Replies

Back in 1991, there was a six-part documentary made by David Hoffman that tried to justify the 1960s and explain the events, obviously from a leftward view (and I don't mean left-of-center, obviously). I'm actually a bit surprised FreeRepublic hadn't already covered it, considering it's being shown in History departments at various colleges (I'd know, my Spring Freshman semester year at Georgia Perimeter College had my History class showing part of the first episode). One thing I should comment, though: Considering my Dad was a kid during the 1950s and I asked him of what's going on during that time, he doubted their claims about what life in the fifties were like (namely, the idea that people had to obey their authority figures without any question whatsoever and were essentially drones to their family), I really find their views pretty much a load of crap to put it mildly (and besides, those "Stultifying" four rules they listed were actually pretty reasonable. Certainly a lot more reasonable than some of the scare tactics used in school right now that if anything make a whole lot of us downright neurotic, like claiming that you will get skin cancer just from mowing the lawn.). Also, one of the people interviewed (the one who was a flight attendant for several years) made it seem as though women weren't allowed into the medical professions or science professions at all. Isn't nursing (and by extension, air stewardess, her explicit profession) a medical profession and requiring medical and scientific training? I find that claim hard to believe, that she was barred from the medical community. And honestly, I think the fact that the education system thinks THOSE are good videos to teach our children about America's history ultimately speaks ill of that institution. They have condemnations of Vietnam (and this is from the same guy who claimed he became more patriotic to America after seeing the Vietcong flags among the anti-war protestors).

I realize the linked page is of the radical left, but it's the only place barring YouTube that has the full episodes on there. Either way, I don't endorse their claims, nor am I trying to promote their views. Quite the opposite, I'm placing this link for the videos, which are pretty much propaganda films, as exposure of what kids are being taught these days (and I'd know, since, again, my Freshman Year in Spring 2010 had that). A side note, but that series was released while I was a one year old.

I’ve seen each episode. While left-of-center, they aren’t leftist. They do a great job giving a person a feeling for what it was like in those years, especially the first three episodes. A bit over-the-top with their 1950’s stereotyping, but you have to remember a lot of people on the fringes did feel excluded from mainstream society. The series really does help make sense of the Sixties.
After viewing, you think perhaps a majority of people felt and thought about issues as they are described in the series. I would say that at times people’s fluctuating attitudes maybe did describe the majorities’ beliefs at various times. But the series and all the people they interview in 1991 stops there and just assumes their liberal viewpoint is normal and held by a majority of people right to 1991 and through to today. But it isn’t and it doesn’t.

The liberals never left their heady days of cultural zeitgeist of the 1960’s. Now we know better to think that the liberal way is the only way.

The main lesson of real life: Diversity is NOT our strength.

Think about the sixties in relation to a child graduating from high school this year. The Vietnam war was is to them as the Spanish American war was to a boomer.

The solution is to speak to the kids today. Talk about the reality of the war—what it meant to you and your peers. Record your experiences.

Remeber, the documentarians of today were babies or not even born in the 1960s. They are writing the history—unless you do.

one of the people interviewed (the one who was a flight attendant for several years) made it seem as though women weren't allowed into the medical professions or science professions at all. Isn't nursing (and by extension, air stewardess, her explicit profession) a medical profession and requiring medical and scientific training? I find that claim hard to believe, that she was barred from the medical community.

I have to tell you that in fact women were traditionally not considered candidates for professions. This is a fact. The only two professions which were open to them were nursing and teaching. And nursing as a profession did not exist prior to the Civil war era. Women didn’t get the vote until less than a century ago. These things are true. The fact that teaching was so close to being the only profession open to women had the effect of subsidizing education; women who would have undertaken more seriously regarded roles in society took up teaching instead.
In fact during WWII the US Army had a codebreaking operation in Washington, and one of their covers for the secret operation was the fact that women were doing all the work, so it couldn’t possibly have been serious work of interest to spies. Meanwhile, of course, the women were straitly charged against giving any hint to the outside world of what they were doing.
In thinking about the charges against Roy Moore, they boiled down to the fact that he spent his 20s in Vietnam, and came home and took interest in unmarried girls. Well, guess what! In my HS class it seemed as if 95% of the girls were married within a year of HS graduation. Granted that that was a few years ahead of Vietnam - but also it was Pennsylvania, not Alabama. IOW, not every woman who was unmarried at age 30 ever would marry. And altho he ended up marrying a divorcee, it would have been understandable indeed for him to not have considered divorcees his primary market going in.
That relates to “women’s place” exactly how? Girls learned housekeeping skills by mentorship from their mothers - and realistically, a girl wouldn't have to be 20 yo to have learned as much as she was ever likely to about housekeeping skills without being in charge of them herself. And the same is not true of a man, who needs a college degree or other technical training/experience to qualify to support a family. Thus there is nothing really strange about a 30yo man taking interest in a teenaged girl. It has always been typical for grooms to be older than their brides.