-
1 year 7 months ago
- Posts: 41
| stake n sheak wrote: donnie darko wrote: I mean, 1960 is technically part of the "60s" but it's definitely not the hippie and woodstock 60s that the word "sixties" conjures.
You are saying the same thing I am. I think there needs to be a different way of terming periods. This is the 13,205th thread on retrojunk forums claiming that decades don't end when the calendar says they do. Obviously, the multiples of ten are not doing the jobs that people want them to do. Again I think movements are more useful to talk about times. Let's use the the punk era, or the old school rap scene as examples. By their nature, they don't begin and end at the same time. You can't say the 80s completely encompasses them because they started in the 70s. Meanwhile the original run of punk lasted longer than the breakdancing and grafitti scenes that went along with that early rap. So if you try to say the 80s started in 1977 because of that, then you have to include disco into the 80s because it was also around in 1977. Is that right?
You can say that A Thing, Whatever It Is has an "80s-ness" even if it continued until 1994, if you want to. But that doesn't pull everything else along with it.
"1991 is part of the 1980s." "The 1980s continued until 1992." I don't think those would be valid statements to make.
I think you could say there are two different "60s" or two different "80s" - one strictly of the calendar, another somewhat more liberally marking an era with a lot of distinct, often intangible things holding it together. Yes things change gradually, but history tends to follow a punctuated equilibrium.
Maybe we could linguistically make the distinction this way: The "Nineteen sixties" refers to 1 January 1960 to 31 December 1969, while the "Swinging Sixties" refers to a more ambiguous time beginning roughly in 1963 and ending roughly in 1970, or perhaps even as late as 1973 in some contexts.
For example the slow crumbling and rapid fall of the Eastern Bloc, and along with it the world order dating back to the '40s, is politically speaking what defined the 80s. Politically speaking, the political era the entire 1980s falls into ended around the autumn of 1990, with the preparation for Desert Storm, Thatcher's resignation (RIP), and Bush Sr.'s renege on "read my lips". Though the political 90s wouldn't really begin until Clinton took office.
I think it's no coincidence that 80s culture crumbled around the same time. The 90s is defined by that soul-searching after the autumn of nations, the 80s is defined by the Cold War, or in the case of 1989-91, the end of it. The Cold War IMO ended with the August Coup of 1991 - that was really that the last straw, the nail on the coffin that sealed the USSR's demise.
Without the August Coup, believe it or not I think there would still be a USSR today, though the Baltics and perhaps a couple other member states probably would have exited. The Coup is what caused Ukraine to declare their independence. They definitely could have continued to liberalize their economy though, and would continue to have multi-party elections. They would probably be like a less authoritarian version of the PRC, except more socialistic, just not truly communist.
|