Not long ago, a
national magazine published an article called ‘The Worst Generation,’
contrasting the Baby-boomer generation of Americans (born between the end of
World War II and the early 60’s) with ‘The Greatest Generation’ (those who
fought in World War II). The article set
out to cast ‘Boomers’ into the shadow formed by their parents, attempting to
show the quality of the latter group and the inferiority of the former. I read that article with interest – possibly
self-interest, having had the random luck of being born between the two
arbitrary year markers set out to start a description of a huge segment of the
population.
Unlike many of
my fellow ‘Boomers,’ I was raised by my grandparents, and so came to a fuller
perspective on life, a perspective which might even be said is akin to that of
the ‘Greatest Generation.’ Along with
that perspective, there came some reasoning power, some thought-strength which alerts
me when the entire thesis of an argument is flawed.
Comparisons of
groups of people are ticklish affairs.
Even studies of large groups of disparate types of people can be
hazardous to your thinking. False
premises abound for the unwary. The
first is that any group might be homogenous.
Boomers, whose birth-range covers 18 years, can’t possibly represent a
single generation in education, cultural and social perspective, general
emotional maturity, intent, or knowledge.
It is also an absurdity to assume that any subgroup of Boomers (grouped
by other demographic factors than age) would be alike in many areas, because
the rapidly-changing dynamics of the times preclude that one group of people
can have the same outlook and focus as a group born so long previous.
Another false
premise is that any segment of Boomers, grouped by a closer age-range, could represent
a homogeneous group. I went to school
with Young Republicans, while I was a radical who opposed the Vietnam War on
moral grounds. But I didn’t hide in the Ivy Tower
– I came from a Navy family and would have gladly served my country in a legitimate
war that wasn’t a sham, both politically and morally. In fact, it angered me that my military
career was curtailed by our country’s egregious foreign policies, which only deteriorated
as time went on until we find ourselves (under-equipped) in Iraq with no ‘exit strategy.’
Not every Boomer
dropped acid, spurned lipstick, or burned a draft card wrapped in a bra. To assume otherwise is the logical fault of
painting an entire group with the same brush.
I grew up with echoes of World War II ringing in my ears, shooting
capguns at ‘japs’ and ‘nazis’ before I even knew the meaning of those words (having
learned a not-so-subtle racism from the much-lauded ‘Greatest Generation’). A kid born in 1960 was an altogether
different creature from my friends and myself, and the gap would become more
pronounced as time went on. That kid, or
one born in 1964, would always know JFK as some kind of hero on a big coin, and
was just three years old during the Summer of Love, never even contemplating
actually having sex until the Sixties were long over.
The cultural
drift many decry is the result of many things:
the growth of corporations, the spread of patents (both dating from the
late Renaissance), the threat of annihilation, the experimentation with the
economy – not to mention advertising, the true locust-cloud of our time. It is actually thought itself which has
changed: attitudes toward life and other
humans, and the manner in which each person faces the life bestowed. As time has compressed, the number of things
in the world has increased, and our institutions and ethics have had an
effortful and unsuccessful time keeping up with those changes.
A twenty-year generational
grouping was probably perfect up back when time – and events – moved at a more
leisurely pace. But with the coming of the 20th century, things
changed. Long is the list the events
which sped those changes: telegraph,
telephone, electric lighting, indoor plumbing, medical and other technical
advances like airplanes, war-tanks and automobiles. Perhaps it was fair to call a ten-year
grouping a ‘generation’ in the Roaring Twenties, but it cannot be to do so
now. And to call an 18-year grouping a
‘generation’ is silly beyond belief.
I also wonder
why people continue to insist on unfavorably comparing the ‘Boomers’ with ‘The
Greatest Generation’ – and vice-versa.
Is it some sort of age-old father/son competition? Persons who do so are buying into a profound conceptual
folly, taking potshots at a crowd which must include at least some of their
heroes as well.
Actually,
‘potshots at a crowd’ is almost the perfect metaphor for the entire Boomer
situation – and for any argument that idealises one generation at the expense
of another. That afternoon at Kent State
was the mirror held up to our times: one
group of kids (Boomers) shooting into another group of unarmed kids (Boomers). Who put those guns in the kids’ hands? Who trained them to shoot and to follow
orders? Who gave the fatal orders? It is unlikely that Boomers could have done
any but the last item, and improbable that they did even that. Those green young National Guardsmen were
schooled and molded by members of the ‘Greatest Generation.’
And the mirror
doesn’t lie: everything my ‘generation’
learned, we learned from our fathers. We
learned, we absorbed, we synthesized and extended. Yet Boomers have been described as
self-centered and self-aggrandising. Self-centered? The Fifties was a self-centered bath of
personal comforts, prepared by those celebrating their survival of the ‘Great
Depression’ and the War.
Self-aggrandising? Isn’t
aggrandisement of self the subtle heart of the incipient racism and classism of
previous generations (extending back, in America’s case, to ‘the founding
fathers’)?
Each generation
takes what it can take from the pool and gives what it will give – right, wrong
or indifferent. It isn’t so much about
‘us and them’ as about ‘all of us and these changing exigencies of our
lives.’ There are good and bad elements
in every ‘generation,’ and I hope that we do not teach purblindness to the
generations with whose future thought processes we have been trusted. It is the responsibility and duty of our
teachers to teach openly and fairly, withholding personal bias in favor of
seeking all the facts, to guide young minds to think for themselves – rather
than accept the party line or the rantings of embittered politicos who happen
to be their professors. Only by keeping
our universities free, by not trying to control content, can we hope to have
future generations which will be better than we are, more able to cope with
changes, more suited to the future which they will inherit.
But the whole
argument about ‘Boomers vs
The Greatest Generation’ is one big exercise in cheap generalities, careless
thought and sloppy argument. No wonder
the larger fraction of the American public can’t think clearly, fed as they are
on disingenuous pap, propaganda disguised as opinion, outright lies by their ‘leaders.’ Of course, that is what they want, after
all. The media continues to present them
with a collection of half-baked sentiments masquerading as thoughts and ideas. But I shudder to realise that our colleges
and universities harbor professors indulging in carelessness, in the shoddy
building of thesis and argument, resulting in enormous waste of creative power.
But there is a third
false premise in the pitting of one generation against another, a mistake made in
almost every anti-war movie ever produced:
the demonisation of one side. How
can the audience really feel the waste and tragedy of war when that emotion is
pushed aside by a stronger visceral reaction, one engendered by a discernible
villain to hate? By casting one
‘generation’ against another, we miss the entire point: all generations have their noble few, their
plodding many, their great and silent apathetic masses. They all possess within them individuals who
are greedy, the guileless, the cynical, and the idealistic.
We are all of us
human, all marked with the same tendencies and needs and wants. These traits are part of the human
psyche. Victorian women in New York suffered lead
poisoning from the white makeup they slathered on themselves in an attempt to
‘stay in fashion.’ Others bound their
waists so tightly that they irreparably damaged their viscera. Can we really believe that every woman of our grandmothers’ (or
great-grandmothers’) generation would have spurned breast augmentation or
liposuction – had it been safe, inexpensive and available to them?
It is true that recent
generations were generally ‘given everything,’ where most previous generations
grew up in harsher conditions. Boomers
were presented with opportunities at every turn, and had them thrust on us by
the world at large and by our parents, who were admittedly affected by previous
privations that could not be ignored.
Some kids were spoiled by their parents, while other parents took the
absurd tack of emulating their kids, which often made them look ridiculous
indeed.
The simple fact
is that Boomers just became much more visible than any previous generation, as
the spread of television and the globalisation of our culture thrust us into
people’s living rooms every night on sitcoms, on the news, in movies and
magazines and newspapers. As a group, we
became the center of attention, and don’t think some of us didn’t deliberately play
to it for all it was worth. But that situation
too serves to distort the facts. It made
us seem more important than we actually were, a point readily made if one looks
at one item generally taken to be an immanently ‘Boomer’ phenomenon – marijuana. An overview of the recent history of
marijuana reveals immediately that the Boomers as a ‘group’ still haven’t got
the political clout to legalise the damn stuff after roughly 40 years of
effort. If the thesis of ‘generational
homogeneity’ were even close to true, we’d all be buying ‘Boo’ or ‘Gauge’ or ‘Herb’
or ‘420’ cigarets at the corner store, paying a hefty use tax to the government. But we’re not – what’s that about?
Like most of
American life, it’s probably all about issues, and the truth is that there is
no single ‘American public’ viewing (or deciding) the issues. There are only a collection of ‘publics,’
overlapping, sharing interests in a broader or narrower fashion – but no one
group can even begin to embody the contradictions of the ‘American’ mind. Notions of homogeneity are nonsense – and
even dangerous when included in ‘discussions’ in national magazines or on TV.
Some of us were
fighting against the Vietnam
action long before it threatened us – like ’64 or ’65, when we were still in
public schools, not yet shaving, unaware of the true reality of that awful
threat. Without their kids providing a
conscience – for whatever reason – most Americans might have shrugged off the
atrocities in Southeast Asia as ‘the cost of doing business,’ just as they are
today shrugging off the war in Iraq
as ‘a necessary part of bringing democracy to the Middle
East.’
Sex, drugs and
rock ‘n’ roll weren’t invented by my ‘generation,’ though many of us often
acted like they were. And there were a
lot of fortysomethings crashing – and throwing – parties in the Seventies. And yes, many Boomers did embrace Reagan’s
rapacity; don’t forget that $3 trillion debt – but they don’t represent the
entirety of the ‘generation.’ And when we
hear George W’s lectures on social responsibility, we have to remember that he
personally has never shown fiscal responsibility and seeks to turn the entire
country into Republicans through a variety of ‘parlor tricks’.
Of course, large
parts of the ‘American public’ [not just Boomers] say about Clinton, “How dare he behave like one of us!” Americans have a long and cherished history
of pulling down their heroes for showing that they are human. The ‘straight press’ has only sniffed the
wind and adjusted course to become the pillory of American society that the
tabloid press had once been. We – all
generations of Americans raised puritans in our schools, irrespective of
religious affiliation – want our heroes perfect, impeccable, safe. In other words, dead. Anyone elevated to hero status has to die or
fall, or America
just won’t be happy.
Some wag called this
new crop of little altruists as being ‘Letterman’s kids,’ ‘ironic but not
cynical.’ Boy, does that miss more than
one mark. Most of these kids wouldn’t know real irony if it bit them in the
ass, and cynicism is endemic, though not the film-noir type with which we are
familiar. It is ironic too that some think
of Letterman as some paragon of social attitude, that man described elsewhere
as “a 52-year old … stogie sucker…workaholic perfectionist whose scabrous
self-loathing and growling hostility are unmatched on network TV.” Quite a choice for an ‘ironic but not
cynical’ role model. Letterman’s
faux-courteous but mocking attitude has infected a lot of young people,
especially males, who think that mocking something is the same as understanding
it, or improving it. None of Letterman's
humor does anything to point toward improvement – it is puerile, smug and
extremely self-satisfied. He would do
well to practice humility, since he does have so much to be humble about,
sitting on the sidelines and jeering at others while offering no true perspective,
no solutions, no answers.
It is truly ironic
that the corporate models of late 20th-century America and the personal ethic of
‘captains of industry’ were all visited on us by the Harvard MBA Class of
1949. Gordon Gecko was only the natural
extension of a philosophy that has been building for more than 150 years – at
least since Vanderbilt sent William Walker and his small army of mercenaries to
‘pacify’ Nicaragua in 1847.
The logical
extension of that little escapade in 19th-century ‘nation building’
– the School of the Americas – was not started by Boomers, any more than were
the HUAC hearings, the Tuskegee Experiment or other heinous offerings of
previous generations. But to lay blame
on an entire group is wrong – and false.
Invective against anyone not interested ‘in the lasting result of the
creative process,’ or against anyone for ‘trampling on the rights of others,’
might be leveled against any at least one segment of any generation at any time
in history.
We’ve heard
about the Civil Rights Movement continuing ‘without strong support’ from
Boomers on college campuses. Oh,
really? I was there, and stand witness
to the fact that the college crowd was just about the only strong support in numbers that the movement
had from ‘white America.’ Without a whole segment of one ‘generation’
behind it, the Movement might have missed the watchful eye of the Gatekeepers
in the media [the Greatest Generation and the one previous] – and failed to
gain needed political momentum in the white establishment.
And who gave
that generational group the sobriquet ‘hippie’?
Life Magazine. The previous
generation has been defining us since it taught us to walk. In our schools, the previous generation
taught us how to define ourselves – in its own language, not ours. And this is a crucial point – every
generation down through history has fought this battle with its
predecessor. Every generation has looked
back and said “No,” only to look forward a few years later and said, “Oh,
no.” Somewhere in a cave is a pictograph
that translates “Screw Og, my axe is better,” next to one that says, “Mog is
grounded til saber-tooth season.”
For every argument
pulled up to bolster a biased argument, there are countless others to support
not only the opposing argument, but a true and objective picture of the times
and of the sad, colorful, varied, sometimes noble, hopeful people who struggled
through them.