Why are the 1950s so romanticized in the US?
Because it was a period of intense prosperity precipitated by the economic boom of the postwar economy that largely served the interests of white men. Like a third of the US population ascended into the suburban middle class between 1950-1970. Union membership was high and wages grew, the government heavily subsidized education and housing through the GI bill, establishing hundreds of thousands of veterans, segregation and northern racially exclusive practices ensured a large working class in major cities to work in the service sector/shitty underpaid jobs.
The predominant narrative, the white suburban middle class one, was most ingrained in our culture through the media and other nostalgic recollections that began right around the emergence of the countercultural movement in the 60s, which most Americans despised.
>>846801
because it was fun
>>846801
Because of fucking faggots that saw happy days and some old james dean movies and decided it was cool.
Despite being born after the 50's.
>>846801
Because every proceeding generation became more complicated and saw the degradation of the U.S as a world power relatively
Great aesthetics.
>>846826
Greasers were a counter culture of the 50's.
>>846851
Right, so were beatniks, and zoot-suit wearing black youths, and a bajillion other subcultures. They were, however, diffuse and apolitical, unlike the hippy/antiwar movement of the 60s and 70s. Greasers and punks on motorcycles were regarded as signs of moral decay and bad parenting and were really a sort of absurd panic, like videogames and the 90s. The countercultural movement that came later was perceived as a genuine threat to the culturally conservative worldview that predominated in the white US at the time.
>>846801
>WE WON THE WAR XDDDDD !!1!!!!
>>846910
That family in the middle look like top tier genetics
>>846910
That's some top shelf premium handpicked /pol/ paranoia.
>>846924
Whatever helps you sleep at night, squirt.
>>846926
What is wrong with gays having equal rights?
>>846910
>dyeing armpit hair
that's pretty neat
also do you think it turns the girl on even slightly to be carrying around such a sign in public?
>>846931
Marriage is a religious institution and the Supreme Court has no right to redefine its meaning and overturn literally thousands of years of precedent.
>>846939
Marriage is a civic institution with privileges given by the state for being married.
>>846939
oh ok you are one of those people
>>846944
Marriage predates the state.
>>846945
Right back at ya.
>>846949
So you should have been complaining about the state turning marriage into a civic institution but funny how no one seemed to care about this until gays asked for the same civic privileges straight people got from marriage.
>>846955
A homosexual relation is fundamentally different than a heterosexual one. It is absurd to redefine marriage as to include both.
>>846801
because it was the time were the occidental humanists were on the right side of their doctrine, were they would benefit the most of the enlightenment. But soon, their doctrine would bite them.
Today, they understand that the losers of yesterday have the means to win on the playing field that these humanists have created.
Post positivism and post-structuralism are logical consequences of the fantasies of the occidental humanists who wanted to hide their hedonism under altruistic goals (to feel better about themselves, since they love to feel good).
Also, western people were identical to what they are today, so nothing will change, in terms of doctrine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_XgQhMPeEQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHfBXHari34
>>846957
Why? Can't a homosexual love their partner and want the right to see them in hospital when they're sick, leave them money without having it heavily taxed by the state etc.
>>846957
This, only fertile people with children on the way should be allowed to get married.
>>846957
It's really not that absurd to treat gays equally under the rule of law.
Honestly, you /pol/fags should just stay in your meme-spouting shithole and leave /his/ alone.
>>846949
And?
>>846962
Because a man's sterile asshole is not a fertile womb. That is why they are fundamentally different relationships.
>>846957
It's two loving adults cohabiting in a recognized family unit.
Why not demonstrate some empathy for your fellow human beings who just want to be happy and fulfilled like you are?
>>846969
So sterile straight people should be allowed to get married? How about straight people that choose not to have children?
>>846972
As long as they don't have any sex, apparently.
>>846969
Why do you care which families are having children or not? You seem awfully invested in the private lives of strangers.
>>846972
If you pray to God enough and live a pious life you won't be sterile and straight.
>>846969
So, infertile men or woman shouldn't be allowed to marry?
That's kind of retarded. It's not even an understandable religious moral stance anymore, it's just stupidity.
>>846970
>loving
Honestly marrying someone you love is even worse than gay marriage, and a complete affront to the historical institution of marriage that spanned millennia.
>>846977
please oh please be a parody
>>846962
>>846969
>>846966
It is absurd that in a "democratic" nation, 1 (one) branch of government has the authority to change the meaning of an immensely important word with thousands of years of history behind it.
>>846968
And the state should respect that.
>>846980
Touche, really we should be selling our 8 year old daughters across state lines for profit.
>gays shouldn't be allowed to have equal rights because they're icky
>>846982
Ah yes the "activist judges" meme.
>>846988
But all sex that isn't for the sole purpose of procreation is bad, god only gave you a dick for one reason so he made it feel really good to use, and I'm an Aristotelian tool.
>>846970
God will judge them as He sees fit but don't make me call something a marriage that isn't a marriage.
>>846976
Sterility is one homosexuality's many fundamental differences with heterosexuality. The lack of natural lubrication is another fact demonstrating homosex as a deviant act.
>>846979
Infertile is not the same as sterile because it implies the possibility of fertility. This is never the case in homosex relationships and this is why they are different.
>>846982
>It is absurd that in a "democratic" nation, 1 (one) branch of government has the authority to change the meaning of an immensely important word with thousands of years of history behind it.
When the government is part of the institution that the word is related to it does. As long as the government is giving out tax break and licenses for marriage we should expect them to be unbiased in their definition.
>And the state should respect that.
States have no obligation to respect tradition.
>>846964
Careful, someone could cut themselves on that edge.
>>847001
>God will judge them as He sees fit but don't make me call something a marriage that isn't a marriage.
You are perfectly free to call a gay marriage whatever you want, you don't have to agree with the government you know.
>>847001
>virgin mary get prggers even with no sex
>but gays cant get preggers because miracles cant happen to gays
>>846982
No, it isn't absurd.
Slavery has thousands of years of history behind it, as does serfdom and other unpleasant things.
Everything has a historical precedence, and if we respected that precedence then nothing would ever change. You can't you tradition alone as an argument against change.
>>847013
How does that comparison even make sense? A new amendment was passed to free the slaves. The supreme court suddenly deciding to change a definition is not the same thing as the legal process required to ass an amendment.
Not him btw. I don't really care about gay marriage one way or another. However I think the supreme court should not abuse their power that way. Their job is to uphold the laws of the land, not to change them as they see fit.
>>846985
>not cementing marriage ties with your jewish overlords
>>846982
>muh judicial activism
Cry more. Giveb the way civic marriage has been run in this country, and the legal precedent on 14th amendment challenges of this kind, refusing to grant marriage liscencs to gay couples fails even the lenient rational basis review.
>>847010
Legal definitions matter and the law is supposed to reflect truth.
>>847011
Homosexuals live unrepentant lifestyles, what reason would God have to bless them with a child?
>>847013
The point is that marriage is a religious institution and the state has no right to change the meaning of the word.
>>847021
It is not irrational to point out that homosexual relationships are fundamentally different than heterosexual ones and that expanding the meaning of "marriage" to include both is ridiculous.
![45f5fc34607d_sf_1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/AJ5rZFZ.jpg "45f5fc34607d_sf_1[1].jpg")
>yellow russian trollface
>putin webm
>soviet soldiers image
>"american male.jpg"
>really really really hates gays and obama
>"homosex"
t. Poccия
>>847036
t. Schlomo
>>847034
>Legal definitions matter and the law is supposed to reflect truth.
I don't know who told you that, law is a reflection of public will or the needs of the state, it has absolutely nothing to do with truth.
>>847042
>Gay jewish unicorn
based.
>>847042
Sorry you can't stand to see wealthy and prosperous civilizations, Ivan.
>>846801
Normality seems much better than the eras it surrounds (war and leftists). Cultural Marxism hadn't infected the West. The US was booming economically. Society was more homogeneous and immigration was capped for non-white nations. People went to church and believed in a core set of laws that defined what was moral.
>>847043
>it has absolutely nothing to do with truth.
Exactly.
>>847045
Good goy enjoy your shekels.
>>846980
>Honestly marrying someone you love is even worse than gay marriage, and a complete affront to the historical institution of marriage that spanned millennia.
>>847069
He's right though, marriage is an extension of ancient property rights regarding slavery. Later it was used by royal families to ensure transferal of estates and titles.
Lovers choosing to become married is a rare and novel exception to the otherwise default affair.
>>847074
It's less about love and more about fertility. The argument is that sterile homosexual relationships have never been considered marriage even when they were socially acceptable such as in ancient Greece and therefore the Supreme Court has overstepped its authority by redefining the word.
>>847074
This, even the poor would often only marry for the economic benefits that came with it, i.e. a dowry or just the possibility of gaining some land, or the ability to have children to increase productivity. Marriage was a pragmatic affair that was filled with romantic notions around the 18th century. That doesn't mean love wasn't involved, two people in close proximity are going to come to some kind of passionate emotional response at some point, however love often came after marriage and betrothal not before.
>>847080
Our secular society no longer views marriage as a means to propagate the species however, fertility has no bearing on the modern definition of marriage.
>>847089
>Our secular society no longer views marriage as a means to propagate the species
Who are you to speak for society? Gay marriage consistently gets defeated when it gets voted on and this whole controversy is about the unelected Supreme Court overstepping its authority.
>fertility has no bearing on the modern definition of marriage.
Because the government says so?
>>847080
Thankfully we don't live in the past and can adapt our laws to reflect the values of our culture, where all are free to pursue relationships that bring them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unburdened by irrational religious intrusion into their private lives by hateful sociopaths.
>>847102
The Supreme Court has violated the First Amendment by changing the meaning of a religious word.
>>847097
>Who are you to speak for society?
The same as you, attacking my authority for no reason isn't going to get us anywhere.
>Gay marriage consistently gets defeated when it gets voted on and this whole controversy is about the unelected Supreme Court overstepping its authority.
Completely untrue, how acceptance of gay marriage is entirely dependent on what state and population you are in, and polls show that Americans are in general in favor of gay marriage
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
As for the Supreme Court, they are an extension of the public will as they are selected by our elected representatives and we have empowered them to have a say on the legality and constitutionality of bills and laws, them declaring that States are required to recognize a legal document from other states is wholly with in their jurisdiction.
>Because the government says so?
No, because contrceptives are legal, and marriage licenses are offered to the infertile regardless of gender.
>>847110
Marriage has been practiced by almost every single civilization in the world throughout all of history, it is not special to any one religion or culture and the fact that the government holds the right to grant legal marriage licenses makes it de facto non-religious.
>>847034
>Legal definitions matter and the law is supposed to reflect truth.
The law is there to be a reflection of the needs of the people and to deliver justice. Point being, the law may indeed be meant to shackle people to not do certain things, but the core idea is that those things are illegal because they cause grief to someone else and it is only justice to not allow someone to be able to place grief on another.
Like >>847043 said, it has nothing to do with truth and isn't supposed to have anything to do with truth. Justice and truth are two different things.
>>847115
>Completely untrue,
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/06/local/la-me-prop-8-lawsuit-20130707
And that was in Commiefornia for Christ's sake...
> No, because contrceptives are legal, and marriage licenses are offered to the infertile regardless of gender.
You don't understand, it's about the fact that penis in butthole is fundamentally different than penis is vagina. They are not the same because a man is not a woman. MM relationships cannot be placed in the same legal category as MF because they are fundamentally different.
>>847110
Marriage is an English Language word, not a religious word. The process of marriage is not strictly in the domain of religion.
>>847121
But anon, Abraboos are special snowflakes and everything they say is right cuz god told them so. He told me too but I don't like hearing the truth. I chose not to listen to him because I'm a heathen degenerate.
>>847131
What if a man and a woman only ever do anal? Is there marriage invalid?
>>847134
The concept of "marriage" predates the English language.
>>847139
No because the possibility exists for PinV.
>>847148
It predates your Christianity too, you retard.
>>847148
>The concept of "marriage" predates the English language.
Also predates Christianity and Abrahamic religion
>>847131
>MM relationships cannot be placed in the same legal category as MF because they are fundamentally different.
As much as I can agree to this I can't see EXACTLY what legally I would change. I would say that marriage between two same sex partners and marriage between two opposite sex partners is fundamentally different, though I can't imagine what legally I would look at the books and say "Nah, the gays don't get that." I honestly can't think of any reasons.
>>847131
I think it's safe to say that you are anally fixated on this issue.
No wonder you hate gays, they get to go to town on assholes irl while you can only imagine them.
>>847156
>>847157
The point is that it is a religious word and the state has no business changing its meaning.
>>847167
Uh you can't just repeat the old claim again, wtf.
Ok then, fine, "no it isn't" let's go around the merry-go-round again.
>>847167
Wait, wouldn't by that definition the state have no business doing ANYTHING with marriage? Like no tax breaks, nothing? I could get behind that. If no one gets anything from being married then there's no reason to worry about if the gays get married or not. It comes strictly down to which religion will and won't marry you. But then we come into the issue of non-religious people and how they get married. This is probably how I would imagine the state originally got into marrying people. The non-religious didn't want to get married by the church.
>>847162
Gay sex is not the same as straight sex and I have no problem discussing it plainly. This is an important issue.
>>847177
>>847175
>>847167
>>847162
>>847161
>>847157
>>847156
>>847148
>>847139
>>847135
>>847134
>>847131
>>847129
>>847121
>>847115
>>847110
>>847102
>>847097
>>847089
>>847083
>>847080
>>847074
>>847069
>>847064
>>847056
>>847050
>>847045
>>847044
>>847043
>>847042
>>847036
>>847034
>>847021
>>847020
>>847019
>>847013
>>847010
>>847011
>>847008
>>847003
>>847001
This thread is getting way off topic, let's switch threads to something more on topic. >>847186
I would imagine that the 1950's are romanticized in the US because people had a lot of money. The aesthetics were nice, and if I recall health care was good. Jobs were abundant, and we were post-war. All it all it sounds like a nice place.
>>847131
>And that was in Commiefornia for Christ's sake...
I am intimately familiar with prop 8 being a resident of commiefornia and trust me it was pretty fucking unpopular when it was passed but the pro-prop 8 guys did an excellent job of motivating rural whites, Hispanics, and Catholics to get out and vote, if you look at the map of counties that voted in the prop it fallows the city/country divide pretty well. Also as an ironic note, the increase in black voters also helped push it through since they showed up in huge numbers to vote for Obama, however blacks tend to be pretty anti-gay.
>MM relationships cannot be placed in the same legal category as MF because they are fundamentally different.
Depends on how you legally define marriage, if it's just a contract between two citizens, as the gov't sees it, there is no need to differentiate bases on gender. I also notice that you tend to focus on Male-Male marriage and not Female-Female marriage, any particular reason for that?
>>847204
>it was pretty fucking unpopular when it was passed
Loving
Every
Laugh
Goodnight.
The marriage has always been about filiation, about the legitimate descendants. The purpose was to marry two families. Today, with the marriage for love, it is only two individuals who get married. A marriage for love fits well into the individualistic era such as ours, but it remain an aberration.
Today, since the homos have the right to marry, we say that the filiation happens only via the education. This is pure ideology naturally. What makes you a parent ? It can be :
-the genes
-the education
-the genes and the education
With the human rights for all, you see that the couples infertile by the nature of their relationship, or by their natural infertility, can enter into a filiation only through the education.
The first step became apparent when the bastard children were recognized the same rights as the legitimate ones, in the marriage for the heteros, especially when it comes to the inheritance.
Of course, women never had any remorse to be fucked by the neighbor, give birth to bastards nor to pass them as legitimate, so the theory of the marriage is a bit phony but as we conceived them by the dozen, as they died a lot, we might as well go with the flow. Now, that we conceive only a few children, we tend to be picky on the filiation.
You see here a tension between the 'everything is social like the left dreams about' and the stance that 'everything is genetics, from the right' since it is common knowledge today that we are determined genetically for what matters.
Nowadays, the marriage is dead and buried. There is clearly no relevance in going into it. Even more so when the sexual fidelity is no longer accepted and desired, when the divorce without fault becomes the rule (I am tired of you, so let's divorce and you do not even have a word to say in my decision).
The bourgeoisie destroyed the marriage by their mores, first by true love, then by free love.
Good rock tunes
>>846801
because cultural marxistm haden't took ovet jet.
Baby boomers are literally the worst generation that America will ever have, and the 50's were the last decade with minimal influence by them, that's why.
because it was a time when the american ideal was purest and strongest
It was literally the closest America got to be a utopia. We just won a world war without having a single city bombed, unlike Europe where there was nothing but ashes they heavily depended upon america to rebuild.
>>848433
The closest America got to being a Utopia was the Great American South before the civil war. Shit was cash.
>>848453
america would be a utopia if slave holders hadn't derailed the constitution to allow their unstable industry to survive for another 70 years
>>848453
Seems like all times are romanticised in hindsight.
>>847167
The concept of marriage predates all known religions you enormous faggot.
High purchasing power,
>Catholics believe gays to be the end of days
>"Its alright for Priests to fondle boys, just move them elsewhere, no one will notice as long as we keep it quiet"
And religious fags wonder why no one cares about their opinion.
>>846939
Good. Marriage is an idiotic and outdated institution anyway. We have thousands of years of precedent for monarchies and we don't have kings running around outside of shitholes like Rwanda and England.
>>846801
Awesome time to be alive in the US, that's why.
>>848866
Never again...
>>846904
...and then Vince Bugliosi came around and ended it for good. Imagine the prosperity we could have had if only Bobby Beausoleil hadn't killed Gary Hinman.
>>848868
So that's how Huntington Beach looked in the 50's, used to live there.
>>846910
Meh, it all looks like shit. Different kinds of shit but shit nonetheless.
>>846992
wait, is that the way we deal with religious extremists now? we ne-go-ci-ate?
>>846801
Because it came right after a huge depression and a world war combined with it being the time when a bunch of people where children and they didn't have to deal with politics. It's the reason so many people today romanticize the 80s and 90s.
>>848921
Reddit is a bigger haven for white supremacists than Stormfront so that picture doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
>>848921
/his/ is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates. Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected. History can be examined from many different conflicting viewpoints; please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character.
Back to /pol/ please.
It was the zenith of the american nation
afterwards came libturds, feminists, muh civil nig rights, etc plus it was a period of post-war prosperity at the cost of a WWII ravaged rest of the world
>>848921
>funnyjunk filename says go back to tumblr
>on 4chan
wew
>>849038
In what decade do you think Brown v. Board of Education, the Montgomery bus boycott and the Little Rock Nine happened you fucking dip?
>>846939
>only christians can marry
>>849050
If only we understood your superior mind.
>>849215
lets try again then:
>matrimony
>mater
>mother
>giving birth
>starting a family
obviously fags can't do this, so fag marriage is an oxymoron
>>849315
but you're wrong. marriage is for when two lovey dovey people love each other very much <3. doesn't matter which gender, race or sexuality they are! children. while very cute are entirely optional and shouldn't be the primary reason for someone to marry except for shotgun marriages
>>849215
How could you?
>>846801
First time the world wasn't total shit up to that point in the 20th century. WWI, the Depression, WWII all happened back to back. The 50s were the first time of significant peace in a long time.
>>849315
Anon your intellect is just too far removed from the degenerate bourgeois.
>>846801
>Why are the 1950s so romanticized in the US?
Because it was the zenith of American civilization and it's all been downhill from there...
>>849843
>Detroit is the only city in America
>>846801
It was a period of unprecedented optimistic upward mobility and economic prosperity that seemed to be leading towards the US ascending to becoming a science-fiction utopia. Coupled with the destruction of that dream in the cynical 60s and depressing 70s, it's no wonder people yearn for the "good times".
Anyone who tries to make it about race in either direction is either retarded or just baiting. The 50s are idolized simply because it was the most prosperous time in the history of the United States.
>>850204
It's the Canary in the coal mine.
>>849205
Why dont gay people have muslim, jewish, Buddhist or Hindu weddings then?
>>850532
?
>>850428
blacks aren't breeding that fast
>>850591
I'm guessing he's wondering why everyone wants a Christian weddings
The Japanese love them for some reason
>>846826
You have your own narrative, that of the working class black family who was being put down by southern hicks or working class white people after migrating somewhere like Detroit.
These were not the same white folks as the optimistic rising middle classes in other regions in the north who grew up during the great depression and had just come back from fighting the nazis with a genuine belief in true American values. The civil rights movement needed support from a proportion of the 85%+ white population and they found it among this group, this was why the federal government was on your side. What would happen if they tried protesting in the 20s or 30s?
The white suburban middle class of the 40s and 50s were not evil privileged oppressors, they were in fact wonderful wonderful people, polite, good, wholesome, hard working, upstanding, left to their own devices and without exploiting anyone they turned their part of the country into the closest thing this world has come to a utopia.
Energy was cheap, allowing for exponential economic growth
>>847306
You make it seem like adopting children unrelated yourself as your own is a recent development.
>>846801
decade before the civil rights Era
>>850852
your picture is the equivalent of "capitalist realism" akin to the socialist realism of the stalinist era
>>849843
>factory owners shit on the people of detroit by switching to cheaper outsourcing removing all the work that was being done in america
>everything goes to shit, nobody has a job
>turns into a cesspit full of crime
>hurrrrr it's the niggurs fault
>>852231
Nigga it's just an ad, not political propaganda.
>>852307
what about the capitalist in capitalist realism don't you understand familia. the state doesn't have to propagandize the accepted ideology when advertisers did so at a handsome profit
>>852192
Straight peop,e are cucks.
>>847135
Exactly it, my faggot.
>ITT: Question about romanticizing 1950's turns into retarded gay marriage debate
Stay classy, senpaitachi.
Because baby boomers were young children at the time, and they have childhood nostalgia.
Same reason the boomers' kids romanticize the 80s.
>>852192
What a sad miserable person you are to lack empathy for your fellow human beings.
I want /pol/ to leave
>>846851
They weren't.
It was something closer to gang culture actually.
>>852552
>I want people with different opinions to leave
circlejerks are for faggots, gaylord
>>852571
>a high level of discourse is expected
>>852659
Why aren't all marxists banned then
Because Reagan needed a Golden Age to lampoon.
>>852666
/his/ has actually a very diverse range of views. However, when /pol/ turns up, all of these different views gang up against you lot for your idiocy and you lump them all as "marxists" when really only like 10% of this board would openly hold marxist beliefs.
>>852688
>/his/ has actually a very diverse range of views
Is there any survey? Not him but legitimately interested.
>>852688
I'm indeed a /pol/ster but not from 4chan. But honestly why are marxists allowed to post?
>>852695
Why not? You're all "allowed", you just have to keep up to the standards of this board as they are outlined in the sticky. By and large, however retarded the marxists are, and they certainly are, they usually keep to a reasonably high level of discourse. /pol/ typically does not.
>>852693
A survey wouldn't be useful. You should just look at the "Prove communism" or "Capitalism is terrible" threads. They turn into royal rumbles with people from over all the [political] spectrum. It's pretty gr8 m8.
>>846949
>Marriage predates the state.
It also predates christianity.
America was great in the 50's because if you talked about all the horrible shit that went on you were a pinko.
>>849362
Also this.
Also gays are a non-issue but should really stop being faggots about muh marriage.
I don't know but the 50s sure tend to trigger the lefties a bunch, to them it was a creepy Stepford Wives patriarchal helltopia where you could be lynched on the nearest tree if they suspected you're a communist, also everything for some reason was very fake and evil.
>>849362
What about the roaring 20's and the 1900's?
>>852760
>roaring 20s
>the decade when women got the right to vote
All downhill from there
Family structure is the biggest variable imo
>>846801
It's only romanticized by the baby boomers generation and their parents (the ones still alive).
>>847089
>fertility has no bearing on the modern definition of marriage.
Maybe for the rich or in an autistic euro cpuntry, but in the majority of the world fertility is crucial.
