Poll: Is this a good idea?
Yes.
No.
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Breaking the idea that saeculums are ~85 years
#1
Based on looking at generation definitions online and studying about historical events that took place, I'd surmise the idea that saeculums (set of four generations) aren’t really ~85 years but most likely around 72 years. Not to mention that the average lifespan worldwide is around 72 years or very close to it (a year or so give or take).

Finding generation equivalents based on birthyears is hard. The only ones that are probably known is GI/Silent compared to Millennials/Z and probably Boomer/X compared to Millennials/Z, making each “saeculum” 72 years instead of around ~85 years and “half-saeculum” 36 years instead of ~42.5. Based on various sources, I would say that it would be safe enough to conclude that these are the GI, Boomer, and Millennial equivalents of each other:
 

All/almost all sources lump them as GI/Boomers/Millennials:

1918 -> 1954 -> 1990 (Horses)

1919 -> 1955 -> 1991 (Goats)

1992 -> 1956 -> 1920 (Monkeys)

1993 -> 1957 -> 1921 (Roosters)


Some sources lump them as GI/Boomers/Millennials, and they usually/traditionally are:

1994 -> 1958 -> 1922 (Dogs)

1995 -> 1959 -> 1923 (Boars)

1996 -> 1960 -> 1924 (Mice)


Some sources lump them as GI/Boomers/Millennials, but they usually/traditionally are not:

1997 -> 1961 -> 1925 (Oxen)

1998 -> 1962 -> 1926 (Tigers)

1999 -> 1963 -> 1927 (Rabbits)


All/almost all sources don’t lump them as GI/Boomers/Millennials

2000 -> 1964 -> 1928 (Dragons)

2001 -> 1965 -> 1929 (Snakes)

2002 -> 1966 -> 1930 (Horses)

2003 -> 1967 -> 1931 (Goats)


If you look at it in a big picture, it does make a little bit of sense. It also seems to coincide with the Chinese Zodiac, as shown above.

I would also argue that the ages of each equivalent were similar to each other when certain events took place (using 1924, 1960, and 1996 - the Mice years - as an example):

1924 borns were 2/3 when the Bath School disaster (arguably the GI Gen's Columbine or Y2K) took place, 4/5 when Black Tuesday took place, 14/15 during the start of WWII, and 20/21 when WWII ended.

1960 borns were 2/3 when JFK was assassinated, 4/5 when the first US troops arrived in Vietnam as well as when Immigration Act of 1965 was passed, 14/15 when the Vietnam War ended, and 20/21 when Reagan was inaugurated along with the start of the AIDS crisis.

1996 borns were 3 when Y2K took place, 4/5 when 9/11 happened and the War on Terror commenced, 14/15 when Occupy Wall Street took place, and 20/21 when Trump was inaugurated along with the rise of the #MeToo movement.

A breakdown of each generation starting with the year 1802:

Civil War Saeculum (72 years)

1802-1819: Transcendental Generation

1820-1837: Gilded Generation

1838-1855: Bleeding Generation (grew up during Bleeding Kansas and the Civil War)

1856-1873: Progressive Gen (the main people involved in the rise of progressivism in the early 20th century – Woodrow Wilson, William Jennings Bryan, Jane Addams, and Al Smith for example – were all born sometime during this 18-year span)


Great Power Saeculum (72 years)

1874-1891: Idealists

1892-1909: Automobile Generation (grew up during the rise of the automobile)

1910-1927: GI Generation (anyone 18 and older during WWII but either are unlikely to or can't remember Franz Ferdinand's assassination)

1928-1945: Silent Generation (anyone under 18 during WWII)


Millennial Saeculum (72 years)

1946-1963: Baby Boomers (born after WWII but before JFK's assassination)

1964-1981: Gen X (anyone that wasn’t 18 yet during the MTV launch but already 18 by the time Y2K happened)

1982-1999: Millennials (anyone under 18 when Y2K took place)

2000-2017: Homelanders (anyone born after Y2K but already adults when the Apophis asteroid, probably their - along with the Neo-Prophets' - equivalent of Y2K, will come)


Post-Millennial Saeculum (72 years)

2018-2035: Neo-Prophets (any minor when the Apophis incident may happen)

2036-2053: Unnamed nomad gen

2054-2071: Unnamed hero gen

2072-2089: Unnamed artist gen


Please let me know what you think about this idea.
Reply
#2
Maybe the Homelander start date should be adjusted to begin in late 2001 following the Sept. 11 attacks that year which spawned the homeland security department for whom the Homelander generation was named.
Reply
#3
If you accept the Howe and Strauss theory relating to the divide between a Civic and an Adaptive generation, then the definition will not be established until the end of the Crisis, when Civic young adults find themselves in heroic roles and Adaptive youth find themselves on the sidelines of momentous events that define history for perhaps sixty years. The oldest Homeland kids will have been well prepared for heroic opportunities that never came to them.

There was no great divide between the GI and Silent generation until WWII was over. GIs got to storm the beaches at Normandy and Okinawa. The Silent were the well-disciplined, spit-and-polish occupation troops. The slightly-older troops had the dubious pleasure of facing enemy troops fighting desperately to save their Fuhrer or Emperor; the slightly younger ones got to see Germans who no longer heard the incendiary rhetoric of Goebbels and Japanese who had to return to the rice paddies to stave off famine.

OK, this Crisis Era will not resemble the last one (it can't!), the American Civil War, or the American Revolution. Even if this Crisis is as much a calamity for America as it was for Germany and Japan in the last one, there will still be a huge divide between those who find out as they are fully grown-up that what preceded was unconscionable and those who still are a bit wet behind the ears finding out that everything that the discredited leaders told them was a sham. A divide similar to the GI/Silent divide in America also applied in Germany and Japan, if for very different reasons.

So what if we have a relatively bloodless Crisis? Maybe an electoral landslide that knocks out the power-base of the social elite solves seemingly everything (or, on the other hand, establishes that monopolistic gougers and domineering overlords are the best friends that we could possibly have -- if you believe the Hard Right). Maybe we have a 2008-style economic meltdown that makes America's super-rich more concerned with economic survival than with political power -- or cause the disintegration of some private empires with the concomitant appearance of small business serving niches that those behemoths either never served well or served people at too high a price. Maybe we get a consensus on needful reforms of our political and economic order.

The best that any of us can hope for is what the bleakest of all Christmas carols carols (ironic, as I write this halfway between Christmas 2018 and Christmas 2019)... the wrong shall fail, the right prevail!
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#4
I don't agree with a 72-year saeculum, and certainly not with any notion that Y2K or 9-11 started a 4T or that millennials ended in 1996-99. But, I've said all that before. And the common demographic boomer dates like what you cite are not boomer generation dates.

Lifespans are increasing, not decreasing, so saecula may be increasing in length and slowing down. 72 today probably applies to poorer countries, not the USA; still less to Western Europe.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#5
(06-25-2019, 12:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't agree with a 72-year saeculum, and certainly not with any notion that Y2K or 9-11 started a 4T or that millennials ended in 1996-99. But, I've said all that before. And the common demographic boomer dates like what you cite are not boomer generation dates.

Lifespans are increasing, not decreasing, so saecula may be increasing in length and slowing down. 72 today probably applies to poorer countries, not the USA; still less to Western Europe.

72 years being one's average lifespan applies worldwide.

https://www.who.int/gho/mortality_burden...trends/en/
Reply
#6
People are still becoming fully adult in many respects (such as cultural identity and political tendencies) earlier than they used to. Maybe a comparatively few eighteen-year-olds vote, but it is arguable that more 25-years-olds are voting than used to be the case.

It is possible that with increasing lifespans and shorter lengths of generations than was the case in the 18th century and earlier that we have more times in which we have four active adult generations at once. The people who married and had children earlier, basically peasants, had no influence upon economics or culture and generally have little role in history in medieval and early-modern times. The aristocratic elites who owned everything and wielded all the power usually had to wait until age 30 or so to even start to get a transition to influence upon society.

The generational cycle might be muted in its potential ferocity. It is hard to imagine a Crisis as horrific as the last one because there will be active Silent adults in influence as late as 2030 by which time a younger Adaptive generation will start influencing at the least the mass culture of the time. Howe and Strauss tell us that what defines most eras is not so much the domination of one generational type but instead the absence of one. Thus a High is so culturally-stale because the last adult Idealist generation that might offer some controversy is no longer around; an Awakening is so irreverent toward needful traditions (dammit, at least look out for the children!) because the last adult Reactive generation is out to pasture or at least rushed to the 'retirement home'; an Unraveling is so destructive to institutions because a Civic (or Civic-like, as was the case of the Gilded going into the 1920s) that might know how to organize things or keep things organized is in retirement; and finally a Crisis is potentially so ferocious because Adaptive adults who might suggest gentleness instead of cruelty and might seek to mitigate the call to 'loose the fateful lightning of His terrible, swift sword' are then irrelevant.

It's probably for the better, because the nuclear genie is out of the lamp and cannot be put back into it.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#7
(06-25-2019, 07:56 AM)Ghost Wrote:
(06-25-2019, 12:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't agree with a 72-year saeculum, and certainly not with any notion that Y2K or 9-11 started a 4T or that millennials ended in 1996-99. But, I've said all that before. And the common demographic boomer dates like what you cite are not boomer generation dates.

Lifespans are increasing, not decreasing, so saecula may be increasing in length and slowing down. 72 today probably applies to poorer countries, not the USA; still less to Western Europe.

72 years being one's average lifespan applies worldwide.

https://www.who.int/gho/mortality_burden...trends/en/

Yes but if anything, if there's a worldwide common saeculum, it follows the USA and Europe, not the other way around. Otherwise, if there's not a worldwide saeculum today, then the 72-year saeculum or some other length might apply in other countries, not the USA. 

Likely, however, less-developed countries have a slower saeculum than 84 years. Saecula go faster when there is greater change in society. In renaissance, medieval and ancient times, saecula lasted over 100 years, even though lifespans were only about 40 or 50 years long. The name saeculum is based on the Roman cycle length of 100 years, as noticed, observed and named by people in those times.

The civil war saeculum was apparently faster, from about 1794 to 1865, unless it is given as starting in the 1780s, as has been suggested. Sometimes the following Great Power saeculum, ostensively 1865 to 1945, is shortened by extending the civil war saeculum to 1868 or later. But in any case, both saecula were a few years shorter than the 84-year standard given in the T4T book. And they were times of the most rapid change.

But in our times, since Reagan and his successors have slowed down change in our society with neo-liberalism, our saeculum has reverted to the normal length of 84 years, and extends from 1946 to 2029. This is mainly due to the longer 3T in the Reagan-Bush-Clinton era from 1984 to 2008. The presence of four archetypes in our current saeculum may also be slowing it down or making it less severe, as brower noted.

Probably, the 84-year lifespan counts more than the 72-year supposed worldwide average, because elites that shape society live longer than most of the common people, and because the statistic of average lifespans is shortened by the higher child mortality rate. Those who make it to adulthood today are more likely to live longer than 72 years in developed countries. And if there's a worldwide saeculum, it is set by the affairs in developed countries, who dominate world affairs and who caused the world wars; otherwise the less-developed countries are on their own timetables with different dates.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#8
2018 is too early for Prophets, since the necessary condition is not remembering the Crisis. I doubt any English-speaking nation will be over the crisis by 2022.

My breakdown of the postwar saeculum is as follows:
1945 - ca 1965 Atomic Shock (High)
1965 - 1980 Countercultural Awakening
1980 - 2006 Neoliberalism (Unravelling)
2006 - 202? Digital Transformation (Crisis)
Neoconservatism ended in 2006 with the Iraqi civil war, neoliberalism in 2008 with the recession. It definitely felt like change of an era.

Going by the idea that people become adults at 20, we can break down the generations as:
1925 - ca 1944 Silent
1945 - 1960 Boomer
1961 - 1985 Xer (including Xennials)
1986 - 200? Millennial (including older members of so-called gen Z)
200? - 202? gen Alpha (including younger members of so-called gen Z)

The current gen Z identity won't survive the younger members of this cohort coming of age during the beginning of the new saeculum. Kids born in 2007 will learn they have more in common with their younger cousins born in 2013 than with someone born in 2002.

As long as people come of age at about 20, the turnings won't last longer even if people routinely live to be 150. It's more probable the future people will experience two saeculums. Imagine the missionaries still being around!
Reply
#9
(06-28-2019, 01:26 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: 2018 is too early for Prophets, since the necessary condition is not remembering the Crisis. I doubt any English-speaking nation will be over the crisis by 2022.

My breakdown of the postwar saeculum is as follows:
1945 - ca 1965 Atomic Shock (High)
1965 - 1980 Countercultural Awakening
1980 - 2006 Neoliberalism (Unravelling)
2006 - 202? Digital Transformation (Crisis)
Neoconservatism ended in 2006 with the Iraqi civil war, neoliberalism in 2008 with the recession. It definitely felt like change of an era.

Going by the idea that people become adults at 20, we can break down the generations as:
1925 - ca 1944 Silent
1945 - 1960 Boomer
1961 - 1985 Xer (including Xennials)
1986 - 200? Millennial (including older members of so-called gen Z)
200? - 202? gen Alpha (including younger members of so-called gen Z)

The current gen Z identity won't survive the younger members of this cohort coming of age during the beginning of the new saeculum. Kids born in 2007 will learn they have more in common with their younger cousins born in 2013 than with someone born in 2002.

As long as people come of age at about 20, the turnings won't last longer even if people routinely live to be 150. It's more probable the future people will experience two saeculums. Imagine the missionaries still being around!

Generations are far too long. Seeing someone born in 1961 and 1985 as the same generation is ridiculous. Technology and culture changed far too fast for that. Comparing 1980 and 2006 were two different universes.
Reply
#10
If the distinction is in the technology of entertainment, then the difference is superficial. I do not see a difference between growing up with black-and-white television and growing up with color television. If it is the difference between having programmed a PC and typically having computers that one could never program, then that is a huge difference. The more technologically-advanced Boomers often did programming in Fortran or Basic to do calculations and set up analyses of data. Programming one's own computer? That is so Boom... or early-wave X.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#11
If generations/saeculums could be approximated to even lengths, then maybe 80 years for a saeculum would make more sense:

Civil War Saeculum
(I haven't done much research on this era, but it seems the High went on a lot longer than normal and the Unraveling and Crisis were truncated, at least according to Strauss and Howe)
1785-1804 - High, birth of Transcendental Generation
1805-1824 - Extended High, continued birth of Transcendental Generation
1825-1844 - Awakening, birth of Gilded Generation
1845-1864 - Unraveling and Crisis, birth of Progressive Generation

Great Power Saeculum
1865-1884 - High, birth of Missionary Generation
1885-1904 - Awakening, birth of Lost Generation
1905-1924 - Unraveling, birth of G.I. Generation
1925-1944 - Crisis, birth of Silent Generation

Millennial Saeculum
1945-1964 - High, birth of Baby Boomers (with late-wave Generation Jones 1955-1964)
1965-1984 - Awakening, birth of Generation X (with late-wave Xennials 1975-1984)
1985-2004 - Unraveling, birth of Millennials (with late-wave Generation Z 1995-2004)
2005-2024 - Crisis, birth of Homeland (or Alpha) Generation

On top of this, I think some of the confusion in modern times is the difference in cultural generations to historical generations, cultural generations seem a bit shorter, 17 years instead of 20 years.

1912-1928 - Lost cultural era
1929-1945 - G.I. cultural era
1946-1962 - Silent cultural era
1963-1979 - Boomer cultural era
1980-1996 - Generation X cultural era
1997-2013 - Millennial cultural era
2014-2030 - Generation Z cultural era
Reply
#12
(06-28-2019, 01:26 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: 2018 is too early for Prophets, since the necessary condition is not remembering the Crisis. I doubt any English-speaking nation will be over the crisis by 2022.
Right. I doubt any nation will be over the crisis until 2028. For goodness sake, we've been just watching the waves get higher. Nothing has crashed yet. The 2020s will see the real thing. Fasten your seat belts!

For example, wtf are we going to do if Americans are foolish enough to re-elect Drumpface? That could spark a revolution. Or if he is voted out but refuses to leave. Or impeached and convicted and that riles up his crazies. Or if a new liberal regime enacts gun control.....

Quote:My breakdown of the postwar saeculum is as follows:
1945 - ca 1965 Atomic Shock (High)
1965 - 1980 Countercultural Awakening
1980 - 2006 Neoliberalism (Unravelling)
2006 - 202? Digital Transformation (Crisis)
Neoconservatism ended in 2006 with the Iraqi civil war, neoliberalism in 2008 with the recession. It definitely felt like change of an era.

S&H cut off the Awakening in Generations in 1980, but changed it to 1984 in T4T, which makes much more sense. The first 80s years were in a rather wasted holding pattern; the Awakening had lost much of its steam, but still continued (the anti-nuc movement, for example). Only when the so-called boom began in 1983 and Reagan pronouned it "morning in America" and foolish Americans believed him, did the neo-liberal 3T begin.

The PBS documentary on 1964 very much sealed the deal that S&H were right to choose that year as the start of the Awakening. Richard Viguery and others were quoted on it as saying 1964 was a door we went through, and could not go back. Would we take up the challenge and go through the door? Yes, we would!
https://youtu.be/aOkwpqlOQgo?t=6479





The 2008 recession was correctly identified by Mr. Howe as the start of the 4T. The Iraq War was just a 3T mess from the start.

Quote:Going by the idea that people become adults at 20, we can break down the generations as:
1925 - ca 1944 Silent
1945 - 1960 Boomer
1961 - 1985 Xer (including Xennials)
1986 - 200? Millennial (including older members of so-called gen Z)
200? - 202? gen Alpha (including younger members of so-called gen Z)

I did use 1984 as the start of Millennials or "Gen Y" myself; most people say 1980 to 1982. Xennials are a cusp group; no reason to include all of them in Gen X. Also, it's better to start Boomers a few years before the 1T started. That's the usual practice with the start of generations.

Quote:The current gen Z identity won't survive the younger members of this cohort coming of age during the beginning of the new saeculum. Kids born in 2007 will learn they have more in common with their younger cousins born in 2013 than with someone born in 2002.
Nicely said.

Quote:As long as people come of age at about 20, the turnings won't last longer even if people routinely live to be 150. It's more probable the future people will experience two saeculums. Imagine the missionaries still being around!

Good point.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#13
(07-01-2019, 02:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: S&H cut off the Awakening in Generations in 1980, but changed it to 1984 in T4T, which makes much more sense. The first 80s years were in a rather wasted holding pattern; the Awakening had lost much of its steam, but still continued (the anti-nuc movement, for example). Only when the so-called boom began in 1983 and Reagan pronouned it "morning in America" and foolish Americans believed him, did the neo-liberal 3T begin.

Still, didn't the fact that Americans wanted Reagan, and Brits wanted Thatcher, show the 2T is over?

Quote:The 2008 recession was correctly identified by Mr. Howe as the start of the 4T. The Iraq War was just a 3T mess from the start.

My point was that already during the Iraqi civil war it was "decided" that Iraqi Freedom was a failure. The anti-wars won, and neoconservatism was discredited. Bush's troop surge was never popular. The change promised by Obama for many voters meant troops going home.
Reply
#14
(07-01-2019, 04:42 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(07-01-2019, 02:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: S&H cut off the Awakening in Generations in 1980, but changed it to 1984 in T4T, which makes much more sense. The first 80s years were in a rather wasted holding pattern; the Awakening had lost much of its steam, but still continued (the anti-nuc movement, for example). Only when the so-called boom began in 1983 and Reagan pronounced it "morning in America" and foolish Americans believed him, did the neo-liberal 3T begin.

Still, didn't the fact that Americans wanted Reagan, and Brits wanted Thatcher, show the 2T is over?
No, because the 1980 recession continued and got worse, and Reagan was unpopular. Which party is in power in the white house does not necessarily define a turning. A turning is a national social and cultural mood, not a political party in office. Nixon's election in 1968 didn't end the 2T either. In any case, Reagan and Thatcher were powered into office by means of a movement that started in 1964, the first year of the 2T. Did you watch the video?

Quote:
Quote:The 2008 recession was correctly identified by Mr. Howe as the start of the 4T. The Iraq War was just a 3T mess from the start.

My point was that already during the Iraqi civil war it was "decided" that Iraqi Freedom was a failure. The anti-wars won, and neoconservatism was discredited. Bush's troop surge was never popular. The change promised by Obama for many voters meant troops going home.

The people knew the Iraqi war was a failure all along. The nation was divided in the 2004 election. But the war continued after 2006 and the congress failed to stop it. In any case, the war continued, and the surge, and then slowly winding down the war, which was remote from the people, was not the beginning of a crisis. The people did not feel it, and the end (?) of a policy that had been business as usual for decades (the neo-cons) was not a big deal.

But a nation going over a financial cliff with seemingly no end in sight was. It affected everybody. Without action, the nation was doomed. It was not just the failure of neo-liberalism, which anyway did not fail, but was revived less than two years later and put right back into power for at least the next decade (and given who the Democrats might put up in 2020, might even continue in power). It was the potential collapse of the entire economy worldwide. It's reverberations continued in the Arab Spring/Occupy movement and in the worldwide refugee crisis and the right-wing reaction that resulted from it.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#15
(07-01-2019, 05:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: No, because the 1980 recession continued and got worse, and Reagan was unpopular. Which party is in power in the white house does not necessarily define a turning. A turning is a national social and cultural mood, not a political party in office. Nixon's election in 1968 didn't end the 2T either. In any case, Reagan and Thatcher were powered into office by means of a movement that started in 1964, the first year of the 2T. Did you watch the video?

I've just finished the video Smile I really wanted to watch it yesterday, but I had to go to work. Now I am convinced 1964 was indeed a watershed. Both the Democrats and Republicans of today were invented in 1964. Johnson's presidency was the beginning of a liberalism focused on racial issues. Don't get me wrong, I think the anti-racist movements of the millennial saeculum were really necessary. The South's racist laws should have been abolished after the Civil War, or even during the Revolutionary War. After Johnson's ban on racial discrimination, the movements started morphed into something less valuable. I don't support cultural relativist rejection of the Western civilization, an idiotic sentiment best expressed by Jesse Jackson: "Hey hey, ho ho, Western culture's got to go." I also believe affirmative action is racism of low expectations, but these were hardly issues in 1964.
Then Barry Goldwater was almost a Reagan since he combined economic individualism (neoliberalism) with support for aggressive military action (neoconservatism). In fact he defined the Republican party until the coming of Trump.

Ku Klux Klan murdering White activists who defended Blacks remind me of the Islamists killing fellow Muslims accused of working with Western forces. But there were disturbing elements on the inclusive side too. The march on Washington reminded me of Mussolini's march on Rome. Not to mention the hysterical adoration of the Beatles, which looked like the adoration of Hitler! I can easily imagine GI parents being shocked by their kids acting like that! Actually some neo-Nazis on aryanist.net made the same comparison, noting that such adoration of "idols" was never a part of pre-war Western culture apart from fascism.

Regarding the dates: I came to the conclusion turnings in culture and politics can be a few years apart. 1980 was a beginning of a new political era, but culturally the 2T continued into the 80s. The political 3T started indeed in 2008, but culturally Digital Transformation was brewing in nerdy circles since the late 90s and became mainstream in 2006 with MySpace. This is the same sentiment as Occupy and Arab Spring:
[Image: Time_youcover01.jpg]
Reply
#16
@OP: Sorry, this makes no sense. First you write that people born 1961-63 usually aren't regarded as Boomers (confirmed in the book - in fact "Generation X" was coined by people born in these years who wanted to distance themselves from the Boomers, and who can blame them), then you say that Boomers go from 1946 to 1963. And what is this "Idealist" generation 1874-91? That'd include half of what we call the Lost Generation. Doesn't fit either.
Reply
#17
(07-12-2019, 08:07 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: @OP: Sorry, this makes no sense. First you write that people born 1961-63 usually aren't regarded as Boomers (confirmed in the book - in fact "Generation X" was coined by people born in these years who wanted to distance themselves from the Boomers, and who can blame them), then you say that Boomers go from 1946 to 1963. And what is this "Idealist" generation 1874-91? That'd include half of what we call the Lost Generation. Doesn't fit either.

I am aware of that, but I won't deny that the 1925-1927, 1961-1963, and 1997-1999 birthyear mini-cohorts are all very similar to each other.

1925-1927 (Ox, Tiger, Rabbit): Likely can't remember Black Tuesday, but were able to serve in WWII.

1961-1963 (Ox, Tiger, Rabbit): Started school after the rise of color TV (started in the 1965-66 school year) but graduated high school before the launch of MTV.

1997-1999 (Ox, Tiger, Rabbit): Likely can't remember 9/11, but graduated high school before the Parkland shooting and its aftermath.
Reply
#18
That's apples and pears. Doesn't make any sense.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)