And if we're going to denounce a generation, why limit it to the US. Shouldn't we include those Mexican students, including those who died, since the result of their struggle was Salinas and Fox?
Or the French, because of Chirac? The Brits because of Thatcher? And how about the Polish workers because of the right turn of Poland, it's self-subjugation to the church, etc?
And the Panthers who dissolved into petty capitalism?
Of course to do all that requires a deeper explanation than aging, doesn't it? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 2:32 AM Subject: Re: #103
>
>
> David Schanoes wrote:
> >
> > Huh? Does this include African-American baby-boomers? Or don't they
count?
> >
> > What a bunch of crap. History based on advertising demographics....
> >
>
> If I remember correctly, almost all the catch phrases (such as "baby
> boomers") used to describe the '60s (then and now) were coined by
> _Time_.
>
> I can understand why people who weren't around in the '60s would swallow
> the cliches, but so do (and did) many of the people who were around
> then.
>
> And notice, those who like to use the term "baby boomers" are for the
> most part reactionary in their politics. This love of political cliches
> which are grounded in pop psychology from the mass media is strange to
> say the least.
>
> "Baby boomers" was a stupid phrase when it was coined, and it is still a
> mindless phrase. I hope no one using it has the nerve to talk about
> dogmatism and left jargon.
>
> Carrol
>