I Consider Myself a Boomer... regardless of what this indicates

Why People Born 1955–1964 Aren’t Baby Boomers

 

But I most certainly am - born in 1948 !!!

 

I was born in 1954, apparently an in-between time when the Boomers were waning and Jones was rising. I was a little too young to join the original hippies though I got a taste of the counter culture, and later watched while the world changed and hippies were swept aside. As a result I'm idealistic yet realistic.

 

Just another label imo............Boomers/Millennials/ect.......I think i am from the "Patat generatie"(73).

It makes a big difference in what time(and place) you are born....and what is "normal".

Learn from eachother, is my best guess(experience/idears/ect)..........cant change the present.

Mzzls

 

I was born in the 80s, but generation labels mean nothing to me. As a boy, if I wanted music, I had to buy it. Now, there's YouTube, and I can stick to the 60/70s when it comes to music/movies/comedy. I don't have interest in the last 40 years because I've lived it, but because there's nothing to offer when it comes to art. I can't muster enough energy to watch a movie, so if I try, I'm going to go with the highest probability. And today is another day I didn't watch a movie. Tried yesterday - couldn't get into it. A big problem is being able to watch thousands of movies for free online. Now, I can't think of any. I post on message boards for recommendations, and see most of them, or try websites that recommends movies based on a movie you like, but it's not very good, or I've seen it already.

It's sad that the MOVIE section here has only had some activity once since February

 

Nonsense. Not, you Duncan. I agree with you. The source you linked and are disagreeing with is nonsense.

The U.S. Census Bureau, Pew Research Center, Brookings Institution, Britannica, and the Population Reference Bureau, just to name a few, all define the baby boom generation in the US to be those born during the period of 1946-1964.

In fact, I couldn't find a single credible source among demographers who disagrees. Most defer to the Census Bureau, and I can see no reason to do otherwise.

Barack Obama is a very bright guy, and he can exclude himself if he likes, especially when making a speech and for effect, but he's a lawyer, constitutional scholar, community educator, autobiographical author, and statesman. He's not a demographer. He's not a reliable authority on the subject of anyone but him born in the US during the period of 1946 and 1964.

A "generation" is generally considered to be a period of about 25 years. 1946-1964, inclusive, is only 19 years. Breaking that into 2 even smaller periods of 9 and 10 years each, and calling them "generations," makes very little sense. People don't begin having and raising children at age 9, not in any significant numbers.

Obama's parents were born in 1934 (father) and 1942 (mother). He was born in 1961. There wasn't any generation-skipping going on. He is of one generation, and both of his parents are of the immediately preceding generation.

All this is is an attempt by a few living people to make the time in which they live seem more momentous, more interesting, and of greater historical importance than it really is. As the wise know, sayin' don't make it so.

 

The US Commerce Department's Bureau of the Census didn't define these, other than for the Baby Boom Generation. The rest are informal, pop-culture references, not useful or reliable demographic data.

Yes, a "generation" is generally considered to be about 25 years. That's how the number of generations is counted over long periods of time, such as since the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, since the fall of the western Roman empire, or since the beginning of the Modern Era about 500 years ago. The 25-year generation is used by historians and in some scientific disciplines, such as when considering genetic mutation in human evolution. As the term "generation" indicates, it's about humans generating more humans, about fertility and successfully replenishing the human population.

When one is generalizing about attitude toward work, what music people listened to, or whether they were more influenced by radio, television, or social media via the internet, it's purely popular culture.

 

Uh I think Millennials are those born 2000 and after...

 

I do believe the generations were developed after the population bubble following WWII. Although the term was coined by Gertrude Stein in her writings with the Lost Generation early in the 20th century nobody really paid attention to it. That is until the population bubble following the second war began to influence the country and the prior generations were backloaded to honor them. Before then service men came home, met up with their former girl or found a new one, married, and had kids. A bunch of them. It was the dawn of a new way of life in the US. These generations seem to have been established from the high birth numbers recorded during the time frame and not a cultural existence. There are cultural differences in each generation.

As a baby boomer I am near the middle of the era. My spouse nearer the end. We have varied recollections of history made during our childhood. I knew of the Eisenhower Administration and the Kennedy election. I was a hippie and protested the Viet Nam war.. She has no remembrance of Ike and vaguely remembers the assassination of JFK, probably due to the impact it had on the nation and not that she was conscious of the event. She loved Disco and only knew of Nam because her brothers were drafted. (at least disco made her horny to my advantage) Most hippies didn't care for disco thus the change over within the generation culturally. Population numbers defined generations broken down into years but there are quite a few cultural differences within them.

BTW, add these to the generations papasmurf posted:

• The Lost Generation — born 1883 - 1900ish from Gertrude Steins writings.
• Generation Alpha — born 2013ish - 2025.

 

Beautiful words!