Earlier quoted context omitted.
I watched Vietnam In HD (great series) and I came away with many of the same observations that you did. Do you feel like this was also a generation that missed their chance to be "men"? What I mean by that is that in all past memory, men had gone off to battle and were welcomed home as heroes. This was different, and I feel like in some ways led to the emasculation of the American male. They missed their chance to be…
A contributing factor to this phenomenon is the overwhelming presence of news cameras in that war. In previous US wars, the news was censored under war time powers. In Vietnam, citizens watched every night in gory, uncensored detail, what was actually happening. Of course time takes it's toll as the war drug on with no meaningful resolution.
How America Fractured in 1968
81–90 of 94 posts
Re: How America Fractured in 1968
#82It says radio tv and papers were it, then. Having lived pre internet news days i am a minority that can truly describe how it was a different world back then. Our world is so much better because tv radio and newspapers matter so much less. We have to think for ourselves and decide which topics are newsworthy:not have others coax and decide what is important. Long live the internet
I graduated from high school in 1968 and I find that media and its contents including the internet are more centralized and homogeneous now than they were then. The internet did not not just add to the mainstream media, it replaced some of its most interesting parts and replaced much the underground media that existed alongside it. In those days it was not just Time/Life/Newsweek/ABC/NBC/CBS, you could also find on t…
Re: How America Fractured in 1968
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should have? Yes. Could have? Probably not. No one in the US gave two shits about French Indochina, it was all about Western Europe and containing the USSR/Communists during the scramble to pick up the pieces after the war. And what exactly business was of them to contain anything in foreign countries?
It was no more the business of the US to contain the USSR in Western Europe than it was the business of the USSR to violently repress any possibility of democracy in Eastern Europe and install puppet governments in same. Realpolitik is a bitch, but better to understand the real world than pretend that some fantasy of how things "should" work is a useful guide.
Well, the worst hypocrites when it comes to forgetting that "realpolitik" being a bitch are the US though.
Re: How America Fractured in 1968
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The US? Because if Europe gets overrun by Soviets, like they got overrun by Germany, guess who's next? Again, that's not their business. Besides half of Europe wanted to be socialist -- and I'm speaking of the support for such parties in Western Europe. > Could you imagine Soviet Europe for the last 60 years? Many wished exactly that at the time. Again, not the business of a foreign power to meddle.
>Besides half of Europe wanted to be socialist -- and I'm speaking of the support for such parties in Western Europe. There's a big, big difference between wanting to be socialist and living under a Soviet regime. It is US business because if Europe was overrun by Soviets, the US would have to get involved, if not for their own interests, certainly the interests of the now subjugated Europe. It's also a hell of a lot…
So, it would have been equally OK for other nations to invade the US in the interests of the black slaves, the native Americans, the other peoples all over the world it harmed, etc?
>It sure was welcomed in 1917 and 1941.
You'd be surprised. That's how Americans tell it themselves, and also how, via Hollywood, they taught modern historically illiterate people to see it.
In surveys and polls the decades just after WWII, when the thing was still fresh in memory, most Europeans placed the biggest role in defeating Nazi Germany with USSR, not the US.
In 1945, most French people thought that the Soviet Union
deserved the most credit for Nazi Germany's defeat in World
War II — even though the Soviets didn't play much of a role
in France's liberation, relative to the US and Britain. By
1995 and 2004, however, the French had changed their minds,
and were crediting the US as the biggest contributor to
victory in Europe (...)
https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year... Scholar addresses question, ‘Who won World War II in
Europe?’
There’s no easy answer, said Norman Davies, an Oxford-
educated British historian and Poland specialist who has
written widely on the 1939-1945 conflict.
(...)
Among the Davies so-called myths:
That D-Day was big and decisive. (About 80 percent of
German forces were lost on the Eastern Front, he said,
where the biggest battles raged.)
That the West triumphed over the Third Reich. (Germany was
all but defeated by the Soviets well before the Allies
landed troops on the continent, he contended.)
In fact, asserted Davies, it was the Red Army that played
the decisive role in defeating Germany, “and they were in
the service of an evil tyranny.”
Sheer numbers alone help dispel myths about the war, he
said. In 1939, the United States had half as many trained
soldiers as Poland — and it took until 1944 to muster 100
American divisions. The Germans fielded 230 divisions, and
the Soviets as many as 400.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/09/scholar-addres...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-soviet-union-hel...
Re: How America Fractured in 1968
#85Crime/violence:
Both violent and property crime rates are way down [1].
My home region of the Ozarks (SW Missouri, NW Arkansas, NE Oklahoma) is much safer than when I was in jr. high and high school (1995-2001) when there was a huge amount of rural violence associated mostly with the meth trade. I had friends and neighbors killed both purposefully and incidentally with this, none of whom were users or involved in the trade in any way--just children or landlords or neighbors or whatever. We used to get out of school because the cops would be raiding meth labs within shooting distance of the school. This has largely subsided. There is definitely violence associated with the opioid crisis, but the deaths have been overdoses and suicides at least among the people I know.
War:
There are definitely some nasty and protracted conflicts abroad, but, unlike in 1968, the US is not mired in them and losing thousands of soldiers a year--Wikipedia gives 4,491 deaths for US soldiers for the entire Iraq war, for example. Not that it wasn't a horrible and unnecessary loss, and several orders of magnitude worse for Iraqis than the US, but this was also the case for Vietnam (and Cambodia, Laos, etc). While there continues to be strife in the Middle East and a few other places, and I worry about Africa being a major site of east vs. west proxy war in the coming decades, globally the situation seems more peaceful and democratic than in the Cold War or the colonial era.
Societal issues in the US:
There is a lot of sound and fury, but protests are largely peaceful. The protests involved with Ferguson, Charlottesville, etc. were much more mild than in the 1960s, or the race riots of Tulsa (1921, 39-300 deaths, 10,000+ people left homeless [2]), LA (1992, 63 deaths [3]), and so forth.
Gay rights were granted largely peacefully as well--lots of progress here, though it wasn't frictionless.
Similarly, the recent wave of defenestrations of powerful men due to sexual abuse is to me a net positive even if there are inevitable witch hunts associated.
Domestic terrorism seems to be less of a concern. I don't know about rates but from what I understand there were a lot of bombings from both far left and far right sources in the 1960s and 1970s. We haven't had any high-profile political assassinations in a while.
The rise in single-parent households is a concern. I have no idea how much this reduces the incidence of domestic violence as moms don't live with abusive dads. Maybe a little?
Homelessness is also a major concern but is slightly decreasing over the past decade, not even accounting for population growth [4]. I have no idea how it compares to the 1960s or so. I think a lot of mentally ill people were institutionalized then, which isn't the case now AFAIK.
The economy:
Parts of the economy are good (stocks, general employment levels), and though there are still problems with stagnant wages for many, debt levels (particularly student loans), and housing prices in many places are terrifying (I'm living in SV on a pretty meager nonprofit salary, because my wife has a great job that pays OK). But it's a lot better than it was a decade ago, or in the 70s. There are still huge issues with medical care that need to be resolved, but at least lots of people are employed as paper pushers...
Inequality is a major concern, I concede. And I worry about an upcoming stock market crash.
I think it's possible that trade work will pay better and better, and as more tradespeople rejoin the middle class communities (neighborhoods, school districts etc.) some of the inequalities of social status between the higher-income blue-collar work and lower-income white-collar work will dissipate.
The environment:
Way better than in the mid-20th century. We have a lot more protected lands than in the 1960s, and air and water quality are much improved (thanks, Nixon!). From Wikipedia:
"In the United States between 1970 and 2006, citizens enjoyed the following reductions in annual pollution emissions:
- carbon monoxide emissions fell from 197 million tons to 89 million tons
- nitrogen oxide emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million tons
- sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 31 million tons to 15 million tons
- particulate emissions fell by 80%
- lead emissions fell by more than 98%"
Without looking stuff up, I think that the broad population shifts from rural and semi-rural to urban and suburban since the 1950s are decreasing the pressure on the environment; national forests in most places are recovering from the ~1850s-1950s logging period.
Climate change is bad, forest fires are bad, the decrease in insect populations are probably quite bad and may indicate a very rotten ecological foundation. However, the effects of climate change aren't directly tearing our country apart at present; the debate over it (and the underlying struggle for power and authority between science and government vs. church and business) is or did contribute. Once agriculture begins to fail in the Great Plains and CA central valley, it'll get real.
---
Honestly, I don't get it. Sometimes I think things have been decent for long enough that we've forgotten what it was like when things were really bad--the Civil War, WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, Vietnam, etc.
I also think that a lot more of the seeming chaos is that more voices are included than previously, particularly from marginalized communities.
This aren't perfect, but are they awful? Or are we just bored and riled up about small matters such as the rhetoric of our politicians, or their seeming inability to get stuff done?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
[4]: https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/health-ca...
Re: How America Fractured in 1968
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
I watched Vietnam In HD (great series) and I came away with many of the same observations that you did. Do you feel like this was also a generation that missed their chance to be "men"? What I mean by that is that in all past memory, men had gone off to battle and were welcomed home as heroes. This was different, and I feel like in some ways led to the emasculation of the American male. They missed their chance to be…
This makes similar points - https://thenib.com/the-good-war
Re: How America Fractured in 1968
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Besides half of Europe wanted to be socialist -- and I'm speaking of the support for such parties in Western Europe. There's a big, big difference between wanting to be socialist and living under a Soviet regime. It is US business because if Europe was overrun by Soviets, the US would have to get involved, if not for their own interests, certainly the interests of the now subjugated Europe. It's also a hell of a lot…
> It is US business because if Europe was overrun by Soviets, the US would have to get involved, if not for their own interests, certainly the interests of the now subjugated Europe. So, it would have been equally OK for other nations to invade the US in the interests of the black slaves, the native Americans, the other peoples all over the world it harmed, etc? > It sure was welcomed in 1917 and 1941. You'd be surpr…
Depends on how you look at it, the North certainly invaded an independent CSA (the South) over slavery as most of the war was fought in the South. Obviously the North thought it was ok and the South didn't. Also, the UK nearly join the war on the side of the South. "OK" is such a simple term, I think we are having completely different levels of discussion.
>You'd be surprised. That's how Americans tell it themselves, and also how, via Hollywood, they taught modern historically illiterate people to see it. In surveys and polls the decades just after WWII, when the thing was still fresh in memory, most Europeans placed the biggest role in defeating Nazi Germany with USSR, not the US.
So my statement was Europe wanted the US to enter the war (which they most certainly did.) You are arguing that the USSR was the most responsible for defeating Nazi Germany. Do you see how those are two different things? I know you want to win the argument, but at least counter argue what I'm arguing.
FWIW, I agree that the USSR was the single most important factor in defeating Nazi Germany. Russia was also was one of the factors of the rise since they signed the Soviet-German non-aggression pact, then both Germany and Russia invaded Eastern Europe. Oops.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-21/pact-between-hitler-a...
Re: How America Fractured in 1968
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s nothing great about war, war is misery, death and suffering. Anyone who didn’t have to take part in one is lucky.
Oh definitely, I wasn't advocating for war, but I think it is it clearly something that attitudes changed about inexorably after Vietnam.
Re: How America Fractured in 1968
#89Re: How America Fractured in 1968
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moral-based violence is the worst because the people actually believe they are doing you a favor as they force you to accept their world view or face the consequences. They establish new totalitarianism and feel they make the world a better place. Late teen and early twenty-something kids have some amount of knowledge, but zero experience. We are reliving the same problem today. Antifa, just like the protesters in th…
> Antifa, just like the protesters in the 60s are a bunch of naive kids led by people exploiting that naivety for political gain. Just like the kids the US government sent to Vietnam. That war was "Moral-based violence" and the idea that the counter reaction was the real evil is insane. Edit: There are plenty more recent examples of the government using moral justifications for war - "They hate our freedoms". "Axis o…