Soceity does a 180
 

Note: everyone's groaning "not another thread by IcyThaco", but this one's been bugging me lately.

Has anyone else noted the complete shift of many social ethos/ideals?
Many social norms from around the turn of the century through 1950 have done a complete about face and become polar opposites in today's age.
Here are some examples:
-Then: "mobsters" and "gangsters" were middle class, white, Itallien guys who ran gambling operations and collected "life insurance" from people in big northern cities like Chicago and New York.
-Now: "gansters" and "mobsters" are fairly poor African Americans and hispanics who run drug smuggling and selling operations and have gang wars in big southern cities like Miami and Los Angelos.
-Then: Discrimination, especially anti-semitism, is not considered a bad quality.
-Now: Discrimination, especially things like racism and homophobia, are looked at with horrified shock at the mere thought of Americans thinking like that.
-Then: The ruling class are the wealthy Aristocrats who base their power on who their parents were, and resent the supposed "lower classes".
-Now: The ruling class are Academics, who, although just as wealthy or wealthier as the old aristrocrats, resent their success and money (at least in public), and act like their financial aboundance was just an unexpected outcome on the path to higher knowledge and the betterment of mankind.

Have you noticed this switch in ideals as well?

Indeed.
In the old days, the rich were people who were born that way. Now it is people who lived the American dream and went from rags to riches.

///

Gonna have to disagree with that last part, both types of "rich" existed then and exist now.

Yeah, but the academics are the majority of the upper class, even if the artistocrats are still the richest people. But the one thing that exemlifies your point is George Bush's re-election (by the way, people, he got into Yale because his dad was a former president and extremly rich, not because he was smart enough to get into Yale).

I would debunk that lie but it would throw the thread off topic.

I havent heard of any modern aristocracy really...except maybe in Hollywood, where you have people getting roles in blockbuster movies for being related to a famous person.

///

First off, it's not a lie. Read "Bobo's in Paradise" by David Brooks and you'll see that during that time period, Aristrocaracy was still in control of America, and that big universities still exepted people based on their background, not their abillities. But getting back on the point, I agree that their aren't very many left, but it's not like they've all died off since the 1950s. They're still here, sitting in their big, empty mansions without succesesors to contiue their aristocratic ideals, the last of their kind.

I think he was refering to the "he got into Yale because his dad was a former president".

He got in bacause his father and grandfather went there. He went to yale in the 70's wheni his father was president from 1989-1993.

He got in cause his rich family allways wehen there. That happanes in all expencive and private schools. Don't want to piss off your big money doners do ya?


And i dissagree about the Aristrocaracy. Kerry's wife was born in to her power, she sure as hell didnt earn any of it. It has allways been people who are born into it and the people who work for it. It will allways be that way.

It's not exactly that easy for people to fall out of money.

Really, you still think that aristocracy is ruling the country? How about the senate race in Alsaska, where the former senator nominated his daughter, and the majority of the people in Alaska considered that nepotism. It is no longer politically correct to leave your company or position to you offspring. People generally only appreciate earned authority
(I'm not even getting into the whole Bush issue right now).

Gangsters were scum, they still are. (some people like being scum)
Discrimination was bad, it still is. (some people like to discriminate)
Smart people were successful, and they still are. (people also inherit money)

Your perceptions aren't really built on a foundation of relevant facts, in my opinion. Who really cares who composed of gangs "in the old days" and who composes them now? Discrimination has always been "good" for some people and frowned upon by others. And money hasn't really changed much either.