I.o.u.s.a.

[Kahns Krazy]

Why isn't the 1930 to 1945 generation defined? Can you explain why not?

The name Silent Generation was coined in the November 5, 1951 cover story of Time.. The article, (which defined the generation at the time as born from 1923 to 1933), found its characteristics as grave and fatalistic, conventional, possessing confused morals, expecting disappointment but desiring faith, and for women, desiring both a career and a family. The article stated:

Youth today is waiting for the hand of fate to fall on its shoulders, meanwhile working fairly hard and saying almost nothing. The most startling fact about the younger generation is its silence. With some rare exceptions, youth is nowhere near the rostrum. By comparison with the Flaming Youth of their fathers & mothers, today's younger generation is a still, small flame. It does not issue manifestoes, make speeches or carry posters. It has been called the "Silent Generation."

The phrase gained further currency after William Manchester's comment that the members of this generation were "withdrawn, cautious, unimaginative, indifferent, unadventurous and silent."
The name was used by Strauss and Howe in their book Generations as their designation for that generation in the United States of America born from 1925 to 1945.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...878847,00.html
http://www.univcon.com/SGen/index.htm
http://www.fourthturning.com/html/si...eneration.html

[Snipe]

Why isn't the 1930 to 1945 generation defined the same way? Can you explain why not?

People have defined many generations of American history. "Greatest Generation" comes to mind. The Baby Boom Generation has dominated the conversation ever since they came to age in the sixties. It is and has always been all about them.

[PM Thor]

But Kahns, it's Bullshit. You cannot take such a large group of people, and label them any which way. It is a way for further generations to group people without trying to understand the individual years.

At most, I would label groups by 5 years at most, no more. You cannot tell me that someone born in 1980 has more to do with someone born in 1990 over someone born in 1972, yet, if you look at labelling, they are the same generation. Bullshit.

[PM Thor]

People have defined many generations of American history. "Greatest Generation" comes to mind. The Baby Boom Generation has dominated the conversation ever since they came to age in the sixties. It is and has always been all about them.

Yeah that "Greatest Generation" has pissed me off every time I hear it. Generations are not defined by country right? So that generation also involved Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin, among others....but that generation wants to harp on what they did? I am not saying my generation is better, because it is obviously not, but I won't act as if my generation is cleaning up our own mess, and make it out as if we are saving the world.

[Kahns Krazy]

Thor, I appreciate that you think that I have authored so many varying sources on the subject, and you think it is I who have defined them as such, but it is not.

Much like I don't agree with there being 24 hours in a "day", you can argue with there being 15 or so years in a "generation".

I'll see you at Dana's "tomorrow", which is in 3 months according to me. It's bullshit that everyone wants tomorrow to start at midnight.

[Kahns Krazy]

Yeah that "Greatest Generation" has pissed me off every time I hear it. Generations are not defined by country right? .

Wait, what now? Generations are global too? Thor, if we were in a bar right now, I'd call you a cab.

[PM Thor]

Kahns, so you are telling me generations are defined by their country of origin? I do think generations are global, otherwise it is very, very ethnocentric.

No offense, I think this is a good discussion.

[Muskie73]

Thor, I've never seen other countries talk or write about or name their generations like in the US. This seems to be something intrinsic to this country, so defining this country's generations alone seems quite fair and reasonable.

[DAllen15]

From today's Washington Post---

"I.O.U.S.A.," an impassioned and slickly made film about the perils of the national debt, is another entry in the collection of "Wake up, America!" documentaries. The ice caps are melting. The Iraq war is rending us asunder. We are drowning in a flood of red ink, consumer debt and unfunded government obligations. Wake up, America!

The film is built around a road trip, featuring Robert Bixby, director of the Concord Coalition, and David Walker, then-U.S. comptroller general. They tour the country, teaching and testifying in what they call the "Fiscal Wake Up Tour."

Bixby and Walker are earnest, well informed and devoted to a good cause, and director Patrick Creadon makes a careful argument about why the nation is going down the tubes if we don't do something about our huge budget shortfalls and growing trade deficit. But there is a difference between the importance of a film's subject and the quality of a film's execution. And the execution is lacking. The film just isn't, well, very interesting.

Creadon (who directed the 2006 crossword puzzle documentary "Wordplay") uses all-too-common documentary gimmicks, and despite the film's good intentions, it reveals just how much the popular documentary is beginning to ossify into a standard rhetorical form. Given the seriousness of the issues that documentarians are championing, perhaps it's time for the next thing. Whatever that is.

-- Philip Kennicott (Aug. 22, 2008)

[Billy]

I'm with Thor in the sense that I also get real tired of the "Greatest Generation" stuff. It's simply a product of nostalgia, just like everyone thinks baseball was best when THEY were kids. I believe every generation basically does what they feel they have to do...prosper for themselves, and make a good world for the children left behind. So much of that lies on the shoulders of several thousand elected leaders and business people...so I don't find it fair to label entire generations as either "good" or "bad".

That said, I can't really agree with the idea of "global generations". Right now, people in Myanmar, for example, don't have the same lifestyle as we do. Their actions and decisions are going be dictated by their culture and surroundings. If we want to look at the successes and failures of millions of people of the same age...it seems only fair to do so based on their environs and sociological conditions they share.

You could apply that to make a case that southern Blacks of the 1950's in THIS country were a generation amongst themselves, with separate struggles and challenges to overcome. What would folks like Rosa Parks have had in common with the white business owner who expected them to drink at a different water fountain?