lol :)

White discrimination existed back then, but it was white ethnic/religious group versus white ethnic/religious group. After all Kennedy almost didn't get elected president in 1960 because he was a white Irish Catholic.

It was just quicker to do it based on skin color based on sight before having to do it by name.

I was just watching Don Rickles TV specials from 1975 where he's going through the audience insulting people by ethnic group when he came to a Portuguese woman and stopped with the line, "I don't have any Portuguese jokes."

The racism should be separated from the 1950's question. Those two do not necessarily equate nor are they necessarily related. While race and sex relations were worse in the 1950's there is plenty of other things that certain people could perceive as being better in that era. Rather than saying they believe that the 1950's were better because of the racism/sexism, it could just as easily have been said that they believe it was better *in spite of* the racism/sexism.

I mean seriously, who in their right mind wouldn't prefer Bing Cosby to Justin Bieber...

It's quite remarkable how much of politics boils down to an argument over what group of people in society is being the most victimized at any given moment. In general I'm pretty skeptical of all such arguments, since they are highly dangerous (a sense of Aryan victimhood was at the heart of Nazi ideology), everyone does it these days, and most of the time these claims are total bullshit.

That said, the white American claim to victimhood status may be the weakest I've heard yet. To cite just one example, literally every U.S. president, up till now, has been a white man.

"While race and sex relations were worse in the 1950's there is plenty of other things that certain people could perceive as being better in that era."

.....like what? It might just be me, but I really don't want to go back to the days where polio and smallpox were still a thing.

KingCyrus

I'm sure you are a very nice person, but to say that the 1950s were better than today is absolutely narrow-minded and ignorant. To say that the 1950s in general is better than today is implying that the few good things that it had going for it (Bing Crosby?) somehow made up for segregation, extreme oppression, and common hate crimes and murders of different ethnic people is ridiculous.

Yes, you can say that the music of the 1950s is better or whatever, but to simply state that it is mostly better is at the very best selfish and ignorant of what actually occurred during those times, and at the worst horrendously elitist/racist/sexist/etc.

Lol I'm still laughing at how you could interpret that as "the 1950s was better in spite of black people being hosed down for protesting oppression and racism" Is Bing Crosby and Elvis THAT good to you?

^Those comments aren't about you of course, they about people who actually believe that things were generally better off in the 1950s

Things that were occurring in the 1950s/60s (prior to and during the Civil Rights Movement):

• Racial segregation/oppression
• Sexual/gender repression
• Mass environmental degradation
• Vietnam War
• Deadheads (this deserves to be on the same list as the previous four items)

They were literally dumping DDT on children's faces because they thought it was a miracle chemical. That doesn't sound terribly desirable.

Things were better in the '50s. Back then there were no black people in the white neighborhoods or restaurants or schools or drinking fountains to create racial tension, and women rarely tried to be stay-at-home moms, so men hardly ever tried to force them to, or had to worry about contraception or wage disparity or any of the other horrible problems we have today.

Things seemed better in the 1950s depending where you were. You had all those problems in some places. Wage disparity existed, but you had fewer rich people so more of them were poor and middle class. Contraception wasn't as wide spread so you had more births since abortion was illegal unless you were rich.

Segregation depended upon where you live because white neighborhoods didn't want some non-WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) moving in.

Reverse discrimination is tolerance. Anytime I hear or see that term I know Im dealing with a person with an agenda that has nothing to do with ending discrimination.

The 1850s had even less reverse-racism...

@ bo + Yoyo,

I'm playing devil's advocate here. Don't knock me because some people have different priorities than you. While there were awful things that were happening then don't be so arrogant to assume everyone has the same opinions or priorities as you. And calling them narrow minded and ignorant, once again because they have different ideals/opinions/priorities than you, is incredibly intolerant and insulting.

Lol placing your own personal regards over those of other people by either ignoring or disregarding them is the definition of ignorance.

Literally the only people that the 1950s were better for were Christian White People. Taking that without regards for other people and saying that "since X was better for me, it must have been a better time period in general" is extremely bigoted.

The 1950s were also great for Mao Zedong, who began slaughtering 30 million people. Is calling him i shithead considered intolerant and insulating of his ideals and priorities? What about the people that followed/sympathize with him?

No, Cyrus, arguing that the fifties were better is arguing that racism and sexism aren't very important. These were (and still are) massive issues, and the idea that someone could just have different priorities or think that someone could fairly weigh the pros and cons and come to the conclusion that that time was better in spite of racism is simply incomprehensible.

You're defending racists. Don't hide behind playing devil's advocate.

You do realize you are doing the exact same thing... right?

"Literally the only people that the 1950s were better for were Christian White People."

100% false. How about Palestinians? They weren't living under blockade in the 1950's. How about the people of Cuba (before 1953)? Are you so narrow minded as to think that everyone must have the same moral perspective as you? Is racism and sexism bad? Yes. But there are things that are a whole lot worse than the racism and sexism of the 50's.

I'm not defending racists ghug. I'm just saying there are worse things than what happened in the 50's, and some of those things are happening today. Whether it is a net gain/loss depends on how much weight you put on, say, American civil liberty vs violent oppression in Cuba or Palestine.

That's a massive red herring. The discussion is clearly limited to the context of America.

Sorry for taking a broader view. That was what my original post was intended to be. I also find it ironic that I got slammed for "placing your own personal regards over those of other people" while at the same time those accusing me are being extremely narrow in their view point, limiting it to one country...

@KingCyrus

Did you forget about when the Palestinians were exiled from their own country and stripped of their land rights?

Using cuba before 1953 is completely dancing over 70% of what is considered the 1950s, King Cyrus.

King Cyrus, you're talking about embargos that are happening today, which cause some degree of poverty at worst. There was a genocide of 30 million people taking place in the 1950s. The crude deathrate in the world is almost half of what it was in the 1950s. You can satisfy everyone, which is why we make generalizations.

The basic premise is that shit happening is not limited to one era. Shit happens. A lot. It is not specific to one time or place. Thus saying, "that era had more shit" is almost completely impossible to prove or disprove.

it's OK, humans will forget about race when the robot overlords take over

Cyrus, you're arguing disingenuously. The article was specifically about America.m It's not narrow minded to discuss what the actual subject is. You realized you couldn't win that argument, so you tried to start a new one. Yoyo has chosen to engage you, so you've succeeded, but you'll soon find you can't win this argument either. I'm hoping you won't try to change the subject again when that happens.

i think most of the problems people had in the 50s were fixed by cell phones

Prove? Maybe not. Measure? Of course!

Let's take a look at the infant mortality rates, illness, crude death rates, income per capita, technology, race/sex relations, foreign policy, education levels, IQ level, general welfare, quality of life, or standard or living and tell me if you can find one instance where the general level from 1950 is higher than 2012-2015.

And no, Bing Crosby and Elvis, despit how good they are, do not count toward Quality of Life.

Don´t feed the trolls.....

The 50s were a product of the allied victory in WW2. The world order was established, polarized, and understood. It's easy to be a superpower, especially when you have a well-defined enemy. The US was more homogeneous then with respect to race and religion. So, some have nostalgia for that time.