It depends on who you ask. There are of course the extreme cases, like Moore who thought America was much better when there was slavery. But being serious, I think it falls into two camps.
Those who look to when America had a really strong middle class, where the family unit was strong, one bread winner was sufficient to live comfortably, and the USA was clearly the leader of the “West”. Of course, it helps that this period followed the systemic bombing of all their major competitors from WWII, strong unions, higher taxes, the New Deal was still influencing society and there was a high level of trust in corporations, who had yet to be publicly outed as screwing over citizens (e.g. watch Erin Brokovich). The reality was that economically the middle class was stronger, but it came at the cost of equality, with violence against minorities, non-straights and women often being accepted and lesser “ism’s” pretty much accepted. Frequently pushed under the rug. Communication was obviously far less capable than today. The good times were really on the back of the poor state of their competitors, the advantage in land and resources the USA had (and man power who hadn’t died in WW2), and that the good times only really existed for white Americans.
Which is where the second group come in. They probably also want all of the above, but overlaying it is a desire to get back to when white, male, christian groups had supremacy and controlled most things. So calls to make America great again can also be a dog whistle to certain groups, less about the economy and more about a return to days when certain groups ruled.
One thing I’d just like to add to this, touching on the “communication was less capable” point I touched on briefly. What I meant by that was that a lot of the bad things in the world, weren’t as well known. Arguably things like rape, autism, pedophilia, general crime were not communicated around as well. So although they may have been equally as prevalent then (e.g. autism), or arguably more prevalent (church ministers and little children, sexual predators), the knowledge of this was way less. Either due to under reporting by the victims, the media, or not making diagnoses yet. Similarly bad things overseas just weren’t reported like today, that didn’t really start until towards the end of the Vietnam war. ISIS probably couldn’t have existed in the American psyche like it does now with the media of the 1960s.
So although things were probably worse, it felt safer on a lot of these topics.
That is a very good point Ants. There are many benefits with today’s communication streams, but it also means watching the news can be fearful and cause panic.
The other thing is that most dramas shows on TV are about death and violence. The list is endless and while I do love watching them, they are more graphic and more detailed in their depiction of how bad some people are than ever before. The profiling of ethic groups are terrorists and the common look of the bad guys also creates divisions.
You can try to shield your kids from them, but it is virtually impossible. And it is not just American productions, as the British and Northern European nations also produce this type of vision. Probably what we want to see, but it is disturbing.
Absolutely. If you watch shows like NCIS, covert affairs, Blind Spot etc. then you could be forgiven for thinking (well, not really) that there was a terrorist cell being stopped every week.
And shows like Midsomer Murders and Death in Paradise, makes you think that there are a huge amount of killers on the loose in the English countryside and the Caribbean Islands.
Was talking to a guy who lived in England till he was 50’ish before coming out here with his Australian wife. He was saying that over there you just assumed choir-masters and scoutmasters were paedos. I doubt they had quite as much experience with Catholic priests.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Airlines recorded zero accident deaths in commercial passenger jets last year, according to a Dutch consulting firm and an aviation safety group that tracks crashes, making 2017 the safest year on record for commercial air travel.
He never said US directly. He quoted a report and then, shock horror, claimed he somehow had some impact upon it. Imagine a politician claiming credit for something he probably had no impact on? Unheard of in today’s world.
It’s funny that people still say that Trump winning was a result of Russian interference, or Hilary incompetence, or Obama arrogance etc. Don’t get me wrong, all of that played a role, but none were what got him over the line. It was this: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mg9vvn/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win
I’m still honestly staggered that more people aren’t talking about it. It’s possibly because it’s really long and quite complex, but it’s fascinating and extremely important.
