Posted on 12/09/2004 10:13:49 AM PST by qam1
EXACTLY! I'm with ya, bro! I was born in 1955, and spent the years 1968-1973 constantly arguing politics with my oldest sibling. He was born in 1950 and bought the whole package of anti-Vietnam garbage - hook, line and sinker. He got his talking points from campus "Teach-Ins," liberal profs, the media, movies, etc. My sole source was Reader's Digest - the only widely read, staunchly conservative publication in those days (he derisively referred to it as "Reader's Disgust," "Reader's Digress," etc.) I lived those years in Boulder CO and was made to feel like a square (pun intended) peg in a round hole. I couldn't stand the hippie freaks either! Especially the slavish fawning they received from the press and the other culture machines. (At least my brother never "went hippie" in clothing, drugs, and most of the rest of that crap, praise God! And now like me he's a staunch member of the dreaded Religious Right.)
I always felt like a political freak back in those days. I can see now that a big part of the problem was spending my school years in Boulder. I had thought back then that it was JUST ME who was weird, for being different than the vast majority of both the Joneser's and the older Boomers. I was made to feel like I would be better off staying quietly in the closet.
It wasn't until recent years that I realized there had been a lot of others in my "younger Boomers" bracket who were like me politically, when I read an article about the phenomenon. (Wish I'd saved that). So, there HAD been others like me after all! Kids who spent our childhood rolling our eyeballs at the liberal antiwar antics of older siblings belonging to the first wave of boomers. A lot of us in this age group went down a different political path than our oldest siblings.
As I remember, the article attributed younger boomers' differences from older boomers as being due at least in part to the fact that from an early age we looked with suspicion and disfavor on the older boomers. The analogy the article used was that we still viewed that slightly older demographic in our mind's eye as being just that same old group of obnoxious, overbearing, power-hungry camp counselors, lifeguards, baby sitters and so on that we had to suffer under throughout most of our childhood.
Of course any kind of article along these lines contains a number of big generalizations, but it still rang true to me - especially that part about the camp counselors and lifeguards. As I look back now on all those Boy Scout and other summer camps with the counselors, lifeguards, swimming and boating instructors and the rest, it dawns on me that, yes - I have mostly favorable memories of those people who were adults at the time. But those who were from the leading edge of the Boomer demographic were truly insufferable!
Sadly, I only remember ever reading one article of that nature. Too bad the author of this new "Jones" article didn't talk about any of this. One thing he's got right though is that we truly are a "hidden demographic" in many ways.
I've spent decades now apologizing to other generations on behalf of "My Fellow Boomers". It would be wonderful if we could all "get a divorce" from the older half of our Demographic Pigeon Hole! Yeah!
Another thing I notice the author missed --- The 1946-1953 group would have been weighted heavily toward firstborn kids and middle kids, and the 1954-1965 group with middle kids and youngest children. So, "birth order" might be a significant factor in this difference. All in all, I think this author puts too much weight on "the Reagan factor". In fact, that wasn't a factor at all for me, because I was a conservative in most ways for 15 years before RR took office!
Also, since the older wave went heavily into "anti-establishment" (read, "anti-parents") politics that led them into liberalism, that old saying about "younger siblings feeling the need to exert their own individuality and a separate identity from their older siblings" might have been a big part of it.
Anyway, great article! I don't know if I like at all the "Joneser" moniker. Ugh! But I suppose it's better than others they could come up with! Like "Lil' Boomers" or "Boomies" or "Boomlets" ... ad nauseum.
slang term "jones'": a craving for someone or something.
Aha! So after wondering about it for 31 years now, I finally understand the meaning of that Cheech & Chong song --- "Bassetball Jones. I gotta Bassetball Jones. I gotta Bassetball Jones, so baby, oo-woo-woooo".
One last note here ... to our great shame, the vast majority of the Jonesers followed the Boomers down the path of The Sexual Revolution, even if we refused to follow their lead in many other things. I remember being in a discussion in a Christian singles group in the early 80s where I was the only guy defending abstinence before marriage. Sad!
Flame wars are best as a spectator sport. :-)
Very true, and looking back I don't think it was peer pressure that made me feel that way. But the teachers and the movies and the music . . .
Great post, btw.
"Oh Baby
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo"
LOL, I LOVE THAT SONG!
Your post is so great, I must quote many parts of it:
"My sole source was Reader's Digest..."
It's all you really need! It would be great to see that mag have a great revival.
"Another thing I notice the author missed --- The 1946-1953 group would have been weighted heavily toward firstborn kids and middle kids, and the 1954-1965 group with middle kids and youngest children. So, "birth order" might be a significant factor in this difference."
Yes, yes, excellent point! In hubby's family, for example, this would be key.
"So after wondering about it for 31 years now, I finally understand the meaning of that Cheech & Chong song --- "Bassetball Jones."
Twice on this thread I get to say: I LOVE That song! I think it was very forward looking, basketball was not such a popular sport when that song came out, but since so many of the great bballers came from the ghetto, I think it told a tale of things to come.
And I kind of like the "jones" label, remember the band "jesus jones"? I don't know if this is true or not, but I heard that they chose their name based on the most common first and last names in the world. Really not sure how they were defining "jesus".
Let the other generations keep up with us, that's what I say.
I never heard of this before...what great news!
Well, some folks just have to be the ONLY true believers in conservatism, I suppose. But c'mon, let's not slip in the subtle knives here. There are certainly folks from both sides of the aisle on this thread talking down an entire generation when they don't mean the whole group, just the ones who are mucking things up for everyone else.
Thanks! I like your posts too. (Like that one where you answered someone who had whined, "When was the last time Buddhists made war on anyone?")
Boy, are we going to ever get swelled heads over this election, eh? We'll never let the other generations forget that it was us who kept Dubya in the White House! And this was also the only generation whose women voted for Dubya. Hold your head high!
Thank you! BTW, could you add me to your ping list?
You're kidding - Me too! My first car ever (bought it in 1976 for $350) was a white 1965 Ford Econoline Van with a total of 6 doors on it. Got GREAT mileage too - 120 miles to the gallon! (Of oil, that is. The gas mileage wasn't so good, though). Then in 1979 I had a fulltime job and decided it was time to move on up in the world. So I bought a 1966 green Ford Econoline Van with 8 doors total, for $400. Now that is what I call really living in style!
"Generation Jones (40-49 yr.olds): Kerry 48% Bush 51%"
Looks to me like the criminal "boomers" on yesterdays thread, discounted all of us who were born in 53-54.
Rotflmao!
See ya in the morning fellow FReeloader:)
:)
Generation Y (18-24 yr.olds): Kerry 59% Bush 40%
Generation X (25-39 yr olds): Kerry 50% Bush 48%
Generation Jones (40-49 yr.olds): Kerry 48% Bush 51%
Baby Boomers (50-59 yr. olds): Kerry 52% Bush 47%
Mature Generation (60 and older): Kerry 51% Bush 49%
OK, so supposedly the Joneses were +3% for Bush, and the others were all negative for Bush, namely -19%, -2%, -5% and -2%. Now, in the total vote combined, Bush won by around 2.5%, right? So when the Joneses are only 26% of the voters, how can it be any way possible that their +3 margin can be offset by -19, -2, -5 and -2 for the other generations and still all add up to an overal margin of 2.5% for Dubya? It's impossible! The Joneses would have to be over 90% of the voters, not 26%.
I like to get in one every now and then. This Gen X chest beating crowd makes me think of a group of college football fans. They get rabid and put down the other team. Yet these fans aren't even on the field and never went to the college.
I don't know any generation that is great in and of itself.
Well a lesson in specifics would go like this.
"The free love hippy dope smoking draft dodgers suck! And due to the MSM they appeared to be an entire generation but in reality was a microscopic percentage of the population bent on doing as they please." Acceptable.
"Baby boomers are free love hippy dope smoking draft dodgers and they suck!" Unacceptable.
See the difference?
Howdy.
Mine was a 68 panel version I bought in 73. It was painted flat black primer and had a canopy from an F84 mounted on the roof. I gave $300 for it. I only had for a couple of months and sold it to a guy that had to have it for $600. I was in the USAF at the time so I needed money worse than a second vehicle.
My brother was born in 48 and I was born in 54. Your story is shockingly familiar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.