• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The 1950s are coming back

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mansfield TX, as it turned out, was second only to Little Rock in terms of school segregation protests...in FAVOR OF.
I had no idea that the sleepy little town of 68 thousand souls that we moved to had such a sordid and horrifying past.
I don't think up North was quite as bad as down South, but during those days there also was staunch & vehement racism up North too. As Dr. King attested to, when he saw the marches through Cicero Ill. Cicero then was a heavily mobbed-up community adjacent to Chicago's rough & tumble West Side, with a fairly strong Italian-American presence. Cicero also was infamous for being Al Capone's HQ after he got chased out of Chicago proper, and it was wide-open with Outfit run 24/7 vice. The local police were completely in the Outfit's pocket. Anything went, in Cicero during those days.

But due to an extremely heavy national guard presence, despite initial Cicero Police reticence to assist, injuries were relatively minimal.




Then there was Skokie and Marquette Park too, but I won't overload you with video. It's all there online, if you're interested.
 
I've said for years the right is still living in the nineteen fifties where father knows best and mom serves dinner in a dress.

Except that in those Golden Days of Yore conservatives long for so nostalgically, daddy is screwing Gloria from the typing pool, mummy is a functioning alcoholic, young Myron has just discovered the joys of heroin, and the Studebaker Lark is being re-possessed *sigh*.
 
Just have to ask: What was so bad? The movie's idealized nature?

My opinion:

In an era where races often didn't mix, leaving Caucasians with little social contact with men & women of colour, Sydney Poitier did a great deal to advance the besmirched and mis-maligned perception of African-American men. So did Bill Cosby, irrespective of his current fall from grace.

On one hand, it's amazing someone would react to such a ground breaking film like that, on the other hand it's understandable given our history.

The film earned Katharine Hepburn an Academy Award for best actress and was, "...selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant..."

Calling it "pure propaganda" is so over the top it's laughable. Like it's some grand scheme propagated by "The Deep State". Don and his supporters use language in the same way when they call a legitimate investigation by our FBI as, "spying".

Btw, southern states were forced to allow interracial marriage only six months before the film was released. Many people since have dreaded the Supreme Court's Loving v. Virginia decision...
 
On one hand, it's amazing someone would react to such a ground breaking film like that, on the other hand it's understandable given our history.

The film earned Katharine Hepburn an Academy Award for best actress and was, "...selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant..."

Calling it "pure propaganda" is so over the top it's laughable. Like it's some grand scheme propagated by "The Deep State". Don and his supporters use language in the same way when they call a legitimate investigation by our FBI as, "spying".

Btw, southern states were forced to allow interracial marriage only six months before the film was released. Many people since have dreaded the Supreme Court's Loving v. Virginia decision...
Yeah SoCal, the only way I could rationalize that post was in the context of the movie not being realistic enough, and too idealized. During this era, few parents would have been so calm and considerate in their working through their disagreements to come to a happy agreement.

But I'll tell you Poitier was really on a roll then, with In the Heat of the Night, To Sir, with Love, and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?.

As Mr. Tibbs in The Heat of the Night, he owned Rod Steiger's southern bumpkin' sheriff character. Damn, was that a performance! Better than in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?.
 
Except that in those Golden Days of Yore conservatives long for so nostalgically, daddy is screwing Gloria from the typing pool, mummy is a functioning alcoholic, young Myron has just discovered the joys of heroin, and the Studebaker Lark is being re-possessed *sigh*.

And one in three americans held union jobs. That's the one thing today's republicans don't want for their fellow americans.
 
Just have to ask: What was so bad? The movie's idealized nature?

The movie itself was just boring, and there was terrible acting throughout except for Sidney Poitier.

My opinion:

In an era where races often didn't mix, leaving Caucasians with little social contact with men & women of colour, Sydney Poitier did a great deal to advance the besmirched and mis-maligned perception of African-American men. So did Bill Cosby, irrespective of his current fall from grace.

Which was exactly the goal of the movie. Like it or not, it was propaganda.
 
Calling it "pure propaganda" is so over the top it's laughable. Like it's some grand scheme propagated by "The Deep State". Don and his supporters use language in the same way when they call a legitimate investigation by our FBI as, "spying".

I'm not saying that you have to hate it because it's propaganda. I'm saying that it's obviously pushing a message.
 
There's one benefit to all Americans with a roll-back to the 50's. There were no fast-food restaurant chains back then, none. If Wendy's, Taco Bell, McDonald's and Burger King just vanished, people would have to cook meals at home again and get healthier while losing weight.

McDonalds first opened in 1940
Burger King in 1954
Chik fil a 1946
White castle 1921
KFC 1952
And the granddaddy of them all, the Automat 1912
 
Given that 38 million children have been forced out of school by the coronavirus, the new era of the stay-at-home mom may be coming sooner than I thought.
 
Anyone who compares, Trump or the republicans to the Hitler Fascist is either a moron or knows absolutely nothing about history or the fascist.
 
Last edited:
Many liberals see the rise of Trump and far-right leaders in Europe, the Philippines and other parts of the world as a repeat of the fascist rise of Hitler, Mussolini and Francisco Franco. But if history is truly repeating itself, the defeat of fascism in this century will be followed not by a progressive paradise but by a post-World War II-type era of social conservatism and bourgeoise ideals: the “1950s,” a period often mocked and derided by the left.

If the 1950s are coming back, look for woman to focus more on family and children and less on careers. The alphabet soup can of LGBQT will be pushed to the rear of the pantry. The self-segregation by ideology occurring now may be extended to self-segregation by lifestyle and race. The cosmopolitan elites will persevere, but they will lose much of their influence in the media.

While the culture will move right, a liberal amount of government intervention will be required to focus on the family. For example, generous Social Security credits might be given to stay-at-home moms.

View attachment 67256461

I wish I shared your optimism. The truth is that Trump and Boris Johnson would have been members of the Democratic Party, and Labour Party respectively, during the 1950s. Trump's insistence on paroling felons serving life sentences, and using black unemployment numbers as a barometer of the nation's health, would have fit in with progressive movement of the 1950s. Johnson's appeal to the British working class is reminiscent of where the Labour Party was during the 1950s. People are segregating along racial and lifestyle choices because that's the inevitable outcome of diversity, as was documented in a Harvard University study.

The booming economy and prevalence of satisfaction with being an American that existed in the 1950s is noticeably missing in 2020. If you want to find a place that resembles America in the 1950s,you'd have to look outside the U.S. Try Iceland or Norway. Or maybe even Germany.
 
I was a teenager in the 1950s.

It was essentially a peaceful era.

No one was concerned about crime.

It was "I Love Lucy" and the start of that new invention called the television.

We had a war hero, General Dwight Eisenhower, as President.

Oh, sure, there were some rumblings of discontent in the country, but no one could have anticipated the explosion that came in the 1960s.

The 1950s had a lot of nice features, so here's hoping that the comments in the OP come true.

The explosion in the 60's came from the underlying issues in the 50's. It might have been a great time for White men, but not really for anyone else.
The one time I've ever listened to Glen Beck on the radio he spent several minutes painting this romanticized image of the 50's and the white pick fences. No mention of any of the seedy underbelly that lead to the social upheaval of the 60's of course. It's like cons want to freeze time at a pint where they would feel most empowered.
 
Many liberals see the rise of Trump and far-right leaders in Europe, the Philippines and other parts of the world as a repeat of the fascist rise of Hitler, Mussolini and Francisco Franco. But if history is truly repeating itself, the defeat of fascism in this century will be followed not by a progressive paradise but by a post-World War II-type era of social conservatism and bourgeoise ideals: the “1950s,” a period often mocked and derided by the left.

If the 1950s are coming back, look for woman to focus more on family and children and less on careers. The alphabet soup can of LGBQT will be pushed to the rear of the pantry. The self-segregation by ideology occurring now may be extended to self-segregation by lifestyle and race. The cosmopolitan elites will persevere, but they will lose much of their influence in the media.

While the culture will move right, a liberal amount of government intervention will be required to focus on the family. For example, generous Social Security credits might be given to stay-at-home moms.

View attachment 67256461

Why shouldnt women, equal citizens, get to decide what they want to focus on? If that's not your opinion, then please explain that implication from the OP?
 
Why shouldnt women, equal citizens, get to decide what they want to focus on? If that's not your opinion, then please explain that implication from the OP?
This isn't about you. This is about the women of the future who, like everyone else, will be governed by the zeitgeist or "spirit of the times" just like the people of today are governed by conflict and partisanship. Free will is an illusion.
 
Many liberals see the rise of Trump and far-right leaders in Europe, the Philippines and other parts of the world as a repeat of the fascist rise of Hitler, Mussolini and Francisco Franco. But if history is truly repeating itself, the defeat of fascism in this century will be followed not by a progressive paradise but by a post-World War II-type era of social conservatism and bourgeoise ideals: the “1950s,” a period often mocked and derided by the left.

If the 1950s are coming back, look for woman to focus more on family and children and less on careers. The alphabet soup can of LGBQT will be pushed to the rear of the pantry. The self-segregation by ideology occurring now may be extended to self-segregation by lifestyle and race. The cosmopolitan elites will persevere, but they will lose much of their influence in the media.

While the culture will move right, a liberal amount of government intervention will be required to focus on the family. For example, generous Social Security credits might be given to stay-at-home moms.

View attachment 67256461
History rhymes, it does not really repeat. This era seems to be rhyming with Europe, 1935, not 1955 anywhere. Personally missed 1935 in person by just a bit. Did not miss 1955 at all.
 
This isn't about you. This is about the women of the future who, like everyone else, will be governed by the zeitgeist or "spirit of the times" just like the people of today are governed by conflict and partisanship. Free will is an illusion.

My questions werent about me. So...why are you avoiding my questions? Try again, it's a starting point, now it's especially one to support your OR the OP premise of what the bold will be in the future.

"Why shouldnt women, equal citizens, get to decide what they want to focus on? If that's not your opinion, then please explain that implication from the OP?"​

Btw, rethinking it, the 'implications' are pretty clear. So I guess my question would be...do you think that current and further limitations for women will prevail in the future? And why/why not?
 
Oh great. The 50s, when a guy could afford to buy a house, send his kids to college and take the crew to Florida in the summer.
 
I am amused seeing the John Durham avatar from early in the life of this thread....2019 vintage. Durham turned out to be an all time LOSER, much like Donnie and Bill Barr who hired him.
 
Oh great. The 50s, when a guy could afford to buy a house, send his kids to college and take the crew to Florida in the summer.
Like I said, not sure why people are seeing the 1950's in where we are today. Not there and not headed there. Not even headed anywhere like there.
 

A little black history may help since it is February​

1951​

July 11: An estimated 4,000 White people riot in Cicero, Chicago, when news of the community's first Black family—Harvey Jr. and Johnetta Clark and their two children—moving into an apartment in the neighborhood spreads. During their first attempt to move in, the Clarks are stopped not only by angry White civilians but by police officers who demand a warrant, beat Harvey Clark Jr., and threaten to arrest him if they do not leave. The NAACP helps the Clarks obtain an order from Federal Judge John P. Barnes, which grants them permission to move in and police protection when doing so. The family moves in on July 10 as a crowd harasses them from across the road and they flee immediately after getting all of their belongings into their apartment. Overnight, a riot starts when members of the hostile crowd throw rocks into the Clarks' apartment. A mob of thousands of people forms. They destroy the Clarks' apartment and steal their possessions through the night without police intervention.


Finally, by the night of July 12, Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson calls the state’s national guard to subdue the rioters, who are now destroying the whole building. Only 60 police officers arrive to help. The mob hurls bricks and stones at firefighters that arrive on the scene. This race riot lasts for several days and results in the complete destruction of the Clark family's apartment and their belongings, as well as many apartments rented by other residents of the building. The NAACP files a suit against the police involved, who are indicted and fined.6
 
August 28, 1955: Two White men kill 14-year-old Emmett Till while he visits family in Money, Missouri. Till is shopping at Bryant's Grocery and Meat Market when he encounters a White woman named Carolyn Bryant. After whistling at her and perhaps making a joke, he is accused of harassing her. A few days later on August 28, Bryant's husband Roy and his brother J.W. Milam kidnap Till. Till's cousins Simeon Wright and Wheeler Parker witness this. Believing that Till attacked or attempted to rape Carolyn Bryant, Bryant's husband and Milam beat and murder Till, throwing his body into the Tallahatchie River where it is discovered by a fisher. News of what happened breaks and Bryant and Milam are tried for murder and acquitted. Till's mother, Mamie Till, decides to have an open-casket funeral for her son, despite insistence from law enforcement and the funeral director that she keep it closed, to send a message about racial injustice and to properly grieve. She wants the crime made as public as possible. Thousands of people attend Till's funeral in Chicago.


Till's murder is widely covered in the media, especially by the popular Black-owned Jet, which publishes an image of Till from his funeral. However, not all publications frame this event as the racially charged murder it is and some fault Till for what happened. Some reports suggest that Till committed suicide when he "offended" Carolyn Bryant. Others defend Till as the victim of a hate crime and demand justice. Many young Black Americans begin participating in civil rights causes in response to this event. According to Timothy B. Tyson, historian and author of "The Blood of Emmett Till," Bryant confesses that she doesn't remember exactly what happened the day she accused Till of grabbing her and trying to rape her, but that neither of those claims was true and that she had been lying all those years. She concludes by saying, "Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him."1920
 

A little black history may help since it is February​

1951​

July 11: An estimated 4,000 White people riot in Cicero, Chicago, when news of the community's first Black family—Harvey Jr. and Johnetta Clark and their two children—moving into an apartment in the neighborhood spreads. During their first attempt to move in, the Clarks are stopped not only by angry White civilians but by police officers who demand a warrant, beat Harvey Clark Jr., and threaten to arrest him if they do not leave. The NAACP helps the Clarks obtain an order from Federal Judge John P. Barnes, which grants them permission to move in and police protection when doing so. The family moves in on July 10 as a crowd harasses them from across the road and they flee immediately after getting all of their belongings into their apartment. Overnight, a riot starts when members of the hostile crowd throw rocks into the Clarks' apartment. A mob of thousands of people forms. They destroy the Clarks' apartment and steal their possessions through the night without police intervention.


Finally, by the night of July 12, Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson calls the state’s national guard to subdue the rioters, who are now destroying the whole building. Only 60 police officers arrive to help. The mob hurls bricks and stones at firefighters that arrive on the scene. This race riot lasts for several days and results in the complete destruction of the Clark family's apartment and their belongings, as well as many apartments rented by other residents of the building. The NAACP files a suit against the police involved, who are indicted and fined.
Do you really want to compare the litany of racial sins committed every day in this country in the 1930's with 1951? The difference between 1935 and 1951 is that the country in 1951 was going through the great migration of Black Americans from the South seeking work and a better life in the industrialized North. That created a backlash that put to rest notions that they would no longer face racial bias and violence. The only real "difference" they found is that racism had not been systematically institutionalized as it was in th South. But Northern cities were quickly reading their Cliff Notes from the South and learning fast.

But unlike today and the 1930's in this country, NAZI's and various and sundry other Fascists were not that big a deal in 1951. We just had kicked their tugging asses and unlike today and in the 30's what American NAZI's there were had for the most part climbed back under their rock where they belong. In fact, NAZI's were pretty much back under their rocks everywhere in 1951. Fascism in America was back on the rise to some extent with the founding of the The American NAZI party in 1959. They never really went anywhere and the number of Fascist, white nationalist, violent movements in America today appear to be at an all time high. Make no mistake violence is the order of day for all of these groups including the so called Christian Nationalists. They will have to explain to me some day what Christianity means to them. I fear I know the answer.

Just for context, Cicero, IL is today mainly Hispanic by demographic.
 
My questions werent about me. So...why are you avoiding my questions? Try again, it's a starting point, now it's especially one to support your OR the OP premise of what the bold will be in the future.

"Why shouldnt women, equal citizens, get to decide what they want to focus on? If that's not your opinion, then please explain that implication from the OP?"​

Btw, rethinking it, the 'implications' are pretty clear. So I guess my question would be...do you think that current and further limitations for women will prevail in the future? And why/why not?
I expect the current era of conflict and fascism to last at least another decade before the resurgence of a 50s-like period where most women will see childbearing as a joy or maybe even an obligation, depending on the spirit of the times. The world is governed by a collective consciousness, which places limitations of different kinds on both men and women. While every era has its rebels, most people don't get to decide what to focus on, at least not in the context of the larger social construct. We are all players on a stage and the script is already written.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom