Living in a different era

Vintage wrote:I know each era has its benefits and problems, it seems as we go along every generations lives have improved, perhaps we've stalled a bit now in the era of globalisation and robotics but if you were to live in a different era what would that be and why.
Personally I would possibly have liked Pre Roman Britain or the Tudor era, although Tudor times weren't a good time to be a woman, at least not one without money or power.
Although still not a great time to be a woman but I am strongly attracted to the WW2 era, women once again made their mark when needed although once again were relegated to the kitchen sink once hostilities ceased. I can only think I am attracted to this time because it brought out the best in most people and the worst in a few and that I knew and grew up with people who actually experienced this. People worked together and socialised together to get along in great adversity, I think I was instilled with a work ethic and patriotism, to do the best for your country without disregarding others less fortunate around the world.  I quite like the fashions and the hairstyles and I absolutely love the shoes. When I left school I thought about joining the services, the RAF, to be precise, but being a shy mouse I never took the step, I wish I had, there were so many interesting years to have served through the cold war. I'd rather have been doing something than just a sitting duck, although I would definitely been torn between being somewhere contributing and being with my family if anything dire had happened.
Threads scared the hell out of me.

Vintage wrote:I can't agree more today is a great time to exist and possibly will be more so in the future, well hopefully, it doesn't follow the future will be better.
I'm just asking if you thought you might flourish in times past if not in this particular time, many people are drawn to past eras, be it fashion or whatever its not like I have a time machine that I'll whisk you away to if you dare to mention and era, its just for fun, people who like history usually like to play the game, its not like its serious, you remember fun don't you, didn't you ever play make believe.  If you did have a time machine wouldn't you be tempted to go back to check out certain times?

Didge wrote:

Vintage wrote:I know each era has its benefits and problems, it seems as we go along every generations lives have improved, perhaps we've stalled a bit now in the era of globalisation and robotics but if you were to live in a different era what would that be and why.
Personally I would possibly have liked Pre Roman Britain or the Tudor era, although Tudor times weren't a good time to be a woman, at least not one without money or power.
Although still not a great time to be a woman but I am strongly attracted to the WW2 era, women once again made their mark when needed although once again were relegated to the kitchen sink once hostilities ceased. I can only think I am attracted to this time because it brought out the best in most people and the worst in a few and that I knew and grew up with people who actually experienced this. People worked together and socialised together to get along in great adversity, I think I was instilled with a work ethic and patriotism, to do the best for your country without disregarding others less fortunate around the world.  I quite like the fashions and the hairstyles and I absolutely love the shoes. When I left school I thought about joining the services, the RAF, to be precise, but being a shy mouse I never took the step, I wish I had, there were so many interesting years to have served through the cold war. I'd rather have been doing something than just a sitting duck, although I would definitely been torn between being somewhere contributing and being with my family if anything dire had happened.
Threads scared the hell out of me.

Why would you want to live in many eras. When you have a very slim chance of survival rates?

When people bemoan today, they really have no idea what it was like to be a woman in the past

Granted women had more rights in Celtic and Angloc Saxon times, before they became Christianized, but the point is. We now have laws that protect the rights of women. Just because some idiots are now trying to destroy equality by enforcing equality of outcomes. Which has to be the most daft philosohpy ever to come out of the left thinking brain camp. Does not mean, this is not a great time to live for everyone. As I am sure people have said many times they would have loved to have lived in different times, but then by not actaully ever understanding what it was truely like to live and struggle.

What often people forget is that men often struggled to in the past and in many cases worse so. When they were gang pressed into conflicts and not for any cause of their own but for the elite of society. People often go on about the wrongs of the past where men had it only slightly better. As 99% never did,and where completely worse off in the societies they lived in back then.

Why cant people live and be happy for the time they live in?

To me, its a great time to live

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why would you want to live in many eras. When you have a very slim chance of survival rates?

When people bemoan today, they really have no idea what it was like to be a woman in the past

Granted women had more rights in Celtic and Angloc Saxon times, before they became Christianized, but the point is. We now have laws that protect the rights of women. Just because some idiots are now trying to destroy equality by enforcing equality of outcomes. Which has to be the most daft philosohpy ever to come out of the left thinking brain camp. Does not mean, this is not a great time to live for everyone. As I am sure people have said many times they would have loved to have lived in different times, but then by not actaully ever understanding what it was truely like to live and struggle.

What often people forget is that men often struggled to in the past and in many cases worse so. When they were gang pressed into conflicts and not for any cause of their own but for the elite of society. People often go on about the wrongs of the past where men had it only slightly better. As 99% never did,and where completely worse off in the societies they lived in back then.

Why cant people live and be happy for the time they live in?

To me, its a great time to live

And yet you bash the left, even though the left has always been responsible for the advances you're touting as to why now is such a great time.

I mean, really, if you look at the history of right-wing vs. left-wing movements, left wingers have always been about granting more social and political party to those who have the least financial power, whereas the right have always been about concentrating social and political power among those who have financial party.

Thus, the right wanted slavery to continue, and the left wanted to free the slaves.

Before that, the right wanted only landowners (financial power) to have the vote (political power).

Later on, same thing with giving women the vote.

So, in a time when the "Leader of the Free World" is a racist who brags about sexually assaulting women, how can you possibly fault people for wishing to live in a different time?

Didge wrote:

Vintage wrote:I can't agree more today is a great time to exist and possibly will be more so in the future, well hopefully, it doesn't follow the future will be better.
I'm just asking if you thought you might flourish in times past if not in this particular time, many people are drawn to past eras, be it fashion or whatever its not like I have a time machine that I'll whisk you away to if you dare to mention and era, its just for fun, people who like history usually like to play the game, its not like its serious, you remember fun don't you, didn't you ever play make believe.  If you did have a time machine wouldn't you be tempted to go back to check out certain times?

Don't get me wrong, its a very interesting question you are posing Vintage, but to me. Today is a far better time to live

I mean I have read so much about history and think back to how. If towns or cities were conqured in the past. There is a 100% chance I being a man. Would be slaughtered and a 50% chance you would be in Europe or 50% chance you would live and also possible raped. Not a great choice I admit. So you would have the better odds there on survival. So I can have a fair idea what it would be like for me, if born into society from humble orgins. In times of war, ll throughout many centuries. Men have been pressed ganged into war. Hardly ever to fight for a nation, but a king, leader ect.

If I had to live in a time back in the past, it would be in the earliest times of ancient Sumer.

Vintage wrote:Sumer, yes good choice. Maybe Egypt at its height, where women were more equal, they could be anything even a doctor of great renown to the rulers. I would not want to be a Greek or Roman woman in their eras.
I agree, few times in the past have been great for the many, starved, killed in war, either forced to fight or raped and killed anyway, if female, as part of the terrorism used to subdue the populace. This is the best time to live,as far as I can tell, with all we know of the past.  In the future I would appreciate living in a Startrek type universe, of course but we are a long way from that.

Didge wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why would you want to live in many eras. When you have a very slim chance of survival rates?

When people bemoan today, they really have no idea what it was like to be a woman in the past

Granted women had more rights in Celtic and Angloc Saxon times, before they became Christianized, but the point is. We now have laws that protect the rights of women. Just because some idiots are now trying to destroy equality by enforcing equality of outcomes. Which has to be the most daft philosohpy ever to come out of the left thinking brain camp. Does not mean, this is not a great time to live for everyone. As I am sure people have said many times they would have loved to have lived in different times, but then by not actaully ever understanding what it was truely like to live and struggle.

What often people forget is that men often struggled to in the past and in many cases worse so. When they were gang pressed into conflicts and not for any cause of their own but for the elite of society. People often go on about the wrongs of the past where men had it only slightly better. As 99% never did,and where completely worse off in the societies they lived in back then.

Why cant people live and be happy for the time they live in?

To me, its a great time to live

And yet you bash the left, even though the left has always been responsible for the advances you're touting as to why now is such a great time.

I mean, really, if you look at the history of right-wing vs. left-wing movements, left wingers have always been about granting more social and political party to those who have the least financial power, whereas the right have always been about concentrating social and political power among those who have financial party.

Thus, the right wanted slavery to continue, and the left wanted to free the slaves.

Before that, the right wanted only landowners (financial power) to have the vote (political power).

Later on, same thing with giving women the vote.

So, in a time when the "Leader of the Free World" is a racist who brags about sexually assaulting women, how can you possibly fault people for wishing to live in a different time?

Really?

So the left were responsible for the end of slavery in the UK, or was that the Christians?

You see i do not deny history, but in many cases its been secularism, which has seen people on both the left and right help progress society. It was fundementally a Conservative Republican party that advanced a view for the time to abloish slavery in the US, but you want to ignore this and make some absurd claim. They were some how left and Democrats as Quill does.

They were never in a month of Sundays Left wing

So if its been about left and right, why was there progression, before the advent of left wing politics?

How did that happen Ben?

Why did schools start way before this?

Hospitals?

Universities?

So if you claim the right wanted slavery to continue, why is it in both the UK and the US right thinking people voted and fought to abolish this?

There is nothing worse than someone, who has not the first clue about history, try to whitewash it and paint the most distorted picture going ever.

Now there is very much a view from the late 19th century into the 20th century, where we do see leftism with progressive views, but then they have simple just plagerized them from a 2,000 year old Jewish Rabbi called Jesus.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really?

So the left were responsible for the end of slavery in the UK, or was that the Christians?

You see i do not deny history, but in many cases its been secularism, which has seen people on both the left and right help progress society. It was fundementally a Conservative Republican party that advanced a view for the time to abloish slavery in the US, but you want to ignore this and make some absurd claim. They were some how left and Democrats as Quill does.

They were never in a month of Sundays Left wing

So if its been about left and right, why was there progression, before the advent of left wing politics?

How did that happen Ben?

Why did schools start way before this?

Hospitals?

Universities?

So if you claim the right wanted slavery to continue, why is it in both the UK and the US right thinking people voted and fought to abolish this?

There is nothing worse than someone, who has not the first clue about history, try to whitewash it and paint the most distorted picture going ever.

Now there is very much a view from the late 19th century into the 20th century, where we do see leftism with progressive views, but then they have simple just plagerized them from a 2,000 year old Jewish Rabbi called Jesus.

Left wing politics has been around since the dawn of humankind. I'll just point you to a single, very important document that was extremely left-wing for its time - the Magna Carta.

First document to assert that the wealthy powerful weren't chosen for leadership by God. So all you've proven is that a large, contradictory book like the Bible contains ammunition for both the left and the right.

You accuse me of distorting history and then claim leftism originated in the 19th century? The United States constitution is PROFOUNDLY left-wing. It said people could rule themselves, and not have to bow to authority!

Vintage wrote:The Magna Carta was primarily for the baron's rights it did include all free men but the majority of the population were villeins , owned by their lord, so in no way free men, the only thing they got out of it was that the fines they had to pay for infringing just about anything were limited.

Didge wrote:

Vintage wrote:Sumer, yes good choice. Maybe Egypt at its height, where women were more equal, they could be anything even a doctor of great renown to the rulers. I would not want to be a Greek or Roman woman in their eras.
I agree, few times in the past have been great for the many, starved, killed in war, either forced to fight or raped and killed anyway, if female, as part of the terrorism used to subdue the populace. This is the best time to live,as far as I can tell, with all we know of the past.  In the future I would appreciate living in a Startrek type universe, of course but we are a long way from that.

Interesting that you say Greek or Roman and agree, but only the elite of Roman society did women have any chance of a good living and even then were used as pawns in marriages for political purposes. 

Also Greek, to me only the Spartans held any real equality for women and wildly renowned for their beauty. They had many rights to own property and only two situations would Spartans be given grave inscriptions. Those who died in battle and women who died in childbirth. So Greek to me, would need something more specific based on the city states. 

I say Sumer, as it had many of the firsts for societies. Though, that again is subjective as its the only known first so far.

I would have thought you would have gone for the celts who did have many equal rights for women.

Idea about the future is cool.

nicko wrote:I would like to go back a few years and join David Stirling and Paddy Mayne,   dangerous but bloody exciting !

Fred Moletrousers wrote:My choice? The Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland  and the Interregnum between 1649 and 1653 under my hero, Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell.

I know that's a very short period, but at least I would have witnessed some great turning points in history either side of those dates, including, hopefully, Cromwell's great speech to the Rump Parliament - "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately...depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Mind you, there would also have been both the horrors of the English Civil war, the East Anglian witchcraft purge by Hopkins and Stearn, the euphoria that surrounded the restoration of Charles 2 and the Great Fire of London...all events that interest me greatly.

Ps. You should have joined the RAF, Vintage...I had a great time and wouldn't have missed it for anything - Cold War or not!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:My choice? The Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland  and the Interregnum between 1649 and 1653 under my hero, Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell.

I know that's a very short period, but at least I would have witnessed some great turning points in history either side of those dates, including, hopefully, Cromwell's great speech to the Rump Parliament - "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately...depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Mind you, there would also have been both the horrors of the English Civil war, the East Anglian witchcraft purge by Hopkins and Stearn, the euphoria that surrounded the restoration of Charles 2 and the Great Fire of London...all events that interest me greatly.

Ps. You should have joined the RAF, Vintage...I had a great time and wouldn't have missed it for anything - Cold War or not!

Didge wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

And yet you bash the left, even though the left has always been responsible for the advances you're touting as to why now is such a great time.

I mean, really, if you look at the history of right-wing vs. left-wing movements, left wingers have always been about granting more social and political party to those who have the least financial power, whereas the right have always been about concentrating social and political power among those who have financial party.

Thus, the right wanted slavery to continue, and the left wanted to free the slaves.

Before that, the right wanted only landowners (financial power) to have the vote (political power).

Later on, same thing with giving women the vote.

So, in a time when the "Leader of the Free World" is a racist who brags about sexually assaulting women, how can you possibly fault people for wishing to live in a different time?

Really?

So the left were responsible for the end of slavery in the UK, or was that the Christians?

You see i do not deny history, but in many cases its been secularism, which has seen people on both the left and right help progress society. It was fundementally a Conservative Republican party that advanced a view for the time to abloish slavery in the US, but you want to ignore this and make some absurd claim. They were some how left and Democrats as Quill does.

They were never in a month of Sundays Left wing

So if its been about left and right, why was there progression, before the advent of left wing politics?

How did that happen Ben?

Why did schools start way before this?

Hospitals?

Universities?

So if you claim the right wanted slavery to continue, why is it in both the UK and the US right thinking people voted and fought to abolish this?

There is nothing worse than someone, who has not the first clue about history, try to whitewash it and paint the most distorted picture going ever.

Now there is very much a view from the late 19th century into the 20th century, where we do see leftism with progressive views, but then they have simple just plagerized them from a 2,000 year old Jewish Rabbi called Jesus.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really?

So the left were responsible for the end of slavery in the UK, or was that the Christians?

You see i do not deny history, but in many cases its been secularism, which has seen people on both the left and right help progress society. It was fundementally a Conservative Republican party that advanced a view for the time to abloish slavery in the US, but you want to ignore this and make some absurd claim. They were some how left and Democrats as Quill does.

They were never in a month of Sundays Left wing

So if its been about left and right, why was there progression, before the advent of left wing politics?

How did that happen Ben?

Why did schools start way before this?

Hospitals?

Universities?

So if you claim the right wanted slavery to continue, why is it in both the UK and the US right thinking people voted and fought to abolish this?

There is nothing worse than someone, who has not the first clue about history, try to whitewash it and paint the most distorted picture going ever.

Now there is very much a view from the late 19th century into the 20th century, where we do see leftism with progressive views, but then they have simple just plagerized them from a 2,000 year old Jewish Rabbi called Jesus.

What a load of outright crap...

Doddery ol' Didgerii pushing his revisionist nonsense, attempting to rewrite New World history..

Vintage wrote:I thought this would be a light discussion about various times in our history, maybe how the west was won and such, how wrong can you be.

Jules wrote:The late 90's was a good era, just before this new millennium started. 

We had every modern electrical / electronic contraption at our disposal to make life easy and fun.  Quality of life was good, salaries were good, retirement pensions seemed secure, and the demon internet had not yet taken hold. 


After 2000 it was a different story. Remember the millennium bridge was wobbly  - good metaphor there imo !

The www & social media are great in some ways but bad in others - they give out instant news and huge volumes of useful info, but they spread fake news too. And they make fraud easier to commit. Defo a mixed blessing.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

From a beekeeping/farming viewpoint,  I reckon the 1950s and '60s would have been a good time to be alive --  effectively, if I had been able to start my beekeeping 25 years earlier --  a full generation before...

Land was much cheaper, relatively speaking --  it would have been easier to set up base..

Forested native bushland was more accessible, before developer-led "urban sprawl" destroyed a lot of areas --  beekeepers today move further with their bees, and therefore have to move more hives.

Beehive material, trucks and utes, extracting plants, were all more affordable when expressed in the prices received for honey  --  meaning that one person could make a fulltime living from 500 or 600 hives, where nowadays they would need 700+ hives.

Wages might have been a lot lower,  but the costs were a bit lower still..  I could have potentially been a fulltime beekeeper, instead of remaining a part-time 'sideliner'.

I know people from that earlier generation who bought 'hobby' farms in places where I could never afford it --  basically because they bought them before the boom in property prices in the 1980s and '90s, and the influx of moneyed-up city slickers buying their "lifestyle" and retirement blocks...

nancial meltdowns (the biggies were in 1925, 1987 & 2008

veya_victaous wrote:

Jules wrote:The late 90's was a good era, just before this new millennium started. 

We had every modern electrical / electronic contraption at our disposal to make life easy and fun.  Quality of life was good, salaries were good, retirement pensions seemed secure, and the demon internet had not yet taken hold. 


After 2000 it was a different story. Remember the millennium bridge was wobbly  - good metaphor there imo !

The www & social media are great in some ways but bad in others - they give out instant news and huge volumes of useful info, but they spread fake news too. And they make fraud easier to commit. Defo a mixed blessing.

this is exactly what gen Y (early gen Y)get annoyed at
We were raised in the 90's when "Quality of life was good, salaries were good, retirement pensions seemed secure,"
but it's all fallen apart since then with the GFC and going further down the rabbit hole that is 'globalization'

the social issues that have arisen out of the internet are also true (I think social media and the 24hr news cycle are both bad on balance)
But gen Y don't whinge about that

Not too sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me there, V. 

So, have a greenie from me.

Jules wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

From a beekeeping/farming viewpoint,  I reckon the 1950s and '60s would have been a good time to be alive --  effectively, if I had been able to start my beekeeping 25 years earlier --  a full generation before...

Land was much cheaper, relatively speaking --  it would have been easier to set up base..

Forested native bushland was more accessible, before developer-led "urban sprawl" destroyed a lot of areas --  beekeepers today move further with their bees, and therefore have to move more hives.

Beehive material, trucks and utes, extracting plants, were all more affordable when expressed in the prices received for honey  --  meaning that one person could make a fulltime living from 500 or 600 hives, where nowadays they would need 700+ hives.

Wages might have been a lot lower,  but the costs were a bit lower still..  I could have potentially been a fulltime beekeeper, instead of remaining a part-time 'sideliner'.

I know people from that earlier generation who bought 'hobby' farms in places where I could never afford it --  basically because they bought them before the boom in property prices in the 1980s and '90s, and the influx of moneyed-up city slickers buying their "lifestyle" and retirement blocks...

Sounds like a charmed life, Wolfie!
imo the horrors that ended the peaceful eras were > >


financial meltdowns (the biggies were in 1925, 1987 & 2008 - have I left any out?)
globalisation
the emergence of the *the 1%*
global wars
terrorism
the sinister side of the internet 

Agree? 

Jules wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Jules wrote:The late 90's was a good era, just before this new millennium started. 

We had every modern electrical / electronic contraption at our disposal to make life easy and fun.  Quality of life was good, salaries were good, retirement pensions seemed secure, and the demon internet had not yet taken hold. 


After 2000 it was a different story. Remember the millennium bridge was wobbly  - good metaphor there imo !

The www & social media are great in some ways but bad in others - they give out instant news and huge volumes of useful info, but they spread fake news too. And they make fraud easier to commit. Defo a mixed blessing.

this is exactly what gen Y (early gen Y)get annoyed at
We were raised in the 90's when "Quality of life was good, salaries were good, retirement pensions seemed secure,"
but it's all fallen apart since then with the GFC and going further down the rabbit hole that is 'globalization'

the social issues that have arisen out of the internet are also true (I think social media and the 24hr news cycle are both bad on balance)
But gen Y don't whinge about that

Not too sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me there, V. 


But I do luv your ''rabbit hole that is globalisation'' turn of phrase!

So, have a greenie from me.