To answer your question, SP: From 1800 until 1940 not only did the birth rate (per 1,000 population) decline constantly, but the rate of decline remained within a very narrow range. From 1940 through 1943, the birth rate went up four years in a row, the first time that had happened since at least the 1700s; then there was a two-year interruption of the trend in 1944 and '45 (due to the wartime absence of would-be fathers), followed by a large spurt in 1946 and 1947, whose birth rate was the highest of any year within the so-called Baby Boom.

After pulling back somewhat in 1948 and 1949, the birth rate remained essentially steady, especially from 1952 through 1957, when it was between 25.0 and 25.3 per 1,000 population every year. Then, in 1958, came the free fall: For eleven consecutive years (1958-68) birth rates fell, and over the entire eleven-year span the birth rate plunged by 30.4 per cent - more than twice as rapidly as the average decline of 1800-1939.

From 1969 through 1980, the original pattern of 1800-1939 was revisited; in recent years birth-rate trends have largely been driven by first the entry of Boomers into, then their exit from, the peak child-bearing age brackets (from 1991 through '97 birth rates fell for seven years in a row, the second-longest consecutive streak after the bust of 1958-68, no doubt caused by those born in the latter period becoming the primary bearers of children).

Good post Stonewall.
If you want me to comment on the 1979 cohort then I only have school to do it.
In all my experiences the 1979 cohorts (my birth peers) never seemed interested in anything civic. Only now I see people I knew in high school coming to protests, just a few that used to be in the freak community.
Im in a weird place. If I hang out with people 5 years younger I feel really old and out of place, like an older cousin or uncle.
When I hang out with my core Xer friends I feel like I dont have as much fucked up life experience, but that is just me.
If you read bios on these people like Pink (b 1979) or Bijou Phillips (b 1980) they were club kids taking X and having sex with strangers when they were like 13. Most of the girls my age I know were all dangerous like that. I think they truly represent the 1979 cohort better than I do.

couple that with i think 1979-80 is the last of X.
too many of my friends born early in 80 are just too Xerish, most with Silent parents.

On 2002-04-29 04:37, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-04-29 01:39, mmailliw wrote:

OTOH, I'd say that '82 is a break in the continuum (from Robert's memories he might as well have been born in 87!); to see other breakdowns of those years check out my post on "Generations based on TFT posters alone"; whether Craig or I are more like the '82s, those immediately before, or something totally different is as of yet undetermined...

William, I saw your post but I would need to see you flesh out your argument a little more before commenting on it. For example, I have no idea what your basis is for pinpointing 1982 as THE Millennial birthyear. If those who came after are part of something as yet undetermined, then perhaps the nature of the Millennial Generation is as yet undetermined.

First and foremost, 1982 babies became part of the now infamous C2K which received an ENORMOUS amount of positive press, etc that ended up ultimately affecting their personality. Also, where I live, the 82ers were the ones in my history class who all seemed to have that same conformist conservative opinion that I was debating against (2 people in my year against 17 C2Kers). Hmmm... there's also the angst and cynicism (tho maybe not complete with a full Xr edge) in the 83 - 85 or 86 cohorts that are absent (replaced by optimism) in the 82 cohorts; finally, if you look at birth year charts from the late 70s and early 80s the biggest feature is the jump from 81 to 82. However, the drop from 82 to 83 (which isn't made up until at least 85) is also noticeable; maybe this could be retrograde motion?

About the true nature of the Millennial Generation: It all depends on how the 83 - 86 and the 87 - XX (98? 00? 02?) cohorts turn out: the only thing that we know for sure is that the 83 - 86 cohorts are NOT like the 82 cohorts. If 83 - 86 turns out (upon analysis) to be more like 75 - 81 we'll know that 82 was just a media-induced break in the fabric among late wave X. However, even if it turns out to be as different from that as from 82 there are still 2 distinct possibilities: the 87 - XX ers can either become more like 83 - 86 or stay the way (generationally!) they are now. In the first case, the TRUE millennial generation would be represented by people such as Craig or myself and I'd be proud to call myself Millennial. However, in the second case the Millennial generation (with its 82 specter) would really consist of those who did not become teens until after the 1990s; 83 - 86 would be sandwiched in between two generations and become nothing more than a little-noticed "Generation Y". It really could go either way; around 1998 I noticed that a lot of the teenybopper crowd was born in 85 but as the 85 cohort matured, entered HS, and became my peers it became apparent that they were more like us; the 87 cohort and later has also looked the same way for a while. Now the 87ers are in HS but they have not become my peers yet because I have moved onto college; my 84 and 85 friends seem to say that there's something different about the Class of 2005 tho so who knows? They're still fairly young tho; we'll have to give them time to see what happens. As for now, I only identify generationally with "Generation Y"...

I keep seeing a rough consistency of 18-19 year generations, at least in recent history. The 13th Generation began with 1961, which initially surprised me, but it appears that most cohorts from around '61 generally agree with that assignment (the "Joneser" insurgency being the notable exception). The Boom Generation began 18 years earlier in 1943 and this boundary seemed clear-cut to me even before S&H wrote Generations, based upon discussions with people born around 1942 and 1943. The Silent Generation began about 18 years before that around 1925.

Using the now standard 18 year span, the GI Generation would have begun about 1907. This conflicts with S&H's assignment of 1901 as the first GI birthyear, but I have never bought their date and indeed it leaves an abnormal span of 7 years between birth of first cohort and time of turning. Surely, the correct start date is a little later and indeed my '07 grandmother was more Lost than GI in character (for whatever this one sample is worth). My '08 grandfather is more difficult to gauge since he is not obviously Lost nor obviously GI, but I believe he is ever so slightly more GI than Lost. If we accept the turning date of 1908, then the first GI cohort should probably have been born in the 1904-1906 range. Indeed, Firemind remarked on another thread that Joseph Campbell '04 definitely seemed more Lost than GI, even sterotypically Lost. I really tend to believe 1906 is probably a much more accurate date for first GI birthyear.

People can talk about Walt Disney '01, Ray Kroc '02 and Bob Hope '03 all they want but, if these three truly seem GI in character, then there is strong evidence that they were the exceptions among their cohorts just as we see exceptions at the cusps of every generation. Indeed, the fact that they were more GI-ish than most of their peers and not caught in the Lost "rut" might account for their later success. Let me go to S&H's GI list in Generations and take a closer look at this:

1902 Charles Lindbergh

GI? A barnstorming pilot who delivered the mail between St. Louis and Chicago nightly, flying by the seat of his pants in a rickety plane, open to the elements, with nary a navigation instrument nor ground light? And who then "advanced" by crossing the Atlantic while half-asleep at the controls in a flying gas can, like a suicidal loon? How Nomad can you get? This is individual action as opposed to collective action, and reasonably insane individual action at that. Lindbergh seems very Nomad and very Lost to me.

1902 John Steinbeck

GI? I have not looked closely at Steinbeck with respect to this analysis but I really tend to see him as more Lost. Does he not seem to be part of the same "experience" as Lost writers like Hemingway? At least he seems closer to what came before than what came after.

1903 George Orwell

GI? Orwell definitely seems more Lost to me. Hell, he was even very close to the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War like so many notable Lost peers.

1904 Robert Oppenheimer

GI? I have not looked closely at him but he seems more Lost than GI to me. Close to the cusp though, no doubt about it.

1907 John Wayne

Ah, now John Wayne seems more GI than Lost to me. But he definitely seems very early GI, that is for sure.

1907 Katherine Hepburn

Well, I do not see her as clearly Lost or clearly GI. This is obviously extremely close to the cusp.

1908 Jimmy Stewart

Definitely more GI than Lost. But still definitely very early in the generation. It is not like he is seven years into it as S&H would suggest.

1908 Lyndon B. Johnson

Definitely more GI than Lost. Still early GI though.

1911 Ronald Reagan

Definitely GI. But even Reagan had a touch of Lost in him.

1912 Tip O'Neill
1913 Richard Nixon
1913 Gerald Ford
1914 Joe DiMaggio

Hardcore GIs here, particularly by the time we get to DiMaggio '14. It looks like the last trace of Lost vanished about 1912.

I am comfortable assigning 1908 to the GI Generation although all of its cohorts seem very clearly close to the Lost cusp. 1907 becomes noticeably "cuspier" with the Lost (and recall my '07 grandmother who was even more Lost than GI), but I really tend to think that '07 cohorts were slightly more GI than Lost. Unfortunately, S&H did not provide '05 and '06 examples who are ever so critical to this analysis. But with '04 and earlier I am seeing an unmistakably predominate Lost influence/persona (inclusive of Firemind's Joseph Campbell '04).

In short, '04 and earlier were part of the Lost Generation. I am not even sure why S&H tied them to the GIs except for the fact that a few more GI-ish cohorts were monumentally successful (and probably only succeeded by virtue of the fact that they were more GI-ish than their peers). '08 and Later were part of the GI Generation. '07 probably was majority GI as well. The first GI cohorts were reasonably born in one of three years: 1905, 1906 or 1907. 18 years back from 1925 (Silent advent) takes us to 1907. The alternate 19 year span takes us back to 1906. If we accept 1908 as the turning year and apply the 2-4 year modern differential rule, then 1906 looks like the odds on favorite for first GI cohort year. But I sure wish we could look at some '05 and '06 cohorts (along with more '04 and '07 cohorts).

You make a good case for a later Lost/GI cusp (maybe 03 - 08 are the cusp years?); I just don't agree with you on the others as much or on the 18-year cycle. GI/Silent hasn't been debated that much, but what I DO know is that my 1924 grandfathers are very much GI (having fought in WWII) and my 1927 and 1929 grandmothers are no different (maybe the generations are different by gender?) I am not convinced at all that 1943 (the 1943 cohorts I know - one definite and one within 1 year either way - seem MUCH more silent than boomerish) or even 1944 are boomer years (look at the graph of birthrates; you'll see a decline between 42 and 43 that isn't made up until at least 45, putting 43 and 44 in a well very similar to the one we see 83 and 84 in)...

Moving forward again from what I have always seen (even pre-Generations) as the unmistakable first Boomer birthyear, 1943, 18 years takes us to 1961 and 19 years takes us to 1962. The first 13er year was likely either 1961 or 1962 and we know this is very close from the sentiments of most T4T cohorts from these years (again with a few notable exceptions). A 2-4 year differential from the 1964 turning would allow for either year. 18 years forward from 1961 takes us to 1979. The "maximum" 19 years forward from latter option 1962 takes us to 1981. In other words, if the pattern holds, then the first Millies were born in 1979, 1980, or 1981.

1961 makes sense as the first Xr year (1960 does not feel like it's in a generation at all; the late 50s and early 60s are cusp years - I even saw a website a few years ago by a 65er trying to explain why he's a boomer due to memories! Meanwhile, over at http://www.late-boomers.com they argue that "Xrs, BY DEFINITION, cannot remember the moon landing" when trying to include the 64 cohort; but this logic also includes 65 and most of 66 - in the same FAQ they say that the baby boom ended in 64... I don't think I like their logic.

Justin '79 (in all his incarnations) seems very definitely Xer (i.e. he has the attitude). You, William '84, lack that edge so I suspect that you are a bona fide Millie.

But is X the absence of being Millie or is Millie the absence of being X? THAT is the argument over the placement of our wave... maybe Y is the absence of Millie combined with the absence of X?

I have not read enough of Craig '84 to classify him. Robert '82 also lacks that edge so I see him as a definite Millie. From this admittedly very limited sample, I see no evidence that Millies began any later than 1982.

Justin '77 seems to have less of an edge than Justin '79. However it is unlikely that anyone would ever take Justin '77 for a Millie. He is too focused on the individual and individual rights and does not think in terms of community. Even so, he seems reasonably close to the cusp given his milder demeanor.

JayN is what? '76 to '78 or somewhere in there. He seems slightly more community-minded than Justin '77 and has less of an edge than Justin '79. In short, he seems like an Xer close to the Millennial cusp.

Take Justin '79 out of the sample and assess the remainder and it looks like '82 and later are very firmly Millie. '77 and '78 are Xer but close to the cusp. That cusp almost seems closer to '77 and '78 than to '82 and '84. It almost looks like it should be '79 in which case Justin '79 would be a damn Millie! :lol:

Even so, I suspect that Justin '79's impressions are accurate and he and his cohorts are Xers. That would really suggest to me that the first Millie year might be 1980. Our '82 and later T4Ters are so much more Millie than our '78 and earlier T4Ters are Xer that surely 1981 is too late for the change. Indeed I place the turning by 1983 and possibly in 1982, having lived through it. Applying the 2-4 year modern differential, and limiting the Millie advent to 1980 or later, we get 1980 or 1981 for the first Millie year with a greater probability, though not necessity, that it be 1980.

And we have one of my personal favorites, Mark Y, a 78 cohort whose experiences are as worried as any but has even less of the Xr edge than I do - he definitely wins the award for "Most personally worried about his generational placement"; you notice a genuine PANIC in his posts whenever he brings up the 77/78 divide.

So put it all together and I see a reasonably consistent pattern of 18-19 year generations through the 20th century. Here is the breakdown again:

1906 - GI Advent (possibly 1905 or 1907)

sounds about right (tho I make it slightly earlier)

+19 years

1925 - Silent Advent

I'd make it slightly more than that to make 24 - 27 the cusp; that would cause a 20 year gap combined with the earlier model

+18 years

1943 - Boomer Advent (firm even pre-Generations)

Sorry, I just don't see that at all! Here I make the cusp 43 - 46 (the Silents influencing the Boomers were just that, Silents influencing the Boomers) for a nice, 19-year gap

+18 years

1961 - 13er Advent (possibly 1962?)

Agreed; this yields a 16 1/2 year gap here (isn't it interesting that the generation in which the birth rates were the highest encompasses the shortest number of birth years?)
[/quote]
+19 years

1980 - Millennial Advent (possibly 1981?)
[/quote]
For the reasons I previously listed, the Millennial advent would have to be at least 1982 (C2K) for a 21 year gap and possibly 1987 (a 26 year gap); note that if 83 - 88 were the cusp, we have Marc Lamb's 80 year saeclum with which I tend to agree.

Continuing forward, the New Silent Advent probably occurred between 1998 and 2000. The national mood today is fundamentally different from what it was pre-911 and we cannot go back to the slow, monotonous, predictable and lethargic rhythm which defined the Unraveling (because the war-mongering Bush administration will not let us). Therefore 911 was almost certainly the 4T catalyst. Indeed future historians might even trace the mood change to Election 2000. Regardless, applying the 2-4 year modern differential, we get 1998 or 1999 as the New Silent Advent.

I just don't see that; the biggest mood change we had over the past decade was between 96 and 98 (for reasons I already mentioned a few times) and both 96 and 99 were obviously 3T (tho a different part of the Turning); now just doesn't seem any different from before the attacks (the Zogby polls show Bush's approval rating at a high, but relatively uninflated, 69 percent, Survivor - the ultimate late 3T show - is still going strong, the American flags are down, etc - maybe in NC it's different but in the Blue Zone it's back to normal) - this would likely make the New Silent boundary somewhere between 1998 (2002 - 4) and 2007 (2009 - 2) (of course the former would be more likely with an early Mill start and the latter with a later Mill start) making the Millennial generation somewhere between 11 (highly unlikely; generations with baby booms are likely to be short but not THAT short) and 25 (again unlikely; while 25 is not an unheard-of length, it is pretty unlikely for a baby boom) years; again
2004 - 2007 or even a little earlier would align with Marc Lamb's 80 year saecla

I still have not determined how far back into the 19th century this 18-19 year generational pattern holds. That seems to be Mike Alexander's territory. It may well mirror the change from an agrarian to an industrial economy. But I will leave it at that for now.

I'm merely arguing a 19 - 21 year generational pattern; a relatively small difference except when you look at which years are/are not cusps.

_________________
William '84

Not only was I born in 1984, but I even live in Room 101!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mmailliw on 2002-04-29 11:12 ]</font>

On 2002-04-29 07:10, God wrote:

Good post Stonewall.
If you want me to comment on the 1979 cohort then I only have school to do it.
In all my experiences the 1979 cohorts (my birth peers) never seemed interested in anything civic. Only now I see people I knew in high school coming to protests, just a few that used to be in the freak community.
Im in a weird place. If I hang out with people 5 years younger I feel really old and out of place, like an older cousin or uncle.

When I hang out with my core Xer friends I feel like I dont have as much fucked up life experience, but that is just me.
If you read bios on these people like Pink (b 1979) or Bijou Phillips (b 1980) they were club kids taking X and having sex with strangers when they were like 13. Most of the girls my age I know were all dangerous like that. I think they truly represent the 1979 cohort better than I do.

god (you know who you are), you are pretty good at digging up birth years for famous people. Do you think you might dig up some '05, '06, and '07 cohorts? It would make for interesting analysis with respect to the GI advent. Throw in '04 and '08 too if it takes no time. Thanks.

And we have one of my personal favorites, Mark Y, a 78 cohort whose experiences are as worried as any but has even less of the Xr edge than I do - he definitely wins the award for "Most personally worried about his generational placement";

Thank you, thank you my adoring audience! :wink:

you notice a genuine PANIC in his posts whenever he brings up the 77/78 divide

You see panic with 77/78? I'd figure it would be 76/77 more than 77/78...

Anyway, here's another delineation:

1979/80: Assuming (another big IF) graduation in four years and going right into the workforce, 79 cohorts are the last to be in the workforce before "9-11". Unless you're like mmailliw at Jarvard, 80ers were still undergrads...hence that Newsweek label "Generation 9-11"

On 2002-04-29 10:45, Mark Y wrote:

And we have one of my personal favorites, Mark Y, a 78 cohort whose experiences are as worried as any but has even less of the Xr edge than I do - he definitely wins the award for "Most personally worried about his generational placement";

Thank you, thank you my adoring audience! :wink:

you notice a genuine PANIC in his posts whenever he brings up the 77/78 divide

You see panic with 77/78? I'd figure it would be 76/77 more than 77/78...

Anyway, here's another delineation:

1979/80: Assuming (another big IF) graduation in four years and going right into the workforce, 79 cohorts are the last to be in the workforce before "9-11". Unless you're like mmailliw at Jarvard, 80ers were still undergrads...hence that Newsweek label "Generation 9-11"

1983/1984: For those of us who don't go to college (and more representative of the masses...)

On 2002-04-29 09:57, mmailliw wrote:

First and foremost, 1982 babies became part of the now infamous C2K which received an ENORMOUS amount of positive press, etc that ended up ultimately affecting their personality.

So they may be a tad anomalous, but not necessarily so.

Also, where I live, the 82ers were the ones in my history class who all seemed to have that same conformist conservative opinion that I was debating against (2 people in my year against 17 C2Kers).

The conformity seems Millie, does it not?

Hmmm... there's also the angst and cynicism (tho maybe not complete with a full Xr edge) in the 83 - 85 or 86 cohorts that are absent (replaced by optimism) in the 82 cohorts; finally, if you look at birth year charts from the late 70s and early 80s the biggest feature is the jump from 81 to 82. However, the drop from 82 to 83 (which isn't made up until at least 85) is also noticeable; maybe this could be retrograde motion?

I think the birth rates are irrelevant. It is generally not even part of most people's consciousness as they are living through it so how influential could it be with respect to setting the defining mood? Besides, Buster Brown demonstrated somewhere here that birthrates have declined through every generation in American history since 1800 or so excepting a couple upswings before and after WW II.

About the true nature of the Millennial Generation: It all depends on how the 83 - 86 and the 87 - XX (98? 00? 02?) cohorts turn out: the only thing that we know for sure is that the 83 - 86 cohorts are NOT like the 82 cohorts.

OK, but you already established that '82ers might be idiosyncratic anyway given the attention they received. Not necessarily, but maybe.

If 83 - 86 turns out (upon analysis) to be more like 75 - 81 we'll know that 82 was just a media-induced break in the fabric among late wave X. However, even if it turns out to be as different from that as from 82 there are still 2 distinct possibilities: the 87 - XX ers can either become more like 83 - 86 or stay the way (generationally!) they are now.

OK, you are losing me here! All I am saying is that I can see the continuity from my '60s cohorts through to Justin '79 in terms of that attitude! Robert '82 seems to be part of a following generation because he really does not display that edge. I have seen less of you but I do not see it in you either. You may in fact have an edge but it is not that same Xer edge. That Xer edge is one of recognizing the futility of it all, knowing that we are really spiraling out of control going nowhere. If we do manage to move on to something better, it will only be by the Grace of God because our fate is totally out of our hands. I do not think that any edge you might have is founded upon a sense of futility in response to the absolute chaos around you. I believe you are part of the next generation and one which may well have confidence that it can control its own destiny. Does this reflect your peers' attitude?

In the first case, the TRUE millennial generation would be represented by people such as Craig or myself and I'd be proud to call myself Millennial. However, in the second case the Millennial generation (with its 82 specter) would really consist of those who did not become teens until after the 1990s; 83 - 86 would be sandwiched in between two generations and become nothing more than a little-noticed "Generation Y".

For the sake of argument, let's trust Justin's acute powers of observation and call '81 the first Millie year. Certainly, varying measures of Xer traits would appear in the earliest cohorts through to about '86 probably. At least that 5+5 year buffer at generational cusps has been discussed here before. I am confident that there is a definite 3+3 year buffer at every cusp. 5+5 may capture all traces.

It really could go either way; around 1998 I noticed that a lot of the teenybopper crowd was born in 85 but as the 85 cohort matured, entered HS, and became my peers it became apparent that they were more like us; the 87 cohort and later has also looked the same way for a while. Now the 87ers are in HS but they have not become my peers yet because I have moved onto college; my 84 and 85 friends seem to say that there's something different about the Class of 2005 tho so who knows? They're still fairly young tho; we'll have to give them time to see what happens. As for now, I only identify generationally with "Generation Y"...

'87 would move you into the full-blown Millie absent of all traces of Xer. That may be what you are seeing. But it certainly is too early to tell because these people are so young.

You make a good case for a later Lost/GI cusp (maybe 03 - 08 are the cusp years?); I just don't agree with you on the others as much or on the 18-year cycle.

Let's assume that the first GI year is 1906. If we apply a 5+5 buffer, then we link Walt Disney '01 and '10 cohorts on the cusp. However I still think that Reagan '11 had a trace of Lost and that 100% GIs do not appear until 1912 or so. A 6+6 buffer around a 1906 GI advent puts '00 cohorts and Reagan '11 on the cusp. This buffer is interesting because one would think that children born in 1900 would have been treated differently than those born in 1899 due to consciousness of the date change and I believe S&H make this point. The problem is that they make the GI advent a function of this date change (actually the proper century change in 1901) and I think in reality it only inaugurated the cusp period.

GI/Silent hasn't been debated that much, but what I DO know is that my 1924 grandfathers are very much GI (having fought in WWII) and my 1927 and 1929 grandmothers are no different (maybe the generations are different by gender?)

I know a lot of men born around 1927 and 1929 who lied about their age and served in the war. This was actually fairly common. However I do not think that eligibility for war service is the sole determinant, although it is certainly a highly significant factor. For example, Jimmy Carter '24 was old enough to serve but he is so clearly Silent as opposed to GI in demeanor. Bush Sr. '24 is clearly on the cusp since it really is difficult to tell whether he is more GI or more Silent in mood, although I believe he is slightly more GI. It all comes down to the prevailing mood of a majority of a year's cohorts and how they are directed and oriented. It is conceivable that 1924 is a better Silent start year than 1925 overall, although I doubt it. '24 cohorts were right at draft age when the draft began. Surely the majority of them are more GI than Silent and Carter is the exception. But again, eligibility for war service was obviously not the sole determinant and your grandmothers fall in the cusp range anyway.

I am not convinced at all that 1943 (the 1943 cohorts I know - one definite and one within 1 year either way - seem MUCH more silent than boomerish) or even 1944 are boomer years (look at the graph of birthrates; you'll see a decline between 42 and 43 that isn't made up until at least 45, putting 43 and 44 in a well very similar to the one we see 83 and 84 in)...

And again, the birth rates I would think are irrelevant since the average person was not conscious of them anyway, at least not to the point that it fundamentally altered their mood. The '42/'43 schism I cite reflects a clear divide in direction, orientation, and mood. The '42 cohorts, by and large, never thought of protesting (collective action). The '43 cohorts, by and large, never thought of not protesting (collective action). A given '42 cohort and '43 cohort may (and often do) have identical political beliefs. But there is generally a pronounced difference with respect to how they might go about achieving their common ends. The '43 cohorts were probably at just the right age when Kennedy was assassinated that they "snapped" (relatively). Suddenly, protesting and collective action no longer seemed so presumptuous, futile, foolish or whatever as they seemed to the '42 cohort who was getting ready to graduate and move on.

1961 makes sense as the first Xr year (1960 does not feel like it's in a generation at all; the late 50s and early 60s are cusp years - I even saw a website a few years ago by a 65er trying to explain why he's a boomer due to memories! Meanwhile, over at http://www.late-boomers.org (or is it .com?) they argue that "Xrs, BY DEFINITION, cannot remember the moon landing" when trying to include the 64 cohort; but this logic also includes 65 and most of 66 - in the same FAQ they say that the baby boom ended in 64... I don't think I like their logic.

There is obviously a lot of this and I respect the efforts of "Jonesers," etc., to pinpoint exact sociological divisions. But I still think that they are splitting hairs with respect to generations. Consideration of hybrid intergenerational cusps makes much more sense to me than creating new smaller generations out of whole cloth.

But is X the absence of being Millie or is Millie the absence of being X? THAT is the argument over the placement of our wave... maybe Y is the absence of Millie combined with the absence of X?

Go back up top to my discussion of the Xer edge and what causes it. Only you can answer whether the same cause is present with your cohorts.

And we have one of my personal favorites, Mark Y, a 78 cohort whose experiences are as worried as any but has even less of the Xr edge than I do - he definitely wins the award for "Most personally worried about his generational placement"; you notice a genuine PANIC in his posts whenever he brings up the 77/78 divide.

I think it is all cusp. It would have to be taking Justin '79 into account.

I'd make it slightly more than that to make 24 - 27 the cusp; that would cause a 20 year gap combined with the earlier model

If 1925 is the Silent advent, then a 5+5 buffer produces a cusp spanning 1920 to 1929. 3+3 produces 1922-1927. I am not certain but it may be that different generations have different cusp sizes.

Sorry, I just don't see that at all! Here I make the cusp 43 - 46 (the Silents influencing the Boomers were just that, Silents influencing the Boomers) for a nice, 19-year gap

The 1943 Boomer advent is the one reliable date upon which I key all other 20th century generational measurements. I know that I cannot convince you and I will not try. But I was conscious of this '42/'43 divide before S&H even wrote Generations. A 5+5 buffer for 1943 produces a 1938-1947 cusp, by the way. 3+3 produces 1940-1945. That 3+3 cusp seems to nail it, to my mind, i.e. last full Silent in 1939 and first full Boomer in 1946.

For the reasons I previously listed, the Millennial advent would have to be at least 1982 (C2K) for a 21 year gap and possibly 1987 (a 26 year gap); note that if 83 - 88 were the cusp, we have Marc Lamb's 80 year saeclum with which I tend to agree.

Ah, well you are an ENTJ and that explains it. You and Marc use Te which is predisposed to make reality fit a predetermined theory, i.e. all saecula must be about 80 years in length. I as an INTP use Ti which assesses reality for what it is and sees where it leads independent of preconceived notions. Each method has its benefits and each method has its flaws. Truth is only confidently found through synthesis when both methods are in agreement. We may never achieve that agreement however.

On 2002-04-29 11:19, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-04-29 09:57, mmailliw wrote:

Also, where I live, the 82ers were the ones in my history class who all seemed to have that same conformist conservative opinion that I was debating against (2 people in my year against 17 C2Kers).

The conformity seems Millie, does it not?

Well, duh!

Hmmm... there's also the angst and cynicism (tho maybe not complete with a full Xr edge) in the 83 - 85 or 86 cohorts that are absent (replaced by optimism) in the 82 cohorts; finally, if you look at birth year charts from the late 70s and early 80s the biggest feature is the jump from 81 to 82. However, the drop from 82 to 83 (which isn't made up until at least 85) is also noticeable; maybe this could be retrograde motion?

I think the birth rates are irrelevant. It is generally not even part of most people's consciousness as they are living through it so how influential could it be with respect to setting the defining mood? Besides, Buster Brown demonstrated somewhere here that birthrates have declined through every generation in American history since 1800 or so excepting a couple upswings before and after WW II.

Marketers do not tend to market to cohorts of "well babies" (as I call them because their birth rates look like they're in a well) because that's not where the money is... similarly being trapped in a well would make your cohort sandwiched in between more dominant and bigger ones on either side preventing the true voice from coming out.

If 83 - 86 turns out (upon analysis) to be more like 75 - 81 we'll know that 82 was just a media-induced break in the fabric among late wave X. However, even if it turns out to be as different from that as from 82 there are still 2 distinct possibilities: the 87 - XX ers can either become more like 83 - 86 or stay the way (generationally!) they are now.

OK, you are losing me here! All I am saying is that I can see the continuity from my '60s cohorts through to Justin '79 in terms of that attitude! Robert '82 seems to be part of a following generation because he really does not display that edge. I have seen less of you but I do not see it in you either. You may in fact have an edge but it is not that same Xer edge. That Xer edge is one of recognizing the futility of it all, knowing that we are really spiraling out of control going nowhere. If we do manage to move on to something better, it will only be by the Grace of God because our fate is totally out of our hands. I do not think that any edge you might have is founded upon a sense of futility in response to the absolute chaos around you. I believe you are part of the next generation and one which may well have confidence that it can control its own destiny. Does this reflect your peers' attitude?

That was my attitude around the year 1997; life itself (and watching the world at large after that) caused optimism to give way to cynicism in my thoughts; granted everyone can make themselves happy the same way that Bush got Texas in compliance with the state clean air standards: lower the happiness/air standards! While this is obvious, I doubt that either myself or my peers (NOT counting the 82/C2Kers) think that they can really change things in this world for the positive (we might have in 97 but not now)

In the first case, the TRUE millennial generation would be represented by people such as Craig or myself and I'd be proud to call myself Millennial. However, in the second case the Millennial generation (with its 82 specter) would really consist of those who did not become teens until after the 1990s; 83 - 86 would be sandwiched in between two generations and become nothing more than a little-noticed "Generation Y".

For the sake of argument, let's trust Justin's acute powers of observation and call '81 the first Millie year. Certainly, varying measures of Xer traits would appear in the earliest cohorts through to about '86 probably. At least that 5+5 year buffer at generational cusps has been discussed here before. I am confident that there is a definite 3+3 year buffer at every cusp. 5+5 may capture all traces.

That definitely could explain things: making cusps large enough that they encompass a third to half of the generations themself would likely capture all traces and leave a core group at the centerr.

It really could go either way; around 1998 I noticed that a lot of the teenybopper crowd was born in 85 but as the 85 cohort matured, entered HS, and became my peers it became apparent that they were more like us; the 87 cohort and later has also looked the same way for a while. Now the 87ers are in HS but they have not become my peers yet because I have moved onto college; my 84 and 85 friends seem to say that there's something different about the Class of 2005 tho so who knows? They're still fairly young tho; we'll have to give them time to see what happens. As for now, I only identify generationally with "Generation Y"...

'87 would move you into the full-blown Millie absent of all traces of Xer. That may be what you are seeing. But it certainly is too early to tell because these people are so young.

That would make sense; I'll wait until I see 87ers start posting here and also until I become an adult

You make a good case for a later Lost/GI cusp (maybe 03 - 08 are the cusp years?); I just don't agree with you on the others as much or on the 18-year cycle.

Let's assume that the first GI year is 1906. If we apply a 5+5 buffer, then we link Walt Disney '01 and '10 cohorts on the cusp. However I still think that Reagan '11 had a trace of Lost and that 100% GIs do not appear until 1912 or so. A 6+6 buffer around a 1906 GI advent puts '00 cohorts and Reagan '11 on the cusp. This buffer is interesting because one would think that children born in 1900 would have been treated differently than those born in 1899 due to consciousness of the date change and I believe S&H make this point. The problem is that they make the GI advent a function of this date change (actually the proper century change in 1901) and I think in reality it only inaugurated the cusp period.

Agreed.

GI/Silent hasn't been debated that much, but what I DO know is that my 1924 grandfathers are very much GI (having fought in WWII) and my 1927 and 1929 grandmothers are no different (maybe the generations are different by gender?)

I know a lot of men born around 1927 and 1929 who lied about their age and served in the war. This was actually fairly common. However I do not think that eligibility for war service is the sole determinant, although it is certainly a highly significant factor. For example, Jimmy Carter '24 was old enough to serve but he is so clearly Silent as opposed to GI in demeanor. Bush Sr. '24 is clearly on the cusp since it really is difficult to tell whether he is more GI or more Silent in mood, although I believe he is slightly more GI. It all comes down to the prevailing mood of a majority of a year's cohorts and how they are directed and oriented. It is conceivable that 1924 is a better Silent start year than 1925 overall, although I doubt it. '24 cohorts were right at draft age when the draft began. Surely the majority of them are more GI than Silent and Carter is the exception. But again, eligibility for war service was obviously not the sole determinant and your grandmothers fall in the cusp range anyway.

But Carter DID NOT serve; he was on a school deferment (and that could have made him more silentlike; not the eligibility but the actual service or lack of it)

I am not convinced at all that 1943 (the 1943 cohorts I know - one definite and one within 1 year either way - seem MUCH more silent than boomerish) or even 1944 are boomer years (look at the graph of birthrates; you'll see a decline between 42 and 43 that isn't made up until at least 45, putting 43 and 44 in a well very similar to the one we see 83 and 84 in)...

And again, the birth rates I would think are irrelevant since the average person was not conscious of them anyway, at least not to the point that it fundamentally altered their mood. The '42/'43 schism I cite reflects a clear divide in direction, orientation, and mood. The '42 cohorts, by and large, never thought of protesting (collective action). The '43 cohorts, by and large, never thought of not protesting (collective action). A given '42 cohort and '43 cohort may (and often do) have identical political beliefs. But there is generally a pronounced difference with respect to how they might go about achieving their common ends. The '43 cohorts were probably at just the right age when Kennedy was assassinated that they "snapped" (relatively). Suddenly, protesting and collective action no longer seemed so presumptuous, futile, foolish or whatever as they seemed to the '42 cohort who was getting ready to graduate and move on.

Where are you getting all your information that so many 43ers protested? Anyway, even if 1% of the 42ers and 10% of the 43ers protested, for example, a big 42/43 split would appear because the 43ers would be the first group with a large number of protestors despite the fact that the vast majority of 43ers did not

1961 makes sense as the first Xr year (1960 does not feel like it's in a generation at all; the late 50s and early 60s are cusp years - I even saw a website a few years ago by a 65er trying to explain why he's a boomer due to memories! Meanwhile, over at http://www.late-boomers.org (or is it .com?) they argue that "Xrs, BY DEFINITION, cannot remember the moon landing" when trying to include the 64 cohort; but this logic also includes 65 and most of 66 - in the same FAQ they say that the baby boom ended in 64... I don't think I like their logic.

There is obviously a lot of this and I respect the efforts of "Jonesers," etc., to pinpoint exact sociological divisions. But I still think that they are splitting hairs with respect to generations. Consideration of hybrid intergenerational cusps makes much more sense to me than creating new smaller generations out of whole cloth.

I can totally see that

But is X the absence of being Millie or is Millie the absence of being X? THAT is the argument over the placement of our wave... maybe Y is the absence of Millie combined with the absence of X?

Go back up top to my discussion of the Xer edge and what causes it. Only you can answer whether the same cause is present with your cohorts.

I would answer by saying that while we may not have too much X in us, we have even less Millie

And we have one of my personal favorites, Mark Y, a 78 cohort whose experiences are as worried as any but has even less of the Xr edge than I do - he definitely wins the award for "Most personally worried about his generational placement"; you notice a genuine PANIC in his posts whenever he brings up the 77/78 divide.

I think it is all cusp. It would have to be taking Justin '79 into account.

Yeah, cuspness could account for true Millies with Xr shells and vice versa (I believe that is a Susan Brombacher idea)

I'd make it slightly more than that to make 24 - 27 the cusp; that would cause a 20 year gap combined with the earlier model

If 1925 is the Silent advent, then a 5+5 buffer produces a cusp spanning 1920 to 1929. 3+3 produces 1922-1927. I am not certain but it may be that different generations have different cusp sizes.

I use a tighter definition of 'cusp' than you... mine refers to the age location where no one archetype predominates while yours refers to the area where two coexist

Sorry, I just don't see that at all! Here I make the cusp 43 - 46 (the Silents influencing the Boomers were just that, Silents influencing the Boomers) for a nice, 19-year gap

The 1943 Boomer advent is the one reliable date upon which I key all other 20th century generational measurements. I know that I cannot convince you and I will not try. But I was conscious of this '42/'43 divide before S&H even wrote Generations. A 5+5 buffer for 1943 produces a 1938-1947 cusp, by the way. 3+3 produces 1940-1945. That 3+3 cusp seems to nail it, to my mind, i.e. last full Silent in 1939 and first full Boomer in 1946.

[/quote]
I agree with your cusps; I just feel that this one cusp is strongly skewed (very assymetrically shaped)

For the reasons I previously listed, the Millennial advent would have to be at least 1982 (C2K) for a 21 year gap and possibly 1987 (a 26 year gap); note that if 83 - 88 were the cusp, we have Marc Lamb's 80 year saeclum with which I tend to agree.

Ah, well you are an ENTJ and that explains it. You and Marc use Te which is predisposed to make reality fit a predetermined theory, i.e. all saecula must be about 80 years in length. I as an INTP use Ti which assesses reality for what it is and sees where it leads independent of preconceived notions. Each method has its benefits and each method has its flaws. Truth is only confidently found through synthesis when both methods are in agreement. We may never achieve that agreement however.

[/quote]
I think that because I am an ENT *J* I don't force everything to conform to a pattern; I just see the patterns more and as more obvious (the 80 year parallel between presidencies from the Panic of 07/Crash of 87 to Teapot Dome/Enron) than your INTP.

No No and No.
Hello, Earth to William.
You cannot comment on the 83-84 shift because you were a fetus.
I disagree that 1996 to 1998 was a bigger shift.
I also disagree that 1983 was a represented cohort at the WTC.
Maybe like a concession stand operator. Most of those people were college grads (they worked at big firms, come on!)
Th earliest year I saw on those missing posters was 1979 (to which I was shocked and saddened that people as young as me got killed)
1978 was even more represented.
As for 1900-1906 cohorts (1907 is clearly GI)

1900 Queen Mum, adlai stevenson (ran against Eisenhower twice and lost--definite LOST cohort) Spencer Tracy (definitely Lost)

1901 Margaret Mead, Clark Gable,Gary Cooper, Marlene Dietrich (hmm. could go both, but cuspish)

1902 Ed Sullivan (seems pretty GI)
Bugsy Siegel (seems pretty Lost)
John Dillinger
Langston Hughes (also Lost, part of harlem renaissance)
Ogden Nash -my fav poet. Pretty GI. His simplistic fun style has alot more in common with the Mel Blancs and other Gi animators than the "woe is me" poets that were born in the 1880s and 90s.
Steinbeck (could go both ways)
Lindbergh (could go both ways)
Disney (seems GI in that he also approached life with that Blanc, nash style)
Elliot Ness ( Seems Lost)

1903--George Orwell (no comment)
Bob Hope--seems part of the trend I noticed in 1902, of replacing the dark, lost types (Bogart, Tracy, Hemingway) with the more upbeat types (Hope, Disney, Grant, Gable, etc.)

1904--Cary Grant (eh..GI?)
Dr. Seuss (Definitely GI)

1905--Clara Bow, Greta garbo (seem Lost, can't tell)

My Great Grandma and old neighbor were both born around this time. They didnt seem like my 1916, 1918 grandparents at all. Instead they seemed more like my 1892 great grandma.

1907-GI all the way..Gene Autry, John Wayne.
1908-Milton berle,ethel merman--ok this doesnt get debated.


In my opinion. Id say that 1902-06 is the split where the blurring occurred.
I dont think they were Lost really, but I also dont think they fully embodied the GI archetype like the 1906,07,08 cohorts.

I found a pretty good list online. I'll paste in 1900 through 1908 birthdays. Hope this is not obnoxiously long:

http://www.famousbirthdays.com

01-Jan-1900 Xavier Cugat
05-Feb-1900 Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.
22-Feb-1900 Luis Bu?uel
05-Apr-1900 Spencer Tracy
29-Jun-1900 Antoine de Saint-Exupery
24-Jul-1900 Zelda Fitzgerald
04-Aug-1900 Elizabeth, The Queen Mother
08-Sep-1900 Claude Pepper
10-Oct-1900 Helen Hayes
18-Oct-1900 Lotte Lenya
08-Nov-1900 Margaret Mitchell
14-Nov-1900 Aaron Copland
01-Feb-1901 Clark Gable
25-Feb-1901 Zeppo Marx
28-Feb-1901 Linus Pauling
07-May-1901 Gary Cooper
28-Jul-1901 Rudy Vallee
04-Aug-1901 Louis Armstrong
12-Sep-1901 Ben Blue
28-Sep-1901 Ed Sullivan
02-Nov-1901 Paul Ford
17-Nov-1901 Lee Strasberg
05-Dec-1901 Walt Disney
16-Dec-1901 Margaret Mead
27-Dec-1901 Marlene Dietrich
01-Feb-1902 Langston Hughes
04-Feb-1902 Charles Lindbergh
08-Feb-1902 Lyle Talbot
20-Feb-1902 Ansel Adams
27-Feb-1902 John Steinbeck
17-Mar-1902 Bobby Jones
10-May-1902 David O. Selznick
17-May-1902 Ayatollah Khomeini
19-Jun-1902 Guy Lombardo
28-Jun-1902 John Dillinger
28-Jun-1902 Richard Rogers
04-Jul-1902 George Murphy
26-Jul-1902 Gracie Allen
19-Aug-1902 Ogden Nash
05-Oct-1902 Larry Fine
05-Oct-1902 Ray Kroc
05-Dec-1902 Strom Thurmond
09-Dec-1902 Margaret Hamilton
19-Dec-1902 Ralph Richardson
16-Feb-1903 Edgar Bergen
21-Feb-1903 Anans Nin
10-Mar-1903 Bix Beiderbecke
11-Mar-1903 Lawrence Welk
09-Apr-1903 Ward Bond
02-May-1903 Dr. Benjamin Spock
03-May-1903 Bing Crosby
29-May-1903 Bob Hope
18-Jun-1903 Jeanette MacDonald
19-Jun-1903 Lou Gehrig
25-Jun-1903 George Orwell
07-Aug-1903 Louis Leakey
31-Aug-1903 Arthur Godfrey
13-Sep-1903 Claudette Colbert
15-Sep-1903 Roy Acuff
01-Oct-1903 Vladimir Horowitz
22-Oct-1903 Curly Howard
07-Nov-1903 Dean Jagger
02-Jan-1904 Sally Rand
09-Jan-1904 George Balanchine
10-Jan-1904 Ray Bolger
18-Jan-1904 Cary Grant
01-Feb-1904 S.J. Perelman
12-Feb-1904 Ted Mack
25-Feb-1904 Adelle Davis
29-Feb-1904 Jimmy Dorsey
01-Mar-1904 Glenn Miller
02-Mar-1904 Dr. Seuss
20-Mar-1904 B.F. Skinner
14-Apr-1904 John Gielgud
11-May-1904 Salvador Dali
21-May-1904 Fats Waller
02-Jun-1904 Johnny Weissmuller
10-Jun-1904 Frederick Loewe
17-Jun-1904 Ralph Bellamy
26-Jun-1904 Peter Lorre
12-Jul-1904 Pablo Neruda
07-Aug-1904 Ralph Bunche
21-Aug-1904 Count Basie
22-Aug-1904 Deng Xiaoping
26-Aug-1904 Christopher Isherwood
24-Oct-1904 Moss Hart
11-Nov-1904 Alger Hiss
14-Nov-1904 Dick Powell
03-Jan-1905 Ray Milland
04-Jan-1905 Sterling Holloway
12-Jan-1905 Tex Ritter
02-Feb-1905 Ayn Rand
10-Feb-1905 Lon Chaney, Jr.
29-Mar-1905 Philip Ahn
15-May-1905 Joseph Cotten
16-May-1905 Henry Fonda
21-Jun-1905 Jean-Paul Sartre
02-Aug-1905 Myrna Loy
25-Aug-1905 Clara Bow
18-Sep-1905 Eddie "Rochester" Anderson
18-Sep-1905 Greta Garbo
07-Oct-1905 Andy Devine
17-Oct-1905 Jean Arthur
05-Nov-1905 Joel McCrea
19-Nov-1905 Tommy Dorsey
24-Dec-1905 Howard Hughes
28-Dec-1905 Cliff Arquette
28-Dec-1905 Earl "Fatha" Hines
14-Jan-1906 William Bendix
15-Jan-1906 Aristotle Onassis
02-Feb-1906 Gale Gordon
04-Feb-1906 Clyde W. Tombaugh
26-Feb-1906 Madeleine Carroll
06-Mar-1906 Lou Costello
16-Mar-1906 Henny Youngman
20-Mar-1906 Ozzie Nelson
04-Apr-1906 John Cameron Swayze
13-Apr-1906 Samuel Beckett
03-Jun-1906 Josephine Baker
22-Jun-1906 Billy Wilder
05-Aug-1906 John Huston
25-Sep-1906 Dmitri Shostakovich
05-Dec-1906 Otto Preminger
06-Dec-1906 Agnes Moorehead
27-Dec-1906 Oscar Levant
03-Feb-1907 James Michener
15-Feb-1907 Cesar Romero
22-Feb-1907 Sheldon Leonard
22-Feb-1907 Robert Young
28-Feb-1907 Earl Scheib
12-May-1907 Katharine Hepburn
22-May-1907 Sir Laurence Olivier
26-May-1907 John Wayne
16-Jul-1907 Barbara Stanwyck
29-Jul-1907 Melvin Belli
15-Sep-1907 Fay Wray
29-Sep-1907 Gene Autry
25-Dec-1907 Cab Calloway
05-Jan-1908 George Dolenz
10-Jan-1908 Paul Henreid
07-Feb-1908 Larry "Buster" Crabbe
17-Feb-1908 Red Barber
22-Feb-1908 John Mills
05-Mar-1908 Rex Harrison
23-Mar-1908 Joan Crawford
25-Mar-1908 David Lean
01-Apr-1908 Abraham Maslow
02-Apr-1908 Buddy Ebsen
05-Apr-1908 Bette Davis
22-Apr-1908 Eddie Albert
25-Apr-1908 Edward R. Murrow
30-Apr-1908 Eve Arden
20-May-1908 Jimmy Stewart
26-May-1908 Robert Morley
28-May-1908 Ian Fleming
30-May-1908 Mel Blanc
31-May-1908 Don Ameche
18-Jun-1908 Bud Collyer
02-Jul-1908 Thurgood Marshall
08-Jul-1908 Nelson Rockefeller
12-Jul-1908 Milton Berle
27-Aug-1908 Lyndon B. Johnson
30-Aug-1908 Fred MacMurray
31-Aug-1908 William Saroyan
04-Sep-1908 Richard Wright
29-Sep-1908 Greer Garson
06-Oct-1908 Carole Lombard
09-Oct-1908 Jacques Tati
15-Oct-1908 John Kenneth Galbraith
16-Nov-1908 Burgess Meredith
18-Nov-1908 Imogene Coca
20-Nov-1908 Alistair Cooke
29-Nov-1908 Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.
28-Dec-1908 Lew Ayres

I think the 1902 boundary is good.

Let me try to assign generations to these:

On 2002-04-29 12:44, Stonewall Patton wrote:
I found a pretty good list online. I'll paste in 1900 through 1908 birthdays. Hope this is not obnoxiously long:

http://www.famousbirthdays.com

01-Jan-1900 Xavier Cugat
05-Feb-1900 Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.
22-Feb-1900 Luis Bu?uel
05-Apr-1900 Spencer Tracy
29-Jun-1900 Antoine de Saint-Exupery
24-Jul-1900 Zelda Fitzgerald
04-Aug-1900 Elizabeth, The Queen Mother
08-Sep-1900 Claude Pepper
10-Oct-1900 Helen Hayes
18-Oct-1900 Lotte Lenya
08-Nov-1900 Margaret Mitchell
14-Nov-1900 Aaron Copland

1900 are all Lost, I think.

01-Feb-1901 Clark Gable
25-Feb-1901 Zeppo Marx
28-Feb-1901 Linus Pauling
07-May-1901 Gary Cooper
28-Jul-1901 Rudy Vallee
04-Aug-1901 Louis Armstrong
12-Sep-1901 Ben Blue
28-Sep-1901 Ed Sullivan
02-Nov-1901 Paul Ford
17-Nov-1901 Lee Strasberg
05-Dec-1901 Walt Disney
16-Dec-1901 Margaret Mead
27-Dec-1901 Marlene Dietrich

I think these people are basically all Lost. A few GIs might be claimed in there. But are they not mostly Lost?

01-Feb-1902 Langston Hughes
04-Feb-1902 Charles Lindbergh
08-Feb-1902 Lyle Talbot
20-Feb-1902 Ansel Adams
27-Feb-1902 John Steinbeck
17-Mar-1902 Bobby Jones
10-May-1902 David O. Selznick
17-May-1902 Ayatollah Khomeini
19-Jun-1902 Guy Lombardo
28-Jun-1902 John Dillinger
28-Jun-1902 Richard Rogers
04-Jul-1902 George Murphy
26-Jul-1902 Gracie Allen
19-Aug-1902 Ogden Nash
05-Oct-1902 Larry Fine
05-Oct-1902 Ray Kroc
05-Dec-1902 Strom Thurmond
09-Dec-1902 Margaret Hamilton
19-Dec-1902 Ralph Richardson

Surely most of these people are Lost.

16-Feb-1903 Edgar Bergen
21-Feb-1903 Anans Nin
10-Mar-1903 Bix Beiderbecke
11-Mar-1903 Lawrence Welk
09-Apr-1903 Ward Bond
02-May-1903 Dr. Benjamin Spock
03-May-1903 Bing Crosby
29-May-1903 Bob Hope
18-Jun-1903 Jeanette MacDonald
19-Jun-1903 Lou Gehrig
25-Jun-1903 George Orwell
07-Aug-1903 Louis Leakey
31-Aug-1903 Arthur Godfrey
13-Sep-1903 Claudette Colbert
15-Sep-1903 Roy Acuff
01-Oct-1903 Vladimir Horowitz
22-Oct-1903 Curly Howard
07-Nov-1903 Dean Jagger

I am beginning to see more GIs in 1903. But are they not mostly Lost?

02-Jan-1904 Sally Rand
09-Jan-1904 George Balanchine
10-Jan-1904 Ray Bolger
18-Jan-1904 Cary Grant
01-Feb-1904 S.J. Perelman
12-Feb-1904 Ted Mack
25-Feb-1904 Adelle Davis
29-Feb-1904 Jimmy Dorsey
01-Mar-1904 Glenn Miller
02-Mar-1904 Dr. Seuss
20-Mar-1904 B.F. Skinner
14-Apr-1904 John Gielgud
11-May-1904 Salvador Dali
21-May-1904 Fats Waller
02-Jun-1904 Johnny Weissmuller
10-Jun-1904 Frederick Loewe
17-Jun-1904 Ralph Bellamy
26-Jun-1904 Peter Lorre
12-Jul-1904 Pablo Neruda
07-Aug-1904 Ralph Bunche
21-Aug-1904 Count Basie
22-Aug-1904 Deng Xiaoping
26-Aug-1904 Christopher Isherwood
24-Oct-1904 Moss Hart
11-Nov-1904 Alger Hiss
14-Nov-1904 Dick Powell

I'm seeing a lot of Lost in there. Do you see much Joe DiMaggio in there, for example? I don't.

03-Jan-1905 Ray Milland
04-Jan-1905 Sterling Holloway
12-Jan-1905 Tex Ritter
02-Feb-1905 Ayn Rand
10-Feb-1905 Lon Chaney, Jr.
29-Mar-1905 Philip Ahn
15-May-1905 Joseph Cotten
16-May-1905 Henry Fonda
21-Jun-1905 Jean-Paul Sartre
02-Aug-1905 Myrna Loy
25-Aug-1905 Clara Bow
18-Sep-1905 Eddie "Rochester" Anderson
18-Sep-1905 Greta Garbo
07-Oct-1905 Andy Devine
17-Oct-1905 Jean Arthur
05-Nov-1905 Joel McCrea
19-Nov-1905 Tommy Dorsey
24-Dec-1905 Howard Hughes
28-Dec-1905 Cliff Arquette
28-Dec-1905 Earl "Fatha" Hines

Perhaps some GIs in there but still a lot of Lost I think.

14-Jan-1906 William Bendix
15-Jan-1906 Aristotle Onassis
02-Feb-1906 Gale Gordon
04-Feb-1906 Clyde W. Tombaugh
26-Feb-1906 Madeleine Carroll
06-Mar-1906 Lou Costello
16-Mar-1906 Henny Youngman
20-Mar-1906 Ozzie Nelson
04-Apr-1906 John Cameron Swayze
13-Apr-1906 Samuel Beckett
03-Jun-1906 Josephine Baker
22-Jun-1906 Billy Wilder
05-Aug-1906 John Huston
25-Sep-1906 Dmitri Shostakovich
05-Dec-1906 Otto Preminger
06-Dec-1906 Agnes Moorehead
27-Dec-1906 Oscar Levant

Starting to pick up some more typically GI in there. But still a lot of Lost. Possibly more GI than Lost for the first time.

03-Feb-1907 James Michener
15-Feb-1907 Cesar Romero
22-Feb-1907 Sheldon Leonard
22-Feb-1907 Robert Young
28-Feb-1907 Earl Scheib
12-May-1907 Katharine Hepburn
22-May-1907 Sir Laurence Olivier
26-May-1907 John Wayne
16-Jul-1907 Barbara Stanwyck
29-Jul-1907 Melvin Belli
15-Sep-1907 Fay Wray
29-Sep-1907 Gene Autry
25-Dec-1907 Cab Calloway

Both GI and Lost but more GI than Lost. If majority GI did not begin in 1906, it definitely did in 1907.

05-Jan-1908 George Dolenz
10-Jan-1908 Paul Henreid
07-Feb-1908 Larry "Buster" Crabbe
17-Feb-1908 Red Barber
22-Feb-1908 John Mills
05-Mar-1908 Rex Harrison
23-Mar-1908 Joan Crawford
25-Mar-1908 David Lean
01-Apr-1908 Abraham Maslow
02-Apr-1908 Buddy Ebsen
05-Apr-1908 Bette Davis
22-Apr-1908 Eddie Albert
25-Apr-1908 Edward R. Murrow
30-Apr-1908 Eve Arden
20-May-1908 Jimmy Stewart
26-May-1908 Robert Morley
28-May-1908 Ian Fleming
30-May-1908 Mel Blanc
31-May-1908 Don Ameche
18-Jun-1908 Bud Collyer
02-Jul-1908 Thurgood Marshall
08-Jul-1908 Nelson Rockefeller
12-Jul-1908 Milton Berle
27-Aug-1908 Lyndon B. Johnson
30-Aug-1908 Fred MacMurray
31-Aug-1908 William Saroyan
04-Sep-1908 Richard Wright
29-Sep-1908 Greer Garson
06-Oct-1908 Carole Lombard
09-Oct-1908 Jacques Tati
15-Oct-1908 John Kenneth Galbraith
16-Nov-1908 Burgess Meredith
18-Nov-1908 Imogene Coca
20-Nov-1908 Alistair Cooke
29-Nov-1908 Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.
28-Dec-1908 Lew Ayres

Definitely more GI than Lost. Pretty solidly GI, in fact.

After scanning this, my impression is that the GIs began no later than 1907 and no earlier than 1905. In fact, I think 1906 is the year. It was either 1905 or 1906 as far as I am concerned and I favor 1906. To make sure, let me assess people individually for 1905, 1906, and 1907:


03-Jan-1905 Ray Milland - ??
04-Jan-1905 Sterling Holloway - ??
12-Jan-1905 Tex Ritter - Lost?
02-Feb-1905 Ayn Rand - Either?
10-Feb-1905 Lon Chaney, Jr. - Lost?
29-Mar-1905 Philip Ahn - ??
15-May-1905 Joseph Cotten - Lost?
16-May-1905 Henry Fonda - GI
21-Jun-1905 Jean-Paul Sartre - Lost
02-Aug-1905 Myrna Loy - Lost?
25-Aug-1905 Clara Bow - Lost
18-Sep-1905 Eddie "Rochester" Anderson - ??
18-Sep-1905 Greta Garbo - Lost
07-Oct-1905 Andy Devine - ??
17-Oct-1905 Jean Arthur - ??
05-Nov-1905 Joel McCrea - ??
19-Nov-1905 Tommy Dorsey - Lost?
24-Dec-1905 Howard Hughes - Lost?
28-Dec-1905 Cliff Arquette - ??
28-Dec-1905 Earl "Fatha" Hines - ??


I'm not all that familiar with many of these people but of the ones I pegged one way or the other, they heavily favor Lost. Short of all those "unknowns" being GIs, I see 1905 as Lost.


14-Jan-1906 William Bendix - Lost?
15-Jan-1906 Aristotle Onassis - Lost?
02-Feb-1906 Gale Gordon - ??
04-Feb-1906 Clyde W. Tombaugh - ??
26-Feb-1906 Madeleine Carroll - ??
06-Mar-1906 Lou Costello - GI
16-Mar-1906 Henny Youngman - GI?
20-Mar-1906 Ozzie Nelson - GI
04-Apr-1906 John Cameron Swayze - GI
13-Apr-1906 Samuel Beckett - ??
03-Jun-1906 Josephine Baker - ??
22-Jun-1906 Billy Wilder - ??
05-Aug-1906 John Huston - Either?
25-Sep-1906 Dmitri Shostakovich - Lost?
05-Dec-1906 Otto Preminger - Lost?
06-Dec-1906 Agnes Moorehead - Either?
27-Dec-1906 Oscar Levant - ??


Still a lot of people I do not know too well here but I am getting an even balance of Lost and GI with the ones I pegged.


03-Feb-1907 James Michener - GI
15-Feb-1907 Cesar Romero - Either?
22-Feb-1907 Sheldon Leonard - ??
22-Feb-1907 Robert Young - GI?
28-Feb-1907 Earl Scheib - ??
12-May-1907 Katharine Hepburn - Either?
22-May-1907 Sir Laurence Olivier - Lost?
26-May-1907 John Wayne - GI
16-Jul-1907 Barbara Stanwyck - GI
29-Jul-1907 Melvin Belli - GI?
15-Sep-1907 Fay Wray - Lost?
29-Sep-1907 Gene Autry - Lost?
25-Dec-1907 Cab Calloway - Lost?


Of the ones I pegged, the GIs outnumber the Lost.

There is no sense doing 1908 since they seem to be overwhelmingly GI.

Well, I think the first GI year is either 1906 or 1907 and I lean toward 1906. 1905 seems as heavily Lost to me as 1908 seems heavily GI. There is no single year in between since 1906 and 1907 split the difference. I'll go with 1906 though and it makes perfect sense that my '07 grandmother could easily seem more Lost than GI.

On 2002-04-29 12:29, God wrote:
No No and No.
Hello, Earth to William.
You cannot comment on the 83-84 shift because you were a fetus.
I disagree that 1996 to 1998 was a bigger shift.

I won't know for sure until the actual 4T shift takes place whether the 2 year periods around turning shifts are really all that big or just passing through some 50/50 pt over a much longer shift (as per the regional differences, I remember, for example, being in Osh Kosh B'Gosh overalls in the eighties, etc); I'm leaning for the latter (this time around not only will I be able to remember but I'll be more observant and capable of fully rational thought), but for now it IS purely academic

I also disagree that 1983 was a represented cohort at the WTC.
Maybe like a concession stand operator. Most of those people were college grads (they worked at big firms, come on!)
Th earliest year I saw on those missing posters was 1979 (to which I was shocked and saddened that people as young as me got killed)
1978 was even more represented.

That, to me, seems like an arbitrary way to get the cutoff put around 1980 (as people died in the planes with birth years deep into the 80s and even the 90s); and anyway the bulk of the 79ers were not big company workers but had those more entry-level jobs (the people who were concession stand operators at 18 might get one promotion to assistant manager if they're lucky by the time they hit 22); I just offered the 83/84 divide (which is my least favorite out of all of them) not because I believed that that was the best interpretation of the data, but to offer another plausible one (to show just how hazy things get at the edges)

I didnt come up with the WTC thing. It was JayN, but I agree with him.

On 2002-04-29 12:05, mmailliw wrote:

That definitely could explain things: making cusps large enough that they encompass a third to half of the generations themself would likely capture all traces and leave a core group at the centerr.

Obviously, if cusps are too large, then the generations themselves becoming largely meaningless since they have no distinct identities. I think cusps better serve to pinpoint just when one generation gave way to another. If you isolate the range of cuspers, then the actual generational turn occurred at a point about halfway in between.

But Carter DID NOT serve; he was on a school deferment (and that could have made him more silentlike; not the eligibility but the actual service or lack of it)

For whatever it is worth, he was on a school deferment at the Naval Academy. But I think that is irrelevant since arguably there would be some who served who would seem more Silent and there are certainly many who did not serve who are certainly GI. The war defined that generation but it did not involve solely that generation. Again, this is a matter of pinpointing when one generational mood gave way to the next. That generational mood shift pretty clearly occurred about 1925 among a majority of that year's peers, despite the fact that many born that year served in the war.

Where are you getting all your information that so many 43ers protested?

I am basing this upon many discussions with many cohorts born in these years who described this difference. The difference between '42 and '43 cohorts was not one of ends since they often had identical ends. The difference was one of means to that end. Silents are frankly more "gentlemanly" and conscious of "proper" procedure and process. '43 cohorts, probably due to their age at the time of the Kennedy assassination, discarded the earlier Silent "reserve" and got in people's faces through protest and collective action. Put more specifically, the college seniors of 1963-64 reacted to the Kennedy assassination by hurrying up and graduating and getting on with their lives (albeit in disgust). The juniors and below from that school year, who were not yet preparing for graduation and the real world anyway, blew their tops and threw caution to the wind. The '43 cohorts broke with the past and established a new means to the same end. In this way, they established a new direction and orientation and obviously a new generation.

Anyway, even if 1% of the 42ers and 10% of the 43ers protested, for example, a big 42/43 split would appear because the 43ers would be the first group with a large number of protestors despite the fact that the vast majority of 43ers did not

Well, fine, but it is more than just that. It is about overall attitude. Even many of the ones who did not protest sanctioned or approved of it. The earlier Silents generally thought this behavior was "too much" or had a different opinion of its value. There was a generational divide which manifested between these two years.

Hey, I'm not trying to get you to go along with me. I'm just explaining to you why I place this boundary where I do. I might not buy it myself had I not picked these views up from many of the cohorts from these years.

I would answer by saying that while we may not have too much X in us, we have even less Millie

OK, I see what you are saying. You think there is an intergenerational span in which cohorts are effectively "neuter" with respect to generational orientation. A dominant wave gives way to a neuter wave gives way to a recessive wave gives way to a neuter wave gives way to a dominant wave, etc. You might even argue that '81 cohorts might be largely indistinguishable from '61 cohorts and '43 cohorts and '25 cohorts, etc. I just do not see that being true in reality. I see one generational mood flowing into another at every boundary.

I use a tighter definition of 'cusp' than you... mine refers to the age location where no one archetype predominates while yours refers to the area where two coexist

Right, we are talking about two different things.

I think that because I am an ENT *J* I don't force everything to conform to a pattern; I just see the patterns more and as more obvious (the 80 year parallel between presidencies from the Panic of 07/Crash of 87 to Teapot Dome/Enron) than your INTP.

Right, but you are starting from an assumption that similar events will occur about 80 years apart and then finding the events which fit that timetable. By contrast, I am comparing events seeking parallels and only buying a set saeculum length when a sufficient number of parallels occur an even distance apart. I would actually agree that the 1907 and 1987 crashes were alike and further that the 1912 and 1992 elections were alike as your similarly minded ESTJ colleague Marc Lamb asserts. However I would not agree that Teapot Dome equals Enron. I find the more generalized corruption of the Harding administration equivalent to the more generalized corruption of the Clinton administration in the context of the booming economies which accompanied both. The similarities between the 1920s and 1990s are amazing.

Note that the consistent 80 year difference does not hold up for me. My conclusion is that it is foolish to believe that largely identical events will always occur a uniform distance apart. They will happen in largely identical time periods (i.e. turnings) but not necessarily at identical stages of turnings. So even though I link 1907 to 1987 and 1912 to 1992, I link 1917-1918 to 1990-1991 (wars) and the combined Harding and Coolidge terms (as if Harding lived) to Clinton's two terms. Finally, I link the 1928 election to the 2000 election. Obviously I never tried to adhere to a set 80 year rule or anything close. I suppose that time will tell soon enough who charted the correct course.

For boundaries, the 1943 one is very distinct.
Just go ask my 1943 born prpfessor about 1968 and get ready to listen for about 7 hours.
Ever notice how they get that look in their eyes?
And he graduated from college (Jarvard in fact) in 1964, and he still is a mega-Boomer.
My 1940 professor kind of looked disapprovingly of 1968 as the year that "almost tore this country apart."

Silenst are extremely into detail.
This is why SDS went from the polite socialist organization of the early 1960s (it was founded in 1958) to the "Up Against the Wall Motherfucker" organization of 1968.

The same thing happened on my college campus.
We went from no political climate in 1998-99, to a very interesting one in 1999-2000.
And not just here but everywhere.
I know that the anti-globalization movement isnt really that big a deal generationally especially since most of those involved are Xers and pretty much all the leaders are in their mid-30s, but it is odd that decided to go public in 1999.
It happened in DC, Seattle, at Harvard with the sit-ins, at Johns Hopkins with the labor solidarity stuff, and it made national news, the first big student activist news since the circa 1990 Greenpeace stuff, and before it the anti-apartheid stuff from the early 80s.
I wonder what made it happen.

Once the class of 1999 got on campus things really started happening. It pulled the few elders in. I wonder if it will continue. I just cant see core Millennials perpetuating this. I think its really a cusp issue, with people being both cynical Nomad types but still being drawn into the civic fray, albeit through a very non-civic channel.

Man we are like the Revolutionary saeculum.
William lets not fight about this crap. Screw the GIs--they sucked anyway.
Were like the Liberty and the Republicans.
The George Washingtons and the Thomas Jeffersons.
America can say fuck you to my generation.
They dont listen to us.
We stop world trade meetings and they just dont get us.
But they will listen to you.
They will listen to the generation of Prince William and Prince Harry. Of Britney Spears and Frankie Muniz.
They already do.
So dont fret, youve got the spotlight.
Revolutionary saeculum part II.
The Ronald Reagan memorial Library is burning!

1983/1984: For those of us who don't go to college (and more representative of the masses...)

Well...true...a full third of high school grads don't go to college (which the media never seems to notice) and many people who do go to college only go part time and work full time (although that is much less common in the Northeast). That is why you really can't use the college class of 2000 as the boundary of Generations X and Y because the average college grad (BA/BS) is 24 or so...and God forbid marketers decide that 1976 and 1977 are the same generation.

On 2002-04-29 16:07, Terminator X wrote:
Once the class of 1999 got on campus things really started happening. It pulled the few elders in. I wonder if it will continue. I just cant see core Millennials perpetuating this. I think its really a cusp issue, with people being both cynical Nomad types but still being drawn into the civic fray, albeit through a very non-civic channel.

Man we are like the Revolutionary saeculum.
William lets not fight about this crap. Screw the GIs--they sucked anyway.
Were like the Liberty and the Republicans.
The George Washingtons and the Thomas Jeffersons.
America can say fuck you to my generation.
They dont listen to us.
We stop world trade meetings and they just dont get us.
But they will listen to you.
They will listen to the generation of Prince William and Prince Harry. Of Britney Spears and Frankie Muniz.
They already do.
So dont fret, youve got the spotlight.
Revolutionary saeculum part II.
The Ronald Reagan memorial Library is burning!

I'd like to see the spotlight on true 83 or 84 cohorts; for some reason (cynicism?) I doubt that this is actually happening tho... you have any evidence that the spotlight *IS* on us? Prince William (82), Harry (84), Britney Spears (81), and Frankie Muniz (85 but looks and acts 88; when he was 14 he convincingly played an 8-year-old in the movies!) have one thing in common that distinguishes them from the rest of Generation Y: they are all celebrities and therefore will get lots of media attention regardless of generation, but celebrities aren't a representative sample anyway! I'll be waiting, but I remain in the cynic's camp as of the moment

On 2002-04-29 14:23, Terminator X wrote:
I didnt come up with the WTC thing. It was JayN, but I agree with him.

I think that JayN merely came up with it as a POSSIBLE way to get a boundary around 1980; he just didn't see it in his mind which is why it took him a few days to come up with it - you may agree with him but I do not (I consider it contrived; let's see what JayN, who alternately puts the X/Mil boundary in the mid to late 70s and the mid 80s, thinks... his post on that matter DID look like a reluctant concession geared to pull 79 in tho!)

Where are you getting all your information that so many 43ers protested?

I am basing this upon many discussions with many cohorts born in these years who described this difference. The difference between '42 and '43 cohorts was not one of ends since they often had identical ends. The difference was one of means to that end. Silents are frankly more "gentlemanly" and conscious of "proper" procedure and process. '43 cohorts, probably due to their age at the time of the Kennedy assassination, discarded the earlier Silent "reserve" and got in people's faces through protest and collective action. Put more specifically, the college seniors of 1963-64 reacted to the Kennedy assassination by hurrying up and graduating and getting on with their lives (albeit in disgust). The juniors and below from that school year, who were not yet preparing for graduation and the real world anyway, blew their tops and threw caution to the wind. The '43 cohorts broke with the past and established a new means to the same end. In this way, they established a new direction and orientation and obviously a new generation.

Anyway, even if 1% of the 42ers and 10% of the 43ers protested, for example, a big 42/43 split would appear because the 43ers would be the first group with a large number of protestors despite the fact that the vast majority of 43ers did not

Well, fine, but it is more than just that. It is about overall attitude. Even many of the ones who did not protest sanctioned or approved of it. The earlier Silents generally thought this behavior was "too much" or had a different opinion of its value. There was a generational divide which manifested between these two years.

Hey, I'm not trying to get you to go along with me. I'm just explaining to you why I place this boundary where I do. I might not buy it myself had I not picked these views up from many of the cohorts from these years.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this (I see '43 as, if anything, the beginning of 'many' and you see it as the beginning of 'most'); it's good to know that neither my position on Generation Y nor my position on the saeclum is my most controversial position on this forum

I would answer by saying that while we may not have too much X in us, we have even less Millie

OK, I see what you are saying. You think there is an intergenerational span in which cohorts are effectively "neuter" with respect to generational orientation. A dominant wave gives way to a neuter wave gives way to a recessive wave gives way to a neuter wave gives way to a dominant wave, etc. You might even argue that '81 cohorts might be largely indistinguishable from '61 cohorts and '43 cohorts and '25 cohorts, etc. I just do not see that being true in reality. I see one generational mood flowing into another at every boundary.

I believe it was 60 cohorts who last felt that they didn't belong to a generation at all; there is exactly one webPAGE devoted to our (81 - 84, with or without C2K) group and its generational placement at this point (http://20below.mainetoday.com/views/...ws101300.shtml) - apparently we are considered the tail end of X here... but looking at my school and all the cohorts I am familiar with:
80 (Class of 98): PURE X
81 (Class of 99): Some X feeling (not nearly as strong) but no Mill feeling
82 (C2K): The people in the gifted classes I already described (conformist, etc); but the ones I actually hung with were the EXACT opposites (TOTAL slackers who'd go twice the speed limit when driving, etc) and also members of that class; I'd say that they're the 'year of extremes'
83 (Class of 01): No true generational feeling in our year; whatever X is balanced by an equal amount of Mill and we'd be VERY likely to ask who 'generation' was
84 (Class of 02): No true generational feeling in their year either; whatever X is balanced by an equal amount of Mill and they'd also be VERY likely to ask who 'generation' was
85 (Class of 03): For the first time we see more Mill than X (e.g. organization kids in gifted classes) but not much of either
86 (Class of 04): I only know them as my brother's peers; my brother's peers almost seem like a last hiccup of Xness with a Millie usage of technology that those of us born even in 84 can't quite understand - the rest of them are probably like 85 tho
87 (Class of 05): I only know them from hearsay; they seem to be the first true Millie class (the only 87er I know is in my brother's grade and skipped; while he likes some of what I think he takes a truly Millie attitude about it)

I think that because I am an ENT *J* I don't force everything to conform to a pattern; I just see the patterns more and as more obvious (the 80 year parallel between presidencies from the Panic of 07/Crash of 87 to Teapot Dome/Enron) than your INTP.

Right, but you are starting from an assumption that similar events will occur about 80 years apart and then finding the events which fit that timetable. By contrast, I am comparing events seeking parallels and only buying a set saeculum length when a sufficient number of parallels occur an even distance apart. I would actually agree that the 1907 and 1987 crashes were alike and further that the 1912 and 1992 elections were alike as your similarly minded ESTJ colleague Marc Lamb asserts. However I would not agree that Teapot Dome equals Enron. I find the more generalized corruption of the Harding administration equivalent to the more generalized corruption of the Clinton administration in the context of the booming economies which accompanied both. The similarities between the 1920s and 1990s are amazing.

Note that the consistent 80 year difference does not hold up for me. My conclusion is that it is foolish to believe that largely identical events will always occur a uniform distance apart. They will happen in largely identical time periods (i.e. turnings) but not necessarily at identical stages of turnings. So even though I link 1907 to 1987 and 1912 to 1992, I link 1917-1918 to 1990-1991 (wars) and the combined Harding and Coolidge terms (as if Harding lived) to Clinton's two terms. Finally, I link the 1928 election to the 2000 election. Obviously I never tried to adhere to a set 80 year rule or anything close. I suppose that time will tell soon enough who charted the correct course.

[/quote]
That final part seems more right... Clinton does not seem all that corrupt to me (his corruption was all about private life); I link Bush-Harding at least in part because their scandals involve big money rather than BJ's (I didn't start with that assumption tho - you'll know that I didn't start doing true 3T posts until fairly recently; I just observed all the arguments for a while and found that to me, Marc Lamb's were more persuasive than anyone else's)

On 2002-04-29 15:59, Terminator X wrote:
For boundaries, the 1943 one is very distinct.
Just go ask my 1943 born prpfessor about 1968 and get ready to listen for about 7 hours.
Ever notice how they get that look in their eyes?
And he graduated from college (Jarvard in fact) in 1964, and he still is a mega-Boomer.
My 1940 professor kind of looked disapprovingly of 1968 as the year that "almost tore this country apart."

We can argue all we want about the 43 cohorts we know and your instinct loudly screams "Boomer" but my instinct loudly screams "Silent" :smile:

Silenst are extremely into detail.
This is why SDS went from the polite socialist organization of the early 1960s (it was founded in 1958) to the "Up Against the Wall Motherfucker" organization of 1968.

The SDS was not exactly a majority of the population tho... remember Nixon's 'SILENT majority' who turned against him? I am one of two people on this board who see this quote in a generational way...

The same thing happened on my college campus.
We went from no political climate in 1998-99, to a very interesting one in 1999-2000.
And not just here but everywhere.
I know that the anti-globalization movement isnt really that big a deal generationally especially since most of those involved are Xers and pretty much all the leaders are in their mid-30s, but it is odd that decided to go public in 1999.
It happened in DC, Seattle, at Harvard with the sit-ins, at Johns Hopkins with the labor solidarity stuff, and it made national news, the first big student activist news since the circa 1990 Greenpeace stuff, and before it the anti-apartheid stuff from the early 80s.
I wonder what made it happen.

[/quote]
I think it would be more temporal than anything else (e.g. there's NO WAY the 90 protests can be associated with anyone but X; early 80s could be either boom or X; however, when we got to 1999 we realized that there was only one year before the digits changed just as in 1963 we realized that 100 years had passed since the Emancipation Proclamation) and only loosely generationally linked (which is why it was more of an Xr thing)

On 2002-04-29 18:03, mmailliw wrote:

That final part seems more right... Clinton does not seem all that corrupt to me (his corruption was all about private life);

Hold on now. I don't give a damn about his private life either. If he can still get BJs in his 50s, more power to him. I do however have a problem with the fact that it became all but obvious that he and Hillary have an "agreement" but the two turds would never admit it. They insisted on continuing with the phony business that they were some sort of monogamistic, loving couple. Don't treat the American people like stupid rubes who deserve to be deceived and lied to at every turn. After all, they are your bosses. That is all I am saying.

But more importantly, I do have a problem with the he-turd suborning perjury, obstructing justice, abusing power, and defaming and destroying the lives of a trail of women in order to cover up his BJs. Also, the she-turd was obviously more than eager to mastermind all the cover-ups while subverting justice and trashing all the "innocents" in their path. Are you a man? Then take responsibility for your actions. If you get caught getting a BJ, don't subvert justice and destroy all these people in your path. Just admit it and move on!

But, wait, wait, wait, we have not even gotten to the real corruption yet. The BJ was the only thing the friggin' Republicans pursued because it was the only thing in which the filthy cretins were not complicit. How about our technology winding up in the hands of the Chinese? How about all those FBI files on prominent politicians (and whoever else) which wound up in Hillary's possession and in the home computers of her Rose Law Firm partners? How about all the Chinese money ending up in Clinton campaign funds leading to all these guys pleading the Fifth and fleeing the country? How about...oh, never mind. Just bear in mind that as filthy as the Clintons are, the Republicans are equally if not more corrupt. Otherwise they obviously would have removed Clinton for one or more of these real crimes since it was to their political advantage to do so. And never forget that all things China and the Loral Corporation come right back to the name Bush more than any other. This was eight years of a bi-partisan criminal free-for-all and it is probably a serious blunder to assume that Clinton was the HMFWIC. But that is what the Republicans would have you continue to believe, is it not?

I link Bush-Harding at least in part because their scandals involve big money rather than BJ's

I see it too and you may be right. However I am more swayed by the striking parallels between the Roaring Twenties and the Roaring Nineties. For this reason, I think 2000 was equivalent to 1928. Also the timing of turnings and generations favors 1928 versus 1920 (unless of course you want to fudge it to make an 80 year saeculum work).

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????I think you are a Millie because you have no feelings.
You approach thing academically and can't "feel things out"
This is bizarre and new to me. I cant even fathom 1985 cohorts. i know one, she is Ms organization. Riding lessons, cello lessons, despite her nasty attitude.
My 1984 cousins are weird. i feel bad because they disguise their lame Millie culture in Limp Bizkit threads but it doesnt disguise who they really are. the overprotected will do what authority tells them in the long run youth. They recieved no lovey-70s hippie be who you wanna be upbringing whatsoever.
My 1982 people are "C2Kers" i know two people born in 1983. Organization kids. One is exactly four years younger. His Mom is like 20 years older than me. she was shocked to meet me, with a beard in high school, hungover, eating frosted flakes and watching Cheech and Chong, the polar opposite of her Millennial son. and last time I remember my age groups high school was in "My so Called life", yours was "Dawsons creek" (class of 01)
1982--C2K...even if they act bad they are still the begining of the historical diference. Cant remember the unraveling.
1981...split...some are Xers, some are NOT.
Theyll even tell you.
1980---pretty Xer-ish, but not really linked to the 70s cohorts like the 79ers were.
1979--I have no doubt that they are Xers.
My 1971 brother says that my year (1979-80) are "the last of the last"
He says my 1984 cousins are "not it"
he should know as much as anyone, especially because he is mr Gen X.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????