How has society changed since 1960. Reasons too.

[rjh01]

This thread was inspired by 5 Greatest Inventions of ALL Time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165314). But I think we need a more specific thread. What I am after are the ways society has changed since 1960 (that is 50 years ago) and the reasons for the changes.

You are allowed to mention changes in technology, but how did these things change society? Feel free also to comment on other people's posts.

1. Religion. In 1960 there was a lot of censorship and other rules, like shop opening hours. The only reasons I can see for these things are religious reasons. In 1960 in Australia there was a political party (DLP) sponsored by the RC church. Now the censorship rules are much looser and shops can open as much as they can economically justify (at least in Australia). Now we only find out the religious views of MPs after they get elected. So the influence of religion has gone down. I got told that the "killer ap" for the Internet was porn so this may have helped the Internet to thrive.

2. The Pill. Allowed the sexual revolution to start. Women could have sex without being too worried about getting pregnant. They could limit the size of their families. They could be given an education without it being wasted by getting married at 18 and having 10 kids. So they could have a career like a man. This gave women even more power, to do such things as be elected to parliament. The children they did have were now very valuable. So they had to be bought up properly and not be abused.

3. TV. Allowed documentaries to be shown to a mass audience. This educated so many people. Allowed them to question things. May have helped religion to decrease in influence (see 1 above). May have had an influence in USA opinion on the Vietnam (and later) war.

4. Internet. This has allowed on line shopping including banking to happen. Now no need for things to be during business hours. They can be done after hours in your own home. Also internet forums and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (wikipedia) exist. Now you want to find out anything? Just do a quick search and the answer is there.

[Thunder]

I am flattered that my thread inspired you.

:)

[lionking]

I am flattered that my thread inspired you.

:)
Perhaps if you started more threads on anything but the one topic? ;)

[shadron]

2. The Pill. Allowed the sexual revolution to start. Women could have sex without being too worried about getting pregnant. They could limit the size of their families. They could be given an education without it being wasted by getting married at 18 and having 10 kids. So they could have a career like a man. This gave women even more power, to do such things as be elected to parliament. The children they did have were now very valuable. So they had to be bought up properly and not be abused.

I'm told that the women's movement actually started during WWII when women were hired to fill what were until then men's jobs. Rosie the riveter was an icon of this period. This is the first time when in other than agriculture women were expected to fill a man's role as worker, bread winner and household manager. When the men came back from war and tried to resore the old status quo, the found it much more difficult than keeping the farm boys down on the farm after seeing Paree.

[rjh01]

I'm told that the women's movement actually started during WWII when women were hired to fill what were until then men's jobs. Rosie the riveter was an icon of this period. This is the first time when in other than agriculture women were expected to fill a man's role as worker, bread winner and household manager. When the men came back from war and tried to resore the old status quo, the found it much more difficult than keeping the farm boys down on the farm after seeing Paree.

The pill would have ensured this this trend could continue. In the 1950's women could teach and hold unskilled jobs. Not much more. Many left when they got married. Now they can do most jobs. Though whenever I call in a tradesperson I have only ever get a man.

In WW1 women did the men's jobs as well and got the vote as a result (at least in the UK), so why did they go back to the house?

[jakesteele]

There have been so many things, many of which you need the historical perspective of age to understand. A huge one is that in my youth (I'm 59yrs. old), women tended to be housewives and the whole family was financially supported by the father.

Things were much more prim and proper in that whenever they showed a parents bedroom on a sitcom, they had to show a his and her's bed, never a single bed they both slept in.

Society was much more civil and innocent back then. The term 'serial killer' wasn't even a term until Charles Manson made it one.

The educational process was based on the "3 R's" ('readin', ritin' and 'rithmetic) far superior to what they have nowadays.

Corporal punishment was allowed in schools and most kids would get spankings from their folks for being naughty. I graduated in 1969 and girls had to wear dresses to school and guys had to have short hair and couldn't grow facial hair.
The Beatles and the British Invasion hadn't occurred yet and the music was pretty bland and white bread.

When I was growing up baseball was called 'the national pastime'.

Society tended to believe whatever the govt. said without question.

The term "Made in America" really meant something back then.


As to the whys and wherefores of the changes, it's hard to pin it on one thing. Vietnam had a huge deal of impact, the British Invasion of music, LSD and the culture that it created, etc.

[lector]

In the American South, some gas stations still had 3 bathrooms, labeled "Men," "Women" and "Colored."

I trust I don't need to explain why that changed.

[rjh01]

One question on that issue. Why has racism been reduced so you no longer have such things?

[Dragoonster]

In the US LBJ and the Great Society initiatives had a tremendous influence. He introduced or greatly expanded:

Civil Rights Acts
Voting Rights Act
Medicare/Medicaid
Food Stamps
OEO
Federal assistance to education, including Pell Grants/Stafford Loans
Public transportation
Environmental stuff including Endangered Species Act
National Endowment for the Arts, public radio and TV, and other expression

Really got a lot done on social initiatives, it's a shame the Vietnam War was such a mistake because I really admire LBJ.

I was born in '72 but it seemed that there was a lot of optimism and progressiveness in the 60s that died somewhere in the late 70s/early 80s. Society since has loosened up some but in some ways has stagnated.

Probably the biggest non-law change has been the media's growth in power, particularly on television. It shapes our attitudes on politics and elections, sometimes to a deleterious extent, but sometimes gives us objective information. I'd say network news was most objective, then cable news began and things got very bad and subjective. But recently internet news sources have become a slightly more objective player.

But also as entertainment it provides some social progression. Things as simple as introducing "normal" black families like the Jeffersons and Cosby Show, or ads featuring mixed-race couples, or shows with homosexuals has (I think) somewhat subliminally made society less bigoted. It's a bit like a racist who has a family member who marries a race they hate; over time they may realize that race is normal and his racism may decrease. Entertainment has either followed this sort of awakening, or in some cases pushed it.

It's sometimes served this way on non-social issues like the environment, where someone would watch Wild America or later Planet Earth and find a new appreciation; or shows about alternate energy, or real-time war footage.

eta: I assume TV also had a huge impact on the economy via consumerism and some competition as a result of products having such an easy source of information given to consumers. And it's had a tremendous impact on sports as entertainment and as multi-billion $ businesses. TV existed before 1960 of course but wasn't in every home and had nowhere near as many channels or influence.

[Bikewer]

I'm 63, and was just starting high-school in 1960. I recall we had just three broadcast TV stations then, and no remote controls....

My father worked in industry as a pipe-fitter, and my mother worked part time at a number of different jobs. This I suspect to send we two kids to Catholic school. (largely a waste of money...)
We lived in a very much white-middle-class neighborhood, and though I recall being aware of the Civil Rights movement, I can't say it had any effect. We had no black students in our elementary school, and only a couple of students and teachers in high school.
I would say that drugs were essentially unknown in our community; they were something you got at the Rexall pharmacy. (Which still had those big glass beakers full of colored water in the window.
There was little if any concern with crime; "terrorism" had yet to enter the vocabulary, and Vietnam was yet on the horizon.
I have no recollection of the political concerns of the day, and equally little recall of what might have been going on internationally, other than the Cold War and fears of Communism and nuclear war.
Being Catholic, we got constant training in how to battle Communism

[coalesce]

In my opinion, it's a double-edged sword.

My mother in 70+ years old and grew up in New York City's Lower East Side. She would tell me about sleeping with the windows open or just out on the fire escape if it was hot enough (10 people in four rooms, you tended to sleep wherever you could.) It's not that crime was non-existent then (her older brother Nick, a retired New York City Police lieutenant, could tell you all about crime at the time), it just may not have been as pervasive or, more importantly, covered as intently or hysterically as it is today. Her education was fine for the time, but to say that education today is inferior is off-base. Yes, there may not be enough emphasis on the basics today as there was in her time, but the access to information today was undreamt of just 20 years ago, never mind 60. What the government told you was almost always accepted as being the absolute truth, until Vietnam and Watergate, that is. People "knew their place" back then, even if they didn't like it. Thankfully, that changed. I cannot imagine growing up without knowing about and interacting with different people and cultures. My own personal life would be so much emptier without that experience.

Michael

[whatthebutlersaw]

Since the 1960s lifestyle has become a big issue regarding health. Once the information about the health problems associated with smoking were unsurpressed and became general knowledge a few things have happened:

1. A lot more children, especially in the west, are not subjected to nicotine in vitro, or through breast feeding with better infant health as a result.

2. We now seek lifestyle factors for everything and a lot of people believe they can treat themselves - or se a sCAMer - instead of seeing a doctor. For everything.

3. In my opinion, the emphasis on lifestyle - which is not in itself a bad thing - has led to a kind of blame-the-sick culture in many quarters. Anyone who is ill, or has some kind of health problem, is doing something wrong according to the healthy. Be it Lupus (sometimes it is Lupus), depression, acne or rheumatic diseases.

4. Steps have been taken to curb smoking, including designating where smoking can be done. Something I am grateful for, since the smell gives me a migraine, but that other people find repressive. What can be agreed upon is that this has changed how people hang out and interact.

So - the information that smoking is really, really bad for you has affected how an average person lives, thinks, gets about and meets people quite a bit since the 60s.

[Lanzy]

Information distribution.
In the '60s we had no 24 hours news and no google.

[Blue Mountain]

To add to the original list:

5) Gay rights

Fifty years ago it could well be a career-ender if it came to light a person was homosexual. Now they send out invitations to their weddings.

[Ohmer]

One question on that issue. Why has racism been reduced so you no longer have such things?

Activist judges.

[rjh01]

Dragoonster mentioned TV and sport. In Australia in the 1980s there was a split in the cricket between the traditional cricket and "world series cricket" which was made for TV. Eventually most people only went to the world series cricket, so they won. From then on cricketers were well paid. I suppose other sports were similar, except they did it quietly.

I like the idea mentioned that certain individuals were in a position of power and could see how to improve society, so they did.

Gay rights have been mentioned. What caused them to have rights? Is it just that we are questioning everything now and gay rights is one of the results of that? Does the same apply for other minority groups as well?

[Pinkymcfatfat]

I asked my mom some questions about the changes she's seen in the world not so long ago...

One thing she thought had really changed was you do not have to be ashamed or hide that you are mixed race anymore. My mom is half Irish and half Eastern Band Cherokee. She can well remember taking a long pause whenever somebody asked 'What nationality is your family?'.

[Denver]

I may be slanted in my view of society since the 1960s, since I was a child then, but I know Halloween has changed since the 1960s. That was a HUGE holiday, with kids filling the neighborhood streets for hours into the night. Now, driving around on Halloween evening, you can barely even tell it's a special day.

I think for some of the reasons mentioned earlier (media, Vietnam, Internet), society is less risk tolerant now.

[Meadmaker]

I think the Pill dwarfs all other changes, and is responsible for many of the rest.

The central reality of most people's lives, at least until age 40 or so, is the quest to have sex. Until the Pill, that pretty much meant there would be babies involved, and so being a mom or a dad was not an optional exercise. Sure there were exceptions, but Birth, Marriage, Kids, Death was pretty much it.

Furthermore, it was important to parents of young men and women to see to it that numbers 2 and 3 above occurred in that order. Since sex=kids in the pre-pill world, you had to do a whole heck of a lot of work making sure that sex occurred in ways that wouldn't burdened society, or extended families, with unwanted children. An awful lot of religion was focused on regulating sex lives.

Separate sex and kids, and everything changed.

The explosion in communication has been significant as well, though not as significant as the Pill. It allows people to interact with and observe a much broader range of people, which tends to make people decide that the People on the Other Side of the Hill may not be inhuman, satanic, monsters after all.

[rjh01]

One other issue the Pill has addressed is the population explosion. Until the Pill it was an issue that could not be addressed in any way. Now it can be. China can have a one child policy.

On the other hand Japan only made the pill legal in 1999 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/20/health/main637523.shtml so maybe we have exaggerated its effects on society??

[Retrograde]

I'd put reliable birth control at #1, and I'd add the G.I. Bill. What that did was open up college educations to people who normally wouldn't have been able to go (e.g., all the males in my parent's generation): it was their children who were the rabble-rousers of the 60s. It also helped veterans buy houses, which fueled the move to suburbs.

The G.I. Bill applied to all veterans regardless of race - at least in theory. Another major social change was Truman's desegregation of the military, which I think had some role to play in providing career paths to people who might never had had the opportunities before.

In WW1 women did the men's jobs as well and got the vote as a result (at least in the UK), so why did they go back to the house?


Women have always worked, especially in lower-paying industrial and factory jobs. Middle class women in the US didn't work outside the home as much, although it happened. I think that after WWII what happened was a glut of newly-educated military veterans looking for jobs and families (not necessarily in that order). It became a mark of affluence to have one's wife stay at home and look after the kids - and this was the height of the baby boom. People were also starting to spread out into the suburbs, and the support structures for working mothers, mostly other family members, weren't keeping up. That's a simple guess, I suppose, but it's what I saw happening in my family.


Internet...Now you want to find out anything? Just do a quick search and the answer is there.

Sometimes it's even the correct answer! I'm still trying to find the lyrics to Joe Strummer's "Evil Darling" and the fabulous web has been of no help.

[Jeff Corey]

I would have to say discrimination. First, against Blacks. When I left CT to attend the U Delaware in 1961, Blacks could not eat in most restaurants in town.The Freedom Riders were going to DC on Route 40.
That was broken down in Newark, not by sit ins, but when the Delaware football team won the something cup and decided to invade the biggest restaurant/bar in town.
Second, against women. My impression, back then, was Bio and Psych had the highest percentage of female Ph.D. students among all the sciences. Maybe 10 to 16 percent.

[Jeff Corey]

I'd put reliable birth control at #1, and I'd add the G.I. Bill. What that did was open up college educations to people who normally wouldn't have been able to go (e.g., all the males in my parent's generation): it was their children who were the rabble-rousers of the 60s. It also helped veterans buy houses, which fueled the move to suburbs.

The G.I. Bill applied to all veterans regardless of race - at least in theory. Another major social change was Truman's desegregation of the military, which I think had some role to play in providing career paths to people who might never had had the opportunities before.



Women have always worked, especially in lower-paying industrial and factory jobs. Middle class women in the US didn't work outside the home as much, although it happened. I think that after WWII what happened was a glut of newly-educated military veterans looking for jobs and families (not necessarily in that order). It became a mark of affluence to have one's wife stay at home and look after the kids - and this was the height of the baby boom. People were also starting to spread out into the suburbs, and the support structures for working mothers, mostly other family members, weren't keeping up. That's a simple guess, I suppose, but it's what I saw happening in my family.




Sometimes it's even the correct answer! I'm still trying to find the lyrics to Joe Strummer's "Evil Darling" and the fabulous web has been of no help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejroqjLY1Bg

[MattusMaximus]

To add to the original list:

5) Gay rights

Fifty years ago it could well be a career-ender if it came to light a person was homosexual. Now they send out invitations to their weddings.

This, and, despite the ravings of the religious right, one can now talk about not believing in God or attending church in many social circles without being outright shunned. This is a considerable shift in the U.S. over the last generation or so... many more people are more critical of religion, and openly so.

[MattusMaximus]

I may be slanted in my view of society since the 1960s, since I was a child then, but I know Halloween has changed since the 1960s. That was a HUGE holiday, with kids filling the neighborhood streets for hours into the night. Now, driving around on Halloween evening, you can barely even tell it's a special day.

Not in my neighborhood, buddy. We have TONS of kids coming around on Halloween... I love it :D

I think for some of the reasons mentioned earlier (media, Vietnam, Internet), society is less risk tolerant now.

True enough. This kind of ties in with the Halloween thing you mentioned (I know many communities aren't as open about it as mine, sadly). I think this is largely a generational thing with the Boomers: they are overly protective of their kids. I see it all the time with the parents of my students, and it's aggravating as all hell... however, I am hopeful that the pendulum is swinging in the opposite direction now.

[Jeff Corey]

I asked my mom some questions about the changes she's seen in the world not so long ago...

One thing she thought had really changed was you do not have to be ashamed or hide that you are mixed race anymore. My mom is half Irish and half Eastern Band Cherokee. She can well remember taking a long pause whenever somebody asked 'What nationality is your family?'.
I could have said Irish-English German French Native American myself. But like my president, I'm a proud mutt.

[John Jones]

The pill would have ensured this this trend could continue. In the 1950's women could teach and hold unskilled jobs. Not much more. Many left when they got married. Now they can do most jobs. Though whenever I call in a tradesperson I have only ever get a man.

In WW1 women did the men's jobs as well and got the vote as a result (at least in the UK), so why did they go back to the house?

Because the women had that option and men didn't. Men's primary role in raising a family has always been that of a fund-raiser. Men as a rule never had the option to stay home and raise the children while the women brought home the bacon.

<dons asbestos undergarments>

[Roma]

child sex abuse Paranoia,
no one can hug a child today unless it's a "side hug",
and childen can't play outside without keeping a look-out for kidnappers.

[rjh01]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejroqjLY1Bg

That is where the skill is going to be in the future. One person says "I want the answer to this question and I cannot find it on the Internet." Another person can say "I know how to do a search of the Internet. Here is the answer. My fee is $100." First person says "Thank you for the answer, here is your $100."

I am sure there is a job out there for someone who can do that, like what Jeff has just demonstrated.

Edit. Some great answers above. I love reading them. Very educational.

[ingoa]

That is where the skill is going to be in the future. One person says "I want the answer to this question and I cannot find it on the Internet." Another person can say "I know how to do a search of the Internet. Here is the answer. My fee is $100." First person says "Thank you for the answer, here is your $100."

I am sure there is a job out there for someone who can do that, like what Jeff has just demonstrated.



Jeff didn't. The initial request was for the lyrics. Not the youtube song.

I believe that this is one of the things that changed since the sixties.

Getting it somewhat right ist not success. But I guess I am just old fashioned....

[fuelair]

This thread was inspired by 5 Greatest Inventions of ALL Time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165314). But I think we need a more specific thread. What I am after are the ways society has changed since 1960 (that is 50 years ago) and the reasons for the changes.

You are allowed to mention changes in technology, but how did these things change society? Feel free also to comment on other people's posts.

1. Religion. In 1960 there was a lot of censorship and other rules, like shop opening hours. The only reasons I can see for these things are religious reasons. In 1960 in Australia there was a political party (DLP) sponsored by the RC church. Now the censorship rules are much looser and shops can open as much as they can economically justify (at least in Australia). Now we only find out the religious views of MPs after they get elected. So the influence of religion has gone down. I got told that the "killer ap" for the Internet was porn so this may have helped the Internet to thrive.

2. The Pill. Allowed the sexual revolution to start. Women could have sex without being too worried about getting pregnant. They could limit the size of their families. They could be given an education without it being wasted by getting married at 18 and having 10 kids. So they could have a career like a man. This gave women even more power, to do such things as be elected to parliament. The children they did have were now very valuable. So they had to be bought up properly and not be abused.

3. TV. Allowed documentaries to be shown to a mass audience. This educated so many people. Allowed them to question things. May have helped religion to decrease in influence (see 1 above). May have had an influence in USA opinion on the Vietnam (and later) war.

4. Internet. This has allowed on line shopping including banking to happen. Now no need for things to be during business hours. They can be done after hours in your own home. Also internet forums and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (wikipedia) exist. Now you want to find out anything? Just do a quick search and the answer is there.Internet is really more since ca. late 1980s and documentaries were having effects in the 50s - on TV. (Just a couple out of others....

[fuelair]

There have been so many things, many of which you need the historical perspective of age to understand. A huge one is that in my youth (I'm 59yrs. old), women tended to be housewives and the whole family was financially supported by the father.

Things were much more prim and proper in that whenever they showed a parents bedroom on a sitcom, they had to show a his and her's bed, never a single bed they both slept in.

Society was much more civil and innocent back then. The term 'serial killer' wasn't even a term until Charles Manson made it one.

The educational process was based on the "3 R's" ('readin', ritin' and 'rithmetic) far superior to what they have nowadays.

Corporal punishment was allowed in schools and most kids would get spankings from their folks for being naughty. I graduated in 1969 and girls had to wear dresses to school and guys had to have short hair and couldn't grow facial hair.
The Beatles and the British Invasion hadn't occurred yet and the music was pretty bland and white bread.

When I was growing up baseball was called 'the national pastime'.

Society tended to believe whatever the govt. said without question.

The term "Made in America" really meant something back then.


As to the whys and wherefores of the changes, it's hard to pin it on one thing. Vietnam had a huge deal of impact, the British Invasion of music, LSD and the culture that it created, etc.

Be aware: most of the population did not actually live (in the 50s) that normal 2 parent, 2 or 3 children life with a working dad and stay home mom. That was the "standard" but not the reality. And by the late 50s many moms were trying already to get out of the home thing. Note: not my observation/belief: Studied/verified:http://www.amazon.com/Way-We-Never-Were-Nostalgia/dp/0465090974/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264300735&sr=8-1 and many others - but this one is real good!!

[stilicho]

This thread was inspired by 5 Greatest Inventions of ALL Time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165314). But I think we need a more specific thread. What I am after are the ways society has changed since 1960 (that is 50 years ago) and the reasons for the changes.

Most of what we consider to be social transformation in the past five decades are extensions of processes begun by the liberal bourgeois traditions of the nineteenth century and even before in some cases. The icing on the cake are the various technologies that have made the fruits of these transformations cheaper and more accessible.

That's why it's so hard to define social transformation in the past fifty years without also discussing technology: The Pill, computers, television, etc.

Someone threw out the idea of activist judges. The role of the judiciary in the West cannot be underestimated in creating a sense of permanency about many of the changes we've witnessed.

But in a lighter vein, I might go with anti-smoking regulations and the social consequences of smoking. This is a social transformation that truly sprang out of nowhere within the past five decades. Whereas smoking was not seen as any particular threat around 1960--except among a growing number of medical professionals--now it's viewed almost as a personality defect.

I suppose another one might be the environmentalist movement, something that had some roots before 1960, but nothing close to how pervasive it's become today.

---------

@jakesteele: You must live a sheltered life. No serial killers before 1960? Some of the "best" ones came from long before 1960:

http://crime.suite101.com/article.cfm/serial_killer_h_h_holmes

And the British Invasion in music started in 1964 not 1969. Before that, of course, it was an invasion of American music into Europe:

http://www.classicbands.com/haley.html

[Meadmaker]

Not in my neighborhood, buddy. We have TONS of kids coming around on Halloween... I love it :D

I plan for about 200 kids every Halloween night. (An accident of geography. I live in the first fairly affluent suburb north of the city limits of Detroit. All the Detroit kids head north, and stop in our suburb.

However, when I was a kid, people gave out homemade popcorn balls and taffy apples. You wouldn't dare try such things now. Everything has to be in an original store wrapper. It goes to the kid paranoia thing.

As a kid, (early '70s) I would go to the suburban mall at Christmas time and, as early as seven years of age, mom would give me some money and tell me to meet at the fountain at a given time. Look around the mall today. You won't see unescorted children younger than 12, and not many younger than 14.

[Retrograde]

Jeff didn't. The initial request was for the lyrics. Not the youtube song.

I believe that this is one of the things that changed since the sixties.

Getting it somewhat right ist not success. But I guess I am just old fashioned..

Thanks, ingoa: I have a recording of the song, I just can't make out all of it (and I gave up trying to decipher Safe European Home long ago: love The Clash, but they don't enunciate well). But I digress.

There's a lot on the net, and I don't know how I've done things like plan trips before it existed. OK, I do, but it was a lot of work. The problem I see these days is that there's a lot of data but not as much information as people would like to believe. The choice of search engine influences the results as well: what's to prevent a search company in the future from skewing results by how much people pay to get up front? Plus, there's a lot of copying basic data from one site and propagating it all over, as I found when I was trying to find information on an obscure 1804 play: the top 10 hits were all wiki-scrapings. Now, I think there is an opportunity in vetting searches: this will get more important the more commercial searches become and the more sheer stuff there is out there.

[fuelair]

Thanks, ingoa: I have a recording of the song, I just can't make out all of it (and I gave up trying to decipher Safe European Home long ago: love The Clash, but they don't enunciate well). But I digress.

There's a lot on the net, and I don't know how I've done things like plan trips before it existed. OK, I do, but it was a lot of work. The problem I see these days is that there's a lot of data but not as much information as people would like to believe. The choice of search engine influences the results as well: what's to prevent a search company in the future from skewing results by how much people pay to get up front? Plus, there's a lot of copying basic data from one site and propagating it all over, as I found when I was trying to find information on an obscure 1804 play: the top 10 hits were all wiki-scrapings. Now, I think there is an opportunity in vetting searches: this will get more important the more commercial searches become and the more sheer stuff there is out there.

Actually, search engines already do that kind of thing - it is why I use Dogpile (www.dogpile.com) - it is the most likely search engine I have found to give me the items I need for what I am looking up at the top of the heap as long as I choose good search terms.

[IchabodPlain]

One question on that issue. Why has racism been reduced so you no longer have such things?

The answer is probably the same as the factors which led to the civil rights movement in the first place. Dragoonster mentioned institutional issues which were resolved in the 60's and slightly delved into entertainment factors afterwards, but to answer your question a little more thoroughly, I think starting at 1960 and on leaves a lot to be desired (similar to looking at The Pill in regards to women issues).

Two huge factors in my eyes are institutional happenings BEFORE 1960 and entertainment factors. In the area of the institution you have the integration of the military by Truman, which brought about African-Americans and Caucasians fighting from the same foxhole, responsible for and at times saving each others lives. This cannot be understated. Also, Brown v. Board of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) occurred which ended segregation in public schools and was subsequently enforced by President Eisenhower who sent National Guard troops to make sure the Supreme Court's ruling was carried out peacefully, and was seen in millions of households across the nation (thank you television).

The largest contribution was those made in the area of entertainment, of which I include sports. People dancing to big band jazz in the 20's, 30's, and into the 40's, listening to "race records", the profound influence of blues on rock n' roll, hell - even the influence of blues and jazz on country music (Jimmy Rodgers, and all other country players of 12-bar blues). All of these influenced younger white Americans to not draw lines of color, and instead look at what makes them enjoy life and what has cultural merit, rather than looking at what color skin color produced such things. These achievements in music were amplified by two emerging technologies: The radio and television. This enabled large segments outside of urban hotspots like Chicago and New York to experience and appreciate music created or inspired by African-Americans. Elvis, for instance, rocked many parents off their seat and had legions of young girls who adored him. Elvis, as he states himself, drew heavily from the race records of his day. Figures such as Chuck Berry, The Drifters, The Coasters, Ray Charles, Little Richard, Frankie Lymon, again the list just keeping going -- these performers had legions of white fans, mostly young, who cheered them and for whom race wasn't an issue. Then there is the success by leading black actors such as Sidney Poitier and others in Hollywood making middle Americans laugh, cry, and feel their emotional experience on stage. Add to this contributions by Jackie Robinson in, what another poster here stated, as "America's Pastime" -- and it was, baseball was easily Americans most watched and celebrated sport in the post-war period.

Another emerging sport was basketball, which African-Americans achieved tremendous success before 1960 through the likes of Oscar Robinson (who would play in the NBA starting in 1960), and in the later 1960's with Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain. Successes in boxing by the likes of Jack Johnson (first AA Heavyweight Champion), Joe Louis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Louis) (my pick for greatest boxer ever), Floyd Patterson, among others all before 1960 proved African Americans could compete in all areas and in many cases out-compete their white counterparts. Then there was black successes in the Olympics, besting the best in the world, which would see Hitler refusing to shake hands with Jesse Owens in 1936. There are so many achievements here that it's difficult to name them all. Suffice to say that the effects were felt by younger Americans looking up to these competitors, staring in awe and admiration of their performances, and (maybe even begrudgingly) cheering them on during athletic competitions.

Yeah, technology was huge in this period. No more small, regional markets, replaced instead by national markets which utilized technologies like the radio, car stereo, television, jukeboxes, and the proliferation of the 45'' single, and 33'' lp record business. To start at 1960 feels sort of arbitrary, and frankly, misses the larger picture when talking about race relations/the decline of racism in America. All of these factors were in the minds of 1960's Americans, and had many African Americans fed up with being able to achieve so highly in some areas, but held down in others. That inertia that had been building through the 20th century seems sort of unstoppable looking back on it, but probably wasn't. Martin Luther King, LBJ and others definitely made the final push to end institutional racism in America in the 1960's, but many other cultural factors which came before them were the foundation as to why it was able to occur in the first place. These factors didn't just go away after the Civil Rights movement, rather, they only became more prevalent to the point of white kids in suburbia listening to Dr. Dre, Run DMC, and Jay-Z.

[IchabodPlain]

Probably the biggest non-law change has been the media's growth in power, particularly on television. It shapes our attitudes on politics and elections, sometimes to a deleterious extent, but sometimes gives us objective information. I'd say network news was most objective, then cable news began and things got very bad and subjective. But recently internet news sources have become a slightly more objective player.

I disagree. The media (proper) has always had tremendous power and the problem I really have is your treatment of "the media" as some single, monolithic force. It isn't. In fact, I think you could make the case that the national medias power is much more decentralized today that it used to be. The caveat being that I said national, not local news which has lost much of its power over the last fifty years. In 1960 you had three stations which delivered the national news on television (abc, nbc, cbs). This has changed tremendously. Print news has centralized a bit, but print news in general has lost much of its subscriber base since 1960. There has been a huge burst of new magazines and internet sources in the last 50 years. As you say, the internet is the largest emerging force in news today. I expect that to continue.

[Retrograde]

If you're looking for cross-cultural influences on American popular music you need to go way back to the beginning, even before minstrel shows and the like. It's always been there, rarely acknowledged by the mainstream.

Choosing any particular decade is of course arbitrary. I see the 60s (by which I mean the period from 1964-1974) as being one of the first in which people who were raised in relative affluence - i.e., those born immediately after WWII - came of age with the sense that they would do better than their parents, and had the means to indulge in idealism - i.e., the time and money for higher education. It's harder to man the barracades when you have to get up early the next day for a mundane job, which you need to keep body and soul together.

[Dragoonster]

I disagree. The media (proper) has always had tremendous power and the problem I really have is your treatment of "the media" as some single, monolithic force. It isn't. In fact, I think you could make the case that the national medias power is much more decentralized today that it used to be. The caveat being that I said national, not local news which has lost much of its power over the last fifty years. In 1960 you had three stations which delivered the national news on television (abc, nbc, cbs). This has changed tremendously. Print news has centralized a bit, but print news in general has lost much of its subscriber base since 1960. There has been a huge burst of new magazines and internet sources in the last 50 years. As you say, the internet is the largest emerging force in news today. I expect that to continue.

Good points. That was a fantastic post on entertainment and sports pre-1960 by the way. I'd go with the Louis-Schmelling fights as the biggest impact, plus Louis' later popularity as a motivator during the war among whites as well as blacks.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Everyone aged by 50 years.

[AlBell]

The answer is probably the same as the factors which led to the civil rights movement in the first place. Dragoonster mentioned institutional issues which were resolved in the 60's and slightly delved into entertainment factors afterwards, but to answer your question a little more thoroughly, I think starting at 1960 and on leaves a lot to be desired (similar to looking at The Pill in regards to women issues).

Two huge factors in my eyes are institutional happenings BEFORE 1960 and entertainment factors. In the area of the institution you have the integration of the military by Truman, which brought about African-Americans and Caucasians fighting from the same foxhole, responsible for and at times saving each others lives. This cannot be understated. Also, Brown v. Board of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) occurred which ended segregation in public schools and was subsequently enforced by President Eisenhower who sent National Guard troops to make sure the Supreme Court's ruling was carried out peacefully, and was seen in millions of households across the nation (thank you television).

The largest contribution was those made in the area of entertainment, of which I include sports. People dancing to big band jazz in the 20's, 30's, and into the 40's, listening to "race records", the profound influence of blues on rock n' roll, hell - even the influence of blues and jazz on country music (Jimmy Rodgers, and all other country players of 12-bar blues). All of these influenced younger white Americans to not draw lines of color, and instead look at what makes them enjoy life and what has cultural merit, rather than looking at what color skin color produced such things. These achievements in music were amplified by two emerging technologies: The radio and television. This enabled large segments outside of urban hotspots like Chicago and New York to experience and appreciate music created or inspired by African-Americans. Elvis, for instance, rocked many parents off their seat and had legions of young girls who adored him. Elvis, as he states himself, drew heavily from the race records of his day. Figures such as Chuck Berry, The Drifters, The Coasters, Ray Charles, Little Richard, Frankie Lymon, again the list just keeping going -- these performers had legions of white fans, mostly young, who cheered them and for whom race wasn't an issue. Then there is the success by leading black actors such as Sidney Poitier and others in Hollywood making middle Americans laugh, cry, and feel their emotional experience on stage. Add to this contributions by Jackie Robinson in, what another poster here stated, as "America's Pastime" -- and it was, baseball was easily Americans most watched and celebrated sport in the post-war period.

Another emerging sport was basketball, which African-Americans achieved tremendous success before 1960 through the likes of Oscar Robinson (who would play in the NBA starting in 1960), and in the later 1960's with Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain. Successes in boxing by the likes of Jack Johnson (first AA Heavyweight Champion), Joe Louis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Louis) (my pick for greatest boxer ever), Floyd Patterson, among others all before 1960 proved African Americans could compete in all areas and in many cases out-compete their white counterparts. Then there was black successes in the Olympics, besting the best in the world, which would see Hitler refusing to shake hands with Jesse Owens in 1936. There are so many achievements here that it's difficult to name them all. Suffice to say that the effects were felt by younger Americans looking up to these competitors, staring in awe and admiration of their performances, and (maybe even begrudgingly) cheering them on during athletic competitions.

Yeah, technology was huge in this period. No more small, regional markets, replaced instead by national markets which utilized technologies like the radio, car stereo, television, jukeboxes, and the proliferation of the 45'' single, and 33'' lp record business. To start at 1960 feels sort of arbitrary, and frankly, misses the larger picture when talking about race relations/the decline of racism in America. All of these factors were in the minds of 1960's Americans, and had many African Americans fed up with being able to achieve so highly in some areas, but held down in others. That inertia that had been building through the 20th century seems sort of unstoppable looking back on it, but probably wasn't. Martin Luther King, LBJ and others definitely made the final push to end institutional racism in America in the 1960's, but many other cultural factors which came before them were the foundation as to why it was able to occur in the first place. These factors didn't just go away after the Civil Rights movement, rather, they only became more prevalent to the point of white kids in suburbia listening to Dr. Dre, Run DMC, and Jay-Z.

In my mind Brown v. Board was the watershed, followed by the re-importation of African-American music by the Brit invasion, coupled with Selma, MLK, etc. That provided the lead-in to the protests involving the Vietnam debacle.

The Pill and Roe v Wade provided the next seismic shift.

Lately, cell-phones, the internet, and available information is an unprecedented driver.

[Blue Mountain]

Everyone aged by 50 years.
Hardly a useful contribution to this thread. I have Scrut on ignore, and every silly post like this confirms to me it was the correct decision.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hardly a useful contribution to this thread. I have Scrut on ignore, and every silly post like this confirms to me it was the correct decision.

Sounds like you have me on "pretend ignore".

[quadraginta]

Sounds like you have me on "pretend ignore".


If he had you on "real ignore" he might miss a chance to tell you he's ignoring you.

Of course he might have an "ignorance proxy" to tell him when people he's "ignoring" are ignoring being "ignored".

[The Central Scrutinizer]

if he had you on "real ignore" he might miss a chance to tell you he's ignoring you.

Of course he might have an "ignorance proxy" to tell him when people he's "ignoring" are ignoring being "ignored".

:dl:

[MaGZ]

The race riots of the 60s insured Blacks would be given everything they wanted from the government.

Hispanic invasion where Whites have been shoved out of manual labor jobs like construction.

Jews pushing Blacks in entertainment. Turning White kids into Wiggers.

It all started with Julia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_(TV_series)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The race riots of the 60s insured Blacks would be given everything they wanted from the government.

I think most blacks would want a million dollars. Has the government given it to them?

Jews pushing Blacks in entertainment. Turning White kids into Wiggers.

Those Jews certainly are a crafty bunch!

[Thunder]

Turning White kids into Wiggers.

yes. its all the Jews fault.

it rained today in NYC. shall we blame the Jews?

[JoeyDonuts]

I protest this thread on the ground that its premise is the basis for Andy Rooney's entire career.

If he ever manages to get himself out of that basement CBS keeps him locked in, you are so screwed.

[IchabodPlain]

Good points. That was a fantastic post on entertainment and sports pre-1960 by the way. I'd go with the Louis-Schmelling fights as the biggest impact, plus Louis' later popularity as a motivator during the war among whites as well as blacks.

Thank you sir for the compliments. I completely agree with you on Joe Louis. Fans were reluctant to accept Louis after he beat Baer (and he did, convincingly), who was sold as the "Great White Hope". As I said earlier, fans begrudgingly supported Louis in those fights against Schmelling. Better the American ****** than the white Nazi, some of the day might have figured. But yeah, Louis was an all around class act - the likes of which boxing as yet to see since.

[Dragoonster]

Those Jews certainly are a crafty bunch!

I'm surprised Sammy Davis Jr. didn't instantly explode all white people everywhere with his entertaining black Jewness. If only he'd snuck in from Mexico and stopped off to riot something. It would've been a nuclear explosion obliterating all white culture everwhere.

[stilicho]

I disagree. The media (proper) has always had tremendous power and the problem I really have is your treatment of "the media" as some single, monolithic force. It isn't. In fact, I think you could make the case that the national medias power is much more decentralized today that it used to be. The caveat being that I said national, not local news which has lost much of its power over the last fifty years. In 1960 you had three stations which delivered the national news on television (abc, nbc, cbs). This has changed tremendously. Print news has centralized a bit, but print news in general has lost much of its subscriber base since 1960. There has been a huge burst of new magazines and internet sources in the last 50 years. As you say, the internet is the largest emerging force in news today. I expect that to continue.

What about this idea?

Whereas you still had the morning paper and a talking head on the TV news (I am old enough to remember both the RFK and MLK assassinations reported on the radio of all things), the proliferation of news sources has caused an indifferent attitude towards politics. Politicians are now simply celebrities and have to vie for attention with the "I can haz cheeseburgers" cat and the latest Hollywood train wreck.

That social process began before 1960 too, of course, so I would include the Dionne quintuplets and PT Barnum as precursors.

The president of the USA was once remarked to have earned less than a single baseball player (Calvin Coolidge actually earned a little more than Babe Ruth -- http://www.angelfire.com/pa/1927/ruth1927contract.html ). Nowadays, the POTUS earns enough to make him equivalent to a back-up infielder for the Red Sox who batted .125 in 2008 and .000 in 2009 -- http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=29275.

[Fishstick]

I disagree. The media (proper) has always had tremendous power and the problem I really have is your treatment of "the media" as some single, monolithic force. It isn't. In fact, I think you could make the case that the national medias power is much more decentralized today that it used to be. The caveat being that I said national, not local news which has lost much of its power over the last fifty years. In 1960 you had three stations which delivered the national news on television (abc, nbc, cbs). This has changed tremendously. Print news has centralized a bit, but print news in general has lost much of its subscriber base since 1960. There has been a huge burst of new magazines and internet sources in the last 50 years. As you say, the internet is the largest emerging force in news today. I expect that to continue.
You may have more channels and venues to choose from now, but in the early days the media was controlled by over 53 different corporations, compared to today where almost all US national media is controlled by only 6 - NewsCorp, General Electric, Disney, Time Warner, Viacom, and CBS Corporation.

http://www.thenation.com/special/images/2006_entertainment.jpg (http://www.thenation.com/special/2006_entertainment.pdf)

This stranglehold provides an environment where there may be dissent and conflict that ranges from, say, John Stewart to Sean Hannity, but this range of opinions and ideas remains relatively narrow and easily controlled. Programs are highly unlikely to challenge their corporate owners or their advertisers. The internet has provided some relief from this monopoly of expression, but even now ISP owners are fighting for the right to control, block or prioritize content that they provide to users. The most popular and accessible sites with widest distribution, particularly in news, tend to be anchored and owned by the same media corporations that own everything else.

[JoeyDonuts]

An awful lot of people still receive their news from local network affiliates, and there's more franchises than you can shake a stick at. I highly doubt local area newsrooms are taking their marching orders from the six companies listed above. Actually, I don't have to doubt, I know for a fact it isn't true across the board.

Had an interesting discussion with someone about this the other night...it boils down to this in my opinion.

Journalistic integrity is not dead. While there are certainly news organizations that are beholden to corporate controlling interests (FOX ahem...) I do not believe that journalistic integrity has been completely sublimated to corporate greed and pandering. Even within your graphic above, each separate unit will have different departments, with their own dynamics, and since they're no different than any organization in the history of the world, not everyone will always be rowing in the same direction.

[stilicho]

This stranglehold provides an environment where there may be dissent and conflict that ranges from, say, John Stewart to Sean Hannity, but this range of opinions and ideas remains relatively narrow and easily controlled.

You're quite wrong, of course.

If you think that any of these media organisations have close to the strangehold on public policy (not just public opinion) that Hearst or Pulitzer had then you're sorely mistaken. It could even be argued that the structure of media corporations nowadays actually prevents publisher control over content.

[quadraginta]

You're quite wrong, of course.

If you think that any of these media organisations have close to the strangehold on public policy (not just public opinion) that Hearst or Pulitzer had then you're sorely mistaken. It could even be argued that the structure of media corporations nowadays actually prevents publisher control over content.


I don't think I'd go to quite that degree but I agree emphatically that the major news outlets are, in general, far less partisan that they have been in the past.

I am amused by people who wax nostalgic about some fictional "good old days" when newspapers were "unbiased" and even-handed. It doesn't take much review of history to see that this was not the case. Through the 18th, 19th, and most of the 20th centuries newspapers were as a rule started with the explicit goal of partisan support. Even as recently as the JFK election the L.A. Times refused to run paid advertising by the Kennedy campaign because the publisher was a Nixon supporter. It wouldn't even print notices of local Kennedy rallies and events.

Organizations such as AP had the perhaps unintended consequence of encouraging reports which were less slanted so that the product would be appealing to a broader range of subscribers (i.e. newspapers). This has probably been the most significant impetus for unbiased reporting. As access to alternative sources and ease of fact checking have increased being caught out in blatant lies has been another.

I don't see the effect of mass media as a monolith so much as I do a homogenizer. First with sources like AP, and then with radio, TV, and now the Internet people are getting the same news at the same time. There is bias, of course, but far less from an historical perspective, and mostly as an add-on rather than the initial presentation. A multiplicity of viewpoints remains, perhaps not within any single medium, but still quite accessible. Arguably more accessible. Slanting and spinning is more in the commentary than the report itself.

What has increased with all of the tech advances is the immediacy and availability of the same source data. There is a certain irony in the Internet access, though. By way of example, AP started a shift towards less partisan, and less locally flavored reporting. Now, when I search a news topic I'll find the first AP report to get the gist of an event, and then weed through the many copies of that same report trying to find more local sources on the web to check accuracy and fill out the details and omissions.

In some ways we may be entering into a sort of "best of both worlds" where the local perceptions and the broader, less partisan perspectives are equally available.

I am not discontented with this.

[Blackadder]

Haven't read all replies yet but a first thought on the Pill:

The generation of my grandparents (born between 1915 and 1925) all had 2-5 kids, most kept it at 3. These kids are born between 1944 and 1955) I am looking at my parents, aunts and uncles and the children of greataunts and greatuncles which are the same generation as my parents.

I am not sure how they did it, but they had birth control that is for sure.

[Redtail]

The race riots of the 60s insured Blacks would be given everything they wanted from the government.

Hmmm... I'm black and I wanted people to stop assuming that I had a full scholarship meant I played some kind of sport. Never happened even when I was in grad school....

Hispanic invasion where Whites have been shoved out of manual labor jobs like construction.
This is funny because many whites I knew in college were going to college so they could avoid "manual labor".

Also my dad (who was a brick mason) insisted on paying a fair wage for his helpers. He made sure he was paying $2 more than anyone else. Despite it being common knowledge locally, only Hispanics showed up for the jobs... Sure they had to show that they were in the country legally and had to speak English or learn very fast but they came... It does explain why his funeral was attended by a few hundred Mexicans though.

Jews pushing Blacks in entertainment. Turning White kids into Wiggers.

A lot of white kids like our style. (Just ask my wife.)



It all started with Julia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_(TV_series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_%28TV_series))
Really? I thought it started with "black on blond" porn...

[coalesce]

Really? I thought it started with "black on blond" porn...

Evidence...?

Michael

[Mark6]

2. The Pill. Allowed the sexual revolution to start. Women could have sex without being too worried about getting pregnant. They could limit the size of their families. They could be given an education without it being wasted by getting married at 18 and having 10 kids. So they could have a career like a man. This gave women even more power, to do such things as be elected to parliament. The children they did have were now very valuable. So they had to be bought up properly and not be abused.

Children being fewer (thus more valuable) + women's greater voice in society + less trust in government = government is not nearly as free to engage in military adventures as it used to be.

Which sounds odd given US is currently involved in two wars which already have gone on longer than WWI and WWII combined -- but compare the casualty counts of these wars, and you see just how much more restrained US government really is in exercising its power.

[ZirconBlue]

The educational process was based on the "3 R's" ('readin', ritin' and 'rithmetic) far superior to what they have nowadays.

Hmm. Education must have degraded pretty quickly, because the education I got in the 70s and 80s was very inferior to the one my daughter is getting today.


When I was growing up baseball was called 'the national pastime'.


It still is.

Everyone aged by 50 years.

I didn't.

[quadraginta]

Haven't read all replies yet but a first thought on the Pill:

The generation of my grandparents (born between 1915 and 1925) all had 2-5 kids, most kept it at 3. These kids are born between 1944 and 1955) I am looking at my parents, aunts and uncles and the children of greataunts and greatuncles which are the same generation as my parents.

I am not sure how they did it, but they had birth control that is for sure.


I can contribute similar stats. I have very detailed records of my patronymic genealogy going back to 1640, when the first rep. for the family came to Newbury, MA. The average number of (surviving to adulthood) children is around three, and simple division indicates an average between generations of something over 26 years. The "surviving to adulthood" caveat doesn't eliminate very many of the births. They apparently were prone to stop popping out young-uns after about three healthy children. One book I have encompasses all of the traceable descendants from that first colonist through around 1880 (It's a very big book :).) Family sizes seem to track with that trend.

I can trace back two other of my grandparents' four families to about the same date, although with less detail, and the results are similar.

ETA: Just wanted to clarify that I'm not offering this in any sense of downplaying the significance of birth control. I think that the impact has been massive and fundamental. I think that family size may not be the best indicator of its impact, though. Certainly one of them, but I feel like the element of choice it has provided is more important.

[IchabodPlain]

You may have more channels and venues to choose from now, but in the early days the media was controlled by over 53 different corporations, compared to today where almost all US national media is controlled by only 6 - NewsCorp, General Electric, Disney, Time Warner, Viacom, and CBS Corporation.

Stop right there. You're saying the entire media was owned by 53 different corporations, and you contrast that with the number of national media sources today. Tsk, tsk. Looking specifically at television, where there was once three, there are now at least 6 - and that doesn't include the BBC or PBS (among others I'm sure). Also, early days? Want to cite a year for that?

http://www.thenation.com/special/images/2006_entertainment.jpg (http://www.thenation.com/special/2006_entertainment.pdf)

Bollocks. Some of those on your chart are either 1) not news sources (ex. Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon and Scifi.com) or 2) list shows and the channels they are on separately (ex. Squawk Box and CNBC are both listed, Bill O'reilly, Hannity and Colmes, and Greta Van Susteren are all listed separately from FoxNews). The chart doesn't have Clear Channel, which is the largest radio provider in the country.

You'll notice your chart references less than 50 magazines worldwide. Hmm, something tells me there are more than that in circulation, even here in the States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_magazines).

This stranglehold provides an environment where there may be dissent and conflict that ranges from, say, John Stewart to Sean Hannity, but this range of opinions and ideas remains relatively narrow and easily controlled. Programs are highly unlikely to challenge their corporate owners or their advertisers. The internet has provided some relief from this monopoly of expression, but even now ISP owners are fighting for the right to control, block or prioritize content that they provide to users. The most popular and accessible sites with widest distribution, particularly in news, tend to be anchored and owned by the same media corporations that own everything else.

There is a huge amount of dissent between one another in the media. Evidence for your claim that the range of opinions and ideas remains relatively narrow and easily controlled? Ralph Nader is getting published by somebody*. You use John Stewart and Sean Hannity - how about say, Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh? Okay, okay, Franken doesn't have his own show anymore, so let's instead use Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann. Are they offering strikingly different ranges of opinions and ideas? Or maybe use Michael Savage and Rachel Maddow?

Monopoly of expression my foot. I refer you the the Associated Press (http://www.ap.org/). Every viewpoint has outlets: From NPR to FOXnews.

*The Good Fight (http://www.amazon.com/Good-Fight-Declare-Independence-Democracy/dp/0060779551/ref=pd_sim_b_1) was published by Harper, who is owned by....FoxNews Corporation:)

[quadraginta]

<snip>


Hispanic invasion where Whites have been shoved out of manual labor jobs like construction.This is funny because many whites I knew in college were going to college so they could avoid "manual labor".

Also my dad (who was a brick mason) insisted on paying a fair wage for his helpers. He made sure he was paying $2 more than anyone else. Despite it being common knowledge locally, only Hispanics showed up for the jobs... Sure they had to show that they were in the country legally and had to speak English or learn very fast but they came... It does explain why his funeral was attended by a few hundred Mexicans though.

<snip>


My experiences reflect your father's, Redtail. I started in construction in 1970, took it up full time in '73, and started hiring and firing only a few years after that. I've been in the field ever since then, and I know who comes up to the job-site trailers asking for work. The ones that are employed resemble that group.

If whites have been getting "shoved out of manual labor jobs like construction" the shoving didn't happen at any of the trailer doors I've been near in the last three and a half decades. I sure wouldn't have turned them down for being white.

Perhaps actually trying to get the jobs would have been a better strategy for the whites than pissing and moaning about the competition.

If the jobs were what they really wanted. :(

[Beerina]

Activist judges.

They can't, and don't, do squat unless society in general is ready for it. Otherwise it gets overturned. They just lead society's approval, which is already shifting rapidly, by 5-10%.

[Darth Rotor]

yes. its all the Jews fault.

it rained today in NYC. shall we blame the Jews?
No, blame Canada. ;)

To answer the OP:

Air conditioning.

It has become pervasive. It has made possible the industrial renewal of the American South, in terms of working conditions being bearable, and what I call the Arizona Boom.

Likewise, Texas has become more attractive to companies from many industries. I don't think that would have happened without air conditioning, and certainly not in the coastal and southern parts of Texas.

DR

[quadraginta]

No, blame Canada. ;)

To answer the OP:

Air conditioning.

It has become pervasive. It has made possible the industrial renewal of the American South, in terms of working conditions being bearable, and what I call the Arizona Boom.

Likewise, Texas has become more attractive to companies from many industries. I don't think that would have happened without air conditioning, and certainly not in the coastal and southern parts of Texas.

DR


Yes.

Darn you, DR. I should have remembered that without your help.

AC's effects in social migration are often way underestimated. It is almost solely responsible for the terrible infestation of Yankees here in the South since 1960. It also helped reverse the diaspora of blacks to the north which began in the post-Reconstruction era. As they returned they brought some decidedly un-Southern attitudes back with them.

It's even reflected in architecture. Porches and high ceilings were not merely conveniences or affectations in the pre-AC South. Modern structures quickly become less than attractive when the power goes out in the summer.

[Arcade22]

How has Swedish society changed since the 60's?

Well, it has become much darker, and i mean that i many different ways...

[fuelair]

Hmmm... I'm black and I wanted people to stop assuming that I had a full scholarship meant I played some kind of sport. Never happened even when I was in grad school....

This is funny because many whites I knew in college were going to college so they could avoid "manual labor".

Also my dad (who was a brick mason) insisted on paying a fair wage for his helpers. He made sure he was paying $2 more than anyone else. Despite it being common knowledge locally, only Hispanics showed up for the jobs... Sure they had to show that they were in the country legally and had to speak English or learn very fast but they came... It does explain why his funeral was attended by a few hundred Mexicans though.



A lot of white kids like our style. (Just ask my wife.)




Really? I thought it started with "black on blond" porn...Julia was a fun show! And got trashed for really dumb reasons. History teaches us so much..... It is also fun that lot's of people manage to forget that in the 50's and 60's it was heavilly pushed by parents and teachers that we needed an education and college so we could get the good jobs - and clearly implied those weren't things that involved actual physical labor.

[stilicho]

Nobody's agreed with me on anti-smoking regulations? Or just "no comment"?

Another one that looks like it's going to transform western society is the approaching ban on trans fats.

Isn't this a part of a social transformation that's included safety glass and air bags? I realise it's not as much of an issue here as it is on purely "libertarian" boards but almost everything dangerous is being banned.

How about playground demolitions? http://www.capp-online.ca/pdf/articles/Article%20-%20The%20Playground%20War.pdf.

[stilicho]

Stop right there. You're saying the entire media was owned by 53 different corporations...

I was reminded of the scene from The Manchurian Candidate when I read that:

There are exactly 53 card-carrying corporations controlling all our media--and those fat cats in Washington DC!!

[Retrograde]

I am not sure how they did it [kept families small], but they had birth control that is for sure.One of my grandmothers did it by only managing to carry one baby to term: the problems with Rh- babies weren't understood until the late 1930s. The other one had seven. Some birth control did exist - condoms, pulling out, trying to identify the "safe" time - but I don't know how widely they were used.

Good call on air conditioning: while there are ways of living sort of comfortably in hot climates mechanical cooling makes them a lot more bearable, at least as long as the energy's cheap enough.

Nobody's agreed with me on anti-smoking regulations? Or just "no comment"?

I like being to go out to a restaurant or pub and not come home smelling of stale tobacco. While I grew up in a non-smoking family, I remember the days of ubiquitous smoke and I'm glad it's gone. What struck me most about it was in London a couple of years ago when I noticed how bright the pubs were without the haze.

Along those lines: environmental protection measures. I grew up in an industrial city prior to clean air and water acts: being able to see what you're breathing isn't a good thing. Neither is a local river catching fire.

[Dragoonster]

Nobody's agreed with me on anti-smoking regulations? Or just "no comment"?

Oh, it really grates my nerves in many ways. For my libertarian side I don't think any self-destructive behavior needs to be regulated. Information on the dangers is fine, but outlawing it or psuedo-outlawing isn't. Practically it doesn't make much sense to kill tobacco by taxing the hell out of it and implmenting laws against it, it's like the liberals or whoever don't have the balls to just ban it, perhaps because they can still profit from it. For smoke-free bans in private enterprise, really grates me. If smoke-free environments were so desired, there'd be bar owners deciding on their own to cater to those crowds by banning smoking (as many restaurants have done over the course of many years). As is a wholesale ban is overkill, and anti-choice, not just for smokers but for small business.

Finally, I moved to California from Virginia 10 years ago. Had always thought Dead Kennedy's "California Uber Alles" was a joke or metaphor for right-wing abuse, but out here there's quite a lot of liberal "fascism", and illogic. In addition to the smoking thing we have extremely strict smog regulations our cars have to pass to drive, but absolutely no requirement for general inspection. It's okay if you drive with worn belts, bald tires, bad brakes, but god forbid you pollute the environment. There's some other crazy hyper-liberal stuff but I can't recall specifics.

I guess related to the thread, social libertarianism, environmental concerns, all were the underdog for decades or centuries. Perhaps we're at a tipping point where it's actually becoming as problematic in its excess as it was when it was previously problematic to quash all of it.

[Mark6]

Haven't read all replies yet but a first thought on the Pill:

The generation of my grandparents (born between 1915 and 1925) all had 2-5 kids, most kept it at 3. These kids are born between 1944 and 1955) I am looking at my parents, aunts and uncles and the children of greataunts and greatuncles which are the same generation as my parents.

I am not sure how they did it, but they had birth control that is for sure.
I think what sets Pill and its successors (Depo-Pravera, etc) from pre-Pill birth control methods is that the former do not interfere with sex act in any way. They are "fire and forget" -- take a daily pill or a monthly injection, and don't think about it any more. Condoms and other pre-Pill methods a) distract from the act itself, and b) require cooperation of both partners. "a" means they are less likely to be used correctly, especially by passionate teenagers, while "b" means woman has no real control over their use. Not big problems for a settled married couple (hence 3 kid families), but a real crimp on young woman's sexual freedom.

Pill changed that last point big time.

[quadraginta]

I think what sets Pill and its successors (Depo-Pravera, etc) from pre-Pill birth control methods is that the former do not interfere with sex act in any way. They are "fire and forget" -- take a daily pill or a monthly injection, and don't think about it any more. Condoms and other pre-Pill methods a) distract from the act itself, and b) require cooperation of both partners. "a" means they are less likely to be used correctly, especially by passionate teenagers, while "b" means woman has no real control over their use. Not big problems for a settled married couple (hence 3 kid families), but a real crimp on young woman's sexual freedom.

Pill changed that last point big time.


Very good point.

[Nosi]

In the US LBJ and the Great Society initiatives had a tremendous influence. He introduced or greatly expanded:

Civil Rights Acts
Voting Rights Act
Medicare/Medicaid
Food Stamps
OEO
Federal assistance to education, including Pell Grants/Stafford Loans
Public transportation
Environmental stuff including Endangered Species Act
National Endowment for the Arts, public radio and TV, and other expression

Really got a lot done on social initiatives, it's a shame the Vietnam War was such a mistake because I really admire LBJ.

I was born in '72 but it seemed that there was a lot of optimism and progressiveness in the 60s that died somewhere in the late 70s/early 80s. Society since has loosened up some but in some ways has stagnated.

Probably the biggest non-law change has been the media's growth in power, particularly on television. It shapes our attitudes on politics and elections, sometimes to a deleterious extent, but sometimes gives us objective information. I'd say network news was most objective, then cable news began and things got very bad and subjective. But recently internet news sources have become a slightly more objective player.

But also as entertainment it provides some social progression. Things as simple as introducing "normal" black families like the Jeffersons and Cosby Show, or ads featuring mixed-race couples, or shows with homosexuals has (I think) somewhat subliminally made society less bigoted. It's a bit like a racist who has a family member who marries a race they hate; over time they may realize that race is normal and his racism may decrease. Entertainment has either followed this sort of awakening, or in some cases pushed it.

It's sometimes served this way on non-social issues like the environment, where someone would watch Wild America or later Planet Earth and find a new appreciation; or shows about alternate energy, or real-time war footage.

eta: I assume TV also had a huge impact on the economy via consumerism and some competition as a result of products having such an easy source of information given to consumers. And it's had a tremendous impact on sports as entertainment and as multi-billion $ businesses. TV existed before 1960 of course but wasn't in every home and had nowhere near as many channels or influence.

Homosexuals got a boost in the tolerance department from two of the strangest sources.

Walt Disney is very gay friendly. And if you look carefully, it's very subtle, The Animal Planet Channel is very friendly to alternative lifestyles. The same sex couples are never overt. They invariably have critters between them just like couples of the opposite sex during the animal shows, but that is just it. Every family is treated like every other family, the focus is on the little furry 'children'.

[Nosi]

I may be slanted in my view of society since the 1960s, since I was a child then, but I know Halloween has changed since the 1960s. That was a HUGE holiday, with kids filling the neighborhood streets for hours into the night. Now, driving around on Halloween evening, you can barely even tell it's a special day.

I think for some of the reasons mentioned earlier (media, Vietnam, Internet), society is less risk tolerant now.

On Halloween here in Prescott, we have parties at the local Churches and at the YMCA for the short set.

But your right. Some of it though is not just risk adversity of modern life, it's fewer children in many families. Families are having say one or two children instead of four or six thanks to birth control and the rising cost of childrearing.

[Nosi]

This, and, despite the ravings of the religious right, one can now talk about not believing in God or attending church in many social circles without being outright shunned. This is a considerable shift in the U.S. over the last generation or so... many more people are more critical of religion, and openly so.

Prescott, Arizona still has a few farts who will give you the sourface if you admit to not attending church or not having a particular faith. Some will preach at you...but for the most part...yea, your right.

[Nosi]

Because the women had that option and men didn't. Men's primary role in raising a family has always been that of a fund-raiser. Men as a rule never had the option to stay home and raise the children while the women brought home the bacon.

<dons asbestos undergarments>

The "house husband" is becoming more common as couples find that she has the higher earning potential and he has the higher tolerance for domesticity.

[Ladewig]

Society was much more civil back then.

Corporal punishment was allowed in schools and most kids would get spankings from their folks for being naughty.

I would not use the word civility to describe a place where students are physically beaten.

I am also glad that the school prayers from that period of time have been outlawed.

[Ladewig]

This, and, despite the ravings of the religious right, one can now talk about not believing in God or attending church in many social circles without being outright shunned. This is a considerable shift in the U.S. over the last generation or so... many more people are more critical of religion, and openly so.

Yes, today is much better than 50 years ago when it comes to being an atheist. On the other hand, we are still far away from the Promised Land. Fifty-three percent of the electorate is willing to admit that they would not vote for a "generally well-qualified atheist." Just to put that number in perspective, only 43% would not vote for a generally well-qualified homosexual.

[Nosi]

Children being fewer (thus more valuable) + women's greater voice in society + less trust in government = government is not nearly as free to engage in military adventures as it used to be.

Which sounds odd given US is currently involved in two wars which already have gone on longer than WWI and WWII combined -- but compare the casualty counts of these wars, and you see just how much more restrained US government really is in exercising its power.

Is the US being restrained or is there greater use of drones and a higher medical tech in play? Many wounded solders are surviving injuries that would have killed their WWI & WWII counterparts. There were no drones in either WWI or WWII, and antibiotics were not around until WWII or was it later?

[Nosi]

One of my grandmothers did it by only managing to carry one baby to term: the problems with Rh- babies weren't understood until the late 1930s. The other one had seven. Some birth control did exist - condoms, pulling out, trying to identify the "safe" time - but I don't know how widely they were used.

The one method of BC that was used back in the day that was almost never discussed was the 'oral' method. "Or the pleasure via every method but the method that would create a baby method of BC."

Abortion, though illegal, was done. Killed plenty of women. Plenty of quacks and dubious methods were often involved.

The barrier methods (http://www.medicinae.org/e08) which included anything that blocked the path to the uterus, were around too. Some, like crock dung were pretty...eww:scared:

[Nosi]

Oh, it really grates my nerves in many ways. For my libertarian side I don't think any self-destructive behavior needs to be regulated. Information on the dangers is fine, but outlawing it or psuedo-outlawing isn't. Practically it doesn't make much sense to kill tobacco by taxing the hell out of it and implmenting laws against it, it's like the liberals or whoever don't have the balls to just ban it, perhaps because they can still profit from it. For smoke-free bans in private enterprise, really grates me. If smoke-free environments were so desired, there'd be bar owners deciding on their own to cater to those crowds by banning smoking (as many restaurants have done over the course of many years). As is a wholesale ban is overkill, and anti-choice, not just for smokers but for small business.

Finally, I moved to California from Virginia 10 years ago. Had always thought Dead Kennedy's "California Uber Alles" was a joke or metaphor for right-wing abuse, but out here there's quite a lot of liberal "fascism", and illogic. In addition to the smoking thing we have extremely strict smog regulations our cars have to pass to drive, but absolutely no requirement for general inspection. It's okay if you drive with worn belts, bald tires, bad brakes, but god forbid you pollute the environment. There's some other crazy hyper-liberal stuff but I can't recall specifics.

I guess related to the thread, social libertarianism, environmental concerns, all were the underdog for decades or centuries. Perhaps we're at a tipping point where it's actually becoming as problematic in its excess as it was when it was previously problematic to quash all of it.

Smokers in my town gather outside in the patios to dine with their...sticks of death. At least there they are not offensive to the delicate noses of the admittedly valid squawkers. We've a lot of historic buildings here. Many have ventilation that gave up the ghost of modernity when Billy the Kid was young.

[Nosi]

I would not use the word civility to describe a place where students are physically beaten.

I am also glad that the school prayers from that period of time have been outlawed.

The veneer of civility was more apparent then. Appearances were much more important than they are now; things are pretty much allowed to hang out in the open today, such as underwear on teenagers. (http://www.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/robert-pattinson-baggy-pants-photo-interview-magazine-500x665.png)

[Mark6]

Is the US being restrained or is there greater use of drones and a higher medical tech in play?

Both. Warfare is shifting toward robotic -- which is certainly one of the ways "society changed since 1960"
Many wounded solders are surviving injuries that would have killed their WWI & WWII counterparts. There were no drones in either WWI or WWII, and antibiotics were not around until WWII or was it later?
Even if you include the wounded, casualty count in Iraq and Afghanistan is much lower than in Vietnam for the same time period -- let alone WWII.

[rjh01]

In Vietnam many of the troops were conscripts. These were not much better than cannon fodder. Today the troops are professional solders who know how to look after themselves. Heaps of money has been spent in training these solders, most of whom could have got good civilian jobs instead of joining the military. So their lives should not be given away cheaply.

This is another change since 1960 - The developed world is much less likely to have conscription today.

[stilicho]

This is another change since 1960 - The developed world is much less likely to have conscription today.

The West will always be condemned to fighting conflicts, since before 1960, with one hand tied behind its back. That's certainly a part of a process begun with the carnage of the American Civil War, the Boer War, and the Great War. Worse yet, civilians are more likely than not to become casualties in any conflict. This goes for everything from becoming a refugee to being killed.

I guess I'm a bit old school about this trend because I had thought that a part of the privilege of being in a democracy was the risk of being called to arms.

But, as you can see, the issue of conscription is not new, at least not in Canada: http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?pageID=278. The ruling Conservatives earned the enmity of both Quebec and the West and this endured for nearly six decades in the former and brought the CCF (Socialists) into prominence in the West. It's not a new trend.

[rjh01]

Thank you guys for making this such an informative thread. What I have done below is try to summarise this thread. I may have missed an idea or two, but I think I have most of the important ideas. Some great posts I have ignored because what was mentioned in them is also mentioned below. I hope this may stimulate more discussion and benefit any lurkers.


There have been so many things, many of which you need the historical perspective of age to understand. A huge one is that in my youth (I'm 59yrs. old), women tended to be housewives and the whole family was financially supported by the father. Things were much more prim and proper in that whenever they showed a parents bedroom on a sitcom, they had to show a his and her's bed, never a single bed they both slept in. Society was much more civil and innocent back then. The term 'serial killer' wasn't even a term until Charles Manson made it one. The educational process was based on the "3 R's" ('readin', ritin' and 'rithmetic) far superior to what they have nowadays. Corporal punishment was allowed in schools and most kids would get spankings from their folks for being naughty. I graduated in 1969 and girls had to wear dresses to school and guys had to have short hair and couldn't grow facial hair. The Beatles and the British Invasion hadn't occurred yet and the music was pretty bland and white bread. When I was growing up baseball was called 'the national pastime'. Society tended to believe whatever the govt. said without question. The term "Made in America" really meant something back then. As to the whys and wherefores of the changes, it's hard to pin it on one thing. Vietnam had a huge deal of impact, the British Invasion of music, LSD and the culture that it created, etc.

In the American South, some gas stations still had 3 bathrooms, labelled "Men," "Women" and "Colored."<snip>

In the US LBJ and the Great Society initiatives had a tremendous influence. <snip>Probably the biggest non-law change has been the media's growth in power, particularly on television. <snip> But recently internet news sources have become a slightly more objective player. But also as entertainment it provides some social progression. Things as simple as introducing "normal" black families like the Jeffersons and Cosby Show, or ads featuring mixed-race couples, or shows with homosexuals has (I think) somewhat subliminally made society less bigoted. <snip>And it's [TV] had a tremendous impact on sports as entertainment and as multi-billion $ businesses. TV existed before 1960 of course but wasn't in every home and had nowhere near as many channels or influence.

Since the 1960s lifestyle has become a big issue regarding health. <snip>

Information distribution. In the '60s we had no 24 hours news and no google.

To add to the original list: 5) Gay rights Fifty years ago it could well be a career-ender if it came to light a person was homosexual. Now they send out invitations to their weddings.

I asked my mom some questions about the changes she's seen in the world not so long ago... One thing she thought had really changed was you do not have to be ashamed or hide that you are mixed race anymore. My mom is half Irish and half Eastern Band Cherokee. She can well remember taking a long pause whenever somebody asked 'What nationality is your family?'.

<snip> I'd add the G.I. Bill. <snip>it was their children who were the rabble-rousers of the 60s. <snip>Another major social change was Truman's desegregation of the military, which I think had some role to play in providing career paths to people who might never had had the opportunities before.<snip> People were also starting to spread out into the suburbs, <snip>

This, and, despite the ravings of the religious right, one can now talk about not believing in God or attending church in many social circles without being outright shunned. This is a considerable shift in the U.S. over the last generation or so... many more people are more critical of religion, and openly so.

child sex abuse Paranoia, no one can hug a child today unless it's a "side hug", and childen can't play outside without keeping a look-out for kidnappers.

<snip> The role of the judiciary in the West cannot be underestimated in creating a sense of permanency about many of the changes we've witnessed. But in a lighter vein, I might go with anti-smoking regulations and the social consequences of smoking. <snip>

If you're looking for cross-cultural influences on American popular music you need to go way back to the beginning, even before minstrel shows and the like. It's always been there, rarely acknowledged by the mainstream. Choosing any particular decade is of course arbitrary. I see the 60s (by which I mean the period from 1964-1974) as being one of the first in which people who were raised in relative affluence - i.e., those born immediately after WWII - came of age with the sense that they would do better than their parents, and had the means to indulge in idealism - i.e., the time and money for higher education.<snip>

Thank you sir for the compliments. I completely agree with you on Joe Louis. Fans were reluctant to accept Louis after he beat Baer (and he did, convincingly), who was sold as the "Great White Hope". As I said earlier, fans begrudgingly supported Louis in those fights against Schmelling. Better the American ****** than the white Nazi, some of the day might have figured. But yeah, Louis was an all around class act - the likes of which boxing as yet to see since.

Children being fewer (thus more valuable) + women's greater voice in society + less trust in government = government is not nearly as free to engage in military adventures as it used to be. Which sounds odd given US is currently involved in two wars which already have gone on longer than WWI and WWII combined -- but compare the casualty counts of these wars, and you see just how much more restrained US government really is in exercising its power.

<snip> Air conditioning. It has become pervasive. It has made possible the industrial renewal of the American South, in terms of working conditions being bearable, and what I call the Arizona Boom. Likewise, Texas has become more attractive to companies from many industries. I don't think that would have happened without air conditioning, and certainly not in the coastal and southern parts of Texas. DR

<snip> but almost everything dangerous is being banned.<snip>

I think what sets Pill and its successors (Depo-Pravera, etc) from pre-Pill birth control methods is that the former do not interfere with sex act in any way. <snip>Not big problems for a settled married couple (hence 3 kid families), but a real crimp on young woman's sexual freedom. Pill changed that last point big time.

The "house husband" is becoming more common as couples find that she has the higher earning potential and he has the higher tolerance for domesticity.

<snip> Abortion, though illegal, was done. Killed plenty of women.<snip>

In Vietnam many of the troops were conscripts.<snip> Today the troops are professional solders<snip>

[shecky]

I've wondered a bit about the changes during this time. Being born in 1967, it's difficult for me to have much first hand anecdotes. Looking at things like news footage from 1960 and 1970, it always seemed to me that the US must have gone through tremendous change just in that short span.

I would suggest that the changes in society since 1960 really have their roots in the end of WWII. The US survived mostly intact, in contrast with the ravaged economies of Europe, and entered an unprecedented era of prosperity, becoming a true economic and cultural leader in the world. The demand for labor, and it's resulting gain in productivity created remarkable opportunities for people and huge new markets practically out of thin air. The results were things like better and widespread birth control (better medical advances in general), influential consumer goods expertly marketed, the ability to easily inexpensively travel beyond the boundaries of one's birth town, State or even country, and leisure time to enjoy the fruits of prosperity. This new prosperity also changed social mores. Old sex and race roles would no longer suffice.

[rjh01]

shecky's post reminds me of what I got told once. After WW2 there had been very little production of consumer goods since the 1929 crash. So production was restarted and if you could make it you could sell it era was began. There was very low unemployment. Education was optional. In about 1973 this era ended (end of Vietnam war and oil embargo) and from then on you had to produce what the consumer wanted. To get a good job, if you were young, you needed a good education. There was a period of high inflation.

[cbish]

Everyone aged by 50 years.Except for those who died!

[MaGZ]

shecky's post reminds me of what I got told once. After WW2 there had been very little production of consumer goods since the 1929 crash. So production was restarted and if you could make it you could sell it era was began. There was very low unemployment. Education was optional. In about 1973 this era ended (end of Vietnam war and oil embargo) and from then on you had to produce what the consumer wanted. To get a good job, if you were young, you needed a good education. There was a period of high inflation.

The changes in the 1960s had its roots in the outcome and disaster of the Second World War.