Quick! Somebody send this to John McCain!
Posted on 06/04/2007 9:52:00 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Joe killed Christofuh before he was Christofuh.
“Is this something that is no longer taught to children”
Yeah! Like Yep!!
When we growing up (1950’s), older people werer respected simply BECAUSE they were older. Police were respected because of what they represented. Teachers were respected because they were deserving of respect. Dishonoring one’s family name was thought a disgrace (”disgrace”, “family name”, “dishonoring” - all terms incomprehensible to today’s youth)
I had to set straight 6 army punks and a recent trip from Seattle to fairbanks. Dropping f-bombs, GD this, f-that. Women children, old ladies all around. I could not stand for it. They shut their mouths when I was through with them.
Has no one ever heard fof the The Ultimate Flame?
Read this and tell me that it wouldn't have a more devestating effect on someone than swearing or being profane.
Once I controlled my “road rage,” my cursing plummeted.
Nothing was 'excluded' in the 40's or 50's.
You fellas are living in a rose tinted Mayberry world; - one that never existed.
You read too much into the comparison. I made it only because few people remember what that time was like.
The word most used to describe small town America at the time was “stifling”. And with the return of large numbers of WWII veterans who had no taste for such an atmosphere, things were ripe for a shake-up.
Today, another pretense of the period was that it went hand in hand with “new” liberalism, as in leftism. They only entered the situation late in the game, and in a limited area. For example, the Civil Rights movement was to a great extent limited to the South, as the change had already happened and was still happening in much of the rest of the country, with little hubbub. The South just refused to change.
the Civil Rights movement was to a great extent limited to the South, as the change had already happened and was still happening in much of the rest of the country, with little hubbub. The South just refused to change.
I may have grown up in a small Southern town, but I got around quite a bit. "Little hubbub" up North? You don't seem to have much of a clue as to what times were like in Northern cities like Boston and Detroit.
Excellent article, thanks for posting!
BTTT
Again, I was talking about middle America. The big cities had had race problems, and still do, for that matter, based on ghettoization that still remains. None of the northern cities you mentioned had Jim Crow laws, nor legally enforced segregation in many ways. De facto segregation nonetheless.
But in the heartland, from the Mason-Dixon northward, longstanding racial divisions disintegrated under many social factors, including what I mentioned, the returning WWII veterans and the creation of suburbia. The demographic shift caused considerable realignment.
The South, to a great extent, was still emerging from reconstruction, was culturally stagnant and unwilling to change. And that is why much of the Civil Rights movement reached it apex in the South—to force change that had already happened elsewhere. It was also where change was most stubbornly resisted.
You are just regurgitating simplistic explanations for things you have read somewhere, probably out of your high school history book.
WTF it’s just a word, but it does have a time and a place.
Not at all. My parents were at IU when Kinsey started there at the invitation of the university president, Herman B. Wells, who had to contend with, and overcome the machinations of the old social order.
Both they, and my grandparents had been in the thick of things in that bible belt from the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan, with its 4-5 million members over the course of its life, to the early 1960s when they left the region for good. My mother belonged to the NAACP until they purged non-blacks from its ranks.
All of them were teachers and scholars, and very aware of both history and politics, and my grandfather even wrote a published academic paper on the demographic shift in America from a rural to an urban nation.
So yes, I am very aware of US history, politics and social change from about 1900 to date.
And from where do your opinions derive?
Quick! Somebody send this to John McCain!
It would be my guess that you were raised somewhere in the South. One of the things I noticed moving from Minnesota to Texas in the 80's was the youngsters saying "yes, sir" and "yes ma'am". Minnesota is a pretty polite place, but this was new to me.
Are you personally connected somehow to Alfred Kinsey? Do you know that his research and his methodology have been discredited? Do you know that he was a pyschopath who should have been jailed for child molestation?
See, e.g., "Kinsey, Crimes and Consequences" by Judith Reisman, Ph.D.
or "The Kinsey Corruption" by Susan Brinkman
"In this book, written by award-winning correspondent Susan Brinkman of Philadelphia’s Catholic Standard & Times, you will learn:
"How Alfred Kinsey presented as "normal" data he collected from incarcerated sex offenders, criminals and prostitutes.
"Which of today's most popular notions about sex are based on Kinsey's flawed conclusions, such as that children are sexual from birth, 10 percent of the population is homosexual and sexual promiscuity is normal.
"That Kinsey engaged in criminal experimentation on children and used "data" he collected from some of the world's most notorious pedophiles to arrive at his conclusions.
And see: http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/kinsey.html
KINSEY'S CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
"Judith Reisman has detailed the serious methodological flaws -- amounting to outright fraud -- behind Kinsey's "research." Much of Kinsey's work was based upon uncorroborated testimony of prison inmates, including convicted rapists and sex offenders, while much of his other "research" relied heavily on questionnaires and interviews with respondents whose self-reported sexual activities were similarly unverified. Given these glaring flaws, it is unlikely that either of Kinsey's reports provided anything approaching an accurate reflection of American sexuality at a time when reliable data -- high rates of marriage, low rates of divorce and illegitimate births -- suggest most people were thoroughly conventional in their sexual behavior.
"But what seems to have been overlooked or ignored at the time he graced the covers of national news magazines was the fact that Kinsey claimed to have extensively studied the sexual responses of children, including even infants. Whatever Americans may have thought of Kinsey's other claims -- of farmers habitually buggering their livestock, for example -- the extensive documentation of "research" into the orgasmic potential of infants and toddlers should have raised an alarm. Yet nothing of the kind occurred during Kinsey's lifetime, as Tate's film shows. As recently as 1973, William Manchester cited without comment Kinsey's claims that infants "measured in the nursery with special instruments, were found to experience orgasms at the age of four or five months" and that "[o]ne preadolescent child had 26 orgasms in 24 hours." Manchester did not seem to wonder how or by whom these phenomena were recorded, nor did he seem to wonder whether there was something exploitative (immoral? criminal?) in the sexual stimulation of children for purposes of "research.""
*****
This man, Kinsey, whom you refer to approvingly was a vile criminal whose "research" was a fraud.
Predictably enough, many of the follow-up posts are pathetic, head-in-the-sand attempts to vent some annoyance and trivialize the subject matter.
bump
Too long, WTF?!
Actually, there are many posters who did take your post seriously, whose posts didn’t register with me as strongly as they should have the first time around...
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.