Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: January 10, 2016 05:18PM

"Life was grand in the 1950s" IF...

1) You were white (the most important thing), AND you were WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) secondarily. Unless you were inside the specific sectors which were largely set aside as "Jewish [socially] acceptable" (such as the entertainment industry, the garment industry, and law), being Jewish was often about the same as having some remnant of brown or black pigmentation in your ancestral background (with American Indian being acceptable, and even "in" a little bit most of the time, IF it was the "right," "WASP-acceptable" tribe(s)...Cherokee was MOST acceptable (many Americans descended from Scots-Irish ancestry especially had Cherokee ancestors a generation or so back), Hopi was more-than-average acceptable, with Navajo/Apache/Sioux, etc. at the bottom of the "acceptable" scale so far as the USA was concerned).

2) You were either middle-class or above, OR were actively, and at a rapid pace, moving steadily INTO middle-class acceptability from any of the "lower" socio-economic sectors (keeping in mind that we are talking about someone who already qualifies because they are "white").

3) You (if you were male), or your husband or future spouse, had the wit to use your GI Bill advantages to the max...you got your university education through the GI Bill, AND YOU BOUGHT AT LEAST A BIT OF REAL ESTATE IN THE "RIGHT" AREAS WHICH WOULD---over the next few decades---go, for example, from something worth $6,000 in 1947 to $1,500,000 or more by 2015...AND you kept that real estate either in the family, or you consistently "traded up" to take advantage of the steadily-ballooning real estate values in the "right" areas. (Both of these things were critical for transforming actually poor, and also working-class, Americans into either upper-middle-class Americans, or, in a couple of generations, into the upper class sectors, and some into the "top 1%.")

4) If you were female, you didn't mind at all that your brain or talents or education counted for virtually nothing, so long as your husband was steadily moving you, and your offspring, to ever higher levels on the socio-economic scale...OR was creating the kind of solid middle-class financial security that you felt confident would descend to your grandchildren and THEIR grandchildren.

If all or most of the above criteria were met, life was indeed "grand" in the 1950s. In truth, you were living "better" and "higher" and "richer" and were more secure than even kings, queens, presidents, First Ladies, or pharaohs had ever lived before, since the introduction of agriculture.

There are strong, rational reasons why the 1950s are regarded with such nostalgia now, and I cannot foresee any comparable period ever happening again in future history to come.

It was a time when Eliza Doolittle actually did live...in millions of individual, "ordinary" American lives.

The only drawbacks were: you HAD to be white, etc., etc., etc. to take part in this---in reality---human miracle.

Which meant that, although it was indeed a miracle for millions of Americans, there were other millions of Americans who never had a chance.

And that is the simultaneous tragedy of the 1950s that few people consider or think about.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2016 05:44PM by Tevai.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schlock ( )
Date: January 10, 2016 06:54PM

Perhaps that's why "some" pine for the days of yore, because they fit into the one demographic that benefited from those times.

Me? No thank you. I'll take today, with all its troubles and woes, any day of the week.

(I do have fond memories of being a kid in rural Utah, but I believe this is primarily due to the fact that: I tend to forget the bad shit that happened to me as a kid, and there was a lot of that; and also, just being young, and mostly responsibility-free, was kinda nice, especially looking back.)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Itzpapalotl ( )
Date: January 10, 2016 05:55PM

The cool 5th grade girls took to wearing poodle skirts, lol. I have no idea why, but it was the time of Reagan and Back to the Future, so that was probably part of it.

Like Tevai has explained here, it was grand for heterosexual WASPS. People other other kinds, not so much. Most of the rock and roll in the 50s were blatant rip-offs and appropriation of black people's music and style. Looking at a white woman the wrong way in the south could get you beaten and/or your family murdered. People who idealize the 1950s really need to sit down and read about it from other people's perspectives, specifically The Delaney Sisters.Mexican Americans were caught up in a witch hunt because they dared to voice being treated like human beings instead of just beasts of burden.

And lets not forget the McCarthy Red scare that ruined many innocent people's lives and careers.

I think that if I had to suffer living in the 1950s, I would have joined up with the beatnik crowd and sat around in cafes with Burroughs and Ginsberg. :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: slskipper ( )
Date: January 10, 2016 06:43PM

In my understanding, most of the nostalgia was due to Happy Days. And, per the creator (Norman Lear, IIRC), the whole point of Happy Days was to show the immense sense of loss among the sixties and seventies generations who had to worry about things like getting shot in Vietnam and did not have the luxury of the silliness available to kids in the fifties.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Itzpapalotl ( )
Date: January 10, 2016 08:34PM

That makes sense. :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: January 11, 2016 12:46AM

Making black music "palatable" for white Americans has been going on since the days of Stephen Foster.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Loyalexmo ( )
Date: January 10, 2016 05:56PM

Totally agree with your points.

On #3, the GI Bill also didn't apply for many black vets who tried to use it, as they were regularly turned down by banks for loans/mortgages (as banks wouldn't lend to people trying to live in black neighborhoods), and neighborhoods were segregated, so all of the housing benefits really only applied to white veterans. It did allow many of them to go to school, but even there there were issues because most colleges were segregated and historically black colleges & universities became oversaturated.

http://www.demos.org/blog/11/11/13/how-gi-bill-left-out-african-americans

People who claim that the 1950s were 'great' or better than now are either very privileged or very ignorant. Our homicide rates are actually LOWER now than they were in the '50s. Gay people don't undergo electroshock therapy. Also, hello, POLIO. It's a silly comparison.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: January 11, 2016 09:32PM

Thanks for including an explanation of the practical racial "requirements" of the G.I. Bill, woodsmoke...I very much appreciate you doing this.

Yes, you are right...

...the G.I. Bill, although written in race-neutral language (to my best knowledge), was very carefully legally constructed so that, in real life, African-Americans could not use the real estate benefits... and, in most areas, could not use the educational benefits either.

[The key term in this process is "redlining," which is Googleable. Starting with racial segregation, either by law, or by property deed (the way it was accomplished in California)...to redlining...leading to the practical inability of racially targeted, credit-worthy adults of color to get the necessary real estate financing that the G.I. Bill was supposed to facilitate.]

In California, there WERE ways for highly-motivated black veterans to go through the public school systems, including at least some of the University of California campuses, but there were many practical problems involved, and most who qualified for admission were still not actually able to use the benefits they had literally fought for in the various military branches during the war.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2016 02:45AM by Tevai.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Loyalexmo ( )
Date: January 10, 2016 05:58PM

Also, the person in the last thread who said "the social issues of the 1950s pale in comparison to the ones we have now" MUST be a white supremacist, or at least I really hope so, because there is absolutely no other excuse for that incredible lack of critical thinking (and if you are a white supremacist, then yes, it makes perfect sense that you'd idealize the 1950s, and I apologize).

Also, the person mentioned divorce, which shows how much people who make claims about the "golden age" of the 1950s truly aren't thinking it through. Divorce rates in the '50s were in the mid-20s (26% in 1950). They were much lower in the 19th century and early 20th century, just 3% in the 1860s. If that's really one of the main criteria for a "golden age," why aren't people whining about the golden age of the late 19th century and complaining about the "social breakdown" happening in the 1930s, '40s, and '50s, when it steadily climbed at much higher rates--and it's actually declining now from its peak in the '80s? Teen pregnancy rates and STD rates have drastically declined over the past decade as well. Hmm--maybe because the imagery, advertising and propaganda from that time did a great job of CONVINCING you it was great, while providing nothing different from any other time period, with both its severe problems and its positive aspects.

It was also the first generation to be truly immortalized on screen, so we can easily romanticize it through curated images that were fed to us.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2016 06:18PM by woodsmoke.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: madalice ( )
Date: January 11, 2016 09:46PM

In the 50's a lot of women were stuck in horrible marriages. Birth control wasn't around. And to top it off, there weren't many jobs a woman was allowed to do. Many colleges didn't allow women, or they didn't allow women into the areas that were high earning like dentistry. You could forget taking out a home or car loan unless a man cosigned for you. And that's how they kept women down and trapped.

The mormon church would love to go back to those days. Good luck to them. There are getting to be more and more mormon women in professional type jobs. Once that happens the church loses control of their choices to stay home, have kids, or even to marry. The old men in SLC hate that!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anon this time ( )
Date: January 10, 2016 07:49PM

The stranger took me down under a bridge in the woods, and tore off my clothes. He took pity on me and let me go. I still remember it vividly.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Doxi ( )
Date: January 10, 2016 08:32PM

anon this time Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The stranger took me down under a bridge in the
> woods, and tore off my clothes. He took pity on me
> and let me go. I still remember it vividly.
==============================
And if you tried to tell anyone, it either never happened
or else it was your fault.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Loyalexmo ( )
Date: January 10, 2016 08:37PM

Yup.

And rape against a spouse didn't exist. If you did divorce, the woman automatically got custody, but was also sexually and socially shamed. Men had to pay alimony and women couldn't support themselves. They were 100% reliant on men. Disabled people had few rights and were often sent to group homes; kids with disabilities were often immediately sent away upon birth. There were also few medical options for disabled people or children, and it was legal to discriminate against them in school, public places, and work. So much for the conservative idea that it was "great for families/kids."

And let's not even get started on how it was for anyone who wasn't white or straight.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: January 11, 2016 12:54AM

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/26/catherine-bennett-50s-nostalgia

Not satisfied by the consolations of Call the Midwife, Julian Fellowes, Upstairs Downstairs and the ever-increasing number of inanimate objects urging them to Keep Calm and Carry On, incurably wistful baby-boomers are circulating an email in which they Downtonise another bygone age: their childhoods.

"Congratulations to all my friends who were born in the 1940s, 50s and 60s," begins this friendly, if undiscriminating tribute to an era in which, you gather, everybody was too busy making dens or taunting fatties to want to sit indoors, circulating viral emails. Forwarded around the net for months, this now ubiquitous document features a list of childhood-related experiences that are all presented explicitly, or by implication, as superior to the present day, however immediately unprepossessing. For instance: "We ate white bread and real butter; drank cows' milk and soft drinks with sugar; but we weren't overweight because... we were always outside playing!"


The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
Even vintage injuries could teach you something. "We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents. And we ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, too." And at least, if you succumbed to botulism or a particularly bad bout of rickets, you could be mourned by a respectable nuclear family, this being before the invention of latch-key kids and class-based resentment. "Mum didn't have to go to work to help Dad to make ends meet because we didn't need to keep up with the Joneses!"

Yes, here, in a single, entirely positive document, we have the long-awaited corrective to such unsettling accounts as Kes, A Taste of Honey and Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit. As for Philip Larkin, what was his problem? Everyone else was happy. "We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility and we learned how to deal with it all".

Or as the makers of Kes put it: "They beat him. They deprived him. They ridiculed him. They broke his heart. But they couldn't break his spirit." And, to be fair, at least Kes's tragic owner wasn't gay. But maybe that wasn't actually so bad, either, if you were there? By conflating the 40s, 50s and 60s into an era of uninterrupted, healthful, intergenerational harmony, this enthusiastically shared document casts doubt on many less glowing accounts of the period, from the diaries of Joe Orton, the films of Lindsay Anderson and any number of misery memoirs, to more scientific studies of poor public health and inferior longevity. "We survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank sherry while they carried us and lived in houses made of asbestos," writes the unnamed internet historian. "They took aspirin, ate blue cheese, bread and dripping, raw egg products, loads of bacon and processed meat and didn't get tested for diabetes or cervical cancer."


Who can have written it? Despite its fatuous Boy's Own obsessions and respect for old school teachers who "hit us with canes, gym shoes and threw the blackboard rubber at us if they thought we weren't concentrating", the unambitious prose and barely suppressed bigotry – "only girls had pierced ears" – rule out authorship by the sophisticated educationalist, Michael Gove; moreover, there is nothing here about Latin, Our Island Story or yachts. And even with his sly introduction of cervical cancer and pervasive contempt for health and safety, the author is unlikely to be Paul Dacre or one of his staffers. After it appeared in the Daily Mail last week, the centrepiece of a 50s celebration, as "When we was brung up proper!", this tribute to a time when "political correctness was unheard of" was promptly reprinted, verbatim, in the Sun, along with its final instruction to "forward it to your children, so they will know how brave their parents were".

At this point, you wonder if some unemployed troublemaker from the boomerang generation has alighted on ostentatious smuggery as the ideal catalyst to convert savage resentment over the baby-boomers' houses, jobs and pensions into murderous intent. How does it feel, after all, for the younger generation to learn, from this literal nostalgie de la boue, that even postwar worms were tastier?

What makes this memoir and its popularity so striking, even with panic about toxic childhood at its current high level, is a curiously perverse kind of yearning that will celebrate virtually anything – air guns, injuries, mud, failure – in its determination to rubbish an allegedly inferior and over-regulated present (except when it comes to lax opening hours and year-round sale of Easter eggs).

To this end, the anonymous author and his red-top vectors are obviously at some trouble to suppress, or exonerate, the more glaring deficiencies of the recent past. In Downton's case, a shortage of living witnesses helped smooth the Kitchener-Fellowes fiction that ignorance and subjection in a stately home could be a marvellously warm and fulfilling experience. But that so many children of the 40s, 50s and 60s should want to replace their recent, lived history with a similarly false or sanitised version is weird: as if, say, Fellowes hankered to be middle-class again or Charles Dickens had decided that the blacking factory had, after all, been a blessing in disguise.


Only someone very unsettled by the present could look back, in longing, on upbringings in the 40s, 50s or 60s that featured, for huge numbers, cold, illness, dirt, outside lavatories, pain, shameless bullying, bigotry, unending domestic drudgery, coal fires, hand-washing, hideous food, unending trudges to and from school, the 11+, abject secondaries, snobbery, corporal punishment, teachers who might be any or all of sadistic, lecherous, useless and idle, sexual ignorance, disapproval of difference, fear of pregnancy, illegal abortions and, to a degree that is today unimaginable, crushing boredom, occasionally relieved towards the end by Carry On! films or – with similarly lubricious commentary – Miss World.

True, a high survival rate from an age that smelled, all winter, of wet wool and boiling handkerchiefs has shown that children can live just as well without costly rights and self-esteem as they did without tonsils, holidays, avocados, hot running water, pain relief for fillings and – give or take, survival of the fittest – vaccination for common diseases. Discouraged from prideful ambition, even educated girls probably went more willingly into their family's service or were satisfied, as instructed, by jobs in nursing and teaching.

In the Yorkshire suburb where I grew up, divorcees, like black people and gays – unless you counted Kenneth Williams – had yet to be invented. If they had been, I'm sure many residents would have dealt with them as capably as they did with local Jews, who were, according to hallowed suburban tradition, excluded from the golf club.

Happy days! Still, you could argue, why not improve on it? Psychologists say nostalgia can be good for you. And if it works for the boomers, today's neets need only wait a few decades before they look back and discern in their present difficulties what was actually a glorious era of generous benefits, character-building job applications and the tremendous comradeship of living in the big society.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: poopstone ( )
Date: January 11, 2016 08:26PM

The big difference I see is that diversity was confined in the 50's. Segregation was a part of everyday life. Much of the nation still lived in rural areas. The race wars were confined to the big cities in the south. But places like Utah were homogeneous. And Hispanics stayed in LA more.

People spoke more racist and were politically incorrect but perhaps racism isn't so bad if there isn't diversity anyway. It's like when an evangelical (like Haggee) gets on tv and rails on the muslims. He likely doesn't know any muslims anyway.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Itzpapalotl ( )
Date: January 11, 2016 09:07PM

poopstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> People spoke more racist and were politically
> incorrect but perhaps racism isn't so bad if there
> isn't diversity anyway.

So basically you would prefer to live in an ignorant, racist, misogynistic society? There's a hellhole in the northern tip of Idaho that's screaming your name...They'd love to have you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: January 12, 2016 02:12AM

and the 1850s, 1750s, 1650s, and some even in the 1550s...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Itzpapalotl ( )
Date: January 12, 2016 09:51AM

My Spanish (and French) ancestors are one of the oldest families to settle in NM and to intermarry with various tribal women. There's even a museum in Santa Fe dedicated to the name.

But willful ignorance combined with bigotry really make no difference to the facts, do they? Does it even matter that these states were once part of Mexico and not the USA? Not to people like him.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: January 12, 2016 11:40AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Loyalexmo ( )
Date: January 12, 2016 12:08PM

Yeah, the idea that "Hispanics stuck to LA" is just completely inaccurate and gleaned from TV or something... UT's largest source of immigrants in 1950 was Mexico. There have always been Native Americans in Utah (enough for there to have been specific laws against their voting rights in UT), along with Italians and Spanish people (who until recently, were not considered 'white' in the U.S., and certainly not in the 1950s). There were also enough Japanese people to cause a stir during the internment during WWII.

There has always also been a small but vocal black population.

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/thecivilrightsmovementinutah.html

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Loyalexmo ( )
Date: January 12, 2016 10:56AM

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. Be as personally racist, sexist, or homophobic as you like. Someone's personal ignorance isn't my business. But don't make it the law, throw people in jail for being gay, not allow them to marry, tell people it's their fault for being raped, send disabled kids away from their parents, or justify the mob murders of blacks. THAT is what we're talking about here. You reduced it to political correctness and racial slurs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2016 10:56AM by woodsmoke.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: madalice ( )
Date: January 11, 2016 09:33PM

Like my mil says: THIS IS the good old days.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Doxi ( )
Date: January 12, 2016 12:37PM

I agree with your mil!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Breeze ( )
Date: January 12, 2016 02:46AM

I agree with Madalice's mil! I never have longed to return to the past. I won't be persuaded to travel back to any of my class reunions. (Although, my old friends and I keep in touch, independently.)

My cousin was raised in Provo, in the 1950's and 1960's, and has since gotten her law degree and a PhD, traveled the world, enjoyed a successful career, happy marriage with children, etc. I told her that she had a lot to be proud of. She answered, "What makes me proudest is that I survived childhood!"

I laughed in agreement, about surviving childhood. My family was dysfunctional and abusive. When I was able to distance myself from that, and from the cult, I could decide for myself what was good and what was not good--for me.

Although it was "in" with my upper-class white friends to be snobby and prejudiced, to make fun of others, and all of that crud, I could never do it. I am so much happier to have grown away from all that. Unfortunately, it is still alive and well in the hearts of many of my Mormon so-called "friends", who are not old-school, but are now in their 40's and 50's. They are as bad as the older generation, who were raised in the 1950's. Obviously, the Nation as a whole has progressed more rapidly than the Mormons.

I was raised in one of the first fully-integrated communities in the Nation. We were proud of that. I lived a block away from the African-American neighborhood, and went to school with many of them, along with Mexicans, Asians, Portuguese, and other races, and they were neighbors. We had no forced bussing, no riots, as other communities did, during that period. All of us could get jobs. Our high school in the top-10 in the Nation, while I was there.

Life was not a "failure" everywhere. Maybe it depended on where you grew up. Where did Anybody, Tevai, and all of you grow up?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Loyalexmo ( )
Date: January 12, 2016 10:52AM

It's not about being a failure or personal racism or lack thereof...it's about the fact that discrimination on a legal/structural level for pretty much every group of people besides rich, straight, white males was a fact. It's not an opinion or a politically correct hypersensitivity; it was the law. Lynchings were common. Rape was not prosecuted in any recognizable way. So I don't think people are saying "1950s bad, today good" or insinuating that nobody had a good childhood or a happy life in the 50s. I just think we're pointing out the absurdity of the rampant nostalgia for that era as if it was the "good old days" when there were clearly vast inequalities for everybody except a tiny, tiny slice of the overall population. Doesn't mean somebody's neighbors weren't great or their marriage wasn't good, or that today is all that great, either, but there was nothing inherently "better" about that time than any other.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2016 10:53AM by woodsmoke.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Morridora ( )
Date: January 12, 2016 11:51AM

Two powerful memories from my 50's childhood.

In kindergarten, my family lived in Richland, Washington, where my dad was helping build the Hanford nuclear reactor. All of us children had to wear an ID bracelet listing our name, address, religion, and blood type. Even at 5 I knew they needed that info if the reactor exploded. Then they would know how to treat my injuries and what brand of funeral I needed. We had periodic test sirens and we were to run quickly to the basement and hide under a table. I vividly remember the time the all clear didn't sound. Our mom cried in fear because dad was at work. We two little girls sat there shaking for over an hour.

We moved to Roy, Utah, and on my walk to elementary school, I passed the underground fallout shelter that a neighbor had constructed in the front yard. A big hill of dirt with ventilation pipes sticking out. My family couldn't afford one. At school, too, the threat was never far away. Duck and cover under our desks, run into the "safety" of the hallway and hide against the coat rack. Once we were even released from school early to run home as fast as we could to see how long it took us. Could we beat the bomb? Finally, the restriction eating not just yellow snow, but all snow. Above ground nuclear testing.

Good times.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dogzilla ( )
Date: January 12, 2016 12:04PM

I wasn't born until the end of the 60s, but to hear my parents talk about it, the 50's sounded miserable. If there was any sort of mental illness, addiction, or abuse in your family, there was no recourse. No getting restraining orders against your abusive husband. Nothing kids could do if the parents thought beating them was effective parenting. There was no Betty Ford clinic, no rehab. Psych hospitals still did lobotomies (See also "Rose Kennedy").

Whenever I see these nostalgic posts about days long ago, I assume they are posted by straight white men who appreciate bigotry in all its forms. The 50s sound like an awful time to me.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **  **    **  **     **  ********   *******  
 **     **   **  **   **     **  **        **     ** 
 **     **    ****    **     **  **        **     ** 
 **     **     **     *********  ******     ******** 
  **   **      **     **     **  **               ** 
   ** **       **     **     **  **        **     ** 
    ***        **     **     **  ********   *******