I always was interested in hearing his more serious side, since he's actually a pretty insightful guy (which is in total contrast to his now-trashy show). Anyway, this is a clip of him talking about being in college in the early-mid '60s, just generally what the atmosphere was like, stuff he did and the beginnings of his political path. It occured to me that the way he feels about the era predating Vietnam parallels the way alot of us on here feel about the "innocent" '80s and '90s compared with the darker, more technology-cluttered Iraq War era.

I sort of agree with what he's saying...do you think the early-mid '60s were more innocent than the 1967+ time?

http://video.jerryspringertv.com/player/?id=203225

*Bumparoo

Overall, I would say that the early '60s were more innocent than the later part of the decade.

Even though the '50s and '60s up until 1964 were pretty violent times(the cold war was basically at it's peak with the Cuban Missile Crisis at the time, and racial violence was just picking up), when you compare it with the time after the Vietnam war began it seems like a much larger gap than just 10 years.

Compare 1959 to 1969 for example. In '59 rock & roll was still in its infancy, and everyone's biggest concern was the way Elvis danced. By '69 you had Woodstock, and Jimi Hendrix burning guitars on stage.

Overall, I would say that the early '60s were more innocent than the later part of the decade.

Even though the '50s and '60s up until 1964 were pretty violent times(the cold war was basically at it's peak with the Cuban Missile Crisis at the time, and racial violence was just picking), when you compare it with the time after the Vietnam war began it seems like a much larger gap than just 10 years.

Compare 1959 to 1969 for example. In '59 rock & roll was still in its infancy, and everyone's biggest concern was the way Elvis danced. By '69 you had Woodstock, and Jimi Hendrix burning guitars on stage.

Oh yeah, people have said it before, but it's literally amazing how drastically and how quickly the Sixties changed!

I've always thought the time from about 1959 to '63 was actually generally more peaceful and laid back than the mid '50s, at least pop culturally. Since rock was sort of in a dead period...after Elvis, Little Richard and such had started fading away, but before there was any trace of the British Invasion. That's a good point about racial violence, since that was when the Civil Rights were going on there was still alot of public discrimination. It's just ironic that one of the most peaceful pop culture periods also had some of the biggest issues like that.

I'd say 1964 to '66 was the bridge between the JFK era and the Woodstock era. I agree that stuff like Jimi Hendrix and even some of the darker Beatles songs would've been unimaginable in the early Sixties. I'm sure people would've thought it was evil, lol.

P.S. Jerry Springer was born in 1944 so I guess that probably makes people like him one of the last Silent Generation people (although with heavy Boomer influence) just from clocking in a little bit of adult life before the Vietnam era.

Oh yeah, people have said it before, but it's literally amazing how drastically and how quickly the Sixties changed!

I've always thought the time from about 1959 to '63 was actually generally more peaceful and laid back than the mid '50s, at least pop culturally. Since rock was sort of in a dead period...after Elvis, Little Richard and such had started fading away, but before there was any trace of the British Invasion. That's a good point about racial violence, since that was when the Civil Rights were going on there was still alot of public discrimination. It's just ironic that one of the most peaceful pop culture periods also had some of the biggest issues like that.

I'd say 1964 to '66 was the bridge between the JFK era and the Woodstock era. I agree that stuff like Jimi Hendrix and even some of the darker Beatles songs would've been unimaginable in the early Sixties. I'm sure people would've thought it was evil, lol.

P.S. Jerry Springer was born in 1944 so I guess that probably makes people like him one of the last Silent Generation people (although with heavy Boomer influence) just from clocking in a little bit of adult life before the Vietnam era.



I agree about Springer fitting in with the last of the Silent Generation. 1944 is an time where you could really identify more with the '50s or '60s, depending on the person. He would have been young enough to have gotten into '60s music if he wanted to, but he would have been old enough by the mid '50s to get into Elvis, and the like. That's kinda where I think my grandparents fit. They were born in the late '30s/early '40s peroid, but have always preferred the '50s, but alot of the artists that defined 'sixties' music were born around that time.

The civil rights movement was picking up quite a bit of steam in the early '60s time period, and I'm pretty sure that the freedom rides took place sometime in 1961. I think one difference between the two time periods is television coverage of things. Remember, most people still didn't have TV's until the '60s, so things in the '50s like the Korean War, and early racial violence wasn't seen by nearly as many people that witnessed live broadcasts of the Vietnam War, and race riots/civil rights marches  on the evening news each day in the mid '60s.

The '50s and up until 1964 is seen as a more innocent time because, in part, because we weren't as aware of the things like that going on.

Oh that's a great point about media coverage. Maybe that's why people (especially early Boomers) see the '50s as more innocent, since we actually saw more nightly coverage of war, rioting and racism. Those same horrible things existed before JFK was assassinated too (in some ways, it was WORSE since the civil rights movement was what got us on the road to eliminating and exposing people to it), but alot of people probably felt more shielded from it at the time, especially kids, if they weren't seeing it all the time.

Yeah, I'd say if you were born during WWII then you're on the fence in terms of identifying more with the '50s or the '60s. Like, their roots were probably in the former, but were young enough that the latter could've made an impression on them. I've heard Jerry Springer is a big Elvis fan, so that fits perfectly.

P.S. An interesting fact about him is that, when he was mayor of Cincinnati from 1977 to the early '80s, he attended shows by The Eagles, Billy Joel, etc...and successfully repealed a ban on rock concerts (apparently the city was extremely conservative at the time). He must've been a fan of that stuff too (I wouldn't be surprised if he liked some selected Eighties songs too), but probably in a more casual sense...and is more dedicated to Elvis and the British Invasion.

Yeah the late 50s and 60s are often portrayed as being a quiet time in pop culture, but it was also the hottest part of the Cold War, with flashpoints like the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think this fear of the 'bomb' is another thing which deflected more domestic fears and 'problems' like social change, inequality and Civil Rights. Vietnam offered a kind of point of contention which furthered polarised society between groups - e.g. old and young, conservative and liberal.etc. And of course, as machinehead mentioned the 50s atittude was just to sweep everything under the carpet and pretend everything was hunky dory.

College used to be more innocent.

Until college students started watching The Jerry Springer Show.  ::)

College used to be more innocent.

Until college students started watching The Jerry Springer Show.  ::)


You do realize he was respectable (in the public eye) up until 1995ish, don't you?

On that note, did anyone watch the clip? I just wanted to share it because I thought it was interesting (both in relation to the '60s progression in general and him, especially since his serious side isn't really spotlighted much anymore).

I think most every era will be seen as a more innocent time than the ones that follow. But I would have to say from what I know about history that 63 was the end of the innocence. 1964 I believe saw the Kennedy assasination, Kent state, and other turbulent events.

I just listened to the clip, but I think I'm coming away with a slightly different take.

I think he's talking about a couple of slightly different, but somewhat related, aspects of the era:

First, he talks about in loco parentis --- the way in which society viewed and treated college students.  Females were basically viewed as teenage girls who needed to be tucked in by 11pm.  Males were in a netherworld between teenagehood and adulthood (they could stay out all night drinking but they couldn't vote, for example).  Many colleges at this time still had dress codes, curfews for BOTH sexes (sounds like Springer's university was more liberal than some) and mandatory chappel attendance.  Today, a student's medical, academic and other records are (theoretically) private, but back then if the school doctor learned a "girl" got pregnant or if a "boy" told the school counsellor he might be gay, their parents were notified.  And the consequences for either would likely be quite negative.  It's difficult for anyone born after the early 50s to imagine this type of college life.  The flip side, however, is that society generally tolerated, ignored or dismissed certain things that would get today's college students in trouble ("minor" pranks, hazing, rowdiness, sexual harassment).  Less freedom but also less accountability.

Second, middle class white Americans at the time still desperately clung to a certain mythology about themselves and their place in the world.  This vision/illusion would be shattered by the end of the decade.  (Tangential: In high school, my calculus teacher told us that when somebody told him that "the president's been shot" he initially thought it was the president of the university, not Kennedy. ) Incidentally, I'm not sure the word "innocence" is quite right.  Naivete would probably be more precise.



It occured to me that the way he feels about the era predating Vietnam parallels the way alot of us on here feel about the "innocent" '80s and '90s compared with the darker, more technology-cluttered Iraq War era.


Uh, I think there's a generational difference here :)

I was in college during the 80s.  We didn't exactly see the 80s as "innocent".  (Do I need to go down the list of things that happened?)  And honestly, I don't think my view of the world is fundamentally any different today than it was in the 80s.  Yes, there's a certain darkness to the current decade.  But I would also argue there was a dark side to the 80s and 50s and early 60s as well.  We tend to think of the 50s as "Leave it to Beaver" but it was also the decade that saw the maturation of film noir, and many of those cheesy 50s sci-fi/horror films were reflections of barely suppressed fears and paranoia about things like nuclear war, communism and racial integration.  (Tangent: has anyone seen Fido?)

In fact, the current generation of college students strikes me as incredibly naive, in some ways.  For example, while I'd consider myself an Obama supporter, I find some of the mania and near god-like worship of him by many of his young supporters to be rather bewildering.  It's probably not much different from the way some people used to view Kennedy in the 60s.  They get angry when I raise the possibility that he could be defeated in the general election by Republicans using dirty campaign tactics.  They seem utterly shocked at how "nasty" and "vicious" the current primary is.  Well, I'm old enough to remember the Willie Horton ads of the 1988 general election and the nasty Democratic & Republican primaries of 1980 and the outrage over Watergate in the 70s and even have vague memories about Chicago 1968.

As for technology ... well, my first computer was in 1982, my first email message was 1984, my first real-time online chat was in 1985 (I was in Minnesota while my friend was in Washington), my first bulletin board message in 1987 and my first direct Internet connection was in 1988.  I'll concede that the internet was a very different place in 1988, though!

Nevertheless, I do agree that the early 60s were very different from the late 60s.  It's just that I wouldn't describe it as a "loss of innocence" more than a "shattering of an illusion" on the part of the white middle class.  Instead I would say that the national myth of the 1950s was destroyed as people were forced to confront certain realities.  I really believe the 1960s was a pivotal decade that will continue to cast a long shadow (odd that it doesn't get it's own board, but is lumped into "before the 70s", but I'm guessing it's because most users were born after the 60s).