I dunno.
I'm like a fruit that is just not ripe enough.
If I wa sborn 2 years later, I'd be a solid Millie, but I just was exposed enough to the world of Charlies Angels and Octopussy to never really be able to identify with people younger than me.
My common age location is Gen X's, and although I might be more involved, and may have grown up more protected than my older brother who is the Gen X stereotype, I feel that I am in that generation anyway.

I am like 1939 was to Boomers, 1922 was to GIs.

That is my opinion. I really should finish this obsession one day.

I guess my mind craves conflict and numbers.
How European of me.

On 2002-05-05 12:28, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-05-04 20:05, IntestOPurge wrote:

god (i will NOT use a capital G)

OK, whoever wrote this is Christian or at least not an atheist.

Well, Jews can get pretty tight about this kind of stuff too (how God's name is written). So would a Jew be even more likely an author than a Christian?

OTOH, none of the four people who used the word "whinge" unsolicitedly on this board are Jewish. Or maybe it's...a newbie???

More about me.
Imagine my brother was born in 1931, and I was born in 1939.
Would there be a difference?
He would have grown up during the depression, come of age in the late 40s and 50s, perhaps fought in Korea.
He would be all settled by the time 1960 came around.
I would have a memory of World War II, but not a substantial one.
I would have grown up in the 40s and 50s, and maybe joined the Peace Corps, or SDS. Maybe I would have been a Freedom Rider...something very different from what my older bro would do.
Hell, maybe Id join a rock n roll band. The possibilities for differences are endless.

In the end are we in the same Gen?
we both entered childhood in crisis, young adulthood in a High.
He would be MASH wave, Id be Peace Corps wave.
Does this make any sense...
It sounds alot like my situation now.

On 2002-05-05 12:28, Stonewall Patton wrote:


To summarize, the poster is:

1) a T4T regular.

Yes

2) a Boomer

No. I can be certain of that.

3) definitely not an atheist and probably a Christian (although it is plainly impossible to "know" this from his "works" displayed here).

I'm not an atheist, so I guess I qualify for this one.

4) someone who more than likely resorts to personal attack, routinely, when he confronts a post (and poster) with which he disagrees. He is probably noted for rarely, if ever, challenging any of the actual points made. In other words, he is all bluster; sound and fury signifying nothing.

No. When someone says something outrageously false, I can't feel comfortable until I've completely convinced myself and others how false it is. In other words, that "diarrhea" inside me (thanks, Intest-O-Purge") won't cease until I've actually gotten all the crap out. Just blowing more gas up doesn't help.

5) one of the few here who uses the term "whinging."

Nope. I'm not on the list and I don't even use the word in speech.

6) someone who has probably been known to drink heavily while posting to T4T.

No, I only go on this board when I want to think about things. That means no alcohol, no pot, no LSD, no ecstasy, no nothing...for at least a few hours before I get on here.

7) someone who has been fuming about Justin for some time. Look for any poster who has shown unusual contempt for Justin recently.

I'm with William here. I see Justin in many posts, but I haven't tried to get him kicked off the board or anything.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jesse Manoogian on 2002-05-09 00:36 ]</font>

As for Pokemon, can't you see its part of that same trend?
That trend of Teddy Ruxpin, Mighty Morphine Power Rangers. That cutesy, child as saint culture?
Ugh.

On 2002-05-08 17:10, Ty Webb wrote:
Mail,

The way things are shaping in this debate, up to 1911 is Lost cuspish, and post 1921 is Silent cuspish, so the only GIs were really born in 1912-1920. But hey, Woody Guthrie was born in 1912, and he was always traveling around with a guitar....I guess that makes him a Nomad too.

No, I have the GI Generation spanning 1906 through 1924. Kevin Parker tentatively settled upon a 1907 start. You tentatively settled upon a 1904 start. I chose 1906 because, in my estimation, that was the first year which was greater than 50% GI (and less than 50% Lost). This does not change the fact that many of the earliest GIs (through 1911, I think) had some Lost traits, even though they were first and foremost GI. Woody Guthrie was a GI because his outlook on life (his generational attitude) was oriented toward the community of the nation. He was not primarily an individualist valuing individual achievement like the Nomadic Lost; he was a team player. Thus he was a GI, despite the fact that he travelled around with a guitar.

It is outlook and relationship to authority. The Lost (and Nomads in general) are oriented toward the individual (as individualists) and question authority. The GI (and Heroes in general) are oriented toward the community (as team players) and do not question authority. You keep going off on other tangents with guitars and things, but this generational archetypal orientation is all that matters.

Reagan is Mr. GI. I cannot think of anyone more GI than him, except for JFK.
Stonewall is nuts.

We disagree about what qualifies as "most" GI. When I think of "most" GI, I think of ball players (they were on a team after all) of that period. For example, think of Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams and try to remember old interviews with these guys. They were always all business. You knew that they had to be real characters in the locker room (after all, they were ball players), but they never betrayed it in public. In interviews, you could not distinguish them from somebody working on Wall Street.

The point is that this generation assimilated and conformed and represented themselves as carbon copies of each other irrespective of station in life. These no doubt goofy ball players carried themselves as serious (and seriously dull) individuals in public because that is what "authority" demanded. They put on false fronts and did not act like their actual selves because you did not do that. Why did people not act like themselves? Well...er...because...just because! Don't ask any questions! This is the way things are done and there does not have to be a reason. Understand? A civic generation is a bunch of conformists who all wear identical false fronts simply because some sort of "authority" so ordered it. And that "authority" is not to be questioned and does not have to have an actual reason, valid or otherwise. Don't ask any questions! [/sarcasm]

Coming back to Reagan, he was not completely a conforming, assimilating team player. He was more individualistic than most of his GI peers. He was still GI but there was a measure of Lost in him. That slight tendency to defy Group Think and stand apart from the crowd was his Lost component. He was not quite the team player as those ball players born after him so he was not so overwhelmingly GI as they were.

And I don't see where JFK was the GI standard. We are obviously focusing on different things. JFK had some spark and flair. He stood a bit apart from the crowd. This is not due to any shred of Lost because JFK was totally oriented toward the community and the team (i.e. he was solidly GI). It is just that he took greater liberties than the average GI in expressing his true self rather than maintaining a pre-ordained by authority false front. I see JFK as a breath of fresh air in that mix because he demonstrated more character than his more stereotypically GI peers.

With GIs, there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything (think Archie Bunker) and it does not matter why a given way is right and another way is wrong. These things are not to be questioned. If "authority" wills it, no matter how arbitrarily, it is de facto law and will be adhered to.

There is no "Lost" cusp with someone born in 1911 who was 7 when WWI ended.
I'm sure Jimmy Stewart (1908) was Mr. Lost too.
God, first you spew BS, then you believe it.

Are you speaking to William here? I did not try to read his earlier post because of its (lack of) formatting so I do not know. Why did someone have to be a certain age when WW I ended? If you take S&H's years, then some full Gilded (not even cusp) were even younger when the Mexican War ended.

I bet there were both Nomads and Heroes there that night, I wonder how you could tell the difference...maybe the Nomads were hacking into the tea chests with individualistic ferocity, and the Heroes were helping each other out, carrying the chests in teams and hacking into them.

There may be an element of truth here. Hehehe. Look, Nomads are rabble-rousers who get in your face and say, "Leave me alone." Heroes are more ordered and "gentlemanly" because, unlike the Nomads, they have a collective purpose. They don't so much care about being left alone. Indeed they are determined that nobody be left alone because all must adhere to the same arbitrary standard which "authority" has devised for them...which they never question.

Actually, no, they were waiting for orders from the Nomads, then they began to do it.
They couldn't understand how to build a government or hack a tea chest without being told....

There is an element of truth here. They synthesize the ideas of their elders in preceding generations. There is little individuality and little thinking outside the box. They go with "what works" or "what prevails" among their elders' ideas. That is why it is so important which ideas our Millies implement. If they should unquestioningly implement the wrong set of ideas, then we may be looking at an unprecedented tyranny.

On 2002-05-08 23:45, Jesse Manoogian wrote:

OTOH, none of the four people who used the word "whinge" unsolicitedly on this board are Jewish. Or maybe it's...a newbie???

Way to go, Jesse! You even have the exact number of "whinge" users down. Care to list them? hehehe.

On 2002-05-09 00:10, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-05-08 17:10, Ty Webb wrote:
Mail,

The way things are shaping in this debate, up to 1911 is Lost cuspish, and post 1921 is Silent cuspish, so the only GIs were really born in 1912-1920. But hey, Woody Guthrie was born in 1912, and he was always traveling around with a guitar....I guess that makes him a Nomad too.

No, I have the GI Generation spanning 1906 through 1924. Kevin Parker tentatively settled upon a 1907 start. You tentatively settled upon a 1904 start. I chose 1906 because, in my estimation, that was the first year which was greater than 50% GI (and less than 50% Lost). This does not change the fact that many of the earliest GIs (through 1911, I think) had some Lost traits, even though they were first and foremost GI. Woody Guthrie was a GI because his outlook on life (his generational attitude) was oriented toward the community of the nation. He was not primarily an individualist valuing individual achievement like the Nomadic Lost; he was a team player. Thus he was a GI, despite the fact that he travelled around with a guitar.

It is outlook and relationship to authority. The Lost (and Nomads in general) are oriented toward the individual (as individualists) and question authority. The GI (and Heroes in general) are oriented toward the community (as team players) and do not question authority. You keep going off on other tangents with guitars and things, but this generational archetypal orientation is all that matters.

I saw a bumper sticker on a car once that said "Question Authority"... what a great sticker.

Reagan is Mr. GI. I cannot think of anyone more GI than him, except for JFK.
Stonewall is nuts.

We disagree about what qualifies as "most" GI. When I think of "most" GI, I think of ball players (they were on a team after all) of that period. For example, think of Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams and try to remember old interviews with these guys. They were always all business. You knew that they had to be real characters in the locker room (after all, they were ball players), but they never betrayed it in public. In interviews, you could not distinguish them from somebody working on Wall Street.

The point is that this generation assimilated and conformed and represented themselves as carbon copies of each other irrespective of station in life. These no doubt goofy ball players carried themselves as serious (and seriously dull) individuals in public because that is what "authority" demanded. They put on false fronts and did not act like their actual selves because you did not do that. Why did people not act like themselves? Well...er...because...just because! Don't ask any questions! This is the way things are done and there does not have to be a reason. Understand? A civic generation is a bunch of conformists who all wear identical false fronts simply because some sort of "authority" so ordered it. And that "authority" is not to be questioned and does not have to have an actual reason, valid or otherwise. Don't ask any questions! [/sarcasm]

I never really thought about that, but it looks like you're absolutely right! Now I finally have a good idea in my mind about the archetypal GI

Coming back to Reagan, he was not completely a conforming, assimilating team player. He was more individualistic than most of his GI peers. He was still GI but there was a measure of Lost in him. That slight tendency to defy Group Think and stand apart from the crowd was his Lost component. He was not quite the team player as those ball players born after him so he was not so overwhelmingly GI as they were.

And I don't see where JFK was the GI standard. We are obviously focusing on different things. JFK had some spark and flair. He stood a bit apart from the crowd. This is not due to any shred of Lost because JFK was totally oriented toward the community and the team (i.e. he was solidly GI). It is just that he took greater liberties than the average GI in expressing his true self rather than maintaining a pre-ordained by authority false front. I see JFK as a breath of fresh air in that mix because he demonstrated more character than his more stereotypically GI peers.

Again, I agree with you, regardless of whether it makes both of us placed into the "nuts" category. :smile:

With GIs, there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything (think Archie Bunker) and it does not matter why a given way is right and another way is wrong. These things are not to be questioned. If "authority" wills it, no matter how arbitrarily, it is de facto law and will be adhered to.

THAT is why I feel so Nomadic! THAT is why I feel such revulsion to being in the same generation as the 89-91 Harry Potter core Millies! And, most likely, THAT is (at least in part) why I feel out of place at Jarvard.

There is no "Lost" cusp with someone born in 1911 who was 7 when WWI ended.
I'm sure Jimmy Stewart (1908) was Mr. Lost too.
God, first you spew BS, then you believe it.

Are you speaking to William here? I did not try to read his earlier post because of its (lack of) formatting so I do not know. Why did someone have to be a certain age when WW I ended? If you take S&H's years, then some full Gilded (not even cusp) were even younger when the Mexican War ended.

Oh yeah, in a surprisingly untypical move for my cohort year (after all, Millies and even late Xers are supposed to find computers second nature!) , I have confused the foreslash and the backslash keys; I plan on fixing the post accordingly immediately after this reply - it should be better to read then.

I bet there were both Nomads and Heroes there that night, I wonder how you could tell the difference...maybe the Nomads were hacking into the tea chests with individualistic ferocity, and the Heroes were helping each other out, carrying the chests in teams and hacking into them.

There may be an element of truth here. Hehehe. Look, Nomads are rabble-rousers who get in your face and say, "Leave me alone." Heroes are more ordered and "gentlemanly" because, unlike the Nomads, they have a collective purpose. They don't so much care about being left alone. Indeed they are determined that nobody be left alone because all must adhere to the same arbitrary standard which "authority" has devised for them...which they never question.

I like that analysis!

Actually, no, they were waiting for orders from the Nomads, then they began to do it.
They couldn't understand how to build a government or hack a tea chest without being told....

There is an element of truth here. They synthesize the ideas of their elders in preceding generations. There is little individuality and little thinking outside the box. They go with "what works" or "what prevails" among their elders' ideas. That is why it is so important which ideas our Millies implement. If they should unquestioningly implement the wrong set of ideas, then we may be looking at an unprecedented tyranny.

[/quote]
*barfs at the thought*

I wonder sometimes if S&H still even read the posts here. They have not posted anything in a very long time.

I wonder if they are sitting back studying our responses to determine if we are in a 4T or not. I wonder what sort of conclusions they would draw (if any).

The recent hostility shown here on this board seems to indicate we are in still in a 3T, but that it's reached fever pitch and is about to implode in on itself. I can't imagine people wasting time ranting about another poster or over differing viewpoints if we were really in a 4T. Then again, maybe all that means nothing.

In any case, Ty, you fit S&H's Nomad archetype to a T.

Stone,

I only knew a handful of GIs personally. I think they have personalities and think for themselves, but they all seem tied into institutions.
I remember my 1922 born Uncle well, and he was alot like my 1914 born professor...very impressed by organizations, like the Knights of Malta and the Masons.

Even the early-Millies I know born in 1981 were like that. Life revolving around the institutions. Life revolving around what is going on in government, life revolving around internships, jobs, clubs, organizations, meetings.
Much more aware of the world, and even a deeper sense that they could have an effect on it.
If it werent for these people like my 1982 girlfriend that started a chapter of amnesty International at our high school, or my 1981 girlfriend who encouraged alot of the interests in politics and progressive causes, id still be an MTV generation dumbass.
I feel like George Carlin, like a funny guy that lifts the crews spirits, but isnt one of them.
They (activists) like me because i don't take things too seriously.
Its true. We (my gen?) are a bunch of slackers. we had unregulated free time as children and we want it back. We want to be left alone because as babies thats exactly what we were..left alone to our own devices, often babysat by a TV.
We are cranky often.
I sense more love now though amongst my peers. we are all taking care of each other.
I think in the younger generation (the post 1980 crowd) they have the resolve and character to withstand a crisis and act.
I wont say they will become borish conformists like you Stone, because I dont want to scare them away if theyre interested in this TFT cult. In the wild and fun 3T its not cool to be a conformist....but that will change when we need to depend on each other.
Remember 9-11? That was just a drop of blood in the bucket. I have a feeling this crisis is going to be really bad.

Ty.

http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip...veJesseCa.html

This man is almost the same age as me...does that mean anything?

On 2002-05-09 00:30, Xer of Evil wrote:

I have one question for everyone ... if we are all such smart people (and we are), why are we all still awake at this hour? Don't we have enough sense to go to bed?

I fell asleep earlier and woke up. Will be going back to bed though. Seems like all I do anymore is catnap. 4T?

On 2002-05-09 00:26, Susan Brombacher wrote:

I wonder sometimes if S&H still even read the posts here. They have not posted anything in a very long time.

I am sure that they are analyzing. No one was talking about a possible 4T before so there was nothing to analyze.

I wonder if they are sitting back studying our responses to determine if we are in a 4T or not. I wonder what sort of conclusions they would draw (if any).

I think the 2002 elections will be inconclusive and the 4T will not sink in until between it and the 2004 elections. So I do not think that they will be able to conclude anything until 2003 in all probability.

The recent hostility shown here on this board seems to indicate we are in still in a 3T, but that it's reached fever pitch and is about to implode in on itself. I can't imagine people wasting time ranting about another poster or over differing viewpoints if we were really in a 4T. Then again, maybe all that means nothing.

Things are not THAT bad, are they? One poster attacked one other poster. Apart from that, everyone is doing the same things they were before.

In any case, Ty, you fit S&H's Nomad archetype to a T.

Agreed.

On 2002-05-09 00:24, mmailliw wrote:

With GIs, there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything (think Archie Bunker) and it does not matter why a given way is right and another way is wrong. These things are not to be questioned. If "authority" wills it, no matter how arbitrarily, it is de facto law and will be adhered to.

THAT is why I feel so Nomadic! THAT is why I feel such revulsion to being in the same generation as the 89-91 Harry Potter core Millies! And, most likely, THAT is (at least in part) why I feel out of place at Jarvard.

It is interesting that you say that. Earlier, I was looking at that Liberty/Republican cusp and have not had a chance to come back to it. But depending on where we draw that boundary, we will have a whole lot of very Nomadic Heroes and even outright Nomads in the first few years of the generation. For example, if we retain S&H's 1742 Republican advent (which I think may correspond to the first appearance of Civics, not the midpoint of the cusp), then we definitely have arguable Nomads through at least 1745, going past TJ (1743) to "Mad" Anthony Wayne (1745). With this arrangment, you might relate to these Nomadic types at the same early point in the Hero generation. Applying S&H's same apparent standard (appearance of first Hero rather than midpoint of cusp) to the Lost/GI border, you might relate to some GIs born through perhaps 1904 or so. However it appears to me that the Lost/GI border has a much longer cusp, possibly 12 years (1900-1911). In this case, you (1984) might be much more like 1908-1911 cohorts like Goldwater and Reagan, even using a 1900 or 1901 start date a la S&H. But then we still do not know how long the 13th/Millennial cusp will turn out to be (I don't think?) so this gets too tough to call, although you might more generally consider anyone in that 1900-1911 cusp.

Stone,

Even our Boom/X divide is a little sketchy.
We put it at 1961, because if you looked at the celeb list we went through is a pretty good midway section between the real Boomers of 1958, and the Real Xers of 1963. we had this mysterious J thing popping up all over the place.
But Rosie O'Donnell? An Xer? i find that had to believe. Maybe a J, but definitely not an X..and shes pretty damn preachy.
Those first few X years like 1961,62,63 are prety ambiguous.
Now 1964, there's no doubt about it.
You know, occasionally people born in a cuspy year like 1942, or 1962, or 1981 will go both ways.
Some will be more like one archtype, others will be like the other. And don't get so hung up on Mad Anthony Wayne. John Jay was born that year too, and he was definitely part of that "pupil of Jefferson" crowd.

Ty.

On 2002-05-09 06:36, Ty Webb wrote:
Stone,

Even our Boom/X divide is a little sketchy.
We put it at 1961, because if you looked at the celeb list we went through is a pretty good midway section between the real Boomers of 1958, and the Real Xers of 1963. we had this mysterious J thing popping up all over the place.

To use "J" or "Joneser" only complicates the matter. All "Joneser" is is the Boomer/Xer cusp generation. If we use it, we should do the same for all generational cusps. I'd rather just deal with the two merging generational archetypes and bear in mind cuspy behavior.

But Rosie O'Donnell? An Xer? i find that had to believe. Maybe a J, but definitely not an X..and shes pretty damn preachy.

What year was she? '61 or later? You can have preachy Xers. That is not the real distinction, I don't think. The distinction is in the nature of the preaching. Prophet preaching will be more spiritual while Nomad preaching will be more materialistic. Prophet preaching will be about grace and union while Nomad preaching will be about laws and rights. Prophet preaching will be about the community while Nomad preaching will be about the individual. I see Rosie as being materialistic (Xer), concerned with laws and rights (Xer), but oriented toward the community (Prophet). That is a mixed Nomad/Prophet bag which makes sense since she is on the cusp.

Those first few X years like 1961,62,63 are prety ambiguous.
Now 1964, there's no doubt about it.

I agree that they are ambiguous, so much so that I have not bothered to take a serious look at those names. And I agree from my own experience that '64 seemed like the first clearly Xer year. I saw the last traces of Boomer in the '63ers.

You know, occasionally people born in a cuspy year like 1942, or 1962, or 1981 will go both ways.

Certainly.

Some will be more like one archtype, others will be like the other.

Exactly. Take that Lost/GI cusp. I see rare GIs as early as 1900-1902. However I did not see better than 50% GI until 1906. Then I saw traces of Lost through 1911. I think there perhaps was a 12 year cusp (1900-1911) in which both Lost and GI were born and it only went 50%+ GI in 1906 and later.

And don't get so hung up on Mad Anthony Wayne. John Jay was born that year too, and he was definitely part of that "pupil of Jefferson" crowd.

I'm not hung up on Wayne. In fact I stated that 1745 looked like a 50/50 year to me and probably the real turn from Liberty to Republican. Wayne looks Nomad. Rush looks heavily Nomad if not predominately so. Jay and Sevier were Heroes.

The real question here is do we start a generation when the first cohorts appear, even though they are in the minority that year? Or do we start it when better than 50% are of the archetype? I think S&H may have used each for different generations so I am not sure that their timeline is consistent. It seems to me that one really ought to use the midpoint of the cusp. Some generations will have larger cusps than others, depending on the nature of catalysts, etc.

I think it's a combination of both.
You also have to look at their historical relationships.
For example, the 1905 cohort was responsible for forming the Gray Panthers. That is a significant shift away from the Lost elderly, and it reflected the new kind of civic elderly.
Those post 1905 born (LBJ, Jimmy stewart, Buddy Ebsen, etc.) were extremely GI, even if they had that dour touch.
But we have to remember that these were agrarian situations, when you are dealing with Liberty and Republican, or even Lost and GI. Childrearing wasnt as centralized as it was in the post-war world.

When you are thinking of GIs remember that the Boy Scouts were formed in 1912. That really says alot.

Ty.

On 2002-05-09 08:10, Ty Webb wrote:

I think it's a combination of both.
You also have to look at their historical relationships.
For example, the 1905 cohort was responsible for forming the Gray Panthers.

Again both GI and Lost coexisted in 1905 as far as I can tell from the birth lists. But if most of those born in 1905, say 60-75%, were Lost, would you call this year GI simply because the Gray Panther founder was among them?

That is a significant shift away from the Lost elderly, and it reflected the new kind of civic elderly.

This is true, but does it matter if 60-75% born in that year were Lost, even as elders?

Those post 1905 born (LBJ, Jimmy stewart, Buddy Ebsen, etc.) were extremely GI, even if they had that dour touch.

I wouldn't say that they were extremely GI. They were not quite the team players as those who came shortly afterward. They were GI but I do not think that they were 100% or extremely GI.

But we have to remember that these were agrarian situations, when you are dealing with Liberty and Republican, or even Lost and GI. Childrearing wasnt as centralized as it was in the post-war world.

What do you mean?

When you are thinking of GIs remember that the Boy Scouts were formed in 1912. That really says alot.

Good point. But just because a guy was a Boy Scout does not mean that he was a Hero. A lot of Artists, Nomads, and Prophets have been Boy Scouts. The real question is when did the pack/team mentality really sink in with the early Boy Scouts?

Stone,

What I mean by centralized child rearing is that communication was limited in the united States in 1742, and even in 1903.
We didn't have radios, and TVs hawking new approaches to rearing children, and we didn't have a medium that was so regularly updated and paid attention too that it could cause a dramatic shift in child rearing in 1-2 years.
In the post war period we had all of those things. It makes it easier for us to distinguish when changes occurred.
..............

An essay I found on a late wave Lost.
There is a definite diference from an early GI like Lindbergh.

http://www.yiddishradioproject.org/exhibits/levine/
Introduction
Everyone has heard of Charles A. Lindbergh, the first man to fly the Atlantic. But does the name Charles A. Levine ring a bell? Likely not. Yet seventy-five summers ago the two men were locked in a battle for aviation history -- one as a pilot, the other as a promoter.
Levine, a 30-year-old millionaire who had made his money buying and selling World War One surplus materiel, had entered the competition for a $25,000 prize for the first person to complete a nonstop flight from New York to Paris. Lindbergh beat him to it on May 20, 1927, but the following day the young entrepreneur announced that his privately owned airplane would presently fly farther faster -- and with a "mystery passenger" aboard. The pilot, he stated, would be one Clarence Chamberlin. The mystery passenger remained a mystery.
On June 4, 1927, thousands gathered at Roosevelt Field on Long Island, New York, to witness the takeoff. While they waited, Charles A. Levine climbed into the back of his plane and had Chamberlin taxi him around the airfield. No one thought much of it until the plane was halfway down the runway and gaining speed.
Suddenly it was clear: The mystery passenger was none other than Levine himself. The millionaire's wife fainted. His children wept. The press had a field day.
Forty-two hours later, Levine and Chamberlin ran out of gas and landed safely in a peasant's wheat field in central Germany. Despite being 40 miles short of the intended destination of Berlin, Chamberlin had smashed Lindbergh's distance and speed record. And Levine had become the world's first transatlantic air passenger -- as well as an international hero whose face was plastered across newspapers from Europe to America.
The euphoria was greatest among American Jews, for whom Levine was a new symbol of Jewish courage and fortitude. Yiddish radio stations and newspapers covered and re-covered the story and Jewish musicians wrote songs about him.
It seemed Levine had made history.
Next Page: The Songs ?

The Songs
In the weeks following Levine's triumph, the Jewish-American community was in a state of rapture as across the sea one of its own was received by European dignitaries from Hindenburg to Mussolini. On Manhattan's Lower East Side, the Jews spoke of little else.
"The anti-Semites in Germany and the anti-Semites around the world will have to take their hats off to Levine the Jew," pronounced the New York Yiddish daily newspaper Der Tog. "No longer will we be obliged to prove that Jews are as capable and strong on the field of physical bravery as on the field of intellectual achievements."
Within a month a half-dozen songs had been written in Levine's honor. The transatlantic flyer was seen as heralding the advent of the modern Jewish hero: independent, courageous, and proud. Two of the songs made musical allusion to "Ha'Tikvah" (The Hope), the then unofficial Jewish national anthem. The implication was unmistakable: here was a defining character for Jewish aspiration.
Next Page: A Hero Is Forgotten ?

A Hero Is Forgotten
On February 28, 1937, a short article titled "Headliner Fades Out" ran in the back pages of the Los Angeles Times. A sort of living obituary, the piece chronicled the precipitous fall of an ephemeral modern legend.
Since the summer of 1927, everything Charles A. Levine had touched ended in ruin. In 10 years he had lost everything: fortune, family, and fame -- the latter returning momentarily in 1934, when, the LA Times article reports, he was "found unconscious in the kitchen of a friend's home, with five gas jets on." In the eyes of the writer summarizing his life, Levine had sunk plenty low. In fact, he had a ways to go.
A few months following the article's appearance, the erstwhile headliner was back in the news, this time in connection with a Federal charge of tungsten smuggling. After spending 18 months in jail, Levine was eventually busted again, this time for the smuggling of an illegal alien. (The "alien" was a German Jew denied an American visa in his attempt to escape Hitler.)
The former hero's indignities were for a time thought amusing enough for newspaper back pages, but eventually even the tabloids lost interest. By the 1950s only the FBI cared to investigate further.
Next Page: Hunted by the FBI ?

Hunted by the FBI
Fifteen years after his tungsten smuggling conviction, Levine still owed the lion's share of his $5,000 fine. In 1952 the Justice Department sought to ascertain whether the cash was recoupable.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation operative assigned to the case picked up Levine's scent in the shadowy world of New York rooming houses and dubious businesses. But laying hands on the former flier proved far more difficult. Levine had become a ghost, resurfacing sporadically among acquaintances to make a pitch or borrow a few bucks and then disappearing for days, weeks, or years at a time.
No one, not even Levine's daughter, knew where he lived or how he survived. Those who saw him remarked on the shabbiness of his suit and his evident lack of money. There was hardly a soul to whom he didn't owe money. According to his notes, the FBI agent had trouble believing that Levine "was at one time a prominent newsworthy individual."
After evading the FBI for 26 months Levine was finally discovered in April 1956, thanks to a tip from a former business associate seeking revenge for an unpaid loan. But the task of catching Levine was still easier than getting him to cough up, and in 1958 the FBI closed the case without recovering a penny.
Although the FBI ultimately failed in its mission, the paper trail it left behind illuminates an otherwise obscure chapter in Levine's drawn out fall.
Having finally hit rock bottom, Charles A. Levine stayed there for the remaining days of his life. He breathed his last on Dec. 6, 1991, cared for by an older woman who had picked him up off the street some 30 years earlier, having vaguely remembered his name from headlines of yore.

Oy vey.

Since the subject of Samuel Adams and the Awakener/Liberty cusp came up, here are the names I could dig up for this cusp area:


1714 George Whitefield P
1714 (26 jan) Jean B Pigalle French sculptor (Child with Bird Cage)
1714 (28 jan) Jean-Baptiste Pigalle French sculptor (Child with Pigeon)


1716 (15 jan) Philip Livingston merchant (signed Declaration of Independence)
1716 (20 jan) Carlos III king of Naples/Spain (1759-88) Pompei/Jesuits
1716 (20 jan) Jean-Jacques Barth?lemy French historical writer (Greek Antiquity)
1716 (26 jan) George Sackville Germain 1st Viscount Sackville
1716 (26 dec) Thomas Gray English poet (Elegy Written in a Country Church Yard)


1717 (28 jan) Mustapha III Sultan of Turkey (1757-74)
1717 (29 jan) Jeffrey Amherst English Governor-General of America/field marshal
1717 (19 feb) David Garrick actor/producer/writer (Aboan-Oroonoko)
1717 (26 feb) John Randall composer
1717 (13 may) Maria Theresa Empress of Austria (Wife of emperor Franz I)
1717 (24 sep) Horace Walpole England, writer (The Castle of Otranto)
1717 (17 nov) Jean d'Alembert Fr, mathematician/philosopher (Trait? de Dynamique)
1717 (25 dec) Pius VI [Giovanni A Braschi] Italy, Pope (1775-99)


1718 (26 apr) Esek Hopkins US, 1st commander-in-chief (US Navy)
1718 (16 may) Maria G Agnesi Italy mathematician curves= x?y=a?(a-y)
1718 (23 may) William Hunter obstetrician/medal writer
1718 (05 jun) Thomas Chippendale England, furniture maker (baptized)
1718 (03 nov) John Montague 4th Earl of Sandwich, inventor (sandwich)


1719 (30 mar) Sir John Hawkins England, wrote 1st history of music


1720 John Woolman P
1720 Pontiac
1720 (27 jan) Samuel Foote England, actor/dramatist (Mirror)
1720 (18 jul) Gilbert White "father of British naturalists"
1720 (12 sep) Frederick Philipse III NYC, land owner (Bronx, Westchester & Putnam)
1720 (15 dec) J F Beck writer
1720 (20 dec) Charles Edward Stuart [Bonnie Prince Charlie/Young Pretender]
1720 (31 dec) [Bonnie Prince] Charles Edward Stuart English pretender to throne


1721 Peyton Randolph P
1721 Samuel Hopkins P
1721 (13 feb) John Reid composer
1721 (19 mar) Tobias Smollett Scottish writer, baptized
1721 (13 apr) John Hanson Maryland, 1st US Pres under Articles of Confederation
1721 (19 apr) Roger Sherman signer (Decl of Ind, Constitution)
1721 (25 dec) William Collins Chichester England, (Mayor-Chichester)/poet
1721 (29 dec) Madame De Pompadour mistress of French King Louis the 15th


1722 Eliza Pinckney ?
1722 (11 apr) Christopher Smart English poet & journalist (Ceremony of Carols)
1722 (11 may) Peter Camper Leyden Holland, anatomist/professor (Amsterdam)
1722 (27 sep) Samuel Adams revolutionary rabble rouser/(Lt Gov-Mass, 1789-94)
1722 (01 dec) A L Karschin writer


1723 William Livingston P
1723 Crispus Attucks N
1723 Samson Occum P?
1723 (05 feb) John Witherspoon clergyman/signed Declaration of Independence
1723 (17 feb) Tobias Mayer "method of lunars" for longitude determination
1723 (31 mar) Frederik V King of Denmark/Norway (1746-66)
1723 (05 jun) Adam Smith Kirkcaldy Scot, economist (Wealth of Nations) (baptized)
1723 (10 jul) Sir William Blackstone England, jurist (Blackstone's Commentaries)
1723 (16 jul) Sir Joshua Reynolds England, portrait painter (Simplicity)


1724 (22 apr) Immanuel Kant Germany, philosopher (Critique of Pure Reason)
1724 (25 aug) George Stubbs England, animal painter (House Frightened by Lion)


1725 James Otis N
1725 George Mason N
1725 (20 mar) Abd?l-Hamid I 27th sultan of Turkey (1774-89)
1725 (29 mar) Joseph Franz Xaver Dominik Stalder composer
1725 (05 apr) Giacomo Casanova Italian writer/philanderer/adventurer (uncertain)
1725 (25 sep) Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot designed & built 1st automobile


1726 (04 jan) Cornelis Ploos van Amstel Dutch engraver/art collector
1726 (18 jan) Hendrik prince of Prussia/diplomat
1726 (15 feb) Abraham Clark farmer/lawyer, signed Declaration of Independence
1726 (11 mar) Madame Louise-Florence d'?pinay France, writer (Woman, Man & 2 Kingdoms)/salon hostess
1726 (08 apr) Lewis Morris signed Decl of Independence
1726 (20 nov) Oliver Wolcott (Ct-Gov), signed Declaration of Independence
1726 (01 dec) Oliver Wolcott US judge/signer (Declaration of Independence)


1727 Ezra Stiles ?
1727 John Wilkes N
1727 (02 jan) James Wolfe commanded British Army (captured Qu?bec)
1727 (11 jan) Franz Sebastian Haindl composer
1727 (10 may) Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot French minister of Finance (17.. -76)
1727 (14 may) Thomas Gainsborough England, baptized, artist (The Blue Boy)
1727 (22 dec) William Ellery signer of the Declaration of Independence


1728 Mercy Warren
1728 (09 jan) Thomas Warton poet laureate of England (Pleasures of Melancholy)
1728 (16 jan) Niccol? Piccinni Italian composer (Buona Figliuola)
1728 (10 feb) Peter III Feodorovich German/Russian czar of Russia (1761-62)
1728 (21 feb) Peter III Kiel Germany, Russian tsar (1761-62), husband of Catherine
1728 (29 feb) Robert Bage English writer (Criticism by Peter Faulkner)
1728 (26 aug) Johann Lambert Switzerland, mathematician, proved ? is irrational
1728 (07 oct) Caesar Rodney Delaware, patriot, signed Declaration of Independence
1728 (27 oct) James Cook captain/explorer, discovered Sandwich Islands
1728 (02 dec) Ferdinando Galiani Italian economist/philosopher/diplomat


1729 (01 jan) Edmund Burke British author/famous Whig (Philosophy & Inquiry, Reflections on the Revolution)
1729 (05 jan) Paul C la Fargue cartoonist/painter
1729 (12 jan) Lazzaro Spallanzani Modena Italy, physiologist
1729 (12 jan) Edmund Burke British author (Philosophy & Inquiry)
1729 (02 may) Catherine II (the Great) empress of Russia (1762-96)
1729 (13 may) Henry William (Baron) Stiegel early American glassmaker
1729 (25 may) Jean de Neufville Dutch/US merchant (started 4th English war)
1729 (26 sep) Moses Mendelssohn philosopher/critic/Bible translator


I have not had a chance to really look at this yet but I think Bonnie Prince Charlie was definitely Nomad. Perhaps some of those 1718 people were as well, I'm not sure. How far off was the colonial schedule from the mother country's schedule at this time? Regardless, I do not see a clear "close" Nomad among Americans until 1722 with Samuel Adams. If he did identify with the Prophet generation, he was only marginally more Prophet than Nomad.

1723 gets interesting. I would think that Adam Smith was Nomad given his materialism. Ditto for William Blackstone since he was preoccupied with rights and laws. But both men were British. For Americans, I would think that Crispus Attucks was a Nomad while John Witherspoon was a Prophet. I don't know about William Livingston and Samson Occum. In any case, I think we are seeing really cuspy behavior in 1722 and 1723.

1724 is S&H's Liberty start year and we have no American births for that year. However we do have James Otis and George Mason in 1725 and these men were certainly Nomads.

So from this very limited sample, I tend to see firm Prophet through 1721. I see a mix in 1722 and 1723. And it looks firmly Nomad by 1725. So long as American Nomads were not appearing concurrently with Bonnie Prince Charlie and possibly some of those 1718 British people, then I would think the shift occurred in 1723 or 1724.


BTW, one of these birthday sites substituted James Mason for George Mason. If you see any James Masons on here that I did not catch, they should be George Masons.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-05-09 10:53 ]</font>

I think we can exclude a Jacobite Prince from the turnings. Not only was his family exiled to france in the 1690s, but he himself spent much of his youth in Rome.

Odd enough I happened across a book on the history of NYC, and it corresponds very much to S&H.
For example there were slave revolts in 1741, that would up with a number of people being burned at the stake. I feel like that year was very similar to 1977, the same dynamic.
The city they describe in the 1840s and 50s is also very similar to the city during the Koch and Dinkins years.

It seems that the city got extremely dirty and disgusting during Awakening to Unraveling periods.

On 2002-05-09 11:07, Ty Webb wrote:
I think we can exclude a Jacobite Prince from the turnings. Not only was his family exiled to france in the 1690s, but he himself spent much of his youth in Rome.

Odd enough I happened across a book on the history of NYC, and it corresponds very much to S&H.
For example there were slave revolts in 1741, that would up with a number of people being burned at the stake. I feel like that year was very similar to 1977, the same dynamic.
The city they describe in the 1840s and 50s is also very similar to the city during the Koch and Dinkins years.

It seems that the city got extremely dirty and disgusting during Awakening to Unraveling periods.

And much cleaner in Crisis and High periods.

:smile:

On 2002-05-09 05:18, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-05-09 00:24, mmailliw wrote:

With GIs, there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything (think Archie Bunker) and it does not matter why a given way is right and another way is wrong. These things are not to be questioned. If "authority" wills it, no matter how arbitrarily, it is de facto law and will be adhered to.

THAT is why I feel so Nomadic! THAT is why I feel such revulsion to being in the same generation as the 89-91 Harry Potter core Millies! And, most likely, THAT is (at least in part) why I feel out of place at Jarvard.

It is interesting that you say that. Earlier, I was looking at that Liberty/Republican cusp and have not had a chance to come back to it. But depending on where we draw that boundary, we will have a whole lot of very Nomadic Heroes and even outright Nomads in the first few years of the generation. For example, if we retain S&H's 1742 Republican advent (which I think may correspond to the first appearance of Civics, not the midpoint of the cusp), then we definitely have arguable Nomads through at least 1745, going past TJ (1743) to "Mad" Anthony Wayne (1745). With this arrangment, you might relate to these Nomadic types at the same early point in the Hero generation. Applying S&H's same apparent standard (appearance of first Hero rather than midpoint of cusp) to the Lost/GI border, you might relate to some GIs born through perhaps 1904 or so. However it appears to me that the Lost/GI border has a much longer cusp, possibly 12 years (1900-1911). In this case, you (1984) might be much more like 1908-1911 cohorts like Goldwater and Reagan, even using a 1900 or 1901 start date a la S&H. But then we still do not know how long the 13th/Millennial cusp will turn out to be (I don't think?) so this gets too tough to call, although you might more generally consider anyone in that 1900-1911 cusp.

Where do you think the first Heroes lie with respect to the X/Mil cusp? I'm thinking 1979 or 1980...
Anyway, I don't think that site will give us any help on my portion of the X/Mil cusp for a long time... but then again what am I doing here anyway? Everyone born in 1984 is either an English prince (I was born in New York), a pop singer (I'd like to think I have more class than that), or a movie star (at times this may seem fascinating but doing the zillions of takes for each scene would get to me) so despite my birth certificate, my driver's license, etc maybe I wasn't born in 1984 after all :smile:

Where I grew up it seems that the 50/50 line is drawn at 84/85 with traces persisting as late as 86 (you can see that, for example, by the way the Millie-esque club leaders in my year get blasted in the yearbook); C2K is merely an abnormality among children of the eighties - here at Jarvard the C2K phenomenom seems to be nonexistent but the Class of 2005 seems to be decidedly Millie, the Class of 2004 could go either way and the Class of 2003 is largely X (but due to Jarvard's selectivity and its preference for Millie ilk that does not represent the country at all) - will the C2K phenomenom end up being enormous (as it seems at some places in the East Coast) or minuscule (as it is in California, Missouri, or even Jarvard)? If it ends up actually mattering there will be no way of comparing us and previous saecula (the equivalent might be a "Class of 1920" phenomenom in the previous saeclum, which is COMPLETELY unsupported by historical evidence)