“But then suddenly, one morning, they woke up and discovered they were on the wrong side of ‘history’ if that word can be taken to mean only one moment in time, pried off of its contextual mooring and made to float like a shabby bauble across a turbulent and choppy cultural sea.” Delicious and true.
As a woman of a “certain age,” I am losing patience with these people who opine without even the scholarly integrity of a research assistant, nor the cultural memory of a teenager. They are afraid to delve into the annals of time like a Hollywood ingénue is afraid to go down into the basement when she hears a noise. Do they not believe anything happened before 1950 or are they afraid their arguments won’t hold up, given a larger data set?
“But then suddenly, one morning, they woke up and discovered they were on the wrong side of ‘history’ if that word can be taken to mean only one moment in time, pried off of its contextual mooring and made to float like a shabby bauble across a turbulent and choppy cultural sea.” Delicious and true.
As a woman of a “certain age,” I am losing patience with these people who opine without even the scholarly integrity of a research assistant, nor the cultural memory of a teenager. They are afraid to delve into the annals of time like a Hollywood ingénue is afraid to go down into the basement when she hears a noise. Do they not believe anything happened before 1950 or are they afraid their arguments won’t hold up, given a larger data set?
I don't mind so much being on the wrong side of history.
Bhambluedot is on the wrong side of eschatology. That's gonna leave a mark.
Dividing up American history into decades was probably even more common back in the 20th Century. It was the air that I breathed growing up.
It did not at all occur to me that is not a good way to examine history. Interesting point by Lasch.