People these days always use the 50's as a scapegoat for a very conservative and sexist period of time. Is that an accurate portrayal though?
People these days a God damn idiots.
>>1381615
duh
>>1381615
Because it was, for one, but it's also the most conservative era with contemporary mass media. Reactionaries see it as the "good ol days" due to heavily censored and idealized media and everyone else sees it as a shitty era where nobody was free to be themselves.
Sexism didn't exist before the 70s.
Imagine in 100 years people make up weird words for things we do everyday today like "tongueism" for people who use their tongues while eating. This is how ridiculous the word "sexist" is
>>1381782
Your right to say it was a destinctive period of media and culture. Compared to say, 1920 for example, which had exciting developments in film and music, it wasnt fully realised. However by 1950 (you could argue pre 45' though) there was a truly realized vision of the fantasy and timelessness that is media..1950, hollywood. However, to a 'progressive' it was a perfect mix of old ways of thinking and having the technogy to document it. which is why they deplore it so. For example, the opinion on 1910 isnt in most peoples conciousness because theres very much less VISUAL stimuli to relate the period to. and mid 1960 is viewed as the begining of our current modern world. Ultimatley, the 1950's is too alien to anyone born past 1985.
However id like to add that > due to heavily censored and idealized media and everyone else sees it as a shitty era where nobody was free to be themselves.
>nobody was free to be themselves.
thats only partly true and your talking out you ass.
>>1381824
He's a hundred percent right though. Read any literature from the 50s and it's blindingly clear how repressive and narrow-minded society was.
>>1381863
maybe by your standards. In truth is as free thinking as any american litratracy from, say 1890. You might have a point if you said 1950's russia but in america alot of there works were spearheading modern culture. Hell, there was a diverse range of culture born in the 50's. Remember fucking sci-fi? Had its greatest leap in all popular media of the time. Westerns were honed and perfected at the time. Yes you could argue thats america celebrating americana after its victory and gained power from the war but its ultimatley a definate sign it was by no means narrow minded as a society.
And repressive? to whom? blacks? who the fuck cares, you could argue they still recive such treatment.
There was plenty of counter culture also, it just doesnt seem that revolutionary in todays day and age.
Im honestly suprised how little in this thread people have bothered to analize there generalizations of this period.
>>1381615
It just wasn't an issue back then. Except for a minority, everything was fine
>>1382278
Agree with this, if you talk to older people, their recollection of the post-war years is far less rosy than what you see in movies or TV shows. There was crime, sex, alcoholism, and all other kinds of social deviance; it was just either private or part of a counterculture. It was definitely repressive if you were a communist, but if you're a radical Islamic today you'll get probably the same scrutiny. As far as civil rights for blacks go, there were real gains at the time; still suffered badly from racism, especially in the South, but there was a black middle class (which was unfortunately wiped out during the 1970s, with both earlier and existing racism as a significant cause).
It's important to keep in mind that this was the first mass media generation, and there was a general sense of optimism in the culture given America's booming economy, which was reflected back in that media. Certain stuff was definitely off-limits to display in the media, but a lot of that had been consigned to various subcultures previously; with a new mass media, that only served to highlight that marginalization, it doesn't mean that it occurred less than it had in previous times.
The idea of the repressive 50s is mostly a meme used as a juxtaposition against the changes of the 1960s and the '70s.
>>1382464
This isn't even true because huge swathes of Caucasian Americans still lived in poverty in the wake of the Depression and WWII.
