Wasn't that girl that fell down the well and caused the big hoopla one of those cohorts?
She grew up to be an Xer??????????

Perceptions of children certainly shifted between 1979, the highest aborted year, and 1987, when (Baby jessica?) fell down the well.

I think Millennials are way too overprotected. I feel sorry for them. Xer kids, in spite of being underprotected, had freedom as children--freedom to be creative, freedom to plan their own activities, freedom to explore the world around them. They often had to make their own activities, as child-friendly activities were not planned for them, and of course this carried some risk. But they also learned to think for themselves. Boomer children lived in a child-friendly world, and also had room to explore and discover, but in a friendlier environment for children. They did not *have* to be supervised so much, and so they were not. They also learned individuality this way, but did not have to be as survival-oriented as Xers.

It seems to me that Millennial kids have everything planned for them, every minute of their time must be accounted for, and then some. This teaches them obedience and dependence. I have even seen grade-schoolers forced to use day-planners! I went to a management seminar where the topic was using day planners. What's wrong with this picture? Kids should be allowed to be kids. Sure, they should be safe, but this whole business with having lessons and planned activities every minute of every day is pathetic. They can't climb trees or get dirty. They can't ride a bicycle without being decked out like an astronaut in training. When I was a kid, there were no bike helmets and even if there were, anyone who wore one would be laughed off the block. These kids don't seem to have much fun. So they eat and eat and play video or computer games instead. I feel sorry for them. Being a child should be fun and spontaneous, school should end at 3 PM. How else can young imaginations grow?

On 2002-05-06 15:43, Ty Webb wrote:

Stonewall,

Well, Stonewall, if we were using the Star Wars analogy, I don't know who Luke would be, other than Thomas Jefferson.

Well, I guess that is just it. I cannot see Jefferson as Luke. Luke was a novice who was mentored by a Prophet. Jefferson was no novice, and was more of a mentor than a pupil. Madison was more or less his pupil. Of course Jefferson certainly was not a Prophet so this analogy does not work perfectly either.

On the other hand, was Jefferson like Nomad Han Solo? I do not see that either, at least not fully. However I am not sure that Adams fits cleanly either. I really do not like the Star Wars analogy here.

It ultimately comes back to whether Jefferson (1743) considered himself a peer of Adams (1743 minus 8) or one of Madison (1743 plus 8). I think he would have seen himself of Adams generation. Adams was his peer and Madison was his pupil. Indeed he lived a Nomad existence, ever fighting debt and dying in bankruptcy. Heroes generally had a much more stable existence.

Jefferson quite obviously had Hero traits. But he also had Nomad traits. Which predominated? In outlook and philosophy he was a radical and a Nomad. Heroes are community-minded centralizers and were mostly Hamiltonians in this saeculum. The Jeffersonian/Hamiltonian dispute was fundamentally one of a radical Nomad vision versus a centralizing Hero vision, and indeed the dispute originally broke down along those generational lines. Therefore I really have to think that Jefferson was a Nomad with Hero traits rather than a Hero with Nomad traits. He was a civic-minded Nomad, an obvious cusper, but a Nomad nontheless.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-05-06 19:18 ]</font>

On 2002-05-06 15:43, Ty Webb wrote:
Sidenote,
I really cannot see how someone born in 1986, who was 0 when Chernobyl blew up, barely 5 when the Iron Curtain came down, and the ripe old age of 6 when Clinton was elected can be considered a Gen Xer.

Someone born in 1986 was still alive when Chernobyl blew up and, at the ages of 5 and 6 respectively, could still (as my brother does!) remember both the fall of communism and the election of Clinton; someone born in 1989 could not (it goes back to instinct; when I think of 86 the first thing that comes to mind is my younger brother - among the regular posters, the 86ers are all the Xlike younger brothers, so I still see nothing to place 86 into the 'hardcore millie' faction)

Personally my "political memory" doesn't begin until Reagan's second term.
I faintly remember hearing about Beirut and marines getting blown up, as well as Grenada.

So the two events which began your political memory occurred in late 83... my political memory also began in Reagan's second term (but in 1988): I can remember "read my lips", the headline "Bush won, who lost?" in big letters, and I remember hearing about those idiots at Exxon with the oil spill

I am totally baffled by the way you view generations. I adhere to this theory because it made the most sense, before i read about it.
I started to piece together that my 1982 girlfriend and her 1984 brother were not in my generation when I was dating her in 1997.
This was because when I was in my childhood phase, that was an extension of the the 1970s (Awakening) other Xers were in this phase as well, be it at different ages.

I largely agree with the S&H theory too because it makes sense; however I also believe that the archetypes are not hard and fast and that people feel more as a part of age location (75 - 81 in your case; 80 - 86 in mine - note that in each case we have one year hanging on to the beginning and two hanging on to the end) - I also find it hard to believe that the Awakening/Unravelling boundary was hard and fast; I'd even say that there were Awakening traces as late as 1988 because that was the year that Tetris was released and Tetris, due to its abstractness, is definitely an Awakening game! Similarly I think that your essence is not determined solely by your first glimpse of childhood but also by your first (10 - 12) years of life in general (I DEFINITELY have subconscious memories from say, 1985, that still affect me) - that is why I view generations in terms of age locations (1981 feels like my peers; 1980 kind of does, 1986 pretty much does, 1987 does not, 1989 DEFINITELY does not - even if it IS closer than 1968) which may exhibit either a definite archetype (e.g. 1975 - 1981 as definite X) or some blend (e.g. our "Peanut Butter Generation/Y/children of the early nineties/Early Millennials" of 1980 - 1986 are Nomad/Hero cuspers); I hope this clears things up

Meanwhile, as my Xer mates and myself were trashing our neighborhood, these kids were being protected behind locked doors by cautious parents.

To top this boundary off, the other night my 1980 friend and i yelled violently at the TV when we witnessed the 1997 revised Return of the Jedi, while his 1982 sister professed to have "never seen the movies" and asked us if "Leia and luke were related"

I don't see how you can be a Gen Xer and not know things like that.

Ty.

Quite a few people born in the late 70s didn't get to see the movies on the big screen; many born in the 80s saw them on videotape and found out that they were related as well... it seems like your age location does not include your friend's 82 sister tho

Wasn't Tetris a Russian game they just brought over?

Mail,

I also think that I can remember things from before the magic number of 3. Back in the days that produced things like these.

http://us.imdb.com/ImageView?u=http%...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Ty.

On 2002-05-07 06:13, Ty Webb wrote:
Wasn't Tetris a Russian game they just brought over?

http://www.bilgiciftligi.com/games/Tetris_history.htm is the complete history of Tetris; however, the original Russian version was so crude (with 4 colors and a 320 x 200 resolution) that the development of the American computer versions (late 1986) and the arcade version (1988) have more significance - I'd say that the russian version was little more than a puzzle exercise (as opposed to the game itself)

On 2002-05-07 06:21, Ty Webb wrote:
Mail,

I also think that I can remember things from before the magic number of 3. Back in the days that produced things like these.

http://us.imdb.com/ImageView?u=http%...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Ty.

Yeah... and then at the other end we have TFTers who can't really remember any public events before the age of 8 (Robert Reed '82 comes to mind) - it really varies from person to person

My friend was born in 1980, and she is right on the epicenter of the generational split.
On one end she has two aunts born in 1965 and 1967, who are core Gen Xers. They are even passive in the face of their older more loud Boomer siblings (born in 1955 and 59).
Its very easy to tell the difference.
Then she has cousins born in a span from 1985-2000.
She says she doesnt identify with the younger group or the older group, but that she isnt in the same Gen as the younger cousins, who are all seen as new and of interest, while she is part of the furniture, much like her older aunts.

It IS really hard to tell, but it is odd that the cusp should be so apparent even if she is 13 years younger than her aunt, and 5 years older than her cousin and still feels drawn towards the aunts rather than the younger ones.

Still, the Gen X aunts are pretty laid back. I could never envision them at a protest like the one we went to a few weeks ago.
Then again I don't think I could imagine her younger cousins caring either (Im most familiar with the 1985 and 88 ones), unless we guide them especially well.
And man, their parents are NUTS, but not self centered neurotic nuts like our parents, high standard demanding nuts like typical Mill parents.

I was born in 1979, and so when I think generationally it is almost as blurry, but I am drawn more towards the older 70s born cohorts because of friends, family, and how i grew up.
Like if I provided many group photos from c.1980 to c.1992 all the kids in those photos would be born prior to 1980, and most likely post 1970. A perfect Nintendo Wave construct.
In the late 80s, when more of the Millies had arrived (begining in 1984 in our family but not really actualized until 1986 or so)
We would get lots of Christmas cards with the child as the cover, until there were more babies to add to that cover.
I buy Mail's argument to some extent.
His core 1981-84 wave is really kids that spent their infancy in some part of the Awakening but cannot recall it, as opposed to kids born post 1985-86, who were actually born in the Unraveling.
This would be like people born in 1961-1964, who spent their infancy in the High, but really entered childhood in the Awakening.

I didn't really have cousins I hung out with with that much of an age gap to compare myself against until very recently: here's the breakdown in birth order of my sibling, cousins, and myself (maybe not including the most recent additions)
1) 1977 (female)
2) 1984 (male)
3) Me (1984, male, but 1 grade higher)
4) 1985 (male)
5) 1986 (male)
6) 1997 (male)
7) 1997 (female)

If you're 10 or 12 years old, male, have three male siblings/cousins within two years of your own age and the next closest relative is a woman 7 years older, you're generally going to hang out with the ones nearer to your own age (generational cusp or not... if I had a male cousin born in 1979 and one born in 1989 that might give me more information) - and I think I can see 81-84 as 61-64 or even 62-65 but who knows?

My familial breakdown

Mom and dad's families:

Mom 1947
Uncle 1951, Aunt 1953
Aunt 1954, Uncle 1953
Uncle 1958, Girlfriend 1965
Uncle 1960, Aunt 1962

Dad 1947
Uncle 1944, Aunt 1946
Uncle 1957, Aunt 1956
.............................................
Cousins, siblings:

1970 (female)
1971 (male)
1974 (female)
1977 (male)
1979 (male)
1981 (male)

(except for 1 of the 1984s, all the other cousins are in their own family groups, In other words, they are only related to the youngers, not elders)

1984 (male)
1984 (male)
1984 (male)
1986 (female)
1988 (male)
1993 (male)
1993 (female)

Wow, you have a nice spread (a relative every three years or so for about a 50 year period); here's my parents' generation (much more tightly clustered!

Mom 1954
Aunt 1958 married to 1950 or 1951 uncle

Dad 1955
Aunt 1953 married to 1951 or so uncle
Uncle 1951 married to 1957 or so aunt

So the years from 1951 to 1958 are pretty well represented but then we have NOTHING until my very Nomadic 1977 cousin (and then the next represented year is my own 84 cohort)... I can tell nothing from my own relations except for the tail end of my immediate age location

_________________
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 2002-05-07 13:34 ]</font>

Man, I haven't had a new cousin in 10 years!!!!
This sucks.
When my gen (the 1970-81ers) start making kids in the family, then we will know for sure we have hit new adaptive.

This is fun. Let me look at my own family:

paternal grandfather -- 1896-1972
paternal grandmother -- 1904-1952

maternal grandfather -- unknown (that's a story!)
maternal grandmother -- 1892-1967?

father's older brother -- 1927-1996
older uncle's wife -- 1935?-
father -- 1930-1986
father's younger brother -- 1938-

mother -- 1930-

older sister -- 1953-
older sisters H#1 -- 1946?-
older sister's H#2 -- 1953-
older brother -- 1954-
me -- 1956-
my ex husband -- 1960-
younger sister -- 1960-
youger sister's husb. -- 1962-
cousin from older uncle -- 1968-

step niece from H#2 -- 1970-
niece from H#1 -- 1975-
nephew from H#2 -- 1978-
nephew from H#2 -- 1987-
niece from younger sis -- 1989
nephew from younger sis -- 1991
daughter -- 1994

Then you have my ex's family, which I am still on good terms with. Here, I am just including those I've met.

maternal grandmother -- 1910- (still living)
mother -- 1930-
father -- 1929-
uncle Oscar -- 1920ish (still liv)
Aunt Lillian -- 1920ish (still liv)
uncle Julius -- 1925ish-1999?
Aunt Winnie -- 1932
Uncle Bill -- 1930ish

sister -- 1957
spouse -- 1956
son -- 1986
daughter -- 1988

So we're all over the place. Only big gap is between 1938-1953 (not counting my older sister's exes, who are Swedish anyway). :smile:

On 2002-05-07 13:51, Jenny Genser wrote:
This is fun. Let me look at my own family:

paternal grandfather -- 1896-1972
paternal grandmother -- 1904-1952

maternal grandfather -- unknown (that's a story!)
maternal grandmother -- 1892-1967?

father's older brother -- 1927-1996
older uncle's wife -- 1935?-
father -- 1930-1986
father's younger brother -- 1938-

mother -- 1930-

older sister -- 1953-
older sisters H#1 -- 1946?-
older sister's H#2 -- 1953-
older brother -- 1954-
me -- 1956-
my ex husband -- 1960-
younger sister -- 1960-
youger sister's husb. -- 1962-
cousin from older uncle -- 1968-

step niece from H#2 -- 1970-
niece from H#1 -- 1975-
nephew from H#2 -- 1978-
nephew from H#2 -- 1987-
niece from younger sis -- 1989
nephew from younger sis -- 1991
daughter -- 1994

Then you have my ex's family, which I am still on good terms with. Here, I am just including those I've met.

maternal grandmother -- 1910- (still living)
mother -- 1930-
father -- 1929-
uncle Oscar -- 1920ish (still liv)
Aunt Lillian -- 1920ish (still liv)
uncle Julius -- 1925ish-1999?
Aunt Winnie -- 1932
Uncle Bill -- 1930ish

sister -- 1957
spouse -- 1956
son -- 1986
daughter -- 1988

So we're all over the place. Only big gap is between 1938-1953 (not counting my older sister's exes, who are Swedish anyway). :smile:

Only one PBer... and he's only hanging onto the edge (as an 86er with a younger sibling) and part of your ex's family!

Going up one more generation:

maternal grandfather: 1924
maternal grandmother: 1929
paternal grandfather: 1924
paternal grandmother: 1927
(the grandfathers fought in WWII and at least one is pretty hardcore GI; the grandmothers are cuspers)

but then again generations from parent to child alternate between cuspers and cores

On 2002-05-07 14:00, mmailliw wrote:
Only one PBer... and he's only hanging onto the edge (as an 86er with a younger sibling) and part of your ex's family!

What is a "PBer"? Is it your term for X-Millie cuspers?

Maybe my 1987 cousin qualifies. He lives in Stockholm, Sweden, which is a few years behind America. However, he strikes me as pretty Millie, in his own extremely introverted way.

On 2002-05-07 14:08, Jenny Genser wrote:

On 2002-05-07 14:00, mmailliw wrote:
Only one PBer... and he's only hanging onto the edge (as an 86er with a younger sibling) and part of your ex's family!

What is a "PBer"? Is it your term for X-Millie cuspers?

Maybe my 1987 cousin qualifies. He lives in Stockholm, Sweden, which is a few years behind America. However, he strikes me as pretty Millie, in his own extremely introverted way.

Pretty much, yeah... PB = the Peanut Butter generation (a term used as an attack on the Buster concept) - a few posts back I said that I didn't even care if WE became the Peanut Butter Generation (Ty then referenced that in his reply); I guess it's a tribute to the fact that we have no agreed-upon name or recognition so therefore the most ridiculous name must be used - your 87 cousin is probably a PBer becase 87 in Scandinavia is like 84 here (a 3 year difference)... if anyone has a better term I'd like to know (although personally I think Millennial is a better name for us, those coming of age around the turn of the millennium, than for the S&H gen which comes of age around 2010... it's not the name that matters!)

Sorry, William '84, in my humble opinion, you have always struck me as Millie to the core. You are logical and believe in reason.

That's not to say you don't have a streak of rebellion in you -- you are smart, bright, and can see the silly excesses of Boomers (which I hope that I don't exhibit!)

But your parents probably cherished you, planned you to death, planned your childhood and adolescence to death, encouraged you to become the overachiever that you have become.

You are a far cry from the Gen-X babies who were "inconveniences" and kind of hung out while their parents "found themselves" (or even if they had loving parents, society hardly tolerated them).

However, its probably a good thing for people to identify with other generations and make friendships and hang out with other gens, see through their eyes. Indeed, I think that is partly what S&H are all about.

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest after reading these posts.

On 2002-05-07 14:38, Jenny Genser wrote:
Sorry, William '84, in my humble opinion, you have always struck me as Millie to the core. You are logical and believe in reason.

That's not to say you don't have a streak of rebellion in you -- you are smart, bright, and can see the silly excesses of Boomers (which I hope that I don't exhibit!)

Just like my favorite Nomad/Hero cusper, Thomas Jefferson (whom Stonewall argues is more Nomad than Hero!)... he was my favorite founding father even before I first visited this site and it only made sense that he rested marginally on the Hero side of the Nomad/Hero cusp! I don't see what part of your description of me cannot also be used to describe Jefferson - maybe you would see him as a hardcore Hero too?

But your parents probably cherished you, planned you to death, planned your childhood and adolescence to death, encouraged you to become the overachiever that you have become.

I'm probably only about as much of an overachiever as Kiff '61 (all right, maybe a little bit more; I always interpreted 'overachiever' to refer to my Jarvard classmates for whom academic achievement was pretty much their whole life and therefore they achieved more than their raw ability)

You are a far cry from the Gen-X babies who were "inconveniences" and kind of hung out while their parents "found themselves" (or even if they had loving parents, society hardly tolerated them).

And also a far cry from the 89 or 91 born Millie babies who had every moment planned from birth to adulthood and never got to go on unstructured excursions (I remember the liberating feeling of biking wherever... especially in that netherworld known as 8th grade!)

However, its probably a good thing for people to identify with other generations and make friendships and hang out with other gens, see through their eyes. Indeed, I think that is partly what S&H are all about.

Agreed on all points.

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest after reading these posts.

I can see that... anyway in a few years when we get the real (89 - 91) hardcore Millies we can see how I compare to them - I am pretty sure that I am more like the cusper Jefferson than the Nomad Adams (our late seventies posters) or the Hero Madison (not yet represented on this board because there are no regular posters born in the late 80s or 90s) and I am anticipating a stark contrast between the two

In my family, there is nine year swing in which I am the only member. Here they are:

Father-1943
Father's sister-1946
Cousin A - 1967
Cousin S - 1969

Mother- 1949
Mother's sister B - 1951?
Cousin J - 1973
Mother's sister S - 1954?
Cousin M - 1982
Cousin D - 1985

Brother - 1986

So as you can see, I am in a no-man zone. It kinda stinks because there's no one in the group who you can really "relate to"...that is, growing up right around the same time. But for my two closest cousins, Cousin "J" (1973) is a real Xer, who was a latchkey kid and had parents divorced by age two. She has been going to college off and on for the last ten years, and is nine credits short of graduation, but she hasn't attended for a few years (she was ill for the last year, though). She still lives with her mom and is trying to get her act together. My cousin M (1982) is a true Millie. An upper middle class soccer kid who attended a prestigious prep school, he has a great deal of confidence and thinks he's going to be rich and a star.

Going back generations....

Ill start...lets see, I got 8 great grandparents, so Ill start with them...

Paternal Great Grandparents
1891-194?
1894-1965
1891-1966 (Siblings extended from 1891-1903)
1893-1920 (Siblings etended from 1887-1900)

Maternal Great Grandparents
1884-1953
1881-1969
1885-1936
1892-1982 (Siblings born 1885ish-1900ish)
........................................
Paternal Grandparents
1916-1996 (Siblings born 1914-1927ish)
1918 (still living--only child)

Maternal Grandparents
1923-1967 (one sibling b.1913)
1924 (still living--siblings born 1914-1930)
....................................
You know the rest.
Its funny how the generations are pretty clearly mapped out.

Mail,

That's funny you like Thomas Jefferson, because I was always digging Ethan Allen and the Sons of Liberty.

I also used to do book reports on Benedict Arnold in elementary school. I thought it was cool that he owed no allegiance.

It must have been the Nomad in me. Christ, why was I such a messed up kid?
I thought being bad was good.
I stopped reading because everybody made fun of me. It was NOT cool to read in elementary school.
People hated anything "nerd-like" and that is one thing you didn't want to be.
They used to call the gifted and talented kids "Garbage and trash".
Ugh.
And why was stealing and throwing firecrackers at peoples houses cool?
Why was taking taking drugs and wrecking your body cool?
Why was it cool to do ridiculously stupid things?
Why did everybody hate themselves so much?

Im only starting to see how nice things have been now. Life is pretty damn good...and fun too.
Why has it taken 22 years to figure this out?

Ty.

On 2002-05-07 15:37, Ty Webb wrote:
Mail,

That's funny you like Thomas Jefferson, because I was always digging Ethan Allen and the Sons of Liberty.

This DOES make sense! I would like a solid logical Nomad/Hero cusper and you (5 years older) would like a hardcore late-wave Nomad five years older

I also used to do book reports on Benedict Arnold in elementary school. I thought it was cool that he owed no allegiance.

It must have been the Nomad in me. Christ, why was I such a messed up kid?

A cusper if you ever saw one (1741-born, trying to be a Hero but underappreciated and forced to become Nomadic); I always thought he was cheated... he was the best general in the war but the US gave him virtually no respect so he did the only thing he could

I thought being bad was good.
I stopped reading because everybody made fun of me. It was NOT cool to read in elementary school.
People hated anything "nerd-like" and that is one thing you didn't want to be.
They used to call the gifted and talented kids "Garbage and trash".

You... a hardcore Xer... changed your behavior that much just to fit in? I just didn't care what other people thought about me until, say... 1995 (my parents were pressuring me to do so almost from birth but I remained an outcast by choice and even now am largely so) - I still can't believe they were that cruel to the G/T population tho

Ugh.
And why was stealing and throwing firecrackers at peoples houses cool?
Why was taking taking drugs and wrecking your body cool?
Why was it cool to do ridiculously stupid things?
Why did everybody hate themselves so much?

Im only starting to see how nice things have been now. Life is pretty damn good...and fun too.
Why has it taken 22 years to figure this out?

Ty.

yeah... as long as you can find ONE THING to enjoy life is worth living (it may suck but it's better than anything else) - and it seems obvious to me that the lower your expectations are the happier you'll be

Oh yeah, as soon as I entered adolescence I tried fitting in...that failed horribly making me choose "me" several years later.