On 2002-06-20 16:10, wrstrutts wrote:
"do you recall where and what you were dong when JFK got shot?"

Sorry. Couldn't resist pointing out your typo, Will.

Anyway, to answer the question, sort of. I was 5 years old and remember all the adults around acting real weird and spooky for several weeks after that. I suppose I knew JFK was shot, but as a 5 year old, I was far more concerned that the dull news coverage might preempt "Wonderama" or Captain Kangaroo" or "The Flintstones."

I know 1955 cohorts that said they were sad that there weren't any cartoons on that weekend. I think its not really about how you felt about it, but if you could recall it.

On 2002-06-20 16:10, wrstrutts wrote:
"do you recall where and what you were dong when JFK got shot?"

On 2002-06-20 16:55, Agent 24601984 wrote:

They used both THAT as a test AND a 1964 end date? uhh... "I was a fetus in my mom's uterus and I was lazing around as usual."

Guess I must be an Xer after all.

I clearly remember at least snapshots of High era events both from my life, and from the outer world: John Glenn's orbital flight occurred when my mom was in the hospital having my little brother in February 1962; the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, which happened just after we moved into our Ivy Hill, NJ luxury apartment. Our family vacations at Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, in July 1963 and July 1961 respectively.

However I must have had a very 'duh' moment in November 1963 because I have absolutely no recollection whatsoever of JFK's assassination, to the point of being shocked when on my first day of kindergarten on September 11, 1964 when our School Principal reminded her pupils that our President was someone named Lyndon Baines Johnson ("MOMMY!!! I thought John F. Kennedy was our President!!! What happened to him?").

It's almost as if my parents made a conscious effort to shield me from all talk of the event. Kind of weird, that they would do that, actually.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-20 19:57 ]</font>

On 2002-06-20 17:42, Justin wrote:
I know 1955 cohorts that said they were sad that there weren't any cartoons on that weekend. I think its not really about how you felt about it, but if you could recall it.

Here is where I disagree... it almost seems like the thought experiments!

On 2002-06-20 18:40, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-06-20 16:10, wrstrutts wrote:
"do you recall where and what you were dong when JFK got shot?"

On 2002-06-20 16:55, Agent 24601984 wrote:

They used both THAT as a test AND a 1964 end date? uhh... "I was a fetus in my mom's uterus and I was lazing around as usual."

Guess I must be an Xer after all.

I clearly remember at least snapshots of High era events both from my life, and from the outer world: John Glenn's orbital flight occurred when my mom was in the hospital having my little brother in February 1962; the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1963, which happened just after we moved into our Ivy Hill, NJ luxury apartment. Our vacations at Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts in July 1963 and July 1961 respectively.

However I must have had a very 'duh' moment in November 1963 because I have absolutely no recollection whatsoever of JFK's assassination. To the point of being shocked when on my first day of kindergarten on September 11, 1964 when our School Principal reminded her pupils that our President was someone named Lyndon Baines Johnson ("MOMMY!!! I thought John F. Kennedy was our President!!!").

It's almost as if my parents made a conscious effort to shield me from all talk of the event. Kind of weird, actually.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-20 18:42 ]</font>

:lol:

On 2002-06-20 17:07, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-06-20 16:10, wrstrutts wrote:
"do you recall where and what you were dong when JFK got shot?"

Sorry. Couldn't resist pointing out your typo, Will.

Anyway, to answer the question, sort of. I was 5 years old and remember all the adults around acting real weird and spooky for several weeks after that. I suppose I knew JFK was shot, but as a 5 year old, I was far more concerned that the dull news coverage might preempt "Wonderama" or Captain Kangaroo" or "The Flintstones."

OOPS! Personally I was probally wandering around the house in my diapers wondering why everyone was sad but I don't remember that. I was just a little over 1 years old at the time. I would have been lucky if I could have said "momma!" at the time. :smile:

_________________
Will Strutts - Whatever!
B: Sep 1962

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: wrstrutts on 2002-06-20 19:52 ]</font>

On 2002-06-20 18:40, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-06-20 16:10, wrstrutts wrote:
"do you recall where and what you were dong when JFK got shot?"

On 2002-06-20 16:55, Agent 24601984 wrote:

They used both THAT as a test AND a 1964 end date? uhh... "I was a fetus in my mom's uterus and I was lazing around as usual."

Guess I must be an Xer after all.

I clearly remember at least snapshots of High era events both from my life, and from the outer world: John Glenn's orbital flight occurred when my mom was in the hospital having my little brother in February 1962; the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1963, which happened just after we moved into our Ivy Hill, NJ luxury apartment. Our family vacations at Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, in July 1963 and July 1961 respectively.

However I must have had a very 'duh' moment in November 1963 because I have absolutely no recollection whatsoever of JFK's assassination, to the point of being shocked when on my first day of kindergarten on September 11, 1964 when our School Principal reminded her pupils that our President was someone named Lyndon Baines Johnson ("MOMMY!!! I thought John F. Kennedy was our President!!! What happened to him?").

It's almost as if my parents made a conscious effort to shield me from all talk of the event. Kind of weird, that they would do that, actually.

Dude, I thought the Cuban Missle crisis was in Oct of 1962??? It has always spooked me that I could have been nuked to death before I even spoke a word or walked a foot.

On 2002-06-20 18:40, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

I clearly remember at least snapshots of High era events both from my life, and from the outer world: John Glenn's orbital flight occurred when my mom was in the hospital having my little brother in February 1962; the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1963, which happened just after we moved into our Ivy Hill, NJ luxury apartment.

Dude, I thought the Cuban Missle crisis was in Oct of 1962??? It has always spooked me that I could have been nuked to death before I even spoke a word or walked a foot.

[/quote]

Oops, sorry...typo error. I certainly MEANT to say Oct. 1962; we moved into the aforementioned apartment on September 1. I clearly remember when we first moved in, my mom pointing to all those funny-looking yellow-and-black signs, explaining to me what a "Fallout Shelter" was-- that it was in the basement of our building, and was where were were going to go when (not "if", but "when") when the Red Chinese dropped the Atomic Bomb on New York.

Then a month later or so, it was the Russians and not the Red Chinese, who were coming to get us.

Time is so hard to explain, especially turnings. I am feeling a turning coming on. I just feel old and lame, and I'm only 22. Soon all the people I thought were cool will be 40. That is lame.

I miss times. I miss what I can recall from 1982 or 83. It's funny that there weren't any big events for a youth to recall in those days. I mean I'm sure the 84 olympics or something, but really, all I can do to place events and times is memories of seeing movies in the theater when they first came out.
Hence that memory of Jedi was from the Spring of 83. I do recall turning 4 in Nov. 1983. I can recall a vacation from winter 1982, and a Halloween from 1981. I can recall other stuff that seems older than that but its too blurry to really identify.

All I can go on is how things felt, and things felt way different in 1981 or 2 than they did in 1987.
In 1982 we all had those shaggy haircuts, and were watching Threes Company on TV.
1987 seemed very different. I'll never forget the Beastie Boys for some reason, maybe because Im from New York, but also because they acted like high school students and my brother was in high school.
Hmm...
All these memories are starting to feel like a long time ago.
The new century sucks..cant i just go to sleep and wake up and watch Cyndi Lauper on MTV again?

The Fourth Turning, p. 234, Chapter "The Third Turning", subheading 13rs Entering Young Adulthood: Top Guns:

"In film, young directors explore...a life that seems to lead nowhere (...Dazed and Confused)"

This movie takes place on graduation day 1976. While the incoming freshmen would have been born circa 1962 and be Xers according to the S&H orthodoxy, the graduating seniors would be 1958 cohorts. So not a very good choice of film to illustrate their point. It does however dovetail perfectly with Anthony's "Buster" (how I hate that name) generation.

Had the film been set in 1974,a mere two years earlier, in which case the protagonists would all have been Boomers, would it have been any less believable? I think not.

This cusper is sprinkling more proverbial salt grains on the alleged Boomer/X boundary. :smile:

On Strauss and Howe... Here's a good one:

Generations page 305, "By almost any standard of social pathology, the Boom is a generation of worsening trends. From first-wave to last-wave teenagers, death rates for every form of accidental death rose sharply--and the rates of drunk driving, suicide etc... etc..."

But back on page 52, they examine, in depth, why the 1961-64 cohorts are not Boomers: "The portrait that emerges of the 1961-1964 cohort group is vivid and unflattering. Over the post-war period, at each age through 24, this group has generated all of America's lost aptitude test scores; the highest high school senior drug and alcohol abuse; all but one of America's highest drunk driving rates... record rates for many other pathologies, including suicide."

This reader says, huh? What's going on here? The Boom is "worsening", while the Xers are off the charts? :lol:

Help, anybody?






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-06-21 15:10 ]</font>

Marc, basically we 1961-64 cohorts bottomed out. We are Generation Limbo, stuck in that eternal purgatory between Boom and X. Read any Doug Coupland book and you'll see us.

I especially recommend Girlfriend in a Coma.

On 2002-06-21 15:20, Kiff '61 wrote:
Marc, basically we 1961-64 cohorts bottomed out. We are Generation Limbo, stuck in that eternal purgatory between Boom and X. Read any Doug Coupland book and you'll see us.

I especially recommend Girlfriend in a Coma.

I'd throw in 1958-60 as well, leaving a substantial 6 year cusp, but not quite the grand sweep claimed by Pontell (Gen Jones) or Brancato (Buster).

I relate to certain aspects of both Boom and X but ultimately don't feel I fit in well with either.

So you have a 1958 to 1964 cusp, and whats in the middle? 1961.
Its easy for me to think Ralph Macchio or Michael J Fox are early early Xers.
Its hard for me to see Alec Baldwin, Melania Griffith, or Annette Benning as being anything but late Boomers, yet only several years lie between them.

A long time ago I posted a table showing the transition of archetypes by percentages.

1958 is 65% Prophet 35% Nomad
1961 is 60% Nomad 40% Prophet
1964 is 90% Nomad, 10% Prophet.

1960 turns out to be 50/50 and is the last S&H year of the Boom. So I think that fits.

Just read this excerpt from a negative review of The Fourth Turning at amazon.com.

Much as I disagree with the reviewer's stance on what he feels is a "flaky" book, I thought everyone would enjoy this.

Worse yet, the portraits they paint of the four recurring generational archetypes in their the
ory sound like parodies: the authors characterize the Prophets as self-righteous, Final, colossally complacent Gods engaged in their apocalyptic duel of Doom, filled with sanctimonious rage; the Nomads as keen, sharp-toothed, survivalist, ratty cads off the street with all the hardness of a Dickens orphan walking by in ripped clothes and drooling at a chance to cheat someone out of a good deal; the Heroes as lockstep, march-to-duty, scoutlike knee-jerk order-followers just itching to die for their country in war; and the Artists as soft, washy, talk-about-our-feelings, emotional marshmallows with all the huggable indecisiveness and unproactiveness of a high school guidance counselor, willing to let people walk all over them. And the birthyears they assign to generations have nothing in common by the time you get from one year of the boundary to another. For instance, the authors set the boundaries for their "Thirteenth Generation" between 1961 and 1981 (but not 1960 or 1982). How does a person born in 1961 have ANYTHING in common with one born in 1981, either in personality or in location and role in history? Of course many theories will run into a FEW problems like this, but this one seems whipped up to sound just convincing enough to sell an authoritarian ideology.

On 2002-06-22 19:23, Heliotrope wrote:
Just read this excerpt from a negative review of The Fourth Turning at amazon.com.

Much as I disagree with the reviewer's stance on what he feels is a "flaky" book, I thought everyone would enjoy this.

Worse yet, the portraits they paint of the four recurring generational archetypes in their the
ory sound like parodies: the authors characterize the Prophets as self-righteous, Final, colossally complacent Gods engaged in their apocalyptic duel of Doom, filled with sanctimonious rage; the Nomads as keen, sharp-toothed, survivalist, ratty cads off the street with all the hardness of a Dickens orphan walking by in ripped clothes and drooling at a chance to cheat someone out of a good deal; the Heroes as lockstep, march-to-duty, scoutlike knee-jerk order-followers just itching to die for their country in war; and the Artists as soft, washy, talk-about-our-feelings, emotional marshmallows with all the huggable indecisiveness and unproactiveness of a high school guidance counselor, willing to let people walk all over them. And the birthyears they assign to generations have nothing in common by the time you get from one year of the boundary to another. For instance, the authors set the boundaries for their "Thirteenth Generation" between 1961 and 1981 (but not 1960 or 1982). How does a person born in 1961 have ANYTHING in common with one born in 1981, either in personality or in location and role in history? Of course many theories will run into a FEW problems like this, but this one seems whipped up to sound just convincing enough to sell an authoritarian ideology.

Personally, Susan, I think that this person from Amazon has actually read T4T cover-to- cover, and was so struck by how true it all feels that he is now terrified-- completely freaked out! -- by what might come next. His descriptions of S&H's generations are so dead-on that he must see at least some truth in what he read in the book. Even his major bone of contention-- that '61 cohorts have little in common with '81ers-- supports rather than detracts from the theory. Of course they don't-- that's why they are the boundary years of Generation X. Someone born just after 1961, say, in 1963, is far more likely to share a common outlook on life with someone born in 1979 (just before 1981), than a person born in '59 would with an '83 cohort.

Me thinks he protesth too much. Not that I really blame him (or her).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-22 20:49 ]</font>

On 2002-06-22 20:44, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-06-22 19:23, Heliotrope wrote:
Just read this excerpt from a negative review of The Fourth Turning at amazon.com.

Much as I disagree with the reviewer's stance on what he feels is a "flaky" book, I thought everyone would enjoy this.

Worse yet, the portraits they paint of the four recurring generational archetypes in their the
ory sound like parodies: the authors characterize the Prophets as self-righteous, Final, colossally complacent Gods engaged in their apocalyptic duel of Doom, filled with sanctimonious rage; the Nomads as keen, sharp-toothed, survivalist, ratty cads off the street with all the hardness of a Dickens orphan walking by in ripped clothes and drooling at a chance to cheat someone out of a good deal; the Heroes as lockstep, march-to-duty, scoutlike knee-jerk order-followers just itching to die for their country in war; and the Artists as soft, washy, talk-about-our-feelings, emotional marshmallows with all the huggable indecisiveness and unproactiveness of a high school guidance counselor, willing to let people walk all over them. And the birthyears they assign to generations have nothing in common by the time you get from one year of the boundary to another. For instance, the authors set the boundaries for their "Thirteenth Generation" between 1961 and 1981 (but not 1960 or 1982). How does a person born in 1961 have ANYTHING in common with one born in 1981, either in personality or in location and role in history? Of course many theories will run into a FEW problems like this, but this one seems whipped up to sound just convincing enough to sell an authoritarian ideology.

Personally, Susan, I think that this person from Amazon has actually read T4T cover-to- cover, and was so struck by how true it all feels that he is now terrified-- completely freaked out! -- by what might come next. His descriptions of S&H's generations are so dead-on that he must see at least some truth in what he read in the book. Even his major bone of contention-- that '61 cohorts have little in common with '81ers-- supports rather than detracts from the theory. Of course they don't-- that's why they are the boundary years of Generation X. Someone born just after 1961, say, in 1963, is far more likely to share a common outlook on life with someone born in 1979 (just before 1981), than a person born in '59 would with an '83 cohort.

Me thinks he protesth too much. Not that I really blame him (or her).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-22 20:49 ]</font>

I can agree with that... but it DOES seem that he might agree with the theory with Stoner-sized or Brombacher-sized cusps :smile:

Wow. i hung out with 1941 to 1984 cohorts today...wait, make that 1941 to 2000 cohorts.
The 1941 dude was definitley a very late wave Silent. He was very relaxed and resourceful, not preachy in the least. The 1944 woman definitely raised her 1980 and 81 children to be Heros. I see her as a early wave Boomer. She had a 1966 daughter present. She was no stereotypical Nomad..just a nice 35 year old woman, strange to see her aging a bit since I knew her when she was 18, The 1966 man was also aging a bit but didn't seem that different really.
Wow..I was next at 1979. I shouldnt talk about me. The 1980 dudes seemed WAY Nomadic that I was with as opposed to the other 1980 son who i could imagine growing into a hero.
Hes got that all American thing going on..while these other 1980 guys had shades and really looked like they should be in Top Gun. I can see why S&H could lump 1962 in with 1980. Plus they are total freakazoid/ players.
The post 1980 crowd is preppy, with smiles and make up on the girls. Not one of them seems intent on doing anything different other than just "being."
These were just the kids I was with..very different from the 1980 Top Gun dudes, but I would say that there is a cusper thing going on in the early 80s.
And of course the 1995 and 1998 and 00 kids..part of the same "generation" --children of the 66 parents.
My prediction is that Gen X fizzles out just like the Silents somewhere in the late 70s or 1980, probably including yours truly, just like Ive been saying all along.
My guess is also the first heros started showing up as early as 1980, but it is a cusper year, much like 1960.
.........
Another observation...how can you build anything out of dates?
Even a cusp, people will be arguing to change cusps as well. It just seems rather pointless.

On 2002-06-22 22:46, Nahum Prentiss wrote:

Another observation...how can you build anything out of dates?
Even a cusp, people will be arguing to change cusps as well. It just seems rather pointless.

You have to separate two generations in some way on the timeline. Do you have an alternative way to look at it?

On 2002-06-22 20:44, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

Personally, Susan, I think that this person from Amazon has actually read T4T cover-to- cover, and was so struck by how true it all feels that he is now terrified-- completely freaked out! -- by what might come next. His descriptions of S&H's generations are so dead-on that he must see at least some truth in what he read in the book. Even his major bone of contention-- that '61 cohorts have little in common with '81ers-- supports rather than detracts from the theory. Of course they don't-- that's why they are the boundary years of Generation X. Someone born just after 1961, say, in 1963, is far more likely to share a common outlook on life with someone born in 1979 (just before 1981), than a person born in '59 would with an '83 cohort.

Me thinks he protesth too much. Not that I really blame him (or her).

I got the same impression, Kevin. He's in denial.

Speaking of denial, today is NOT my birthday and I am NOT 44 years old! : :lol:

On 2002-06-22 22:46, Nahum Prentiss wrote:
Wow. i hung out with 1941 to 1984 cohorts today...wait, make that 1941 to 2000 cohorts.
The 1941 dude was definitley a very late wave Silent. He was very relaxed and resourceful, not preachy in the least. The 1944 woman definitely raised her 1980 and 81 children to be Heros. I see her as a early wave Boomer. She had a 1966 daughter present. She was no stereotypical Nomad..just a nice 35 year old woman, strange to see her aging a bit since I knew her when she was 18, The 1966 man was also aging a bit but didn't seem that different really.
Wow..I was next at 1979. I shouldnt talk about me. The 1980 dudes seemed WAY Nomadic that I was with as opposed to the other 1980 son who i could imagine growing into a hero.
Hes got that all American thing going on..while these other 1980 guys had shades and really looked like they should be in Top Gun. I can see why S&H could lump 1962 in with 1980. Plus they are total freakazoid/ players.
The post 1980 crowd is preppy, with smiles and make up on the girls. Not one of them seems intent on doing anything different other than just "being."
These were just the kids I was with..very different from the 1980 Top Gun dudes, but I would say that there is a cusper thing going on in the early 80s.
And of course the 1995 and 1998 and 00 kids..part of the same "generation" --children of the 66 parents.
My prediction is that Gen X fizzles out just like the Silents somewhere in the late 70s or 1980, probably including yours truly, just like Ive been saying all along.
My guess is also the first heros started showing up as early as 1980, but it is a cusper year, much like 1960.
.........
Another observation...how can you build anything out of dates?
Even a cusp, people will be arguing to change cusps as well. It just seems rather pointless.

Hello Justin. How's the vacation?
:smile:

Hey Susan, I saw a great special on Boomers as youth called "The manson Women"

They were all born between about 1946 and 1952.

Charlie, the Silent mentor was born in 1934.

On 2002-06-23 11:04, Nahum Prentiss wrote:
Hey Susan, I saw a great special on Boomers as youth called "The manson Women"

They were all born between about 1946 and 1952.

Charlie, the Silent mentor was born in 1934.

Ever see the TV-movie-documentary on the Mansons, Helter Skelter? I think it was first aired in 1975. It scared the crap out of me when I first saw it. I was 17.

_________________
All of life is an illusion. The only reality is how you interpret the illusion.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-06-23 11:45 ]</font>

On 2002-06-23 09:22, Heliotrope wrote:
Speaking of denial, today is NOT my birthday and I am NOT 44 years old! : :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Happy Birthday!