High School 1957 vs 2009
[UPDATE]
When I posted this chain email I received in August.. I had no idea that it would generate this level of attention.
Posting non-original content is not something I teach or normally do. At the time I thought it was interesting, my list might appreciate it and it would make a good tweet.
I didn’t expect it to generate 100’s of comments and initiate debates on race, religion, sex and drugs… but it has…
I’ll keep this post up for now, but if it really digresses I’ll probably remove it..
The original author of this article created 8 extreme scenarios to highlight some differences between 1957 and 2009.
Obviously there are 1000’s of scenarios that could be created to highlight the good and bad of both generations, but this particular post was written to favor 1957.
I guess the real question is… Would you rather grow up in 1957 or 2009 and why?
Scenario 1:
Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck’s gun rack.
1957 – Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2009 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario 2:
Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins.. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2009 - Police called and SWAT team arrives — they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged them with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario 3:
Jeffrey will not be still in class, he disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey sent to the Principal’s office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2009 – Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability.
Scenario 4:
Billy breaks a window in his neighbor’s car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt..
1957 – Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.
2009 – Billy’s dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy’s sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy’s mom has an affair with the psychologist.
Scenario 5:
Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1957 – Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.
2009 – The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario 6:
Pedro fails high school English.
1957 – Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.
2009 - Pedro’s cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro’s English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.
Scenario 7:
Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.
1957 – Ants die.
2009 – ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents — and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated. Johnny’s dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
Scenario 8:
Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2009 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison… Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.
Dylan R, let me fix it for you.
Johnny struggles with depression
1957- his parents and teachers label him a crybaby. His father beats him for being “selfish”. One night Johnny steals his father’s pistol. He puts it in his mouth and pulls the trigger. Weeks after the funeral Johnny’s mother stricken with despair at the death of her only son, she slits her wrists and dies in the bathtub. Johnny’s father covers up the despair he feels with the loss of his wife and child, he becomes the town drunk and lives out the rest of his days in misery.
2009- Johnny is treated for his depression. He gets addicted to the drugs, which make him nervous and constantly upset and angry at the world. He finds company of a friend just like himself, and they decide to do a school massacre.
True story. With the exception of being 2009, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
Make sure you read the part about anti-depressants.
Dan Nickerson.
In 1957 you HAD to join the military. It did not work. In today’s military, It is made up of young men and women volunteers who have seen the horrors that humans inflict upon themselves and say “Hey; This has to stop and someone has to do it, and that someone is me”.
The volunteer military of today is the FINEST in history. it is not made up of Draftees, and criminals that join in Lu of jail. High School diplomas are a must in all but a few fields of the services. These brave kid’s join because they know deep down that they fight over there so that we do not have to fight over here.
There are not a lot of similarities in today’s military, versus the fifties.
There is no segregation, other than that of rank and rate. Minorities can excel in any job description in the military and become what ever they choose.
Class distinction is still a factor in the military though. The poor are generally enlisted, and the “Well Off” are officers. That has not changed much since the 1700’s.
It may not be “Politically Correct” to support the war in the Middle East, But you ALL DAMN WELL SUPPORT those fine MEN and Woman who are putting their lives on the line every day, throughout the world, so that you can openly put your thoghts and opinions in a site like this without worrying about being dragged out of your homes and beheaded in the streets for doing so.
God bless our service Men and Women.
Just an added thought. God bless ALL those serving in the Military throughout the WORLD, that are serving in a free and Democratic Country that have allied themselves with us in the knowledge that They would not be a free and democratic country if it were not for the courage of our Men and Women in the military that are serving Now and those that have served before them.
Sorry for the rant, but it just eats me up inside when people are afraid of being Patriotic because of some dumb ass-ed blowhards that say it is “Politically Incorrect”. If you do not support the War, fine. Those men and women are serving in the military so that YOU have the RIGHT to convey your displeasure with the happenings in the Middle East without any reprisals. Hey, what do you think would happen if ALL the U.S. military just “Pulled Out” of every country in the world? I would love to see the answers from those that think that the U.S. would be better for it, and actually give an educated, factual reason why.
Crazysquid,
Not sure why you addressed your recent post to me. I would never, have never, said anything bad about our military. In fact, my father was in the military from 1952-56 having voluntarily enlisted the day after his high school graduation.
Dan,
So Sorry mate. I got the wrong comment column. It was actually intended for “Bill”, who wrote , I guess a rebuttal of sorts”? ,directly below you comment to Chris. My apologies.
My comments had mostly to do with Bill’s comment (rebuttal?) to @jack.
The subjects covered on this blog kinda get off the the initial post by Dan, that he said in the beginning was an observation of someone else. . I hope to use it as a tool to discuss all the things with my 14 and 16 year old kids and have an open discussion
on all the things that came up. The younger generation needs to understand a lot of us
felt the same way as they do now when we were growing up, but life experience makes you understand why your parents did what they did.
To the Younger generation that doesn’t understand where where us old farts are coming from, Hang on it will be you in a few years and you will understand.
No offense, but did you read it in it’s entirety? A lot was sarcasm, and didn’t I say I support the war? I’ll reiterate – the only reason I am not completely fine with the war is that I can’t go over there myself right now. I don’t feel right having others lay down their lives for me, but until I turn 17 and graduate, there is nothing I can do but support our troops. I’m sorry if my comment was taken the wrong way. I had a relative serve as colonel in the Civil War, one grandfather serve in the Navy in WWII and Korea, the other in the Coast Guard (WWII), one great-uncle as a dive-bomber pilot in the Navy (WWII), another as navigator on an AAF B-24 Liberator (also WWII), an uncle in the Air Force, and a cousin who is in the Navy serving as a corpsman. I would never want to disrespect their memories or those of others who served.
Bill;
In no way was I insinuating that you were against the war. I was merely commenting on “political correctness” as pertaining to the military.
The day this country becomes unpatriotic is the day that a foreign country will occupy it. Because of small things such as taking out the Pledge Of Allegiance from the start of every school day (Was in place in 1957) to not allowing little things like the display of the word Christmas in schools (It is now been replaced with “Holiday”) Happy Holiday” Not Merry Christmas. every little thing that offends ANY minority or particular group is removed from schools.
Granted there was plenty of school violence in 1957, but Patriotism was everywhere. Now you ask any elementary or middle school aged child to recite the pledge of allegiance or sing even the first part of the national anthem and they are more likely to sing a stanza of “Carmon Sandi ego”.
I retired from the U.S. Navy in 1995. I served in both Operation Desert Shield, and Storm. This country came to a FANTASTIC patriotic fervor the likes of which have not been seen since WWII. I was so proud to be an American, and felt humbled serving my country and the support and gratitude of a Nation. We can not stop. SUPPORT OUR MILITARY no matter your view of the situation in the Middle East (No Bill, I am not directing this at you. I am directing this at ANYONE who thinks that going up to a VET. and thanking them for their service is embarrassing or politically correct).
One of my favorite bumperstickersapp I have ever read was ” Student Is An Honor Roll Student, Thank A Vet.” Yes students by every means should thank Teachers and the wonderful job that they do each and every day, however, they are teachers in this free and democratic society ONLY because of Veterans (Period). Anyone disagree?
It seems like I misunderstood what you said about your comment being directed at me, sorry. Your comment on the Happy Holidays reminds me – why do we have “Holiday Trees” at school? Christmas is the only holiday that time of year that has a tree! It just cracks me up. Oh, I guess my school is backwards. We still recite the pledge every day.
Bill;
No problems. I too am sorry for the confusion.
I try not to directly insinuate any derogatory statements to anyone posting on this Quorum. It is the Constitutional right of every citizen to express their opinion without worries of retaliation or condemnation.
HOWEVER, due to the sneaky little unwritten law that some have apparently snuck into the “Make it up as you go along” Constitution, freedom of speech is slowly being eaten out of the American way of life like a cancerous tumor.
In 1957 you said what was on your mind because Millions of American men and women who served in the U.S. military died for your right to do so.
2009 you can not say any thing remotely offensive, or what you truly believe.
I personally (Extremely) do not agree with the opinions expressed by the K.K.K. BUT I will die defending their Constitutional Rights to express (In words,both written and oral) those opinions. I in no way, shape or form condone the use of ANY type of so called “Hate Crimes” against any race, creed or culture, or religion.
I have to say in all honesty that what I have read about the 50’s, it was not a very good time for minorities, no matter what race or religion, I admire anyone back then who fought the injustices within the confines of the Constitution.
The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are the fundamental backbone of this society. In the fifties, the Government was being run primarily by the rich. 2009 by Lawyers. This class of persons is,In my opinion, one of the eroding factors of society because of their bastardizing and manipulations of the Constitution.
Example. Right to bear arms. The biggest argument? “Define bear arms”. Now you know where President Clinton got the Idea.
You can not instill morals, ethics and patriotism in children without those lessons in schools. Political Correctness has no business in patriotism.
Those that wish not to participate in the reciting of the pledge of allegiance due to religious/non-religious beliefs have just as much right to not participate without fear of reprisals as should those who do, Though it is not politically correct in today’s declining society to openly believe in a Higher Entity, The U.S. Government still prints “In God We Trust” on it’s currency. Why? Did they not remove a 10 commandments marker from someplace not too long ago?. Wrong type of moral ethics! A town in in an uproar demanding that an Atheist Billboard be torn down for it’s blasphemic expressions. Wrong type of morals.
Tollerance in all beliefs is what the Constitution dictates. Be that belief ofr not belief. Put the brake on political correction.
Wasnt ‘57 when rock and roll just kicking off and the oldies that were born 1901 were saying how good they had it?
Wasn’t there in ‘57 so I cant say, but I grew up in the ’90s and I know I will be talking about the good old days 53 years from now, just as my father, grandpa and their fathers all the way up to ‘Adam’ and his garden.
Um….yeah this is bs (abbreviated by Admin), I just graduated from high school and none of this would happen, you are an old conservative hag, who wishes everything was like “the good old days”, when you could be openly racist (Pedro example). How about you just get on with it and die already, seriously. You are the kind of person that gives America a bad name in this world.
(Admin Note: Another comment I’m approving to help illustrate the point of the post, and the difference between 1957 and 2009. Felipe actually wishes me dead for posting this on my blog.)
This is a very good example of the difference between 1957 and today.
In 1957, Felipe probably would not have lived long enough to see graduation from high school. Today, not only did he graduate from high school,(With apparently the meagerest of G.P.A.) he actually get’s to have access to something that both scares him, and tortures his patriotic soul.
Do not fear Felipe Dan. He does not understand fully the concepts (NO, just concepts) as yet in his short time on earth.
Felipe, In 1957, You would have had neither the access nor the cultural affordibility to attend High school to it’s completion. As I posted before, things were not all gravy bak then, and it as people like our fathers and mothers who fought the injustices of that era. As such, they now want to relax from their “War” on injustices and reflect on all the good things that DID happen during that specific year.
Your comment is akin to all the religeous Zealots who take one little passage from the bible and build an entire belief system from it, and “Bedamned al those who do not believe the same”.. The post was meant to reflect on the good times and aspects of a specific year. It in no way shape or form condoned any racial support or revival. If all that you have dirived from this post is “Racial Recovery” from the past, then I am sorry that you are still living in an apparent area of the world that tolerates racial hatred. BUT to openly wish death upon someone you perseved as causing you racial respites, without actually readind the post just shows that in 2009, the school system has failed because it alloweda closed minded person like you glide through.
I would most assuredly wish to grow up in the 50’s. As the population grows, (out of control), the mentality of the people seems to be decreasing. Really, to get back on track, we only have to revive “COMMON SENSE”.
Nice article…Thank you.
Oh, one more comment. As indicated in a previous post, some day this era might be known as the “good-old-days”. Lord knows, I hope not. I hope the American people will wake up to what is happening to our beautiful country and put a stop to it.
There are times when I wish that I could go back to the fifties. The fifties had everything that today has not. IGNORANT BLISS!.
Ignorant Bliss is what the fifties were all about. No one in the Government was telling anyone about anything because no one asked.
Now the Government has to tell you about everything, which gives the tremendously stupid an opinion on things that they have no concept of nor really care about.
Take Filipe Lawdez for example. A perfectly ignorant person of the highest magnitude. The very shinning example of stupidity at it’s glory. It is his constitutional right to express his opinion, no matter how stupid it is. He will in fact never see this web blog again because it is not on his “Favorites List” which he then will forget. He is no different than the kids of the fifties except that he now has access to his mommy’s computer, and in between Face-book, Twitter and porn sites, he happens upon a fairly intellectual posting web site that he does not fully understand, and posts a comment, in theory, of an intellectual manor that his 1.3 GPA High School diploma can afford.
Don’t worry Dan, he is by far to stupid to cast a curse of death on anyone.
I realize my comment comes way late in the discussion, but I just stumbled upon this article and… just no. I understand the need to idealize the past, but there was plenty wrong back then that has changed for the better.
I doubt I personally would have come out of high school in 1957 a sane, healthy individual (if at all)… perhaps because I’m neither heterosexual nor white. I think your privilege may be blinding you a bit.
I don’t know Kersplash, my father graduated High School in 1957.
Back then, in most states minorities and whites did not really attend the same schools. My Father did not know but a couple of minorities (Black, Hispanic, Asian etc.) but he was “Native American”. He may hap of been heterosexual, but he knew of, and tolerated a couple of Gay students, whom he said practiced the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy WAY before President Clinton did.
Unfortunately, a lot of my Cousins still act as if they were in the fifties with their intolerance of Minorities and Gays. I tell them that I do not care for their opinions and would prefer not to hear them, but it is STILL their Constitutional right to express them. That does not mean that i have to agree with them, just recognize their right to do so.
I served this country, Defending it’s Constitution and protecting YOUR right to be who you want to be, regardless of any factors but illegal ones.
Kersplsh, You be who you want to be, and just remember that one day closed minded people will understand the guaranteed right to ” The pursuit of happiness” by ALL.
I’m not disagreeing with your point at all, crazysquid.
My argument is with what the author of the original chain mail is implying with his comparison of 1957 and today — that people had greater freedom and that life was generally better back in the ‘good old days’. Taking that view is being very ignorant of how the rights of sexual and racial minorities in America have improved since then.
And I realize that the article is supposed to be comically blowing things out of proportion to prove its point, but I think that in doing so it ends up satirizing legislation that is designed to promote equality (see: Scenario 6, for one). Plus, I’ll be honest, I was a Psychology major in college and the implications of Scenario 2 are a little irritating.
The only sure thing that has really changed since 1957 and 2010 is the date. History will always repeat itself as younger people look to things that happened 50 years ago as “Ancient Times” and they do not apply to them.
We as a society have had the ability to conform to the daily changes that confront us each waking moment. It is the ones who feel that to conform to societies needs in mass, is a sign of defeat, that usually causes the impacts that are heard on the News. To conform is good, but to conform completely is a quick way to destroy any culture. There will always be bigotry, and evil deeds put forth by Man. this has not changed much since 1957 AD or BC.
Legislation does not change what is in the hearts of the intolerant, the ignorant or the “Just Plain Stupid” people of the world.
The Media has become both a Blessing and a Curse, as it does bring out in to the open the intolerance of people. They did not do in the 50’s. unfortunately, they will bend the facts as they see fit to make a good story line. In the fifties, “Hate Crimes” were not reported unless they were committed by minorities.
Today, They make every Newspaper and Television news program in the country.
I am glad that you were “Being Honest”. (By the way, I have always disliked that saying as it implies that everything you have said before was untruthful)
So, that said, Legislation is not the answer. Information and propaganda has ALWAYS worked far better than the Government stepping in and telling the People how they should feel, and behave. It sort of puts a “Bullet” on what I was attempting to convey about the “Pursuit Of happiness”. If someone is happy trashy the Gays, and Minorities, then we can not “Tattle Tell” to the government and MAKE them to make them stop. We can only ASK them to stop. As long as no one is PHISICALLY hurt by them, or property damage is done (i.e.- Cross burnings, Beatings, Damages to homes or businesses) then we will just have to put up with the “Hurt Feelings”.
Well, IF I’M BEING HONEST(I kid!) I disagree that legislation is ineffective in promoting equality. For example, do you think people would have been more likely to vote for an African American presidential candidate before or after civil rights legislation was passed?
Legislation is obviously not going to directly sway people’s viewpoints (on race, in this example), but it does cause change. After blacks were given equal rights, people were forced to confront their xenophobia and learn tolerance of a minority group. Without it, we would have just stayed at the status quo.
That’s one of the major points of the US legislative & judicial branches, to uphold the fundamental rights of the minority in the face of voting by the majority. It’s when we go against that — like (arguably) Prop 8 in California — and the majority votes on the rights of a minority group, that problems emerge.
I know that legislation makes people confront that which they may disagree with and are ignorant of, but it will not change their attitude. The fundamental rights of the minority is the same as the rights of anyone else, and the first amendment is the most important amendment that there is. I can not remember who it was that said that if he were only allowed one amendment, it would be the first. With this amendment he would regain all the ones back that were taken away from him.
I believe that. The first amendment is rapidly being eaten away by those that feel that it ’s not nice to hurt others feelings. To uphold the first amendment, you must be willing to sacrifice your feelings for the greater good. If not, you will probably see people go to jail for insulting someone. In the fifties, you actually could go to jail if you were Black, and Insulted a White person. I will grant that it took the Supreme Court to decide that it was unconstitutional to arrest someone for insulting another, and I agree with that.
The K.K.K. has every bit as much right to march down the streets of Harlem as the Black Panthers have to march down the streets of Birmingham, Alabama.
There are going to be a lot of hurt feelings from both sides, but, it is their Constitutional right.
To take those rights away would mean an end to Democracy. To let the Government decide everything would be total Communism.
To pass a law that says that you can no longer hate or insult someone would be just as futile as the “Just Say No” campaign, which I thought was just plain dumb. I mean, like a Drug Addict is going to see the former First Lady on T.V. Say “Just Say No” and slap themselves on the forehead and say: Why Didn’t I Think Of That. Absolutely a waste of air space that could have told them where to get real help.
In the fifties, there really was little freedom of speech. You could not say a disparaging word about a politician on national television. The news would never bleep out the “N” word when used to defile a Black Person. Today, a White person who uses that word is labeled as a Racist, Race Criminal, Flagged by every minority association and branded forever as a bigot. Just look what happened to “Cramer”. (I can’t remember his name) His reasoning was that Blacks say it openly all the time, so why are we, as whites, being treated with prejudice for using the word in the EXACT SAME context as Blacks? I guess Congress will have to ban the word and make it illegal for ANYONE to say it so that the letter of the law is maintained. Do you see kind of what I am driving at. The very word can divide two races to such a magnitude as to cause riots and killings, yet it is not illegal to say it. All I am saying is that what is right for one should always be right for the other. I would not and do not use the word, nor do I tolerate it’s use around me. On the other hand, I also do not tolerate race slurs of ANY kind by anyone just for the harmony of My Company. But, I can not control what they do or say outside of the business property.
First Amendment Rights Always.
Who is arguing against first amendment rights here? I don’t think I ever said that people didn’t have the right to speak their opinion on minority rights…
As for you larger point, I agree that people’s views aren’t generally changed by legislation that passes while they are alive. It’s the next generation, who grows up and lives life with this new legislation passed and actively upheld, who will be affected by it. I’m in my early 20s, for example; in my experience ( and this is anecdotal, but I’m also from the dirty South where this minority rights are a major issue), it’s always my peers’ parents and grandparents who have more of a problem with racial and sexual minorities than they do themselves. It’s a generational thing, and a lot of that comes from growing up in a more tolerating culture. How does that culture happen? Legislation.
Whoa. Culture happens by legislation? Think about that for a moment. In the case of meaningful, long lasting, enabling legislation, it is exactly the reverse. Emancipation didn’t drive the culture – culture drove us to emancipation. Similarly with civil rights laws in the 60’s, the culture was demanding the legislation, not the reverse. Likewise with women’s rights, from women’s suffrage to sexual discrimination laws, the cultural change preceded the legislation. Legislation driving culture, by definition, is governing against the will of the people. That’s tyranny.
Now admittedly the culture was not uniformly in favor of the changes embodied in the legislation when these ideas became law. If it were, the laws would have been unnecessary. But the culture was already changing, and not just on the lunatic fringe. The cultural movement toward abolition destroyed the Whig Party and founded the Republican Party. Culture led, politics followed. Similarly civil accomplishment and contribution by blacks had far outpaced the assumptions behind an inconsistent patchwork of unjust, provably needless laws long before our federal civil rights laws. Again cultural change happened first.
There’s a place for legislation in promoting cultural change, to be sure. And ‘kersplash’ is right that the change is not lasting change until it becomes part of the assumed culture of the next generation. But don’t make the mistake of believing a law or two will change the culture. It won’t. Cultural change is a ‘full contact sport,’ played between friends and neighbors, work associates and colleagues, in churches, bars, baseball diamonds and band shells. Once the change reaches the hearts and minds of a significant portion of the population, usually a minority, but a fairly large minority, then legislation can be used to solidify the change and promote it further, but legislation is never the cause of the change.
Change happens in the hearts and minds of you and me. Laws merely reflect that change. Not vice versa.
You have cemented my point exactly. laws can not, and will not change those that do not wish to be changed. it will only make them a criminal.
the Emancipation Proclamation was brought about by mostly Northern peoples who felt that it was wrong to enslave anyone, anywhere in the United States. The law happened because of people who recognized an injustice. Just as the judge who overturned the gay marriage ban in California. This is a judge who see’s that the Bill Of Rights, Constitution and just plain common sense were being violated. The Bill Of Rights and the constitution have not changed much since the ’50’s, just the understanding of it’s meaning as it pertains to ALL Americans, regardless of race, Creed, religon or Sexual preference. If you really want to see what intolerance is just visit this site and read the article.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/16/missouri.funeral.protests.ruling/index.html?eref=rss_latest
I can not see that legislation has as much of an influence as you may think. we are not talking about the rights of “Little Johnny” to wear offensive T-Shirts to school that clog up the judicial system. We are talking about the First Amendments as they pertain not only minorities, but each and every Citizen. it is illegal to yell “Fire” in a movie theatre, Why, it induces panic and a danger to the public, But, it is a violation of the first amendment none the less. In this case, I will have to agree that a law passed to try and prevent this had good intentions and shows that the First Amendment is not in keeping with the advance of civilization, But, it also goes to show that the Government thinks that every thing can be solved just by passing a law to make it illegal.What I am trying to convey is, where does it stop. As it is progressing, soon you will become a criminal and possibly go to jail for calling the “Weight Challenged Americans” fat because it hurts their feelings, or calling a minority by a racially offensive slur will get you the death penalty.
As small a thing as making it illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre, or not allowing that kid to wear a T-shirt that read “I Hate fags”, is just the beginning.
The ones that are taking away the liberties and rights are Banking on the fact that it is passed from generation to generation. They are very patient in that they have the ability to pass on to other generations what they want changed by means of what is taught in schools. What is heard and read in the Media etc.
Not a lot of “Big Issues” get the attention of legislators with out them hearing it, or reading about it in every headline and T.V. station.
I am by no means a conspiracy freak or anything to that effect, But it seems, as I observe it’ that the Media, whether it is T.V., Newspapers, Internet, is the ones that dictate policies and the way people change. help me out here, think what shows broke color barriers, religious barriers..you see where I’m going..After they came out in the open on national T.V., things seemed to have started to change.
So I’d like to throw this out for discussion; media has more influence over cultures than any laws passed by congress. No legislative mandate can come close to the power of the pen. the pen being those few that wright the stories, articles shows, moviesetc. etc. The media is covered under the First Amendment, and can pretty much say what they want with impunity, sufice that it is perseved to be factual that is.
If itwere to be wrong, it is too late. The information has already been planted in the minds of the masses. People will believe Diane Sawyer before they would Believe the President.
I can not see that legislation has as much of an influence as you may think. we are not talking about the rights of “Little Johnny” to wear offensive T-Shirts to school that clog up the judicial system. We are talking about the First Amendments as they pertain not only minorities, but each and every Citizen. it is illegal to yell “Fire” in a movie theatre, Why, it induces panic and a danger to the public, But, it is a violation of the first amendment none the less. In this case, I will have to agree that a law passed to try and prevent this had good intentions and shows that the First Amendment is not in keeping with the advance of civilization, But, it also goes to show that the Government thinks that every thing can be solved just by passing a law to make it illegal.What I am trying to convey is, where does it stop. As it is progressing, soon you will become a criminal and possibly go to jail for calling the “Weight Challenged Americans” fat because it hurts their feelings, or calling a minority by a racially offensive slur will get you the death penalty.
As small a thing as making it illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre, or not allowing that kid to wear a T-shirt that read “I Hate fags”, is just the beginning.
The ones that are taking away the liberties and rights are Banking on the fact that it is passed from generation to generation. They are very patient in that they have the ability to pass on to other generations what they want changed by means of what is taught in schools. What is heard and read in the Media etc.
Not a lot of “Big Issues” get the attention of legislators with out them hearing it, or reading about it in every headline and T.V. station.
I am by no means a conspiracy freak or anything to that effect, But it seems, as I observe it’ that the Media, whether it is T.V., Newspapers, Internet, is the ones that dictate policies and the way people change. help me out here, think what shows broke color barriers, religious barriers..you see where I’m going..After they came out in the open on national T.V., things seemed to have started to change.
So I’d like to throw this out for discussion; media has more influence over cultures than any laws passed by congress. No legislative mandate can come close to the power of the pen. the pen being those few that wright the stories, articles shows, movies etc. etc. The media is covered under the First Amendment, and can pretty much say what they want with impunity, suffice that it is perceived to be factual that is.
If it were to be wrong, it is too late. The information has already been planted in the minds of the masses. People will believe Diane Sawyer before they would Believe the President.
Thanks, Larry, and you’re absolutely right that legislation driving culture would be tyranny; I wasn’t really thinking that through enough when I said it. I do believe, regardless, that governmental intervention is often required to protect minority rights from the voting power of the majority.
And, crazysquid, no doubt the media has power on par with the government — that’s why they’re the unofficial ‘fourth estate’. The problem is when that media is bought out by big business (FOX), or when news stations decide they need to present both sides of every single issue, regardless of the validity of one argument over another (CNN). In that respect I can agree that 1957 > 2009.
I assume people mentioned these, but here we go:
Scenario 9:
Little Ernest attempts to go to a school with white children in it.
1957: Parents complain about having a black child in their local school. The National Guard is called in to block Ernest and 8 classmates from entering the school. The president assigns an armed escort to allow the children to go to school. It remains a tense school year, and one of Ernest’s classmates has acid thrown in her eyes.
2009: Little Ernest is admitted with no problems.
Scenario 10:
Johnny’s parents take him out to buy some comics and watch a movie.
1957: Johnny or his parents don’t see anything objectionable; because the comic and movie industries are concerned about being practically shut down by the federal government, the Comics Code Authority and the MPAA (using the Hays code) prohibit mentions of homosexuality, sexual perversion, or childbirth; methodology of crimes; the sanctity of marriage being broken (divorce, adultery, illicit sex); depiction of illegal drugs; and many, many more. Johnny and his parents grow up with a skewed perception of reality, and a generation of artists, writers and filmmakers suffer through creative filtering that holds back both forms of art for twenty-plus years from maturing as fast as their counterparts in Europe.
2009: Movies, comics, and video games are all very clearly labeled for age appropriateness. Johnny’s parents buy him a Mature game, and let him see a Rated ‘R’ movie. They proceed to hire Jack Thompson to sue the video game company, and protest the movie that their child shouldn’t have watched anyway. Neither work. Films, comics, and video games are all multi-billion dollar industries. Johnny grows up to be well adjusted.
Scenario 11:
Little Johnny’s parents are suspected of being less than vehemently against America’s enemies!
1957: The US government used illegal wiretaps to keep tabs on his parents, kept them on a blacklist for suspected communist activities, and makes their life a living hell. However, McCarthyism is on the decline: 14 formerly convicted communists are released.
2009: The US government uses (now) legal wiretaps to keep tabs on his parents, keeps them on a no-fly list for suspected terrorist activities, and makes their life a living hell. However, fear of terrorism is on the decline: but no suspected terrorists have been released from Guantanamo Bay.
Okay, that last one could go either way.
I feel like some of the ones for 2009 were very exaggerated. I myself have blown up ants in 2009, and yes, ants died. FBI was not called, and no one was put on terror watch list.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I’ve noticed that in the 1957 version of the scenario you have taken the best outcome and in the 2009 version of the scenario you take the worst possible outcome. Yes, there would be repercussions in the 2009 versions, however you are making a mountain out of an ant hill in most cases. As well, in the 1957 version it seems that nobody is ever reprimanded for their actions other than a paddling. It is clear you have a bias and it shows greatly. If you truly wanted to show the difference between the two generations you have to be objective.
Staci,
It’s clear you didn’t even take the time to read the intro. I didn’t write it.. I stated the scenarios are extreme.. When people post it would be great if they could reveal their age. It’s telling that those who ACTUALLY lived in the late 50’s early 60’s, seem to sympathize with the scenarios, and those that did not, think they’re ridiculous.
I did not grow up in the 50’s. I was born in 1961. I could not speak about what happened first hand in the fifties, and I was really not conscious of the indignities of the 60’s, nor the good that had come out of them. The only thing about the 50’s that I know, I heard from my Parents, and Grand Parents.
Every society changes with each generation. may hap the whole cycle of life will start a new circle and history will only repeat itself again, or it will continue to advance in a straight line and become more and more progressive. To post scenarios that go from a Devil-May-care attitude to extreme stupidity on the part of the U.S. government is in running with how this generation is clashing with the last, and the next. There really is not much difference since time began. (And no, I was not around since time began so I do not have first hand knowledge of that either) The only thing most of us have to go by in history is what our Ancestors tell us, and history dictates. I am sure that the way the 50’s are told depends on many factors. Such as a kid growing up in rural North Carolina, far from any “Big City Ways” would have a different outlook than someone who grew up in the Ghetto’s of New York City.
As is the case of Wars, the Victors make the history. We will only believe what we want, and believe only as much as the credibility of the persons telling it.