Memories of specific episodes of radio programs, issues of magazines read, non-classic movies seen, television programs viewed, as well as celebrity icons and crushes may have faded.
yes but more than the physical "memory" for memory's sake, there is a deeper, emotional connection to things that the interviewees recalled and spoke about. I think that's why so many spoke about such similar emotions and experiences despite coming from different backgrounds and time periods.
by attaching a different meaning to these objects than members of younger generations would
younger generations just attach that same type of meaning to other things like the internet and cell phones
in providing a shared cultural, coming of age experience regardless of the decade in which they were born, the region in which they were raised, or their family’s social class.
it definitely helps to start to shape a collective concept of what girlhood during those times (and beyond) could mean
She argued such dances provided a ‘‘public space’’ where young people could ‘‘experiment with new social and sexual arrangements’
agreed
the means of experiencing and sharing media were quite similar.
kinda goes to show that the human "experience" doesn't necessarily change all that much throughout the generations (and even centuries) despite societies and cultures changing so drastically
The memory of enjoyment of popular music in girls’ youth is one of the strongest narratives in this research; both music and dance were cultural experiences shared by girls across these three age cohorts and across socio-economic and regional backgrounds. While the specific music and dance styles may have changed, the linking of music and dance to youth/girl culture, particularly in the teen years is undeniable
Dancing and really movement is an integral part of self expression and the greater access people have to music I would say the greater the need for that self expression becomes.
When I was a teen, all my friends and I were heavily into 45 RPM records. During that timeframe, there were a lot of Black records produced and made—much more there in terms of media content than could even approach what was on TV or even the radio at that time. That (music) was the predominant media landscape for Black children and teenagers,
this is really true more so for any other group of people. so much of Black history/memory is told through music yet a lot of the music at the time wasn't allowed to be recorded and if it was it wasn't always properly preserved in later decades
Probably once a week. Just go and dance to the jukebox
like I said earlier, the dance circle is a sacred thing that people have been doing for centuries but some modern societies have strayed away from for various reasons
noted no main women characters on television and in radio programs with whom they identified.
just like Blacks and everyone else who wasn't a male WASP lol
Radio wasn’t the only medium about which informants recalled the ‘‘experience’’ more so that the content
I think most people recalled their first experience with the internet in the question you asked at the start of the semester rather than the content they consumed for the first time.
The people in the community would gather at the home of people who had radios, and later on they would do the same when people had TVs.
Interesting that this technology was still able to bring communities together whereas now, it seems to drive people farther apart. yes communication is faster, but so is becoming entrenched into internet tribalism
my dad was a Republican, my mother was a Democrat. I was raised in rather a lively political atmosphere and I know on election night, my mom and dad would usually host a dinner party and Mother would set up card tables so that the Republicans sat together and the Democrats sat together and then they would listen to the results of the election.
How on earth did this work even in 1920/30-whatever???
Although Rose, Amanda, and others remembered specific characters and program titles, their recollections about radio listening seemed to be tied more to memory and experience than the characters or stories in the radio shows. This relates to the notion that memory is constructed through a process of individual, social, and cultural meaning making
it could also mean that those programs and characters weren't as memorable as the action of spending time with their family or friends doing something shared. Kind of like people in previous centuries having drum and dance circles to celebrate different occasions.
radio was always, always, always a part of our lives.
radio was the TV for post WW2 people and the internet for everyone alive today.
As with other media, their recollections are primarily of the same general interest programs their families listened to, and not of girl-oriented programs/ characters (with the exception of Little Orphan Annie).
this is the typical experience of most people even today although today there is more room for "self expression." if we look at sports in america, we can see through that as most people root for the team(s) their family and friends root for in whichever sport that's most typical of that area. (Philadelphia fans get very offended if you're from Philly but don't root for any of the teams).
you could go for blocks listening to Amos and Andy, and you could listen to the whole program block to block and hear it from other people’s houses because everyone was listening to it
concerning but unsurprising that such a racist show was so popular during this age of radio
Although women in the older and middle cohorts interviewed valued the memory of news content on the radio, women in the youngest cohort were more likely to mention remembering listening to music on the radio—perhaps because the sound of music on radio vastly improved with the launch of FM channels in the late 1940s, or the elevation of celebrity DJs and rock and roll that followed soon after
shows how media is starting to shape each generation differently
My grandmother listened to a soap opera. I think the lead was named Stella. And she’d listen during the day to her soap.
early on the addiction towards daytime amusement and drama was set so it's no wonder so many pointless daytime tv programs there are to this day even with tv steadily declining over the years.
Almost all thirty informants immediately focused on outdoor activities—tag, hide-n-seek, jumping rope, picnics, hiking, swimming, bike riding, random adventures with friends, and so on. Regardless of whether our informants grew up in a rural or urban setting, they typically recalled their girlhood as a time when media and popular culture were peripheral or absent from their lives
This is a concept hard for many to imagine nowadays given how reliant and incorporated media is in various popular culture
Allowing women from different walks of life to share their stories in this way is preferable to the frequent use of official historical records to explore the same time periods because such records, constructed by people in positions of authority, can reflect only the worldview of people with ‘‘power’’ and ‘‘agency’’
Facts
we actively attempted to recruit women of color to participate, but these efforts failed.
Why?
From the early 1940s through the mid-1950s, ‘‘girl-centered entertainment properties,’’ such as novels, comic books, films, radio programs, live theater, and television programs, ‘‘saturated American popular culture’’
and it started in the 20s? that's crazy. the goal was only to sell products at that time. no one thought about or cared about political correctness, human rights, or mental health. and most of the decisions regarding women's products and subsequent culture via what they are or are not exposed to through various media forms like magazines, were made by white men. who had no interest in feminism or empowering women. the opposite in fact and you can see it in a lot of the images in ads from those decades (20s-50/60s)
‘‘teenager’’ became ‘‘the accepted way to describe this new definition of youth as a discrete, mass market’’
so did this word not exist or was in often use before this time? it makes sense. it's creating a third market to advertise at. instead of just kids and adults, you can have kids, teenagers and adults. from a capitalist's perspective, it is genius
increased production and variety of consumer goods marketed to teens as well as increased emphasis on advertising as a means to reach the newly prized demographic
post WW2 I would say america realized everyone, especially young people, could be/were consumers and could be advertised at. and with more kids going to school and becoming closer to what we know today as normal "childhood" the culture changed
presents women’s memories of their girlhoods as a means of counteracting ‘‘official’’ history, in particular at a time when youth culture was first becoming established in the United States. We intentionally use the plural, ‘‘girlhoods,’’ in acknowledgment that there is no single, uniform ‘‘girlhood.’’ Rather, there are ‘‘girlhoods’’—cultural constructs that vary by race, ethnicity, class, nationality, generation, regionality, sexual identity, and so on
I feel the same is true for Black history. I think it's important for peoples' stories to be told from their perspectives.
Memory and storytelling can provide valuable tools for feminist media scholars aiming to better understand girls’ interactions with popular media from a historical perspective. Memory provides a powerful and sometimes mysterious means of binding oneself to a sense of time, place, purpose, and community, and when shared, it can explain lived experiences in a way that studying official documents cannot.
I would say true for most groups that historians don't include in the "Great Man Theory." But especially of women.
FROM 1906 T0 1912, when American wireless companies were on the verge of declaring or had in fact declared bankruptcy, and when the corporate sphere publicly expressed indifference toward the invention, America experienced its first radio boom. Thousands of people, believing in a profitable future for the invention, bought hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock in the various fledgling wireless companies. Others took even more decisive action: like Willenborg, they began to construct and use their own wireless stations. These Americans came to be known as the amateur operators, and by 1910, their use of wireless was being described in newspapers and magazines around the country. The Outlook outlined the emerging communications network: "In the past two years another wireless system has been gradually developing, a system that has far outstripped all others in size and popularity.·. . . Hundreds of schoolboys in every part of the country have taken to this most popular scientific fad, and, by copying the instruments used at the regular stations and constructing apparatus out of all kinds of electrical junk, have built wireless equipments that in some cases approach the naval stations in efficiency."14
This kind of sounds like the birth and growth of Hip Hop. Especially sampling because in the beginning it was done by a lot of "amateurs" in the sense that many were not trained musicians nor had proper recording studios or instruments and had to make do with what was available and invent new ways and technologies of accomplishing their goals.
The man who was befuddled by all this machinery was a clown, emasculated; the man who made technology his slave, a genius newly empowered.
I feel like this a re-telling of history about America in some ways. Pilgrims who came didn't know how to farm properly and didn't even prepare for it and thus mostly starved until the Natives took pity on them and taught them how to grow crops, especially corn, and basically not die like "emasculated clowns." Now the man that can make technology his "slave" the way America basically has enslaved everything it's ever come into contact with, is the opposite of a clown. A powerful genius. Not the greedy, often heartless, opportunists that they are.
. Carter, a young detective, possessed "strong muscles and terrible fists." But, more importantly, he was highly intelligent. He was a master of disguise and spoke "almost every known language, as well as many that are comparatively unknown.
Is this a Sherlock Holmes knock off?
This was an invisible, mysterious realm;
It sounds like the allure of the internet. Initially and still to this day in many forms.
. Trapped between the legacy of genteel culture and the pull of the new primitivism of mass culture, many boys reclaimed a sense of mastery, indeed masculinity itself, through the control of technology
These sound like the first wave of "nerds" in this country showing that brains are just as important as brawn (if not more so).
Boys educated in both academic and corporate institutions learned that having a "forceful personality" was, in reality, often either unattainable or a liability. Despite the prevailing mythology, much of a man's life was spent indoors, in urban areas, away from the enlivening and therapeutic tonic of the outdoor life. In reality, being the master of one's environment, or having mastery over other men, was, for many, simply not possible.
Especially in capitalism. Only a select few can be the corporate heads. Everyone else needs to be a drone that holds the pyramid up.
According to this ideal, it was not enough to be physically vigorous; men had to have forceful, commanding personalities, as well.6 All of these traits, it was believed, were best cultivated by a more active life in which men were more directly in contact with nature.
I feel like this, again, is propaganda because while factory and city life were changing drastically, country life was definitely being left behind in many aspects; yet people (especially rich ones) needed others to work farmlands and especially work in coal mines. So what better way to convince people to do something for next to nothing pay that's literally killing them every minute they're doing it, by convincing them that by acting in this manner, "makes them more manly." What utter rubbish. That's like saying not wearing a seat belt makes you "more manly" when in fact, all it does is increase your chances of dying in a car accident...
the explosion in competitive sports with their "organized physical combat,"
As much as I love (real) Football ⚽️ I've definitely realized over the years how tribal it is and how people can do and say things they normally wouldn't because of their "passion" for a sport, team or player. It's quite shocking how similar the emotions felt watching sports are to that of those watching the ancient gladiator games of Rome.
Willenborg was the young man the press chose to represent the many other nameless boy operators in America. He was the perfect role model for young men facing the beginning of the twentieth century. His story embodied several trends: the increasingly important role popular culture and journalism were playing in identifying and reinforcing acceptable norms of behavior, the boom in instructive hobbies· with their many "amateur" practitioners, and the rise of the boy inventor-hero as a popular culture archetype. His story also captured a more subtle yet profound process: the gradual redefinition of what it meant to be a man, particularly a white, middle-class man, in America.
Can definitely see where a lot of character troupes for various american media comes from with this. Interesting the journalism was seen as the way that helped to normalize certain new behaviors or trends. Almost like with social media nowadays.
In the hands of the Times reporter, Willenborg became a role model for other boys. His ordinariness and diligence were emphasized: "He is no prodigy. What he has done has been done by hard work. He began at fifteen in a little closet-like room on the top floor of his house."
Sounds like typical american "boot strap and hard work" propaganda to deflect from the fact that this guy's dad and family being well-off, allows him the freedom and time to pursue hobbies/passions such as this where others have to spend most of their time trying to earn wages to survive.
Only those with wireless apparatus would be privy to the unfolding melodrama, however.
This feels reminiscent of the internet boom and subsequently other more popular internet services such as Facebook or Twitter gaining popularity and increasing people's fear of missing out on the next great invention.
Situated in small-town rural America, appealing to the uneducated working classes, addressing them in ways not approved of by such elite institutions as the AMA but clearly speaking to their innermost fears and hopes, mobilizing ethnocentric racist appeals that created an “us” that was embattled, misunderstood, sick, and tired—Dr. Brinkley and his brethren on the border made connections via the miracle medium of radio that the larger society could not tolerate
Isn't this exactly what Trump did?? LOL
(cries internally)
The story of Dr. Brinkley encapsulates the way that radio became a focal point for questions of nations and borders, knowledges and identities, authoritative power and the threat of uncontrolled populism
I feel like this is a similar story to what's happening with Elon Musk and Twitter as well as Trump in general saying wildly inaccurate and nonsensical things. Especially with Twitter or Facebook. If the government didn't establish rules and regulations for social media (to which it needs improvement) it would literally be the wild west for information in the worst possible way. People (including corporations/companies) need to held accountable for their words and actions.
Brinkley
This guy kind of sounds like a mix of Dr Oz and Trump....
The station schedule included a typical assortment of musical performances and “talks,” including three medical lectures a day by the good doctor. Soon he added another feature, The Medical Question Box, during which he read letters from listeners seeking medical advice, diagnosed his listeners’ ailments over the air, and recommended patented medicines
So this kind of "day-time tv drama/special guest" nonsense has been happening since the 20's???? That's truly unsettling. Again, I feel like this is why having a robust, impartial, and objective educational system is so imperative to prevent, or at least minimize the number of people falling for con artist "medicine men" scams.
transplant recipients could stroll among the frisky bucks and take their choice
???????????????!!!!!!!!!
The ultimate contribution of television will be its service towards unification of the life of the nation, and, at the same time, the greater development of the life of the individual
Yet the result was more and more people sat at home for longer periods, glue to the TV, instead of going outside and actively engaging with their community in meaningful ways.
strange
I think you mean pathetic lol.
just asking for social disorder and squandering a valuable national resource. But we did it our way
Which brought us Ronald Reagan, who was literally a devil.
American television networks and producers tent to produce U.S. adaptations of foreign programs, under the assumption that Americans won't like the originals.
Literally describing anime coming to America perfectly until the 2000s.
Even though some events can be proved to have happened, if they are not repeated in the right places, or worse, if they are overlooked or omitted by powerful histories, they can be silenced out of existence.
Yes, like the Armenian Genocide of 1915-17. Few people to this day know about this. It was one of Hitler's biggest reasons for why he felt he could get away with his own ethnic cleansing.. When first discussing ideas for the death camps, he was quoted saying something along the lines of, "...and no one remembers Armenia, do they?" Implying that in time, people would forget about the atrocities they planned to commit.
The repeated assertion that 1950s America resembled a small number of TV sitcoms actively begins to erase from our common memory—from our history—a whole set of events (such as militant labor strikes, African Americans’ struggles for basic civil rights, restrictions against blacks and Jews in many “idyllic” suburban communities, and Cold War politics playing out behind the scenes) that were every bit as much of the past as the happy domestic families on TV (Trouillot 1995).
Can I give a standing ovation to this sentence?
Also, let's not forget all the coup d'etats that America has directly funded or partook in. Today actually marks one of them: the end of Chile's first socialist government in 1973, headed by Salvador Allende, who was murdered (more likely forced to commit suicide) in the Chilean Presidential palace.
TV’s efforts to convert Americans to an affluent, consumption-based lifestyle can be seen as an ongoing social project that in fact contradicted the way that most of us actually lived our lives
True but I think people were only allowed to be their true ethnic selves up to a certain point. Past that point, it interfered with the ideal version America had for itself and would be shunned and rejected unless or until somehow profitable (i.e. the history of Hip-Hop). There's still plenty of overt racism in various advertisements of that time period encouraging people to conform to the "American" look and way of life. I also don't consider shows like The Real McCoys or The Beverly Hillbillies to be representing any particular ethnic group(s) in a positive light. They, to me, are more directly making a joke out of these people rather than showing anything meaningful or humanizing about them.
f not, something was wrong with them.)
the propaganda of conformity
Not only were all the families affluent and mysteriously non-ethnic, so was everyone else in their neighborhood and social circle.
Fresh off of "winning" a war for "freedom and democracy" it sure is funny how America encouraged eerily similar ideas or values as the conservative and/or fascist countries that were defeated. Especially considering how many different ethnic groups fought for America in the war (Black, Asian, Jewish, Irish, German, Polish, etc.) aiding in its "victory." I use the term victory loosely because despite claiming to be fighting for freedom and democracy, post-war America began the most heinous racial profiling schemes this country (and the world) had ever seen. One example is the invention of red lining houses and the completely unequal distribution of funds and homes in the GI bill for returning vets. To summarize, previously discriminated against ethnic groups such as the Irish, Germans, and Italians, were given low cost homes in newly developed suburban areas (in a very conservative, borderline fascist, approach to "assimilating foreigners"). However, little to none of these homes were made available to anyone considered Black or of African descent. Ensuring that an entire generation of people would have a significant wealth advantage over their so-called "working class" counter-parts. For a country that is supposed to be a "melting pot" where "anyone can achieve the American dream" it sure seems counter-productive to employ practices like that.
traditional
aka Propaganda.
“Strong families” meant heterosexual, nuclear units with a dad who worked, a mom who stayed home and looked after the house, and good clean kids who respected their parents.
It also usually meant men who abused their wife physically and/or emotionally; women who were trapped in a box all day who turned to drinking and drug use to not go insane from the boredom and lack of agency; and children whose mental and emotional needs from both parents usually came as an after thought, if at all. Also, this was the time when "doctors" in America pushed psychiatry into the public eye claiming that various psycho-therapies could cure all, along with a variety of prescription drugs which industries learned could generate incredible profits. Who was the guinea pig (victim) of this new, first wave of psychiatric-capitalism? Unfortunately, house wives. As their male counterparts were too stubborn and emotionally challenged to allow themselves to talk about their problems with anyone else, even a "trained" doctor.
Television in the 1950s emphasized the white middle-class family to the exclusion of all else
A great example of propaganda delivered to the masses. Another great example of how people started to question things less, especially what they saw on TV. Fast forward to our current time, where everyone, especially the media news cycle, is in such a hurry to be the first to report on something they don't seem to care about the accuracy of the reporting.
Yes, or advertising wouldn’t be as effective as it is!
I encourage everyone to look up "Edward Bernays." Here's a short overview of him and what he did for advertising and propaganda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdQ6HIzaSm4&list=WL&index=9 To me this proves that without educating oneself on the various histories of the world, especially media history, one can easily fall victim to more sinister powers of persuasion and propaganda, designed to be covert.
put it into use in their daily lives and shared understandings
Bruce Lee talked philosophically about this a lot. Not just learning things for the sake of knowledge acquisition, but applying what you learn in everyday life in some way. In that way, past, present, and future are alive and constantly evolving and being shaped by people actively engaging with them.
the push–pull tension that says as one thing is gained, another might very well be lost
I'm sure everyone can relate to this regardless of age, but especially anyone old enough to remember life before everyone had cell phones and gps systems. Personally, I was amazing at remember many kinds of phone numbers; be it friends' houses or parents' workplaces, etc. As well as being great with remembering directions. However, after relying on cell phones for years to do the remembering for me, I definitely have noticed my powers of recollection for those same basic things has unfortunately decreased. I think this is one of the negative trade-offs of having such convenient access to certain technologies. The human brain had to work harder in the past to store and recall information. Now people, including myself at times, rely almost entirely on phones and technology to do the things we historically have been doing for hundreds to thousands of years: making our brains work.
the failure to understand how one family’s affluence and good fortune is gained at the expense of a whole class of others
The sad story of capitalism since its invention.
a time during which change took place so rapidly that people’s values, beliefs, and perceptions could barely keep up
I think the rapid growth of the internet is extremely similar to the viewpoint in this sentence. 20-25 years ago, there was no concept of "likes, followers, & subscribers" and therefore no emphasis was being placed on the number of those things on a person's profile, if they even had an online presence. Nowadays, that can make or break a person's career or business, let alone their self esteem, especially among younger children and teens. That push for technological advancements in social media has also led in an increase in people reporting a decrease in their overall mental health.
Only connect …
To me, history has always been about "connecting the dots." Which is to say, seeing the intersectional nature of choices and events and their resulting consequences, for better or worse, across time, nations, gender, and class. It's interesting the book starts this way and, at the end of the paragraph, has a character suffering from cognitive dissonance over the connections between his actions and another's. I believe one problem facing all societies is a growing tendency to be this cognitively dissonant on things.
one kind of evidence helps form the capacity to distinguish between the objective and the self-serving among statements made by present-day political leaders.
This alone is a HUGE reason why everyone should be interested AT LEAST in the history of politics, especially in this country which claims to be the greatest, yet has retracted women's (more than deserved) right to choose what to do with their bodies. Also how the banning of books, here or other places, is nothing new. Yet is always a drastic sign that people need to become more involved with politics if they don't wish the quality of life to deteriorate.
studying history encourages habits of mind that are vital for responsible public behavior, whether as a national or community leader, an informed voter, a petitioner, or asimple observer.
As my favorite history teacher from youtube, Mr Green, says, "the test will measure if you are an informed, engaged, productive citizen. It will take place in schools, bars, dorm rooms, hospitals, and places of worship. You will be tested on first dates, job interviews, while watching sports, and while scrolling through social media feeds. The test will judge your ability to think about things other than celebrity marriages, whether you'll be easily persuaded my empty political rhetoric, and whether you'll be able to place your life, and your community in a broader context. The test will last your entire life and it will be comprised of the millions of decisions that when taken together, make your life yours; and everything will be on it. (I know right, so pay attention!)"
Sometimes advocates of citizenship history hope merely to promote national identity and loyalty through a history spiced by vivid stories and lessons in individual success and morality
I think it's they hope not to have their country's dirty secrets exposed and subsequently, for its citizens to not think it's trash and become fed up. Similar to the new movement among younger mainland Chinese called "bai lan" or "let it rot." I find it difficult to believe that if all history is taught truly objectively, anyone in their right mind would become indoctrinated with conservative leaning ideologies.
Histories that tell the national story, emphasizing distinctive features of the national experience, are meant to drive home an understanding of national values and a commitment to national loyalty.
America in a nutshell. LOL
and sometimes abuse it
I think more often than not, countries, nations, & city-states abuse identity history and make it nationalistic to a point of toxicity. Being proud of who you are and where you come from is important and fine, but not at the expense of harmony. No one nation, or even group of people, is superior in every way to all others. People are just different, and that difference is worth celebrating.
History Contributes to Moral Understanding
I read a book/graphic novel called "Persepolis" in my IH1 class which really encompassed this paragraph to me. It was about a girl who lived through last days of the Shah of Iran and during the Islamic "revolution" that immediately followed until she finally decided to leave her homeland for good, settling in Paris. It really shed light on the true history of Iran and America's involvement that is so conveniently almost never spoken of here. It also showed me just how diverse the Iranian/Persian people are. For instance, there are Iranian/Persian people who are Jewish which I always thought impossible given the strict nature of the Islamist state that exists there. Seeing this girl's struggle with her own identity, faith, class status, and government was similar to that of various groups in America. Although not a world famous leader, yet certainly not a nobody, her story encompass one of an "ordinary person who provide[s] lessons in courage, diligence, [and/]or constructive protest."
Only through studying history can we grasp how things change; only through history can we begin to comprehend the factors that cause change; and only through history can we understand what elements of an institution or a society persist despite change.
I recommend thinking about this like your own life. Without reflecting on the history of your life, you will have a difficult time learning from successes and failures.
that a knowledge of certain historical facts helped distinguish the educated from the uneducated
This is still true today. In the age of heightened misinformation, I would say knowing specifics of topics has become even more crucial to making accurate opinions and subsequent actions. On the opposite side, I would say people almost expect you to know more than a computer or history book on a subject, if you're trying to enlighten them on a subject they find jarring to their worldview. I've had people doubt my entire position in a discussion with them just because I couldn't remember one specific date or name on the spot. Still, regardless of remembering exact dates, I would say a person who can reiterate what they've learned in their own words has more expertise on a subject than someone who can only regurgitate facts.
History, however, is the study of the past. Given all the demands that press in from living in the present and anticipating what is yet to come, why bother with what has been?
I would say in the hopes of not repeating the mistakes of the past.