On 2002-06-23 09:22, Heliotrope wrote:

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:

Happy birthday :smile:; at least you'll always be younger than Vanna White and Pee Wee Herman (and you probably look even better now than that pic 3 yrs ago! :smile

On 2002-06-23 14:56, Agent 24601984 wrote:

Happy birthday :smile:; at least you'll always be younger than Vanna White and Pee Wee Herman (and you probably look even better now than that pic 3 yrs ago! :smile

Thanks...but how do you know about that picture? Did you used to have another handle here?

On 2002-06-23 15:25, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-06-23 14:56, Agent 24601984 wrote:

Happy birthday :smile:; at least you'll always be younger than Vanna White and Pee Wee Herman (and you probably look even better now than that pic 3 yrs ago! :smile

Thanks...but how do you know about that picture? Did you used to have another handle here?

I thought you knew :smile:, but if I tell you that when you misidentified me as Justin you got my age off by about 4 1/2 years, that will give it away!

On 2002-06-23 16:38, Agent 24601984 wrote:

On 2002-06-23 15:25, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-06-23 14:56, Agent 24601984 wrote:

Happy birthday :smile:; at least you'll always be younger than Vanna White and Pee Wee Herman (and you probably look even better now than that pic 3 yrs ago! :smile

Thanks...but how do you know about that picture? Did you used to have another handle here?

I thought you knew :smile:, but if I tell you that when you misidentified me as Justin you got my age off by about 4 1/2 years, that will give it away!

Um, William?

On 2002-06-23 16:57, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-06-23 16:38, Agent 24601984 wrote:

On 2002-06-23 15:25, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-06-23 14:56, Agent 24601984 wrote:

Happy birthday :smile:; at least you'll always be younger than Vanna White and Pee Wee Herman (and you probably look even better now than that pic 3 yrs ago! :smile

Thanks...but how do you know about that picture? Did you used to have another handle here?

I thought you knew :smile:, but if I tell you that when you misidentified me as Justin you got my age off by about 4 1/2 years, that will give it away!

Um, William?

you finally got it :smile:

1961 seems as good a year as any to end the Boom and start Gen-X. You could just as easily make that year 1960 or 1962, I suppose. It's true that some 1961 cohorts are more like Boomers (and some 1960 cohorts more like Xers), but you have to have the cut-off somewhere, and S&H's 1961 sure beats 1965, at least to my way of thinking. Some people (including some here) seem to prefer the 1946-1964 range for Boomers and this is also the range popularly used in the media. But I always felt there was something wrong with it and it always got on my nerves. S&H's birthyears make a lot more sense. There's no way a 1964 cohort is a Boomer. There's also no way a 1945 cohort is a Silent.

You must be joking.

On 2002-06-26 18:19, Heliotrope wrote:
1961 seems as good a year as any to end the Boom and start Gen-X. You could just as easily make that year 1960 or 1962, I suppose. It's true that some 1961 cohorts are more like Boomers (and some 1960 cohorts more like Xers), but you have to have the cut-off somewhere, and S&H's 1961 sure beats 1965, at least to my way of thinking. Some people (including some here) seem to prefer the 1946-1964 range for Boomers and this is also the range popularly used in the media. But I always felt there was something wrong with it and it always got on my nerves. S&H's birthyears make a lot more sense. There's no way a 1964 cohort is a Boomer. There's also no way a 1945 cohort is a Silent.

I agree with you about 1964 (although potentially a few could still be cuspers) but I think there's NO WAY a 1943 cohort could POSSIBLY be a Boomer

On 2002-06-26 20:26, Chet wrote:
You must be joking.

Do you have a problem with S&H's birthdates?

Oh, I have a big problem.

I agree with you about 1964 (although potentially a few could still be cuspers) but I think there's NO WAY a 1943 cohort could POSSIBLY be a Boomer

williammailliww, I feel that if 1943 is part of the Boom, then you have to include people born as early as 1940. First of all, S & H indicate that 1943 is part of the spirited Class of '65. But tell me...what percentage of people born in '43 actually went to college? The vast majority experienced the "real world" of the High. Second, so many of the icons of the Boom (Beatles, etc) and Civil Rights activists were born in that fuzzy era about five to six years prior to the start of the mainstream Boom of '46. I think that while not part of the actual Boom (which I do believe starts as a core group in 1946, believe it or not), the group between 1940-45 should be a subgen (cuspers) between Generations Silent and Boom.

You don't know what a historical can of worms you are opening here.

First off the "Beat generation"
Aside from Burroughs, the 1914 child, you had Kerouac, born in 1922. Ginsberg was born in 1926. Peter Orlovsky was born in 1933. Neal Cassady was born in 1925. Lawrence Ferlighetti was born in 1919. Michael McClure in 1932, Gary Snyder in 1930.

That creates a span of 1914-1933.

There were many other Beat writers, but these were some of the most famous.
What you have is a mix of late GIs and early Silents according to S&H dates.

Second, 60s Radicals and leaders

Starting with the Chicago 8, who were put on trial for inciting the riots at the Democratic National convention in 1968.

They were:
Abbie Hoffman b. 1936
Jerry Rubin b. 1937
David Dellinger b. 1914
Renny Davis b. 1940
Tom Hayden b. 1939
John Froines b. 1940
Lee Weiner b. 1940
Bobby Seale b. 1936

Thats just a start. Lets examine those Sixties counterculture bands:

Beatles
Ringo and John-1940
Paul-1942
George-1943

Rolling Stones
Bill Wyman-b. 1936
Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Brian Jones-b. 1943
Charlie Watts-b. 1941

Byrds:
b. 1941-46

Who:
b. 1944-47

Jimi Hendrix Experience b. 1942-47

Doors
Ray Manzarek-1935
Jim morrison 1943
John Densmore 1944
Robby Krieger 1946

Jefferson Airplane b. 1938-1944

Grateful Dead b. 1940-48
..............


Again it seems in the rock n roll family youre dealing with late wave Silents and early Boomers.

Perhaps there were "gen Ys" for all generations.
I personally think thats why my lil age group is so creative. When you mix things togeteher you get inspired.

It's easier for me to just think of generations in 18-22 year blocks, as S&H do. The "Jones" and "Y" labels have some use, I suppose, but I just can't bring myself to call them "generations."

There's always going to be variety within the different generations. Of course a person born in 1981 is going to have different experiences than I did. The same was true for someone born in 1969 who doesn't have any memory of the first moon landing.

So I'm happy to call myself a Joneser, since I know where Jonathan Pontell is coming from and I can certainly relate most closely to those born nearest to my own cohort. But I don't believe in "Generation" Jones. The "Jones" and the "Y" (1977-84 or whatever) are bridges but not separate generations.

On 2002-06-29 11:09, Kiff '61 wrote:
It's easier for me to just think of generations in 18-22 year blocks, as S&H do. The "Jones" and "Y" labels have some use, I suppose, but I just can't bring myself to call them "generations."

There's always going to be variety within the different generations. Of course a person born in 1981 is going to have different experiences than I did. The same was true for someone born in 1969 who doesn't have any memory of the first moon landing.

So I'm happy to call myself a Joneser, since I know where Jonathan Pontell is coming from and I can certainly relate most closely to those born nearest to my own cohort. But I don't believe in "Generation" Jones. The "Jones" and the "Y" (1977-84 or whatever) are bridges but not separate generations.

Why are you happy to call yourself a "Jonser" Kiff? I hate that moniker more than I did Gen X. I don't mind post-boomer or whatever because it distances myself from the boomers.

Will, Joneser fits better than either Boomer or Xer for those born approximately 1957-1963, who have difficulty relating to either archetypcal generation. That's why the label has become so successful and has caught on.

It's not a generation per se, but a subgeneration that straddles the last wave and the first wave of two adjacent generations.

Jonesers have characterstics of both Boomers and Xers, but also have traits all their own that are independent from either of those generations. They are cynical yet more idealistic than Xers: they "jones" but don't have the expectations of true Boomers. Hence the moniker, which fits.

_________________
Follow the sun.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-06-29 11:57 ]</font>

What should we call that 1936-1942 wave, or that 1919-26 wave?

Will, whether I like it or not, my life experiences have been Boomer as much as Xer. (That Red Skelton Pledge commentary, for instance.). I went to school with Boomers (even more so after I skipped a grade).

Anyway, I went through the Jones site and it made sense to me on a personal level.

I see Jones as an overlay (not as a substitute) for late Boom and early X.

It may make a difference that I was a member of the high school class of 1978. I've come to believe that if I had not skipped that grade, my life would have been quite different. For instance, there is no way I would have met the man who is now my husband. He's also a "Joneser" but he's on the Boomer side of the divide. There's a definite generational difference between us.

_________________
"Your joy is your sorrow unmasked....The deeper that sorrow carves into your being, the more joy you can contain." -- Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kiff '61 on 2002-06-29 12:36 ]</font>

1961 seems like a weird year to attach generational terms to.
It's not a "1950" or a "1970."
I mean I can't even place people from the early 60s. The ones I hang out with seem in their demeanor Xerish. They have a certain sensitivity to them that I don't sense in the Baby Boomers I know.
But who is a Boomer and who isn't?
You can smell a child of the High from a mile away.
They certainly look different.
I mean, we are talking 70s children (and I consider myself one because I feel 1982 or 83, at least from a child's perception wasn't that different from 1978..and I have seen many pictures and had many conversations).
I guess they are the start of something different.

Here's an interesting question, do you have more in common with those fifteen years older or younger. :lol:

I'd posit 1964, just because I don't know too many little people.

On 2002-06-29 12:16, Chet wrote:
What should we call that 1936-1942 wave, or that 1919-26 wave?

1936-1942 = The Beats

I'm not sure about 1919-26, perhaps someone else could answer this better.

On 2002-06-29 12:36, Chet wrote:
Here's an interesting question, do you have more in common with those fifteen years older or younger. :lol:

I'd posit 1964, just because I don't know too many little people.

'46ers or '76ers? No doubt: the latter.

On 2002-06-29 12:46, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-06-29 12:16, Chet wrote:
What should we call that 1936-1942 wave, or that 1919-26 wave?

1936-1942 = The Beats

I'm not sure about 1919-26, perhaps someone else could answer this better.

GI Joes? Rosie the Riveters?

On 2002-06-29 12:48, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-06-29 12:36, Chet wrote:
Here's an interesting question, do you have more in common with those fifteen years older or younger. :lol:

I'd posit 1964, just because I don't know too many little people.

'46ers or '76ers? No doubt: the latter.

I definitely feel I have more in common with people born in 1973 than 1943. Even though people born in 1943 are also Boomers like me I feel I have very little in common with them. They seem almost more like my parents' generation.

On 2002-06-29 12:46, Heliotrope wrote:

1936-1942 = The Beats

I thought the Beats were generally first wave Silent, weren't they?

On 2002-06-29 13:48, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-06-29 12:46, Heliotrope wrote:

1936-1942 = The Beats

I thought the Beats were generally first wave Silent, weren't they?

Actually I am thinking of the beatnicks of the late '50s--Bob Dylan, Allen Ginsburg and company. The Beats would be more like Jack Kerouac and Neal Cassidy, late GIs, I guess. But the younger beatnicks were influenced by the Beats. Isn't that the way it worked? :???:

Beats, beatnicks. I always get confused. :???:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-06-29 14:11 ]</font>