Were things better in the 50s

@MarkPaul [quote]Who do you think raised the "next" of kids after the kids of the '50's put away their Cowboy and Indian games for the last time and graduated from riding their bikes, "practically anywhere" to driving?[/quote]

The state.

@sascha And, who runs the state?

@MarkPaul A different class of people.

@sascha ... who were either born or raised during the 1950's and played cowboys and Indians and rode their bikes "practically anywhere." And, then they grew up and had children of their own. See now?

@MarkPaul I will indulge your logic:

Let's assume that there are two people who participated in the above, and one wants to change it. The first individual is poor, and has no part in state affairs. However, the second individual, who does want to change it, is involved in state affairs, either in national or local government. The consent of the first one has been dispensed with, and their view does not matter. Education and money is what matters.

It should be clear that not every American child played this way, though. I am sure life was different for children living in inner cities.

There are many people who were children in the 1950s, who would like it to still be like the 1950s. It isn't like this, as they have no power.

To suggest that poor people have power is absurd.

And, the U.S, like many countries, has been changed by outside influences.

@sascha [quote]The first individual is poor, and has no part in state affairs. However, the second individual, who does want to change it, is involved in state affairs, either in national or local government. The consent of the first one has been dispensed with, and their view does not matter.Education and money is what matters.[/quote]

Involved in state affairs also includes voting, poor or rich. Granted, certain socioeconomic segments of the population were largely excluded from voting in the 1950's (particularly along racial and ethnic lines). But growing up poor and rural in the 1950s I can assure you that being involved by voting was not taken lightly in those days by the poor but one of the ways to improve life. Of course elections were not so skewered by money and social media in those days. Politics was still retail, where candidates had to go out and win over people in public, or editorial boards of newspapers rather than rely on building the biggest the campaign fund to flood the commercial air space and social media presence. Yes, we all recognized that education and money is what matters and that education was the route to money, so government invested tax dollars in ever expanding and improving free public education for the poor so they had better opportunities.

[quote]I am sure life was different for children living in inner cities.[/quote]

Also for those of us living in rural settings. In fact, different for all except those privileged few living in the new ideal concept of suburbia as portrayed in the sit coms on TV.

@sascha I will indulge the colossal chip on your shoulder... for an inner city minute:

Let's assume that there were defined classes as you describe: poor and those with money; those who lived in the inner cities and everyone else. To suggest those people in those classes you defined were mandated to stay there for life (or eternity) is both bizarre and inaccurate. There are literally thousands of life-stories of people who came from poor backgrounds, who lived in inner city neighbourhoods, and changed their life situations.

To suggest that once poor is always poor is literally insane and lacks any resemblance to reality. Outside influences is always present and always will be. That's not really a relevant variable, but it does give insight into your chip.

@MarkPaul You're never supposed to blame the parents. It's always the kids' fault. How do you not know that?

@dancingtongue Voting from a select few candidates? Is this freedom?

Of course children in rural areas can also be poor, but I am assuming that they were more able to play games outside, and ride their bike (if they had one).

@MarkPaul Would you be suggesting that there are no defined classes?

"Inner cities" were an example of places kids were probably not playing Cowboy and Indian games, and riding "practically anywhere" on their bikes, silly. Poverty is in many places, including rural areas.

Are you able to see that most people have no ability to stop what their governments do, if they do not like it? This is my question to you, which you seem to have ignored or not understood.

@sascha I can affirm there are no defined classes that mandate a lifetime of inclusion. Rich people fall out of favour and wind-up poor. Poor people find a way to make money and wind-up rich. People with chips on their shoulders present themselves as victims and stay in place.

Inner city kids certainly played Cowboys and Indians as they like everyone else were influenced by TV shows. If you think TV had only limited influence, you don't understand the power TV once had, human behaviour, or history. And, that's a lot you don't understand if that is the case.

The idea that people have no control over their own destinies including what their government does only demonstrates how big that chip on your shoulder has become. Instead of protecting it and trying to preserve it because it has become familiar to you, you should open your eyes and look at the world with a "beginner's mind." Or... you can continue to ignore what is happening in the real-world.

@sascha [quote]Voting from a select few candidates? Is this freedom?[/quote]

You have primaries to choose those few select candidates in the general election. Unfortunately the two major parties have gamed the system against any third (or fourth) parties, and the lobbyists have bolstered the campaign chests for their anointed candidates to overwhelm the air waves and Internet, which I acknowledged. But if those who feel disenfranchised just went to the polls and voted for candidates who would truly represent them rather than reacting like Pavlov's dogs at the whistles of the extremists in the two major parties that hurdle would be jumped.

[quoteI am assuming that they were more able to play games outside, and ride their bike (if they had one).][/quote]

You're assuming a lot. Sure I could play outside. It was 9 miles to the next kid. Could have ridden a mountain bike, but if they existed then they certainly were not popularized and a street bike wasn't going to hack it. Did inner city urban kids cower in their tenement apartments then? No, it was stick ball and other games in the street. Do suburban kids cower in their McMansions today because of crime, or because they are playing video games? And for the record, I had a BB gun and a cap pistol. Not to play cowboy and Indian because their was nobody to play Indian, and not because of the influence of TV westerns because there was no TV. Before TV came the afternoon radio shows with Tom Mix, Red Ryder, Bobby Benton & the B-bar-B, Straight Arrow, and Gene Autry in prime time. The movies with Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, John Wayne and a slew of others -- Westerns pervaded our culture long before TV. Also for the record, the reason I had a BB gun and cap pistol wasn't totally because of the Westerns or to play cowboy and Indian, but to climatize me to handling guns in a rural ranch style life where guns, and gun safety, were a necessity.

@dancingtongue This may be true. I would agree that people could, if they took the time, vote for candidates who may be more responsive to their wishes. However, you have also admitted that this is very difficult when we consider influence from the media, and lobbyists. How is one supposed to vote for a candidate if they have not heard of that candidate? And, if they do vote, does this change the power they have after an election? It does not. This candidate could change their mind, alter their agenda, or introduce new policies this person does not agree with.

It would be naive to think that power only lies in the hands of one person, and this includes the person that power has been given to.

Does it seem like a wild assumption that children with more outdoor space will be more able to play outdoor games, or ride their bikes? I never claimed inner city children stayed inside, but they may not have been playing Cowboys and Indians or similar games to the same extent, or riding bikes to the same extent. If you like, we can discuss how outdoor space lends more possibility to outdoor games, or to activities like cycling. You have also said that inner city children played "other games", so I am not quite sure what the problem is?

@MarkPaul What are you talking about? Is there a reason I should listen to a mentally ill virgin?

Someone like you can't even begin to fathom what the "real world" is, as you do not live in it. We have been through this before, and the sad reality is that you aren't normal. A normal person does not fill their response to someone with misplaced insults and insane trash. A normal person would have also had sex by now.

If poor people were inclined to not remain poor, and it was easy to become rich, there would no poverty. Clearly, some people are very poor. In fact, most of the world is poor. Global poverty is significant. Poverty in the U.S. is significant. It does not seem to me that you have a very good idea of what "poor" is.

A person in government has the ability to make decisions, and someone who is not in government does not have an ability to change that decision, or make decisions of their own. By that, I am telling you that they will not be able to implement any decisions of their own. They can try protesting, but if their numbers are not large enough, they will not be listened to. The state has more input in how people raise their children, and this is well established. Many would argue that this input is detrimental. Once again, those who are not working in government, do not get to impact change. People only have the power to vote from a select few candidates, and elections are largely influenced by the media and other factors. When people vote, the individuals(s) they voted for may not be able to achieve what they would like to them to. The U.S. does not have a direct democracy.

Regarding Cowboys and Indians, I do not know how many inner city children would have played this game. I would estimate that children living in rural areas, in small towns, or in suburbs, may have had more space and freedom to play outdoors, and ride their bikes.

@dancingtongue You're proof of the leftist ideology that was pushed in public schools.

Edit: this reply is for @MarkPaul

@NativePortlander1970 That's true. I notice how some teachers favor the left-handed students. That's not in the long-term interests of the United States. Right-handed children should be favored. Leftys are dangerous people.

@sascha So, what you once presented as fact:

[i]"It should be clear that not every American child played this way, though. I am sure life was different for children living in inner cities."[/i]

... now turns into a confession of misguided, misinformed, and bitter-oriented opinion:

"Regarding Cowboys and Indians, I do not know how many inner city children would have played this game. I would estimate that children living in rural areas, in small towns, or in suburbs, may have had more space and freedom to play outdoors, and ride their bikes."

Can you be any more confused, grievance-filled, and ignorant? The rest of your rubbish makes little to no sense since it is entirely based on the small circle you have placed yourself inside of that you commonly call, "the world."

Stop being such a slut and educate yourself. Yes, education is even available to you. Do better.

@MarkPaul Hey Comrade Mark, it's time for your pathetic marxist ass to move to CCP since you hate America so much.

@NativePortlander1970 He's probably left-handed.

@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays He's so left handed he makes Gorbachov seem conservative.

@sascha What do you mean, "the state?" We've never had kids raised in state institutions to any great degree.

If you're talking about public schools, those go back to 1635. One of the great achievements of the US is our public school system, which allows anyone to get an education whether their parents are rich or not.

@LeopoldBloom More like pathetic modern white woke neoliberal leftist loser indoctrination.

@sascha As I told the OP, the features she describes nostalgically in her post are present in much of the Islamic and developing world today. They tend to be associated with severe social restrictions and constrained roles for men and women.

@LeopoldBloom [media=https://youtu.be/OXhoop-yCaA]

@sascha Regarding the ability to choose among a large range of candidates, look up the results of the Dutch election from last week. There were something like 30 political parties, so voters can usually find one that matches their personal preferences very well. The problem is that since none of them have a majority, they have to form coalitions, which are unstable and require the smaller parties to either give up their core issues, or force the larger parties to accept them. The Dutch may have a "caretaker" government for a while until they sort this out.

In the US, fringe groups like the Freedom Caucus and the Progressives are subsumed under the two major parties. Imagine if we had a parliamentary system with proportional representation. There would be mainstream liberals, progressive liberals, Trumpists, Evangelicals, big business conservatives, libertarians, Greens, and probably many others (for example, there's still a Temperance Party in the US). Would the liberal parties join with the libertarians and business party to pass a nationwide right to abortion, in return for loosening business regulations? Or they get the Greens on board with major restrictions on carbon emissions?