On 2002-06-17 10:10, Heliotrope wrote:
A lot of adults also loved watching Pee Wee's Playhouse. When my husband and I were newlyweds (geez, that was sooo long ago!) we used to watch it all the time. We also went to see the Pee Wee movie.

They never had shows like that when I was a kid!

I discovered Pee Wee in 1986, preserved a lot of his shows on tape, and played them for my kids ten years later. They loved him.

I watched The Blues Brothers over the weekend, and Paul Ruebens has a cameo as the waiter in the restaurant where Jake and Elwood go to embarrass their friend who works there. Never noticed him before. :smile:

I think that a key factor in determining whether someone in the questionable "X/Y" years (1977-1981) is "X" or "Y" is if they have an older sibling who is firmly in "X". If you were born, say, in 1978, and you had a sibling several years older, surely he or she could "guide" you through your early years, and show you the wonders of early 80s culture. Otherwise, without this "guidance", you may simply stare at the TV screen and watch Sesame Street till you're five or six and the Awakening is officially over.

For instance, Justin has an older sibling. I am sure that like all little brothers do, he followed his big brother around and was involved in whatever he was involved with. For instance, if big brother was watching Gimme a Break or Dallas or The Day After, Justin probably got on the couch with him and watched it to. But say he didn't have that brother. Then Justin might have not have explored the world beyond 123 Sesame Street until Punky Brewster (who is an interesting case for being an abandoned Xer ('76) who was as sweet and sugary as a typical Yer), and thus missed the final morsels of the Awakening.

By the way, I do NOT have an older sibling; rather I have one who is deep into Generation "Y" (1986) so I probably missed more of the early 80s than someone who had a "mentor" sibling. The earliest shows not involving a green Grouch that I remember watching were "Fame" and "Dance Fever" in 82, and I didn't know about "The Day After" until about five years ago. Another strike against me was the fact that I lived in a retirement community (interesting story) until I was five, so there were no kids around.

"Fame..Im gonna live forever..Im gonna learn how to fly..."

That's very true. Not only did I have an elder Xer sibling (1971) but two cousins that lived a block away who were born in 1977 and 1974. I definitely had no control over the idiot box.
If I had younger siblings I might have identified more with them if things were different.
I mean it was my Dad who showed me Cheech and Chong, Dukes of Hazzard, Dallas...my brother preferred Magnum P.I.
But I would hae not been privy to early 80s adolescent culture (Ozzy, Iron Maiden, ripped jeans, flannel..pretty much the grunge uniform before it had a name) without being around 14 and 15 year olds.
Dude...those kids were bad.
They talk about Xers being bad in youth, they were right. I mean when I was 5 being age 13 seemed like being an adult, but when I got to be 13 I wasn't as bad as the 13 year olds of 1984..The girls wore so much make up and their hair was SKY HIGH.

Anyway..Mark, you are right about that sibling thing.

And I was watching "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie" on Comedy Central a few days back (1980) when Pee Wee Herman appeared (of course, not exactly getting along with Cheech or Chong :smile... what scares me is that he's now either 45 or VERY close to it!!!
I don't know... I just won't feel like I'm in the same generation as someone born in 1998, 1993, or even 1988 until some other defining event happens that relates all of us together - but as time moves on the odds of such an event affecting those born in the early 80s decreases more and more...

It is kind of ridiculous the way gens are lumped...there have to be subgens for some kind of transition. You're telling me that the college class of 1986, during Yuppie Fever, is in the same gen as the people who came of age with the Summer of Love? The 65-76 definition of X makes SO MUCH more sense than the 46-64 defintion of Boom, as much as I resent the fact that Madison Avenue will therefore lump me in the Britney Spears Generation.

Pee wee is 50.

That is not true Mark.
The 1975, 76, 77 cohorts. With the 1965, 66, 67 cohorts?
The ten year olds of 1985 vs 1975?
Theres a difference. Fred Savage and Charlie Sheen in "X"? They do seem very different.
Children of the 70s vs. Children of the 80s.
Or more like..children of the 1965-75 period, vs children of the 1976-85 period.

Silent children vs. Boomer children.
There is a mrked difference, even between my brother (1971) and the people I meet that were born in '65.

On 2002-06-17 11:53, Justin wrote:
"Fame..Im gonna live forever..Im gonna learn how to fly..."

That's very true. Not only did I have an elder Xer sibling (1971) but two cousins that lived a block away who were born in 1977 and 1974. I definitely had no control over the idiot box.
If I had younger siblings I might have identified more with them if things were different.
I mean it was my Dad who showed me Cheech and Chong, Dukes of Hazzard, Dallas...my brother preferred Magnum P.I.
But I would hae not been privy to early 80s adolescent culture (Ozzy, Iron Maiden, ripped jeans, flannel..pretty much the grunge uniform before it had a name) without being around 14 and 15 year olds.
Dude...those kids were bad.
They talk about Xers being bad in youth, they were right. I mean when I was 5 being age 13 seemed like being an adult, but when I got to be 13 I wasn't as bad as the 13 year olds of 1984..The girls wore so much make up and their hair was SKY HIGH.

Anyway..Mark, you are right about that sibling thing.

The whole theory is based around siblings and age differences. I propose that the age difference MUST be less than 5 years. Most kids more than 5 years older than the next sibling, don't share the same friends or the same social events. They don't want the younger sibling hanging around them. For siblings gaps of ten years or more, the older sibling takes on the stance of another adult to model oneself after in a more parental role model than a sibling role model. Hence, the younger sibling will have his own friends and influences apart from the older sibling.

On 2002-06-17 15:47, wrstrutts wrote:

On 2002-06-17 11:53, Justin wrote:
"Fame..Im gonna live forever..Im gonna learn how to fly..."

That's very true. Not only did I have an elder Xer sibling (1971) but two cousins that lived a block away who were born in 1977 and 1974. I definitely had no control over the idiot box.
If I had younger siblings I might have identified more with them if things were different.
I mean it was my Dad who showed me Cheech and Chong, Dukes of Hazzard, Dallas...my brother preferred Magnum P.I.
But I would hae not been privy to early 80s adolescent culture (Ozzy, Iron Maiden, ripped jeans, flannel..pretty much the grunge uniform before it had a name) without being around 14 and 15 year olds.
Dude...those kids were bad.
They talk about Xers being bad in youth, they were right. I mean when I was 5 being age 13 seemed like being an adult, but when I got to be 13 I wasn't as bad as the 13 year olds of 1984..The girls wore so much make up and their hair was SKY HIGH.

Anyway..Mark, you are right about that sibling thing.

The whole theory is based around siblings and age differences. I propose that the age difference MUST be less than 5 years. Most kids more than 5 years older than the next sibling, don't share the same friends or the same social events. They don't want the younger sibling hanging around them. For siblings gaps of ten years or more, the older sibling takes on the stance of another adult to model oneself after in a more parental role model than a sibling role model. Hence, the younger sibling will have his own friends and influences apart from the older sibling.

Makes sense... but arbitrary numbers here can be very meaningless (6 yr difference might not be too big in some cases and 3 yrs might be too big in others)

Makes sense... but arbitrary numbers here can be very meaningless (6 yr difference might not be too big in some cases and 3 yrs might be too big in others)

I base this number on information that is consistent in Birth Order research. For instance, if you were born five years later than your previous sibling, you will take on a first born or only child role since children don't tend to play with children younger than five years. If you are the last child with a five year gap, you are like an only child since you are left to play on your own and you tend to respect authority figures due to the fact that everyone in your childhood is older or adults. The researchers say that birth order then starts over with more than five year gaps. My siblings are at least 13 years older than me and they are more like additional parental figures to me growing up than siblings. Their children are closer to my age than they are. I played with them as a child. My nephew of my oldest sister is only four years younger (March 1967). I tend to identify with other only children than as a youngest child.

That is confusing though because although my brother was 8 years older, I never saw him as an adult figure.
However my closest childhood friends were born in 1976 and 1977 when I was a kid, and my closest cousins were born in 74 and 77. They definitely drew me into that camp, but let me make this clear, there really wasn't any tugging the other way.
I had no younger people I identified with really, save my 1981 cousin.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin on 2002-06-17 17:13 ]</font>

On 2002-06-17 14:39, Justin wrote:
That is not true Mark.
The 1975, 76, 77 cohorts. With the 1965, 66, 67 cohorts?
The ten year olds of 1985 vs 1975?
Theres a difference. Fred Savage and Charlie Sheen in "X"? They do seem very different.
Children of the 70s vs. Children of the 80s.
Or more like..children of the 1965-75 period, vs children of the 1976-85 period.

Silent children vs. Boomer children.
There is a mrked difference, even between my brother (1971) and the people I meet that were born in '65.

No, I'm saying that RELATIVELY speaking, 65-76 as a group makes more sense than lumping 46-64. Of course someone born in 65 would have different memories than someone born in 76...a 1965 cohort would almost definitely remember the Civil Rights movement and Vietnam, while at the same age, a 1976 cohort would experience Yuppie Fever and the advent of the personal computer. But there are many more similarities between a 1965 and 1976 person than between a 1946 to 1964 cohort. To call the 'sixties cohorts boomers is like calling an 84 cohort "X" (sorry mailliwwilliam). It just doesn't make sense.

On 2002-06-17 19:25, Mark Y wrote:
To call the 'sixties cohorts boomers is like calling an 84 cohort "X" (sorry mailliwwilliam).

There's more in that statement than you think; on the one hand you have Kiff's "Generation Limbo" and on the other you have my "Peanut Butter Generation" - Will R. Strutts and Robert Reed III aside, most early 60s babies would not identify generationally with those born after, say, 1966 in the same way that most early 80s babies would not identify generationally with those born after, say, 1986

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, guys, but I was born in 1964 and don't find it at all hard to identify with Xers born up till 1980 or so.

I worked with HS students in the early 90's and loved it when grunge came out and they were all in the mosh pits. I woulda been there too, if I hadn'ta been trying to eek a living out of the economic mess of the late eighties early nineties. At that point, even older Xers like myself had trouble fitting into the Boomer/Silent work world - we identified more with the kids!

And if you younger Xers think you can't identify with us older ones, wait a few years and come to one of our retro 80's punk rock new wave extravaganzas . . . I think you'll fit right in!

:smile:

But I remember Yuppiemania and the advent of the personal computer. I shouold know, my parents turned Yuppie!!!!
You are right though. 1946-64??? Makes no sense. What a silly definition.
Id agree much more to the S&H one. I mean there are those Silent-ish 1943 and 1944s, but by the time you get to 1945 its pretty hard to deny. As for the end...I don't notice a distinct shift until 1960 or so.
I mean even Spike Lee (1957) or Rick Santorum (1958)---these late wave Boomers are is if not more preachy than the early wavers, and these people like Madonna or Prince are even more narcissistic.


Donna Id love to come and listen to some Bad Brains and Black Flag.

I actually think I have a Bad Brains album Justin. And I haven't thought about it in years, but hey maybe I'll spin that baby one of these days.

Here's the real test: Do you recall Hanoi Rocks? The Chameleons? Sonic Youth?

I can agree with 1925 as the first Silent year, I can agree with 1960/61 as the Boom/X shift, and I can even see either 80/81 (start of my wave) or 81/82 (C2K) as the start of the Millies; however I just canNOT agree with 1943 being placed in the Boom (maybe the classification of 1943 is the ultimate litmus test as to whether one agrees with S&H or not?)

If we surveyed 100 people born in 1943 and asked them "Do you consider themselves as part of the same generation as people born in 1960?" you'd likely get a lot more laughter than yesses; same if you switched the two years

On 2002-06-17 20:46, Donna Sherman wrote:

Here's the real test: Do you recall Hanoi Rocks? The Chameleons? Sonic Youth?

Recall Sonic Youth? Aren't they still putting stuff out? We had kids listening to them when I first came into high school.

On 2002-06-17 22:13, Samarah, teenage girl wrote:

On 2002-06-17 20:46, Donna Sherman wrote:

Here's the real test: Do you recall Hanoi Rocks? The Chameleons? Sonic Youth?

Recall Sonic Youth? Aren't they still putting stuff out? We had kids listening to them when I first came into high school.

hmm... their most recent album is 2000 but their first album WAS 1981...

Sonic youth's heyday has kind of passed.
Their big years were in that 1987-91 period, during the college rock days before Nirvana.

As for Hanoi rocks, I was no cool 80s kid..at least not that cool. I knew who Dead Milkmen were but really..I knew much more about Beastie Boys or Skid Row...ug..

As for 1943, my Senior Seminar professor was born in 1943, as was his prominent journalist wife. They are totally Boomers...boomer to the core. I see no difference between them and my parents.
But there are stragglers.
I mean are Rosie o Donnell or melissa Etheridge really down with the angsty spirit?

On 2002-06-17 20:48, Agent 24601984 wrote:
I can agree with 1925 as the first Silent year, I can agree with 1960/61 as the Boom/X shift, and I can even see either 80/81 (start of my wave) or 81/82 (C2K) as the start of the Millies; however I just canNOT agree with 1943 being placed in the Boom (maybe the classification of 1943 is the ultimate litmus test as to whether one agrees with S&H or not?)

If we surveyed 100 people born in 1943 and asked them "Do you consider themselves as part of the same generation as people born in 1960?" you'd likely get a lot more laughter than yesses; same if you switched the two years

Interesting, when i think about it. I have a cousin 12 years older than I am, born December 31, 1947. He is about the oldest person i can think of that I can clearly identify generationally. Any time before that, it starts to get murky. There are many celebrities of course that were born in the years between 1940 and 1946, but they all seem somewhat larger than life simply because they are famous-- and as such, are difficult for me to identify with anyway.

There is an older gentleman that I work with, whom i just found out is 61 years old, born in late 1940. He is DEFINITELY of a different generation from myself, a total Silent to the core with his gruff, unemotional demeanor and absolute opposition to ANY change that might upset the Nation's (or his own) fragile peace.

So, based on this observation, I'd say that the transition between Silent and Boom generations runs roughly from 1941 through '46. It makes sense that I start to lose generational identity going back from the 1946 cohort-- since I am on the Boomer/Xer cusp I can identify somewhat with core Boomers but not well at all with those born on the Silent cusp. 1942/3 is right at the middle of this transition zone, and is as good a line between the Silent and Boomers as any.

hmmm... with the people i know born in the mid 40s:
I know 2 people born in '43; if I had to assign archetypes i'd say that one is like 90S/10B and the other is pure Silent.
Knowing the people born in '46 tho, it seems more like central cusp than end of cusp:
my 1st and 2nd grade teachers were definitely Silent*; among the other four, one was a hippie Boomer who went into teaching as a perceived obligation to society, another was proud to be a self-admitted member of the start of the baby boom, and the other two seemed like cuspers but leaning on the side of sweet Silent.

Keeping these 46ers in mind I am inclined to place 46 MUCH closer to mid-cusp

On 2002-06-18 00:26, Agent 24601984 wrote:
hmmm... with the people i know born in the mid 40s:
I know 2 people born in '43; if I had to assign archetypes i'd say that one is like 90S/10B and the other is pure Silent.
Knowing the people born in '46 tho, it seems more like central cusp than end of cusp:
my 1st and 2nd grade teachers were definitely Silent*; among the other four, one was a hippie Boomer who went into teaching as a perceived obligation to society, another was proud to be a self-admitted member of the start of the baby boom, and the other two seemed like cuspers but leaning on the side of sweet Silent.

Keeping these 46ers in mind I am inclined to place 46 MUCH closer to mid-cusp

Teachers.....

Well, from what i remember, my First Grade teacher falls right into that Silent/Boom cusp category. Miss Cummings appeared to be about 25 years old in 1966, so she would have been born in maybe 1941. She quit her job and took a cruise around the world a month before school ended-- a spontaneous, see-the-world-and-change-it act no security-driven, pure Silent would ever have dared do. Then again, she did get married right after her trip and never did come back to teach (at least not at our school) a sure sign of Silentine Leave-It-To-Beaverism. I'd say that she fit the Silent/Boom cusp mode quite well.

On 2002-06-18 00:52, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-06-18 00:26, Agent 24601984 wrote:
hmmm... with the people i know born in the mid 40s:
I know 2 people born in '43; if I had to assign archetypes i'd say that one is like 90S/10B and the other is pure Silent.
Knowing the people born in '46 tho, it seems more like central cusp than end of cusp:
my 1st and 2nd grade teachers were definitely Silent*; among the other four, one was a hippie Boomer who went into teaching as a perceived obligation to society, another was proud to be a self-admitted member of the start of the baby boom, and the other two seemed like cuspers but leaning on the side of sweet Silent.

Keeping these 46ers in mind I am inclined to place 46 MUCH closer to mid-cusp

Teachers.....

Well, from what i remember, my First Grade teacher falls right into that Silent/Boom cusp category. Miss Cummings appeared to be about 25 years old in 1966, so she would have been born in maybe 1941. She quit her job and took a cruise around the world a month before school ended-- a spontaneous, see-the-world-and-change-it act no security-driven, pure Silent would ever have dared do. Then again, she did get married right after her trip and never did come back to teach (at least not at our school) a sure sign of Silentine Leave-It-To-Beaverism. I'd say that she fit the Silent/Boom cusp mode quite well.

Or was she just an archetypal member of the late silent "Beat Generation"?

These 1943 people I know were the trend setters generationally. they went to the best schools, and are prominent Americans.
I'll offer my 1946 aunt is a Boomer. She lost her bro in Vietnam. I'll also offer my 1944 Uncle is a cusper. He usually just seems to bemused by anything to be a prophet. The same goes for some of my early 40s teachers. But then again people like Janis Joplin or Jim Morrison (both born dec. 1943) strike me as Prophet to the core.
They definitely are departures from those Americans in their peer group that came before them.
I mean when you are looking at the late 30s and early 40s you get people like the Smothers Brothers, the everly brothers, Colin powell, Jane Fonda, Racquel Welch.
A cadre of 50s youth. Even Richie "La Bamba" Valens was born in 1942.
But in 1943 and 44 there are some real prophets. People like George harrison, or Syd Barret or Roger Waters from Pink Floyd.
Plus can you really lay it down to a date that sharp?
Im sure David Crosby would identify as a prophet and Dylan would identify as an Artist...and theyre born around the same time. I have to admit alot changes between 1941 and 46.