The Coarsening of Our Culture

When I was growing up in Glasgow I fitted in perfectly to the notion of someone who would end up as a ned/yob/chav/scoundrel/ruffian etc. (lived in a housing scheme, single parent family etc) and I was constantly told such by the likes of the most evil woman in the history of the world (initials MT 3 guesses) and her henchman Tebbit. In an environment where nothing is expected of you it is quite easy to take the easy route and get involved in all the extra stuff that goes on, and I know many people who did, a few of them are on ASBO's (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) and one guy I went to school with from the age of 5 is currently serving a double life term for culpable homicide (he dropped out at 16 was a unemployed father of 2 by 19 and a prisoner by 21). I have done some things that would be considered "out of order" by some people but nothing too serious.

So what is my point here (assuming for once that I have one). I'm not even completely sure myself, but I think it is that society plays some part - there is no doubt that there is a correlation between economic status and tendency towards yobbishness - however the role of the parent in bringing up the child is also vitally important.

Where do I begin? First off, my public school background isn't quite what it seems. My Dad's company's policy for employees abroad was to pay school fees we could no way have afforded ourselves. I'm a long way from being any kind of working class hero, but was almost equally far socially from many of my schoolmates.

As for my 'down and out' period, yeah, yeah, fair dos. I knew as I said it that my claim of having experienced poverty would sound risible, but it's true. I've been broke and I've lived in squalid conditions in dangerous parts of town. I haven't the least interest in romanticising that and it was a kind of choice and I always knew it was temporary, but it was enough to see how it can affect one's outlook. And since, despite your expectations, I have lived near all this, I think I understand your perspective. I've wished the vilest punishments on the kids who've threatened or hurt me in the street and felt the absurdity of my middle class tolerance and benevolance in the abstract vs the concrete malevolence of a fist in the head.

But yeah, like you, I want to know how we got here and, convenient as it might be, the 'bad to the bone, string 'em up' cabbie line just doesn't seem to help, especially when this particular demon seed only seems to turn up among the poor. Like you, I put some blame on educational failures. A little contradiction in your line there - you say your thug contemporaries had no more excuse than you do, then seem to say their latterday forebears can (possibly) be put down to educational standards. Still, as you seem to, I take all these exam passes with a pinch of salt in an era where so much of what's being taught just sounds like garbage.

Polar opposites? We're in a funny period now in the UK where it's possible for readers of the Telegraph and the Guardian to hate the government with equal vehemence. Yesterday's edition of my rag of choice carried a review of a new book on, whattayaknow, yob culture, tracing its distinctive spoor from the council estates up through the news media (Richard Desmond) to big business, Whitehall and the offices of Alistair Campbell (Blair's pit-bullesque former PR man, for those not in the know). The argument that all this is connected sounds a little woolly to me, but I'll buy it in as much as government educational policy now seems far more concerned with vocational training than anything resembling the life of the mind - and that that seems related to Blair's blind love for the asset strippers and hedgefund managers high up in the corporate world.

That disclaimer of mine you object to or lament - I'm not sure I made myself clear, but I was joking - about the weird pomposity of using that phrase in an intellectual(ish) discussion. I dunno. You seem to be far more bugged by the idea of PC than I am. Your concern might have been valid in the days when 'loonie lefties' at Camden Council was trying to ban the term 'black coffee' (as racist) in favour of coffee without milk if you please, but I think we've moved on. At this point, TV comedians like Reeves and Mortimer or Avid Merrion have even managed to revive black face makeup and leering at sexy girls with nary a squeak from any dungaree wearing physically challenged lesbian learning disabled vegan mixed race midgets. The anti-PC backlash often looks like it's lashed back as far as it can go. I might even aver that it occasionally could be said to have had a 'coarsening' effect.

In the end, I have no more interest than you do in wearing a PC combined hair shirt, straitjacket, which is why I'm happy to express my dislike for gangsta rap culture. I think it's one of the best examples we've got of a 'coarsening' of culture - a microcosm, historically and culturally, but I'm doubtful as to whether we'll be able to prove the point on a wider level.

I was surfing the seven seas to work out how Denis The Menace went from being a black haired rag yob to a blond haired smiler yob during the space of umpteen years. The Beano was great literature, you were even given a moral story each time.

In a democratic society the Sun Television Show can exist. We cannot shake our own rule that allows free enterprise because 'it' wrote something that had, in 'our' view, a low moral standard. We accept you have your point of view, afterall. But, we can point out the choice. Incidently, I've yet to locate and re-educate anyone that actually buys it for news. People on the whole are not that stupid. And, just as the Beano, it offers a few pictures, then add the weather and some cellphones, but no moral standards, and maybe some moral fiction. I will add that I was unable to read all of it because of the glue on page 3.

As for yobs, they are floating around at all levels of all societies. They may not be Mowhawkish as in a Western, Tattoo'd up like an elephant man, could be teachers of occult mathematics, look acceptable to be pallatable, be writers of ministerial speeches even, offering commonly accepted principal, and even do society an occasional and outstanding yob.

I cannot completely blame an ignorant, frustrated person who feels like a trapped animal. I don't consider how they look, their sexual orientation or even how they mouth off. But, I will consider their actions. The bottom line is, and regardless the cause and motive, they are doing something wrong when they destroy instead of build, shoot instead of argue.

We have an incontrol class on this planet that on occasion has a wishy washy attitude to yob actions, while taking in our money. On the one hand it decries it as bad, and on the other, it exploits it. This goes for all media, not just newspapers. 'Education' is only part of the solution because, while people, young, old, male, female, rich, poor, thick or educated, whomever, are sitting around unsure of their reasons in this World, they will eventually lash out in unreason. Educate them to write like you can, instead of pulling trigers like they can. 'Example' is the other part to solution. The master yob here is the Editor in Chief of Newspapers Incorporated who does not have the moral upstanding to face the truth, bankrupcy and a lower paid yob.

Wow, some really high quality responses from everyone here. I don’t know if I can reply to all, but I think I can interweave a little of each in my post. I will say that I don’t know very well the culture of other countries (I had to look up “yob”), so my reflections here are certainly colored by my experience.

Let me start by I think summarizing Xamonas’ post by stating his thesis as youth is always on the edge of social norms with the older generations superciliously looking down on them. I agree, and that is why I would normally have chucked off the comments of my mother-in-law and that elderly man. Nostalgia does play funny things with memory, and I’m sure they’re forgetting about gangs and street fighting that went on. And Sami rightly points out that all sorts of dancing through history have been classified as indecent. I would not typically consider that high school girl grinding her backside all that noteworthy except (1) it made for a nice contrast to the experience of madhura’s friend on the bus and (2) it does show how the norm has shifted in order for her to show how she’s pushing the envelope.

Emily frames this in terms of liberal/conservative government policy. I’m not sure I buy into that. First of all none of my liberal friends and family members would approve of such loutish behavior. Also I don’t think there has been a single piece of legislation (in the US) that caused any of this, and I’m wouldn’t advocate any legislation to turn this around. Even in the 1950s, while Eisenhower (perhaps on the right) was president, congress was on the left and so were most local governments. And since then administrations of both sides have been in power. The problems we’re describing are essentially a cultural phenomena, not political. True the liberals have concede some ground here (well, they’re dependent on the youth vote to some degree and don’t want to offend them), but this is all rhetorical rather than policy.

Emily does make a very good point that not all aspects of culture have been bad. Certainly the racial relations have improved dramatically since the 1960s, and this is truly the great accomplishment of Liberal activists. [Emily may be surprised to find that more Republicans voted for the civil rights laws of the 60s than Democrats, but that’s for her to research.] Unnamable feels that perhaps political correctness has gone to far, and perhaps he’s right, but at least in my country, since race relations have not completely ironed themselves out, I’m not in favor of easing up yet on political correctness. At some point, yes. And so I think to our current culture’s credit, we are far more tolerant of others than in the 50s.

blp brings out the economic argument, which I think was chimed in by others. Perhaps there is an economic component to this, but it is not (perhaps to no one’s surprise) along the lines that he is thinking. I think it’s just the opposite. First there is nothing that says that rich people are not as loutish. The standard of living for all (and here I don’t want to generalize for anywhere other than the US) has greatly improved over the past 50 years. The purchasing power of the people on the lower economic scale has greatly improved. We don’t have a hunger problem, we have an obesity problem. We don’t have an unfulfilled desire problem, we have a materialistic problem. Just look at all that gets spent around holidays. Everyone has the latest fads in jeans and clothes. Families don’t just have a car, they have multiple cars, and usually one of them is a minivan or SUV. Home ownership, even among African-Americans, is at an all time high. Could it be that we have too much economic power, too willing to enjoy materialistic things, too much free time on our hands? I certainly buy into this argument as a contributing factor.

blp also talks about getting mugged and a youth sub-culture in ghetto neighborhoods. For the first time in my life, a year and a half ago I was mugged myself by three young punks who couldn’t have been more than seventeen. What a shock to my sensibilities; I still remember every detail of that ten minute experience. A great politician (on the left, BTW, and yes I can admire politicians on the left) Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was a sociologist before entering politics, continually pointed out that the socialization of young men was the single biggest problem society faces. The inability to socialize young women bring about their own issues, but they, with enough money, can be worked out. No matter how much you spend on unsocialized young men, it usually just affects the margins. I don’t want people to think I grew up with a silver spoon in my mouth. I too grew up poor. I too had a childhood friend who was executed, by the mafia in my case. Has a sub-culture of reckless young men, and in a more general sense, men who don’t wish to grow up, been allowed to define the culture? Have their values of degrading women and not being responsible fathers permeated the general public? As Petrarch points out, it’s not women who pinch the behinds of young men, but the converse.

Nightshade and Kilted bring up the baby boomer generation and its impact. You know, there’s something to be said for that. Interestingly I may be the only person in this discussion who is actually a member of the baby boomer generation. Normally a generation of young people is a fraction of the general population at large, and so the moral center is usually with the older generation. Bring back Xamonas’ point here that youth tend to push the envelope of social acceptability and you can see that the baby boomer generation shifted the center of gravity (if you’ll allow me my engineering metaphors) of social behavior, just based on their population. Also, they were the first generation of youth with purchasing power. They had the power to buy what appealed to them, and a lot of what appealed to them dealt with hormones. Sex sells, and youths suck it up. There has always been pornography, but pornography has never been so widely distributed. Music is no different. I love both Frank Sinatra and The Rolling Stones, but look at the difference in their songs. And I don’t even know what goes on in today’s music. So now that the baby boomers have aged, why hasn’t it normalized?

Which brings me finally to Unnamable points, and I find some of his points convincing. (Hooray! I always have to celebrate when Unnamable and I agree, and amazingly here in a philosophic discussion.) Yes, the media (and I would expand the media here to realms of entertainment as well) bear a responsibility. There was no law in my country in the 1950s which forced TV and radio and advertisers to put out entertainment and propaganda that was decent. They did it out of self restraint and responsibility, for the most part. Somewhere that changed, for all the reasons we’ve mentioned above. The reason this issue has been going on in my head for the past few years is because of the morning radio shock jocks that have proliferated the country, the most famous being Howard Stern. I car pool to work and one of the car poolers just loves him. Now if you like listening to women strip naked (I know it’s the radio) and discussing whatever sexual perversions they think men like listening to, then that’s right up your alley, but I find it infantile and degrading. If I have to watch on some TV news show once again Hugh Hefner talking in his pajamas about his three live in girlfriends/harem I think I’m going to vomit. William F. Buckley, a conservative commentator, made an interesting observation a number of years ago which has stuck with me. He said that sex has become the “wallpaper” of our lives. It is now there in the background of everything we do, from advertisements, TV shows, and magazine articles. And this was before the internet.

Unnamable mentions personal responsibility. He mentions media and companies, but really, ultimately the fault, dear Brutus, lies in ourselves. These companies are just reacting to our wishes, we the people of democratic countries. I have blame to bear. I watch, even love, The Sopranos. Now there is a show filled with profanity, violence, and sex. I must say, it’s well done. I read James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence, and William Faulkner. They have their share of sex. I may claim that they are high art, but is that an excuse? If I endorse (by me watching) The Sopranos how can I blame my car pooler for listening to Howard Stern? I’m certainly not in favor of limiting free speech. So there we are. Hey, The Sopranos are on tonight. But first I’m going to listen to Mick Jagger whine about not getting satisfaction.

I'm with Virgil and Unnameable.

I don't know about culture being coarsened--sexual tendencies prevail throughout the ages, for obvious reasons--but I do think it's become considerably more blatant. I hate to chalk it up to desensitization (teenagers get too bored and too lazy to bother learning to swing dance as a means of touching each other, so they cut right to the chase instead--and how!), but I have difficulty imagining how else that teenagers can think that a girl giving a boy a lap dance in front of their friends (the assumption that it was JUST a lap dance depends on whether or not she was wearing effective underwear at the time--it happened at my junior prom, so it's hard to say either way) in public is normal social behavior.

I also agree that more and more responsibility is shifting from the person to the environment. All of a sudden, you're not responsible for your actions--instead, it's everyone you've ever seen, heard, felt, or come within 50 meters of. When my classmates and I, even the ones who grind with enthusiasm, can reminisce like geezers (no offense, Virgil :p) about how the television shows of the 90s were so much better than the TV shows now, it's getting serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

We don’t have a hunger problem, we have an obesity problem. We don’t have an unfulfilled desire problem, we have a materialistic problem. Just look at all that gets spent around holidays. Everyone has the latest fads in jeans and clothes. Families don’t just have a car, they have multiple cars, and usually one of them is a minivan or SUV. Home ownership, even among African-Americans, is at an all time high. Could it be that we have too much economic power, too willing to enjoy materialistic things, too much free time on our hands? I certainly buy into this argument as a contributing factor.

---

Virgil, I agree with a lot of what you posted. However, I have a problem with this part - my disagreement is probably mainly a political/ideological one, but I'll attempt to not mention politics if I can.

Now I am more familiar still with UK (specifically inner-city scotland) but I think what I am about to say applies to the US as well.

Firstly the obesity part, a large problem in the poorer areas of glasgow at least is not due to overeating - it is due to people being unaware of what to eat and diet, this is coupled with the fact that due to the need for the parent to work difficult shift type work (in order to have any work at all) children are left money to go to the local fish & chip shop for dinner or feed themselves with microwable, processed crap. In more affluent areas, there is far less occurence of this. It is no surprise that the average life expectancy in Glasgow is around 6 years less than other areas of the UK (cant remember exact figures but I think it is something like 70 in Glasgow).

Next unfulfilled desire/materialistic problem. I do not deny there is a materialistic problem, but I am sure at the heart of it is very much an unfulfilled desire problem among large sections of the population that see TV/Films/Music videos showing all manner of things that they would love to have but know they never will. Your statments about everyone owning cars, latest fashions is imo a huge generalisation.

Now "too much free time on our hands", yeah this is a huge problem. For those in the slums however (and there still are plenty) this is due to there being nothing to do, and as a result people hang around the streets - at an increasingly worringly youger age - a couple of examples from my youth; there was a section of around 20 football (soccer) pitches which were commonly referred to as the "reccy" (recreation area) the council wanted to cut taxes - something about if more people had money they would spend more and increase the economy - so the stopped maintaining the reccy and dismantled the pitches. The only places left for young lads like myself was now the 5-a-side pitches that got privatised and you then had to pay to use, course we couldnt afford the fee. We used to sneak on when the staff weren't watching & then of course get chased off, while they shouted at us for being damn useless kids. The next example is the accessibility of libraries, these were also cut back on - or you had to walk through an opposing scheme to get there, and there weren't none of us about to take a beating to go to the library.


EDIT: Just seen Robin's post. I would like to make it clear that I do believe people are responsible for there own actions, however I also strongly believe that environmental factors must be given their due consideration as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

When my classmates and I, even the ones who grind with enthusiasm, can reminisce like geezers (no offense, Virgil :p) about how the television shows of the 90s were so much better than the TV shows now, it's getting serious.

---

And do you know what one of the BEST examples of the change in social norm and acceptibility over the last 16 years is? The Simpsons. Nopw the simpsons were first broadcast in september 1989 ( I only know this becasue it happens to coinside with my sisters birthday.) Anyway When it first came out It was (apparntlyIm going on what the maker said on TV recently And an incedent I rember from when I was 5 as am not really in a position to rember the politis of it here) often boycotted and whats the word (said to be bad and indecent? :confused: ) ANyway that was back then now It is the number 1 most popular Cartoon and tv show in thee uk ( as voted by the UK 100 favouite Cartoons and the 100 Best tv shows (channel 4) ) NOw the biggest point is it hasbnt changes. If you do an evaluation of tghe content in the old episodes and compare it to the newer ones tthe content is all on the same level. But now it is acceptable. I even have a personal exampele. When I was 4 or five I was watching TV and it was the simpsons and My mum came in turned off the tv and said I was never to watch that becasue it was unsuitable and I think she also may have used the word disgusting ( then again that might just be my impression) I can even rember which epoisode it was it was when bart was taking a photo of his but and lisa sees and yells about it. ( I rember mostly I suppose because it was such an odd thiing to do in my mind that it sticks out. ) Anyway Now my mum happly lets my 6 yesr old sister watch it and doesnt even remmber this incedent.
And there you go f that is not a shift in social acceptibility I dont know what is. :nod:

Thanks, Kilted Exile. I'd forgotten the rampant selling off of things like school playing fields that's gone on under the present government. It kind of does make the link between the thuggery in the corridors of power and on the streets.

In general, Virgil, your idea of an increase in quality of life sounds like la la land, not least because of the evidence about people not locking doors in Brooklyn you yourself open with. But trying to use increased rates of obesity to make the point - that really, ah, takes the cake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

The standard of living for all (and here I don’t want to generalize for anywhere other than the US) has greatly improved over the past 50 years. The purchasing power of the people on the lower economic scale has greatly improved. We don’t have a hunger problem, we have an obesity problem. We don’t have an unfulfilled desire problem, we have a materialistic problem. Just look at all that gets spent around holidays. Everyone has the latest fads in jeans and clothes. Families don’t just have a car, they have multiple cars, and usually one of them is a minivan or SUV.

---

I have no idea where you got this idea. I'd actually be really interested to know what gave you this impression. "The purchasing power of the people on the lower economic scale" is improved only so far as they can max out credit cards, and many of those people have no hope of ever recovering from that debt. There is an obesity problem because unhealthy food is the cheapest, and many people find it difficult to afford anything else—even if they are educated enough to know how to care for themselves in that regard, which many aren't, as the quality of education in this country has steadily dropped over the past few decades. People are saving less of their money than since the Great Depression, and racking up massive credit card debt on top of it. We've become a "spend, spend" culture, certainly, but that is not a reflection of widespread wealth. The bare figures actually dispute that; there's a larger gap between the wealthiest and the poorest Americans than there has been in generations, and it's the number of poor who are growing the fastest. As for "the latest" clothing and multiple SUVs, I'm pretty certain you aren't talking about the lower income bracket. Or even the median income bracket. I can't even really respond to this, because I have no idea where this statement came from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

There has always been pornography, but pornography has never been so widely distributed.

---

That could have something to do with the advent of VHS tapes and VCRs. Photographic pornography has been around as long as photographs, but the industry didn't really take off until strict legislation was lifted on X-rated movies in the 1970's and they could be widely distributed. Even then, they didn't become hugely profitable until there was a convenient way for people to watch them in their homes, as opposed to being seen in a public theater or messing around with a projector and film in their basement. I would argue that the interest has always been there, just not the means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

So now that the baby boomers have aged, why hasn’t it normalized?

---

Because they passed their values onto their children. The youth of the 60's are constantly portrayed as courageous in their spirit of rebellion and pushing the social/sexual/chemical envelope. Their stodgy war-era parents are portrayed as old fogeys who didn't understand the beauty of the human condition. Now the message their children hear is, "Sure, we went against our parents' wishes, and we're heroes. But don't you do it." Kids aren't that stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Emily frames this in terms of liberal/conservative government policy. I’m not sure I buy into that....The problems we’re describing are essentially a cultural phenomena, not political.

---

I don't see where I said otherwise. I'm afraid you've wasted your time refuting a point I didn't make. I never brought up partisan governmental politics, rather shifting cultural attitudes. America is at the moment under control of a historically ultra-conservative government, and yet your own opinion of American culture seems to be that it is "coarser" than ever before. Election results are clearly a poor indicator of the overall social climate. Perhaps you only skimmed my post? I get the distinct impression that you completely missed my real point, but perhaps I didn't outline it clearly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

[Emily may be surprised to find that more Republicans voted for the civil rights laws of the 60s than Democrats, but that’s for her to research.]

---

Ha. [You'd be amazed at what numbers on a page do not indicate. As I hope I've already cleared up, partisan bias was not what I referred to when I said "conservative." But being that you brought it up, I can only hope that the Civil War is not considered "current politics." I say you brought it up because I'm sure you know that until recently the American South was a Democratic stronghold. This was a reflection of stubborn tradition rather than an acceptance of the party's evolving philosophy. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and represented the (literally) conservative idea that the Union should remain intact, while the Democratic South represented the radical idea of secession therefrom, in order to maintain the "old" way of life. During the 20th century the ideals of the parties began to shift, but many Southern families passed down their Democratic voting habits, while the regional culture remained old-fashioned with regard to race relations. Those families who voted Democrat out of support of traditional Confederate ideals were, not surprisingly, the ones least likely to support the Civil Rights movement. But I don't doubt that this is old news to you, as you've done your research. I wouldn't want to question your knowledge based on my own misunderstanding of the facts.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Where do I begin? First off, my public school background isn't quite what it seems.

---

Not a public school boy – damn! There goes my image of you as Rupert De Marjoribanks -dressed like Anthony Andrews in Brideshead Revisited and carrying your favourite teddy bear, Osric.

There are two factors which I think have been overlooked in the main in this thread: modern technology and the increase in the population size. I'll take these in turn.

Technological advances have had a couple of distinct effects upon behaviour. Firstly, advances in broadcasting and transmission of images mean that an old lady being mugged in the street can be in every sitting room in the country within minutes. Secondly, advances in domestic appliances have led to people being afforded far more leisure time than even a few decades ago. The first of these leads to a perception of our living in an increasingly violent and morally-lacking society. The second has led to an increased number of youngsters 'hanging about'; a century ago, they would have been down the pit at 14 or even younger.

The rapid increase in population means that we are crowded closer together than previously, there is more competition for everything and a far larger underclass of youths with low/absent aspirations (no larger as a percentage perhaps, but 10% of more is more than 10% of less). These are then prodded with the stick of 24 hour, wall-to-wall advertising for everything they can't ever have.

I'm not saying that either of these factors is solely to blame for a change in society's values; I'm not even sure that there has been a fundamental change in those values. But I think that they are an important part of the overall mix and that they bear due consideration.

At heart though, I still hold that there have always been yobbish and selfish ****s in the world, that there always will be, and that there will always be a nostalgic view of bygone days taken by the old. Besides, we used to have a lot more wars in the good old days, so we could ship our scum off to foreign parts and let them run riot there.

You know what I think? I think we need a working definition of Yobbish behaviour. I mean Young obnoxious boy, right? But it’s in no way limited to males or in fact the young either.
Xamonas (I’m going to have to start calling you Xam I hope you don’t mind if you do say now or loose your chance! :D :brow: )
Anyway where was I oh yes you mean the old devil makes work for idle hands?
I understand though what Virgil was saying ( I think) because we were discussing this in my book club just the other day. Today society apparently want so much more so much faster that they cant be bothered to work for it properly ( sort of the world owes them a living or something) so they tend to get angry and frustrated when they’re wishes are not forfilled.
Personally I think society gives people too much excuses. Oh yes I come from a disadvantaged background so I get all these extra things and perks so my life is basically ok why should I bother to work harder? I am not saying this is a commonly spread idea or even if it is an ideology that exists Im just saying it bloody possible.
Actually Emily youll find pornography has been around a lot lot longer than photographs
But yes I agree its probably more wide spread now because of the capabilities of mass production. Also the whole equality thing. I believe there was a case in some early history period either Romans or early Christians when an artist was hired to build either a church ( though somehow Im not sure :confused: ) or some other thing for the rich upper classes anyway he used moulds for the walls (sculpture ?:confused: ) anyway the man who made the moulds was allowed to keep them so oh a few years later he is hire to build this lush bath for some one and ends up being executed for indecency and inciting bad morals or whatever basically for pornography. Yes it was a church because it was the church that tried him for using it in a bath house while they had it in a church! :eek:
Or something maybe someone who is better at art history will know what Im talking about.

now that had better all be spelt right becasue I used word:nod:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Xamonas (I’m going to have to start calling you Xam I hope you don’t mind if you do say now or loose your chance! :D :brow: )

---

As I said elsewhere, A rose by any other name would have as many thorns and still thrive on ****! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

There are two factors which I think have been overlooked in the main in this thread: modern technology and the increase in the population size. I'll take these in turn.

Technological advances have had a couple of distinct effects upon behaviour. Firstly, advances in broadcasting and transmission of images mean that an old lady being mugged in the street can be in every sitting room in the country within minutes. Secondly, advances in domestic appliances have led to people being afforded far more leisure time than even a few decades ago. The first of these leads to a perception of our living in an increasingly violent and morally-lacking society. The second has led to an increased number of youngsters 'hanging about'; a century ago, they would have been down the pit at 14 or even younger.

The rapid increase in population means that we are crowded closer together than previously, there is more competition for everything and a far larger underclass of youths with low/absent aspirations (no larger as a percentage perhaps, but 10% of more is more than 10% of less). These are then prodded with the stick of 24 hour, wall-to-wall advertising for everything they can't ever have.

I'm not saying that either of these factors is solely to blame for a change in society's values; I'm not even sure that there has been a fundamental change in those values. But I think that they are an important part of the overall mix and that they bear due consideration.

At heart though, I still hold that there have always been yobbish and selfish ****s in the world, that there always will be, and that there will always be a nostalgic view of bygone days taken by the old. Besides, we used to have a lot more wars in the good old days, so we could ship our scum off to foreign parts and let them run riot there.

---

Xam (I like that shortening too. I always confuse myself as to where the "a" and the "o" go) - I think you make excellent points here.

I like Xam too, somewhere between 1am and noon.

Technology works both ways, and so does education. A larger World population means we need more food, and people were starving 2000 years ago. I am not sure anyone is really talking of practical solutions that can be effected today, or are they?