Time Traveler's Remorse

[Indigo_Cardinal]

Although I’m just a bit too young to remember the days you describe, what I find sad is that when I pointed some of the benefits of earlier, less ‘progressive’ days, he got very righteous and declared those were days full of racism, and is that what I want to go back to?

Um…no. And nobody has ever claimed there’s a perfect age with no problems. But he simply refused to talk about the rampant STDs, abortions, babies born out of wedlock, fatherless children, broken families, the poverty that often comes with that, the increasing taxes to help all the people who are no longer being cared for by husband and father, and so on.

I find it sad that people are so invested in what things have become that I can practically be called a racist for saying we have a lot of problems TODAY that we didn’t used to have. I guess that’s easier than talking about the problems.

Where was anybody in this thread called a racist? I simply asked Jim a simple question–if the fifties were truly such a peaceful, respectful time, would he be willing to go back as a black man? Jim has twice refused to answer this question, and in fact, even tried to deflect with a ‘but black families were more intact back then’!

Well, quite possibly they were. So likely were white families. And Asian. And Hispanic.

But it’s also been pointed out that it’s entirely possible a lot of those marriages only stayed intact because the wives had nowhere else to go and no way to support their children if they left.

But back to the ‘would you go back if you were black’ question–I don’t suspect Jim of racism on this, if that’s what you’re trying to imply. I do believe racism plays a part in his unwillingness to respond–not because Jim himself is a racist, but because the question has made him painfully aware that if faced with living in the 1950’s as a black man, he would be subjected to all kinds of injustices: Sitting in the back of the bus, drinking from a different fountain, having to use a different door to enter an establishment…it’s an uncomfortable and painful thought to suddenly realize that the time period you’re idolizing wouldn’t be so ideal if you had to live it as a ‘lesser’. I don’t blame Jim for avoiding answering the question–the very question itself shatters his whole argument of ‘how much better things were back then’.

 

[gardenswithkids]

This whole thread is sad. My mom’s family could very well have been JimG’s neighbor in a small, Christian, tight-knit town. **She suffered a decade of molestation at the hands of her grandfather. ** She tried to tell her parents once, and they just became angry and wouldn’t believe her. If she lived next to Jim in this perfect little fantasy, he would never have known and he would still be explaining why it would be better for everyone to go back to that lifestyle. Sure, when it worked, it worked well. When it didn’t, women and children are the ones to bear the brunt of it, and they had no way out and no resources to help them.

You never, ever know what goes on behind closed doors, and going back to a time where we don’t talk about it won’t prevent abuses, it will only harbor them. (Heck, look at the Duggars!) Going back to a time where all of the darkness is hidden may make you more comfortable, but it keeps those caught in it from ever finding a way out.

I’m sorry about your mother. How terrible! Are you absolutely sure that they wouldn’t believe her? Just because your grandparents didn’t want to talk about it doesn’t mean they didn’t *know *about it. Most molesters probably don’t start with molesting grandchildren in their old age. Your grandmother (or grandfather) may also have been a victim of that same relative.

Women and children are still * the ones who usually bear the brunt of it when things don’t work well in society. Women may have an easier time leaving an abuser, yet single women raising children and children raised in single parent households generally are not nearly as well off as those in two parent households. And many women still *stay with abusers. Sometimes they even bring them home on dates to come live with their children. Statistically, there’s an ever greater chance of abuse happening to the children when there are non-related adults living in the household.

I think I get your point: things weren’t perfect back then. But, as I’m sure you know, things aren’t perfect now either.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Where was anybody in this thread called a racist? I simply asked Jim a simple question–if the fifties were truly such a peaceful, respectful time, would he be willing to go back as a black man? Jim has twice refused to answer this question, and in fact, even tried to deflect with a ‘but black families were more intact back then’!

Well, quite possibly they were. So likely were white families. And Asian. And Hispanic.

But it’s also been pointed out that it’s entirely possible a lot of those marriages only stayed intact because the wives had nowhere else to go and no way to support their children if they left.

But back to the ‘would you go back if you were black’ question–I don’t suspect Jim of racism on this, if that’s what you’re trying to imply. I do believe racism plays a part in his unwillingness to respond–not because Jim himself is a racist, but because the question has made him painfully aware that if faced with living in the 1950’s as a black man, he would be subjected to all kinds of injustices: Sitting in the back of the bus, drinking from a different fountain, having to use a different door to enter an establishment…it’s an uncomfortable and painful thought to suddenly realize that the time period you’re idolizing wouldn’t be so ideal if you had to live it as a ‘lesser’. I don’t blame Jim for avoiding answering the question–the very question itself shatters his whole argument of ‘how much better things were back then’.

There is so much to be said for fixing society’s problems. There are many issues that I think most people on this thread would say could use some work, and we may be able to find a lot of solutions that are widely agreeable.

But it’s disgusting to say that we should solve these problems by turning back the clock to a time when abused children were not pulled out of homes, where women often had no choice but to stay with a man who beats her, where black people faced Jim Crow, lack of due process, and severely limited economic prospects. That’s lazy at best. Solving today’s problems by throwing certain classes back to the wolves for convenience, or so that you no longer have to look at the darkness that so many people live in is selfish.

Reduce or end unwanted pregnancies and abortion? Great! Lower divorce? Awesome! Lower crime? Absolutely! But we’ve actually been doing all three of these things since the 90’s, and we haven’t had to subjugate anyone to do it. Let’s figure out what’s working and move forward together, not backwards apart.

 

[JimG]

As to whether I would go back if I were black, I guess that depends. If I were Thomas Sowell, or Clarence Thomas or my friend Fred H. from the Air Force who was the smartest guy I knew, maybe so. But the question is moot. I wouldn’t take the time machine back in any case. I’ve already taken it forward from then to now. What’s the point in going back in time if you cannot change the outcome? And here in the future everyone tells me that everything I experienced then is mere illusion anyway.

Did I propose re-instituting racial discrimination? Discrimination against women? Men beating their wives? No, I’m not advocating that the evils of 1950 should replace the evils of 2016. I’m advocating for reconstruction of the family rather than its deconstruction. Reconstruction of the culture rather than its sinking into the sewer.

But now I feel like I must personally apologize to all those wives who were beaten by their husbands in the 1950’s even though I didn’t personally know any of them. I am sorry.

But someone else will have to apologize for all the babies who lost their lives to “choice” after 1973, and to all those in later generations who lost brothers and sisters to abortion; they are survivors, with a large percentage of their siblings killed in the womb.

Someone else will have to apologize to chaste women who now find it nearly impossible to find a suitable husband, since the cost of sex is otherwise free, marriage is less valued. Someone else will have to apologize to children being sexualized from their first day of school, for innocence denied, for the burying of classical education, for the evisceration of marriage, for the dumbing down of the popular culture to its lowest common denominator.

And it is still women and children who bear the brunt of social evils. Single mothers are prone to poverty, as are their children. I suppose there must have been a huge number of women being beaten. If divorce was the answer, the current divorce rate shows the problem must still be huge.

Someone else will have to apologize to children for having been made into optional artifacts, to be obtained or disposed of at will, no longer gifts from God but accessories to be procured or disposed of, as the case may be, who may have married parents, single parents, same sex parents, or perhaps purchased from a petri dish factory farm.

My apologies. My childhood, my youth, my neighborhood, my school, was a terrible place, only now revealed to me by later generations. I’m very sorry for having been so happy during those years. Mea maxima culpa.

 

[JimG]

I just noticed that the original linked article was followed by a series of reader comments one of which I would echo for myself. The commenter wrote:

“Esolen’s point, as I take it, isn’t that “the old days were better in all ways than today,” but rather is “we ought to restore all that was good that we have lost.” Ought we to restore “the faults of past times?” Of course not, but no one is saying we should.”

 

[Della]

I take note that we bypassed my post in which I stated that the violation of the commandments/natural law is the reason for our present (and past) dilemmas with social ills and personal sin. Although, in anecdotal ways JimG and others did address it.

An article that states what I mean far better than I: crisismagazine.com/2016/why-natural-law-is-a-superior-guide-to-life. Please scan it at the very least if we want to have an intelligent conversion instead of simply exchanging horror stories with each other.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I just noticed that the original linked article was followed by a series of reader comments one of which I would echo for myself. The commenter wrote:

“Esolen’s point, as I take it, isn’t that “the old days were better in all ways than today,” but rather is “we ought to restore all that was good that we have lost.” Ought we to restore “the faults of past times?” Of course not, but no one is saying we should.”

I understand what you mean about wanting to*** restore things that were good*.** I never completely understand those who want to live in the past, but I like many of the good things of the past. Quite literally, I like them–I appreciate antiques! Sorry, if this seems off topic, but I’m on a re-decorating kick–and the trend for mixing modern with old stands out to me as I read this thread. Antiques and old things need to be handled with care, lest they get broken. We’ve broken a lot of things that were of value. Restoration takes skill and knowledge. Recognizing what to keep and restore, (verses what to get rid of and replace or update), is a necessary skill for beautiful living.

Today there’s a home decorating trend towards the last century’s “mid-century modern” and “rustic” mixed with elegant. Looking at Pinterest, I now regret having not kept my father’s old paint splattered wooden ladder–some decorators can do amazing things with old junk! But on the positive side, I’m grateful for hanging some of my parents old furniture, because it’s back in style. It is modern and contemporary to want to keep and restore the nice things from the past! It is *modern and contemporary *to take things from the past, and to try to re-create them anew and put a fresh spin on them or find a new use for them.

Instead of regretting what we’ve lost, broken, given away or sold without realizing the potential value because it looked old and outdated, we can find a place in our lives for things that good and useful. We can restore or fix things that were broken. We can build it again out of new materials in the present age and bring it into our own homes and lives. That’s not going backwards–it’s going forward.

 

[Della]

Along the same lines as gardenswithkids example of retaining old things is this:

From G. K. Chesterton’s 1929 book, “The Thing,” in the chapter entitled, “The Drift from Domesticity:”

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.