Generation Z = / = Homelander?

[Eric the Green]

(08-06-2019, 11:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 10:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 07:47 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-04-2019, 02:43 PM)Ghost Wrote: Whenever the term "Gen Z" gets thrown around, it usually refers to the group of people born between around 1997 and 2012, or in other words, those that have very little to no memories of 9/11 but were at school when the Parkland shooting happened (except for those born in 1997-1999, who were already out of school when it happened).

However, when terms like "Homelander" or "Homeland Generation" appear, there are usually three different possibilities it can refer to - born after 9/11, born since 2003, or born since 2005. 

You would occasionally hear of people born in the late 90's, and to some extent, 2000 and 2001, get called Generation Z, but I've almost never heard them referred to as "Homelanders".

It sometimes makes me wonder if Gen Z's official name will be "Homelanders" and if the Gen Z label will fade away overtime.

I hope the Pew dates fade away. Generations are not 15 years long. 2003 is correct; 2004 is OK. Homelanders is just a name thrown around on this forum; it has no other platform and will face away. It also implies that this generation is about dealing with the aftermath of 9-11. Gen Z seems like it's catching on. I called them that in my 1997 book.

When the term "Gen Z" is used, the 1981-1996 and 1982-2000 definitions are always the most common definitions for Millennials, even though most will probably agree that 1981 is an X year (I'm pretty sure everyone on here, myself included, thinks that 1981 is a Gen X birthyear).

Now regarding the Gen Z name - the only reason why it is named that is because Gen Xers are called Gen X and Millennials were at one point called Gen Y. It'll probably fade away overtime, but I don't doubt that it'll still start in either 1997 or 2000.

The latest birthyear I have seen lumped as being a "Millennial" though is 2006, which might surprise you.

I regard 1981 as a Gen X year, but it's on the cusp; I do accept the idea of cusps; it's just common sense. Nothing is so strictly bordered in the living world.

The most-common definitions and dating of the last millennial year are given by Pew Research, which is not a study of generational traits, but only demographics. It's like saying Boomers began in 1946 because that's when the baby boom started.

Gen Z will eventually be regarded as starting in 2003, at least among those who study generations and not demographics. And Gen Z will go all the way to 2024, because the 1T is not going to start until 2028 or 2029. Mr. Howe still says Gen Z starts in 2004, and we here should use that date or close to it, and not 1997 or 2000.

Gen Z is the name that has caught on so far. But if there's another name that comes along that describes them, and it catches on, the name could change. There's no such name yet, although people on T4T forums have speculated about it and offered names. That's always fun to do, but it doesn't mean that what we say here will catch on in the media zeitgeist. Mr. Howe adopted a name that someone here suggested, years ago now (Homelanders), but that name has not caught on because it doesn't fit. Since letters are used now for generations, as I suggested in my 1997 book, I suspect every generation will have a letter from now on, even if that's not the primary name. Not because I said so though, of course

The next prophets, yet to be born, are already being called Generation Alpha, or the Alpha Wave Generation. I think that's a cool name.

1981 is late X. I don't accept the idea of cusps because I'm born outside the XY cusp yet have done many of the things in childhood and teens that pure Millennials supposedly have not done. Since it says I haven't done these things because I was born outside of the range it means the cusp is garbage. If I have experienced these things that "core Millennials" supposedly haven't then what makes me different from this supposed cusp range? I read an article on the cusp and experienced those very same things. This means the category is arbitrary and artificial.

I suggest that generations cannot be dated on the basis of one person's feelings or experiences. One person's experience does not invalidate the idea of cusps. Clearer thinking than that is needed from T4T fans and participants in a T4T forum, in my opinion. One person does not fit an archetype or stereotype. It's only a generation. I know you are different from the millennial norm, but that does not invalidate the millennial norm. I may happen to be a typical boomer myself, in most ways, but there's plenty of folks who don't fit. I even took an online questionnaire which identified me as a millennial. No-one can fit entirely any general description; it's only a trend that applies generally-speaking to millions of people, not necessarily to you or to me.