdd to themselves as War Babies. Cohorts born after 1942, like S&H earlier pointed out, did not remember the end of WWII and fought in Vietnam. Also, 1942-5 cohorts came of age during Kennedy's presidency (after the 50's) and entered workforce during the building of the Great Society (1964-7).

A quiintessential Silent's experience constisted of having the first memory of Depression or WWII, coming of age in the 50's, entering workforce before 1963, and retiring after 1993. THat is why I put their dates 1928-41. 1928 cohorts did not remember any president before Roosevelt, were 17 when WWII was over(missed it completely),and retired when Clinton became president. 1941 cohorts still remebered Roosevelt and were about 24 when Vietnam war started (could not fight).

1924-7 were transition people between GIs and Silents. Being of the youngest possible age to be in the army in WWII, some 1927 cohorts, though rather few, came back as veterans of the war. The reason why 1924 cohort was chosen as the start of the transition was because they were not fully of age when WWII began. Bush Sr. is definitely a GI Generation member, but Carter, also a '24 cohort acted and lived like a SIlent. 1924-27 cohorts were not of fighting age when war began, but they joined in during the war. Also, 1924-27 cohorts retired during Bush Sr.'s presidency, while core GIs retired during Reagan years and core Silents retired during Clinton years.

I will finsh the justification in the next post, because I am pressed on time...

Im not so sure that at the tender age of 3 I remember words like "stagflation."
I remember looking at the refridgerator (we had a magnetized alphabet so i could spell things) and I couldnt even spell my last name.
I could spell "chewbacca" though.
If you are speaking about the change of face working Americans took from the begining of the 80s to the mid 80s then yes I remember.
Everything did get "bigger"
dad bought a "porsche" and a "boat"
moms frosted farah fawcett hair gave way to a tighter more conservative perm.
We didnt have those things in the begining.
In fact in the begining most of the adults in my life (Boomers) lived in apartments.
The suburbanization of Boomers was not complete until around 1984, 1985.
I have very clear memories of 1983, and some from 1982, and maybe some from 1981 (those really blurry early ones)
.....
In 1986 when I was running around vandalizing construction sites with my friends, I was the youngest.
I would say that even a 1980 cohort would have been edged out of that one. 1981 cohorts would have been too young.
I really like the boundaries youve set aside, they seem all encompassing.
For example the great Silent comedian Lenny Bruce was born in 1926 and fought in WWII.
The GI establishment certainly brought him down.
Some people on this board say I sound millennial sometimes. But Im just as Millennial as Tom Hayden is a prophet...
my cents...
.......
I think your years are good.
I have three cousins born in 1984, and all of them are the eldest of a crop of younger kids.
Most millies I know have an eldest generational member born in the early 80s at some point.
The life span of a 1984 cohort clashes completely with mine.
For example I would characterize the 80s as a very formative time in my life. Missing the 80s would set one apart from me significantly. I would say that the "80s" are the defining decade for Gen X.
Gen X defined the 90s in many ways, but we all share a common experience with the "80s"

bg115:

Your transitions sound good enough. Like I said in an earlier post, the generational makeup is a blend. Dont' know if you saw this, so here's another attempt. Assume every cohort is a mix of the 4 archetypes, and the distribution is as follows:

1978: 80%N, 10%H, 5%P, 5%A
1979: 80%N, 10%H, 5%P, 5%A
1980: 70%N, 20%H, 5%P, 5%A
1981: 55%N, 35%H, 5%P, 5%A
1982: 35%N, 55%H, 5%P, 5%A
1983: 20%N, 70%H, 5%P, 5%A
1984: 10%N, 80%H, 5%P, 5%A
1985: 10%N, 80%H, 5%P, 5%A

You call 1980-1983 a transition period, because the ultimate levels aren't there. But S&H might say that Xers go to 1981, then Millies from 1982 on, since that's where the majority lies, and that the transitions are unimportant in the overall theory.

You're both right. It's fuzzy math at its best, no sharp borders with respect to cohort responses to the world around them. The CRISES are much more defined, 9-11-2001 is one day, like it or not. And most 13-year-old americans viewed it the same way. But how one 4-year-old responded to it vs. another is quite up in the air.

On 2001-11-09 08:02, SMA wrote:
bg115:

Your transitions sound good enough. Like I said in an earlier post, the generational makeup is a blend. Dont' know if you saw this, so here's another attempt. Assume every cohort is a mix of the 4 archetypes, and the distribution is as follows:

1978: 80%N, 10%H, 5%P, 5%A
1979: 80%N, 10%H, 5%P, 5%A
1980: 70%N, 20%H, 5%P, 5%A
1981: 55%N, 35%H, 5%P, 5%A
1982: 35%N, 55%H, 5%P, 5%A
1983: 20%N, 70%H, 5%P, 5%A
1984: 10%N, 80%H, 5%P, 5%A
1985: 10%N, 80%H, 5%P, 5%A

You call 1980-1983 a transition period, because the ultimate levels aren't there. But S&H might say that Xers go to 1981, then Millies from 1982 on, since that's where the majority lies, and that the transitions are unimportant in the overall theory.

You're both right. It's fuzzy math at its best, no sharp borders with respect to cohort responses to the world around them. The CRISES are much more defined, 9-11-2001 is one day, like it or not. And most 13-year-old americans viewed it the same way. But how one 4-year-old responded to it vs. another is quite up in the air.

Very good post, I agree.

No, Susan, rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated! Truth be told, I just got back from three weeks in the New York/New Jersey area. At one point I got fairly close to Ground Zero - it was horrible. There is still this funny odor like there would be following an electrical fire - and the smoke is still rising from the rubble. I've also seen the famed landfill on Staten Island where they have taken most of the debris (drove past it on an expressway that goes virtually right through it).

On other fronts, a site-promotion service has just concluded work on my Web site; I've noticed a slight increase in the number of "hits" this past week, and I should be on all the search engines by the end of the month. I've also received a few interesting comments about the site; once I have collected a good cross-section of them I'll post them here.

On October 26th (my birthday!) the Associated Press ran an article stating that the median age of the WTC victims was 40, and that "more than half" were between 30 and 49. I'm planning on adding this information to my "Buster Facts" page - but that won't be done until after the optimization process has run its course (and my "webmaster" is on vacation down in San Diego anyway).

My initial anger and "enthusiasm" for this war has quickly faded - and now I'm reduced to wondering whether we'll ever see any kind of consistency in our foreign policy. In the '90s we supported Muslim extremists (including the bin Laden-backed KLA) in the Balkans - yet we're against them in the Middle East. And if you honestly believe that Bush's little "coalition" is going to stay together, at the risk of sounding totally demented, I own a pair of 110-story buildings in Lower Manhattan that I'll be happy to sell you! In fact, it will most likely collapse in about a week, when Ramadan begins and we don't stop the bombing in Afghanistan - leading to another Arab oil embargo.

Are you ready for another dose of year-round Daylight Saving Time - this time coupled with real gas rationing (not that stupid "odd-even" stuff from the '70s) and perhaps everybody's electricity going off for two hours every day? Well, it could be just around the corner.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-11-10 07:32 ]</font>

Anthony,

This war is doo doo. This may be the begining of the turning, but I think its an alienating experience for all of us.

Yep. Batten down the hatches. Cities can get nuked, this card-house of a global economy could collapse, all kinds of deadly plagues can break out, and fascist wanna-be's will be given serious credence as the half-starved, and hypoglycemia-addled populace gropes for explanations.

I see no big resolution to the problems we have now; no, not any time soon. We're only staring down the precipice right now, having just stumbled on the loose gravel and dimly aware that this is no ordinary boo boo we're going to feel when we finally hit the ground.

We're just starting to get the sinking feeling, just beginning to taste that bad coppery taste of terror.

Keep your bug-out bags in good order. Keep at least a week's supply of non-perishable food around. Don't look at the flash if you see those "two suns in the sunset."

We live in an incredibly specialized civilization. The division of labor is so finely honed that our current level of existence is dependent on the system. The system has taken on a life of its own, run by models and computers and machines. But one day the technology will fail. The failure will trigger other failures. The spiral will could go on for a long time. Unemployment followed by loss of revenue followed by more unemployment followed by foreclosures and devaluations and so on and so on. Infrastructure will crumble. The social order will break down. Down down down we go. Where it would stop, nobody knows.

How many of you can build your own car, grow your own fill of food, or make your own clothes? How many of you can build your own house? All of these things now are brought to you courtesy of 21st century tech. But when the system fails, who's going to be working away from their family, keeping order or making machine parts? No, eventually it could get to the point of "every man for himself."

I sure as heck hope I'm wrong. These are not my usual opinions. Usually I am more pollyanna-ish. But it just might be empowering to teach yourself things like how to find pure water, which plants in the wild are edible, and how you can make a large, warm, and comforable shelter out of very few materials.

On 2001-11-10 15:22, jcarson71 wrote:


How many of you can build your own car, grow your own fill of food, or make your own clothes? How many of you can build your own house?

Yes! Yes! Mr. Carson, I can...felled the trees, sawyered the wood, built the house, made the siding, panelled the interior. Threshed the wheat, milled the flour, raiswed the wool, spun the thread, wove the cloth, made the beer, slaughtered the ox, butchered the swine, dried the mushrooms, lathed the parts, milled the screws, forged the steel.


Civilization lives! Or at least yeomanry. HTH

richt:

THanks. Got another thread here for the 59-64 cohorts, would like to hear your views on the Boom/X boundary.

two 26 year olds describe our generation as a "name dropping generation"
(SEE DONNIE MOST or Justine Bateman in satisfaction)
they also want to know whats up with the under 21 set......
we swapped interpretations of poltergeist and star wars
it feels good to be back amongst my ilk
uhhhhhhhhh

Just found this highly interesting article. A link to it appears below:

http://www.rall.com/longarticle_004.htm

What makes this article particularly "interesting" is its revelation that the term "twentysomething" was coined in 1987! (Guess what that means?)

Interesting article. Perhaps the fact that the birthyears defining Gen-X is so widely disputed and so varied is the whole point: Xers are hard to pin down.

I totally agree with the article that Gen-X has become more of an age-range than an actual generation. In about 10 more years, my '91 and '93 cohort children might also be labeled Xers!