01-24-2020, 08:56 AM
(01-24-2020, 12:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(01-23-2020, 10:09 PM)Ghost Wrote:(01-23-2020, 09:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(01-23-2020, 08:30 PM)Ghost Wrote:(01-23-2020, 07:12 PM)jleagans Wrote: 72 years, with each turning and generational cohort covering 18 years. 18 is our clearest demarcation of childhood to adulthood, with 18x4=72.
I remember having a thread where I argued about 72-year saeculums. However, it received a lot of criticism on here.
It actually does make a lot of sense and I can see how it works. The 1996 cutoff for Millennials seems very similar to the 1924 cutoff for the GI Generation, with 1997-1999 and 1925-1927 as being years that are mostly seen as the later generation despite having some sources occasionally lumping them with the previous generation. (for 97-99, it would be Homelanders, and for 25-27, it would be the Silents). 1924-1927 also have the same Chinese zodiac animals as 1996-1999 (1924 and 1996 are rat years, 1925 and 1997 are ox years, 1926 and 1998 are tiger years, 1927 and 1999 are rabbit years).
1925 and 1928 are both very good starting points for Silents, similar to how 1997 and 2000 are both very good starting points for Generation Z/Homelanders.
The Pew generation dates are not based on generational characteristics. Using those, Gen Z probably starts around 2003. Be that as it may, the saeculum if anything should be getting longer, according to what the saeculum is based upon. That is the average length of a human lifetime. That is much more than 72 years, now, and has been getting longer (although not in the USA under Trump). A lot of 72-year old folks today are just getting started! S&H defined the archetypal length of the saeculum in T4T as 84 years.
Do you agree with this breakdown (Using the years 1981-2003)?
1981-1984: Columbine Generation (those in high school during the Columbine shootings)
1985-1990: Recession Generation (those affected the most by the Recession)
1991-1995: Electropop Generation (the stereotypical electropop fanbase)
*Margin of error: People born as late as 1998 may fall under this category, considering that they were the last to be at high school before electropop completely fizzled out (early or mid 2013). I think that 1998 borns are similar to 1986 and 1977 borns in this matter; 1986 borns being the last to be at high school before teen pop fizzled out (early or mid 2001) and 1977 borns being the last to be at high school before glam metal fizzled out (early or mid 1992). However, we are only focusing on the "average Joe" electropop audience.
1996-1999: Gamergate Generation (the stereotypical young far right and far left people)
2000-2003: Activist Generation (those in high school during the Parkland shootings as well as the stereotypical attendees of the September 2019 climate strikes)
*Margin of error: "Activist Generation" could be pushed as far back as 1997 because Hunter Pollack, a Parkland activist, was born in 1997.
Maybe; I don't know. It seems plausible and perhaps correct. But I doubt that a single event can cause a defining response by only one sub-generation. There are a lot of events and family conditions that define a generational group, and there are a lot of traits that characterize one.
The recession has affected millennials the most, but I think it affected the whole generation. I am skeptical that electropop defined a generation. There are a lot of styles going on in pop at any time, and I don't think any one style predominates these days. I thought the 2012-2013 period was the best in pop music since at least the early 1980s, but I would not define the best songs of those years as just "electropop." It could be defined as part at least of the heyday of the solo girl artist. But perhaps you know more about today's youth and music styles than I do.
The Columbine shootings, the Recession, Gamergate, and the Parkland shootings were all events that undeniably had a very high magnitude (but at the same time weren't 9/11).