24 ms·

>It was peak America mostly for straight, white, Protestant men. >It was not peak America for gay people. Or for blacks. Or for women. It makes me sad how oft

>It was peak America mostly for straight, white, Protestant men. >It was not peak America for gay people. Or for blacks. Or for women. It makes me sad how often discussion of any particular social question on this site gets derailed into a discussion of identity politics. In 1950, Americans owned 75% of all the cars in the world. Surely, black Americans owned cars at a lower rate than white Americans did, but they probably owned cars at a higher rate than whites in Sweden, France or the UK did. The point is that there are major influences on prosperity that cannot be reduced to the same old identity-politics tropes.

eesmith 7y ago
So why is car-owning a relevant statistic for "peak American"? Why not, for example, miles of passenger-rail tracks? Can that measure be extended to judge "peak Germany", when in the 1880s Germany had 75% or more of the world's production automobiles? No, clearly not. All of this is a question of how you want to choose your numbers. I'll point out that this isn't a "this site gets derailed into a discussion of identity politics" issue for two reasons: 1) The term "American" is identity politics. Benjamin Franklin is rightly called "the first American" because of his identity politics concerning colonial unity. 2) the opinion piece itself mentions "the pervasive racism and sexism", so further discussion of that topic is on track.
- rpiguy 7y ago
  1920s were not peak America. Post WW2 left us as the only untouched industrial power and our share of global GDP was incredible. The US was 90% white in 1950, if it was a good time for white people than it was a good time for the vast majority. Civil rights were moving the right direction, I’d rather be proud of the progress on Civil Rights at that time. I won’t judge the period for not having gay friendly policies. There were no gay friendly countries in the 1950s, lol.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Then why weren't the 1990s peak America? Post Cold War left us the only remaining superpower, with military bases all over the world, and unparalleled economic influence over other countries. There was the relief that nuclear Armageddon was no more, the optimism that the internet boom would lead to social improvement, the prosperity of the stock market boom (remember 'Dow 36,000'?), the promise of VR and nanotech just around the corner, and much more. That's the entire problem with this topic - it's easy to pick stats which let you conclude that the 1950s was "peak America". But at least as easy to pick other stats which conclude it wasn't. Your definition of "peak" can only be applied to the most powerful countries. For example, when was peak Iceland or Finland? That suggests it's a pretty weak definition. I can't help but think that your phrase "good time for white people" omits out the white women who had to deal with the widespread sexism and misogyny of the era. What fraction of those women had to deal with “the problem with no name”, as Friedan called it - "the widespread unhappiness of women in the 1950s and early 1960s" quoting Wikipedia? Your phrase "a good time for the vast majority" doesn't ring true. If 100% of the 10% black population, and 60% of the 45% white female population, and 4% of the 45% gay white male population faced discrimination, then that's 39% of the population. That's a majority, yes, but not a vast majority. And that's just back-of-the-envelope numbers. What about a white men who wanted to marry a black woman but couldn't because of anti-miscegenation laws? A white man in a position like Loving, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia , was certainly not having a good time in the 1950s. If 1% of the population is in abject slavery, in order to make the other 99% very happy, is that truly just? I would prefer to think I would be one of the ones who walks away from Le Guin's Omelas.
    - rpiguy 7y ago
      The 1990s were not like the 1950s. Most of the 1990s were a depressing grunge-fueled flannel fest. Manufacturing jobs really started to accelerate out of the country as we signed a multitude of free trade deals. Funny how most people only remember the last three years or so, when the economy recovered and the internet kicked-in. I call this the post-Spice Girls period. Inso far as the 1950s you just don't understand what it was like for that generation who went from sharing two room shacks as children to 1500 square foot houses. Going from ice boxes to refrigerators, from routinely not having enough to eat to shopping at supermarkets. It was truly miraculous and that fueled national optimism, expansion of manufacturing, and wildly enthusiastic futurism. The fact that there were anti-miscegenation laws in effect in the 1950s does not detract at all from this age of miracles. Yes certainly condemn the laws they were terrible, but those laws were struck down, progress was made. That is what matters. >> If 1% of the population is in abject slavery, in order to make the other 99% very happy, is that truly just? I would prefer to think I would be one of the ones who walks away from Le Guin's Omelas. I never said the 1950s were America's most just age that is a completely different discussion.

eesmith 7y ago

So why is car-owning a relevant statistic for "peak American"? Why not, for example, miles of passenger-rail tracks? Can that measure be extended to judge "peak Germany", when in the 1880s Germany had 75% or more of the world's production automobiles? No, clearly not. All of this is a question of how you want to choose your numbers. I'll point out that this isn't a "this site gets derailed into a discussion of identity politics" issue for two reasons: 1) The term "American" is identity politics. Benjamin Franklin is rightly called "the first American" because of his identity politics concerning colonial unity. 2) the opinion piece itself mentions "the pervasive racism and sexism", so further discussion of that topic is on track.

rpiguy 7y ago
1920s were not peak America. Post WW2 left us as the only untouched industrial power and our share of global GDP was incredible. The US was 90% white in 1950, if it was a good time for white people than it was a good time for the vast majority. Civil rights were moving the right direction, I’d rather be proud of the progress on Civil Rights at that time. I won’t judge the period for not having gay friendly policies. There were no gay friendly countries in the 1950s, lol.
- eesmith 7y ago
  Then why weren't the 1990s peak America? Post Cold War left us the only remaining superpower, with military bases all over the world, and unparalleled economic influence over other countries. There was the relief that nuclear Armageddon was no more, the optimism that the internet boom would lead to social improvement, the prosperity of the stock market boom (remember 'Dow 36,000'?), the promise of VR and nanotech just around the corner, and much more. That's the entire problem with this topic - it's easy to pick stats which let you conclude that the 1950s was "peak America". But at least as easy to pick other stats which conclude it wasn't. Your definition of "peak" can only be applied to the most powerful countries. For example, when was peak Iceland or Finland? That suggests it's a pretty weak definition. I can't help but think that your phrase "good time for white people" omits out the white women who had to deal with the widespread sexism and misogyny of the era. What fraction of those women had to deal with “the problem with no name”, as Friedan called it - "the widespread unhappiness of women in the 1950s and early 1960s" quoting Wikipedia? Your phrase "a good time for the vast majority" doesn't ring true. If 100% of the 10% black population, and 60% of the 45% white female population, and 4% of the 45% gay white male population faced discrimination, then that's 39% of the population. That's a majority, yes, but not a vast majority. And that's just back-of-the-envelope numbers. What about a white men who wanted to marry a black woman but couldn't because of anti-miscegenation laws? A white man in a position like Loving, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia , was certainly not having a good time in the 1950s. If 1% of the population is in abject slavery, in order to make the other 99% very happy, is that truly just? I would prefer to think I would be one of the ones who walks away from Le Guin's Omelas.
  - rpiguy 7y ago
    The 1990s were not like the 1950s. Most of the 1990s were a depressing grunge-fueled flannel fest. Manufacturing jobs really started to accelerate out of the country as we signed a multitude of free trade deals. Funny how most people only remember the last three years or so, when the economy recovered and the internet kicked-in. I call this the post-Spice Girls period. Inso far as the 1950s you just don't understand what it was like for that generation who went from sharing two room shacks as children to 1500 square foot houses. Going from ice boxes to refrigerators, from routinely not having enough to eat to shopping at supermarkets. It was truly miraculous and that fueled national optimism, expansion of manufacturing, and wildly enthusiastic futurism. The fact that there were anti-miscegenation laws in effect in the 1950s does not detract at all from this age of miracles. Yes certainly condemn the laws they were terrible, but those laws were struck down, progress was made. That is what matters. >> If 1% of the population is in abject slavery, in order to make the other 99% very happy, is that truly just? I would prefer to think I would be one of the ones who walks away from Le Guin's Omelas. I never said the 1950s were America's most just age that is a completely different discussion.