On 2002-07-03 08:58, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
No, I grew up in Milwaukee Wisconsin. Went to college there and grad school in Madison. After I got my Ph. D. in chemical engineering in 1988 I took a job at Upjohn in the Fermentation area, just a block or so south of where you interned, where all the odors came from.

West Michigan is a nice place to live. Very affordable and it never gets really cold in the winter like it did back home. It *is* culturally conservative (but I'm an old fogey now so I don't mind). Back in Milwaukee there was a bar on every corner, whereas here it's a church :smile:

In Wisconsin all the student unions had bars in them, and we were one of the last states to raise the drinking age to 21 (my '65 brother drank legally at 18). Student unions here in Michigan aren't even called unions (I think they use the term student center) and they don't have bars in them.

Yeah, it was rather smelly there. It is a nice city to raise a family. I thought about staying there but it is way too conservative for me. Surprisingly, Kalamazoo has lots of things to do and is a cultural hub of west michigan. I grew up in one of the most liberal counties in the state....Genesee. We never vote republican here. It is always blue! That might change in the coming years as south Genesee county is become yuppie territory as the Metro Detroiters expand northward in search of new breeding grounds. :smile:

Mike, Pharmingen, ay?

Your anti-cytochrome-c antibody is killuh! It's blazing!

On 2002-07-03 06:20, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
I like that verse too. My folks had a bunch of records from fifties muscials, Call me Madam, The Pajama Game, The Student Prince, etc. Call me Madam was my favorite and we used to play it all the time when I was a little kid. In the sixties my parents were quite conservative (Nixon-Goldwater-Nixon). I thought the Beatles were bad, and our next-door neighbors who had voted for *Johnson* as benighted.

My parents' first date in '58 was to see a production of "The Student Prince" at the old Papermill Playhouse in Millburn, NJ. Mario Lanza's classic 1954 recording of its music was one of their favorites when I was little. So closely associated with laid-back Sunday afternoons when I was 4-6 years old, I picked up a copy myself on CD a few years back.

My Silent parents had the whole suburban cocktail party thing down to a science. At least once a month they would host sad little parties where all their middle-aged friends drank too much and dressed up too much and laughed way too much. In the background would be the feel-good tinkling pop of The Fifth Dimension, Sergio Mendez and Brazil 66, or the Percy Faith Orchestra. The men all dressed like Austin Powers and flirted with the women with their bleached hair, miniskirts, and garish makeup. It was all very Mrs. Robinson. One morning after one of these parties I caught my mother standing at the kitchen sink with tears rolling down her cheeks, listening to Peggy Lee's "Is That All There Is?" on John Gambling's morning radio program. She never told me why she was crying, and she insisted she was not, but I know she was and I think I know why.

As much as being a late Boomer sucks, I think being a mid-wave Silent woman was much worse.

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 bne 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.

But would he REALIZE that '61 and '81 having little in common supports rather than detracts from the theory? It doesn't sound like someone in denial, it sounds like someone really scoffing at the theory. And as for his descriptions of the way S&H write about the four archetypes, he wouldn't necessarily have to see truth in them himself to understand them, since what he described are more or less familiar caricatures: the marshmallow, the dutiful soldier, the Dickensian cad. The authors write so much about the archetypes so one would have plenty of chances to see them described. And they use a lot of those adjectives a lot themselves in _Generations_ and _The Fourth Turning_.

Just for everyone's reference, here's the full text of the Amazon review:


Think-tank work

I wasn't looking for a bunch of rhetoric of the conservative, "bring back tradition!" ilk, but this is what I got. The Fourth Turning, purport to be about historical cycles though it might, is nonetheless filled with a prescriptive traditionalist/virtuecrat mixed with puritanism and a dash of Tipper Gore stance. Bring back values like honor and duty, observe "decency" in your personal conduct, more discipline for the kids, make sure society develops tighter standards, don't let go of the Traditional virtues, get violence and vulgarity out of our entertainment. The authors seem to be on a quest to eradicate four-letter words society has deemed "evil" and clean up our popular entertainment. When it's not talking about early historical eras, the book is bemoaning the ever-branching diversity of choices and lifestyles in modern life or criticizing the "edginess" of Generation X pop culture. All the theory about cycles and generations, the historical parallels, the warning that a new era of crisis is just to come, is just an excuse to tell readers to prepare for a crisis era that may or may not be coming by celebrating the importance of authority, ceasing unconventional behavior in an era that will demand conformity, and settling down to focus on family values. Institutions are actually advised by this book, for instance, to set up as strict a regime of rules, zero tolerance and demands on conduct and dress on our kids as possible to make sure that children can grow up to be a good "Hero" generation.

The theory about generations and "turnings" itself didn't really convince me, and I get the feeling inside that the quotes and events for early historical generations were selected out of a sea of many, just to find a few examples that will make the generations seem to fit into the pattern. Even with the living generations, many of their assertions don't seem to ring quite true. For instance, I fail to see any evidence that our "Thirteenth Generation" (which they call their generation born between 1961 and 1981) has grown up with remarkable survival skills; and the authors describe their Silent Generation (1925-1942) as having been conformist and risk-averse young adults during their coming of age era to fit them into the pattern of the "Artist" generational type; they assert this lifecycle for all the Silent generation and for ALL Artist generations throughout, with the Silents holding their heads down compliantly as the most un-rebellious generation since the Progressive Generation (1843-1859) -- all this for the peers of James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Natalie Wood, Bill Haley, Chuck Berry, Bob Dylan, Dick Clark, Don Martin and Hugh Hefner. Nor would I expect the Thirteenth Generation to grow up to be as survivalist as the Gilded Generation (1822-1842) because they're both in the "Nomad generation" position in this cycle, when the Gilded had to grow up in a still-mostly-rural America with an unsettled and wildlife-filled Gold Rush world.

Worse yet, the portraits they paint of the four recurring generational archetypes in their theory 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It doesn't sound like this reviewer finds their descriptions true; now that I read the middle paragraph I can definitely see incredulity with the 13er and Silent generations being fit into their archetypes. He suspects the authors of trying to fit things into their archetype where they don't belong. As a lot of people suspect about these kind of theories. Denial? I don't think so.

Thanks for finding that and posting it here, Jesse.

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.

Sure 1964 isn't a Boomer birthyear, but 1961 always really seemed like a stretch to me. Can it really go THAT far? I just don't see where the Xer traits are in 1961. Of course they have to make a cut-off, but 1960/1961 doesn't really appeal to me. I could actually see 1961 being placed in the Boomer generation. It fits there better than it does with whatever generation you want to place 1971 in, whatever you want to call it. Think of it this way: could you easier see 1961 as Boomer or 1960 as X?

On 2002-07-03 20:27, Heliotrope wrote:
Thanks for finding that and posting it here, Jesse.

You're welcome Susan. Maybe there's someone who can make some sense out of the review.

As for me, it just seems (at least the second two paragraphs) like someone who's so unconvinced. More incredulous than scared. And the stereotypes ("ratty cads off the street with all the hardness of a Dickens orphan," etc.) are almost, well, archetypes.

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.

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

Ummmmm....does anyone get that little nervous feeling?

On 2002-07-03 21:11, Jesse Manoogian 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.

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

Ummmmm....does anyone get that little nervous feeling?

:lol:

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/1998/01/12tomo.html/
A liberal 61 cohort's take on the bounddary between the Boomers and Gen-X; interestingly enough his age range (30s in 1/98) aligns well with Brancato's Busters

On 2002-07-04 12:34, Agent 24601984 wrote:
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/1998/01/12tomo.html/
A liberal 61 cohort's take on the bounddary between the Boomers and Gen-X; interestingly enough his age range (30s in 1/98) aligns well with Brancato's Busters

Or with Generation Limbo. :smile:

On 2002-07-05 22:33, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-07-04 12:34, Agent 24601984 wrote:
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/1998/01/12tomo.html/
A liberal 61 cohort's take on the bounddary between the Boomers and Gen-X; interestingly enough his age range (30s in 1/98) aligns well with Brancato's Busters

Or with Generation Limbo. :smile:

How Lowwwww Can You Gooooooo!!! :grin:

On 2002-07-06 06:52, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-07-05 22:33, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-07-04 12:34, Agent 24601984 wrote:
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/1998/01/12tomo.html/
A liberal 61 cohort's take on the bounddary between the Boomers and Gen-X; interestingly enough his age range (30s in 1/98) aligns well with Brancato's Busters

Or with Generation Limbo. :smile:

How Lowwwww Can You Gooooooo!!! :grin:

A WEDGIE???? :lol:

On another topic, looks like our Justin '79 finally ran out of new handles. :

_________________
Follow the sun.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-07-06 08:47 ]</font>

So what if our most prolific poster isn't here anymore to keep this thread active? It's a great thread. We can keep it going. I'll write something here later when I get off of work. I can't play hooky again today to stay home and write a short story like I did yesterday :smile:


_________________
When a man is living, he is soft and supple. When he is dead, he is hard and rigid.
--Lao Tzu

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-07-10 04:50 ]</font>

Well, I promised I would say something here on this thread today, but I am bone-tired and really can't think of anything new that hasn't already been said.

On 2002-07-10 04:49, Heliotrope wrote:
I'll write something here later when I get off of work. I can't play hooky again today to stay home and write a short story like I did yesterday :smile:

A good use of all that Boomer/Idealist energy, writing stories! - Much better than
planning a world government :grin:

On 2002-07-10 04:49, Heliotrope wrote:
So what if our most prolific poster isn't here anymore to keep this thread active? It's a great thread. We can keep it going. I'll write something here later when I get off of work. I can't play hooky again today to stay home and write a short story like I did yesterday :smile:

Our most prolific poster? I always thought that was you, Susan! :smile:

On 2002-07-11 16:05, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-07-10 04:49, Heliotrope wrote:
So what if our most prolific poster isn't here anymore to keep this thread active? It's a great thread. We can keep it going. I'll write something here later when I get off of work. I can't play hooky again today to stay home and write a short story like I did yesterday :smile:

Our most prolific poster? I always thought that was you, Susan! :smile:

I guess now I am! :smile:

On 2002-07-11 16:05, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-07-10 04:49, Heliotrope wrote:
So what if our most prolific poster isn't here anymore to keep this thread active? It's a great thread. We can keep it going. I'll write something here later when I get off of work. I can't play hooky again today to stay home and write a short story like I did yesterday :smile:

Our most prolific poster? I always thought that was you, Susan! :smile:

Only one person was able to consistently post at the rate of 7 - 10 a day (THAT was what I meant)...

On 2002-07-11 15:59, Earthshine wrote:

On 2002-07-10 04:49, Heliotrope wrote:
I'll write something here later when I get off of work. I can't play hooky again today to stay home and write a short story like I did yesterday :smile:

A good use of all that Boomer/Idealist energy, writing stories! - Much better than
planning a world government :grin:

I can't argue with that!

On 2002-07-11 16:47, Agent 24601984 wrote:

On 2002-07-11 16:05, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-07-10 04:49, Heliotrope wrote:
So what if our most prolific poster isn't here anymore to keep this thread active? It's a great thread. We can keep it going. I'll write something here later when I get off of work. I can't play hooky again today to stay home and write a short story like I did yesterday :smile:

Our most prolific poster? I always thought that was you, Susan! :smile:

Only one person was able to consistently post at the rate of 7 - 10 a day (THAT was what I meant)...

He burned himself out.

all you people are just lame.

Why spend so much time worrying about what generation you are? Why does it matter? The world still sucks no matter what location on the geneational ladder you happen to be standing on. You're gonna die no matter what.

I'm a person , you're a person. We all have our personal devils and angels. No two have the same ones. Don't lump me into a category that calls me a "slacker" or "disaffected" or "cynical" or whatever just because of the year I happen to be born in.
It's all stupid. my parents are boomers and sisters are millennials but it's all lame because when it comes down to it we're just people and all our shit still stinks.

Why not just categorize people by their astrology sign or tea leaves or something. That's all it is.

Bye.

Right-fucking-on.

I will say that I do wish stations would stop playing "classic rock." I thought FM used to be about playing album cuts, not playing "Carry on my Wayward Son" by Kansas 10 times a day.

And "Freebird" sucks. I'm tired of this twelve minute guitar solo shit.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chet on 2002-07-13 22:56 ]</font>