1945-1965: An Abundance of Riches

I begin our focus on the United States after World War II by putting the students into groups of three and having them list anyone and everything they can name that somehow applies to the years 1945-1965. Then, of course, they share what they’ve got with the class. It helps in two ways: first, I get to know what they know and what they don’t (or at least what they know for purposes of historical association) and, for the first time, the class typically sees that they actually know something about the past. Unlike previous eras, where my students labor to name the presidents or important events or celebrities, they have greater knowledge of this period. And I ask them to consider why that is … and it’s not just because it’s closer to us in time. They can name a whole bunch of “founding fathers” and important pieces from the American Revolution, and I bet they know more about these decades than they do the 1970s (and it’s hard to blame them … any decade that births the Bee-Gees is forgettable in my estimation). It might have something to do with the Baby Boom generation and the emergence of television.
Bert the Turtle (1952)
1945 to 1965 is probably the most fun, but also most difficult, period to teach. There’s so much going on. We have Youtube videos galore (I absolutely love the trailer for Rebel Without a Cause). We have heroic stories and dramatic anxieties. There’s the emergence of the modern Civil Rights movement and our students have not only heard of, but actually heard speak Martin Luther King Jr. They know somehow that Malcolm X was tough, and that white segregationists were somehow a group of odd, awful southerners. And talk about documentaries, Eyes on the Prize is a gold mine. It’s probably the only documentary that doesn’t put me to sleep (well, I like Ken Burns’s The Civil War too, although it gets pretty formulaic). There’s the “duck and cover” fears of nuclear devastation and the video of Bert the Turtle teaching children to “duck and cover” is unbeatable as a discussion starter. (I’ve had classes literally duck and cover, and ask them if they magically feel safer; they don’t. We all just feel awkward).
Then there’s the massive economic and population growth. Americans got very good at growth. We made suburbs, televisions, automobiles, and babies. We moved to the West, especially California, to build more and more. By 1960, California had as many Electoral College votes as Pennsylvania and was creeping up on New York. And as we bought, sold, and made in bigger and bigger fashion, we crafted even bigger ways to destroy everything. Hydrogen bombs were atomic bombs what the B2 bomber was to the biplane. It’s an exaggeration to say that they were 1000 times more destructive, but the point is that they took destructive potential to new heights.

1945 cartoon found at
http://www.johndclare.net/cold_war2.htm

And of course, the Cold War looms everywhere. Whether it was militarization in the form of NATO and Korea or homespun anxiety of the McCarthy-esque type, the battle between “God-fearing, free-market capitalism” and “atheistic Communism” touched everything in its path.

But how can we pull it all together? How do we make sense of the moment before the Civil Rights Act, immigration reform, Vietnam, and stagflation reconfigured every element of the United States from the late 1960s into the 1970s?
I’m trying two main themes, which I’ll elaborate on later in the week (and report back what my students know and don’t know from the years): 1) the rights revolution, or how so many groups and individuals pushed for rights that even upper-middle-class white men turned to the language of oppression to defend either their long hair or their business interests; and 2) the burdens of power, or how economic and political power created an American responsibility and dependency that we carry to this day. 

11 thoughts on “1945-1965: An Abundance of Riches

  1. I am going to discuss the fifth document from chapter 11, “Newspaper Survey: Are You a Conformist or a Rebel?, 1959.”

    I found this document hilarious for some reason. It’s subtle jabs at the movie, Rebel Without a Cause, made the survey very enjoyable. I thought it was interesting that the survey asked a series of 10 questions on various subjects where you could either conform to the norm or be a rebel but in the end, the scoring asks you to only consider the odd numbered questions. I thought it was interesting that it only considers the odd questions and was a little confused as to why. I reread the questions and it seems that the odd ones were more socially related. The questions were more about situations you would encounter in public, for example smoking in a museum even though the sign says not too or the way you dress. The even numbers were more personal, like considering your own opinions or just agreeing with everyone else’s, or what you would do if someone asked your advice on a job to take.

    This was interesting to me because it seemed the most important questions, the ones on your internal opinions/feelings are more important to consider than the superficial questions. But the document states, “…If you answered Yes to the odd-numbered questions, and No to the others, you are being an intelligent conformist.” hmm… interesting. so basically they’re saying be a rebel when no one else can see it or know what your really thinking, but conform when you’re in public and people can actually judge you?

    Lastly, the scoring section made me laugh out loud. “…none to 2 – you’re a rebel without a cause!” Someone was a little excited when they wrote this part. I find it entertaining that a newspaper would even publish a survey like this to help people become better conformists. Why was conformity even encouraged? Isn’t the whole point of freedom so you can be yourself? I enjoyed reading this article but it frustrated me that people care so much about their desired public image that they hide their personal/internal rebellion and just be an “intelligent conformist” and conform in public.

  2. The document I chose from the major problems is document 6 from chapter 10. The article title is “Senator Joseph McCarthy Describes the Internal Menace, 1950.”

    I thought this was a very interesting document because it shows how one man was basically responsible for the fear of the supposed communistic takeover happening from inside the United States. He starts by saying how much more people the Soviet Union has, compared to the US, and concludes that some of that amount somehow spilled over into the US secretly and are now part of government institutions like the State Department. What I also thought that was interesting is that McCarthy targets the “traitors” as being people who were wealthy and had the best kind of education. I expected he would aim his attack on the minority but actually did the opposite. I have a difficult time understanding why McCarthy would aim his “supposed accusations” at the wealthy in power and not the minorities when communism, I think but not completely sure, favors the poor, the workers, and minorities (not that he should have accused them anyway).

    I also noted that it is McCarthy who highly emphasized the labels on communism, and those loyal to communism, as an evil. He labels it as being atheistic and has the opposite values of the Christian morals and beliefs in the US. Because of his actions I believe people in the postwar era were so freaked out about communism and caused massive paranoia.

  3. The document I chose from the major problems is document 8 from chapter 10. The article title is: Life Magazine Reassures Americans “We Won’t All Be Dead” After Nuclear War, 1959.

    I found this article very interesting because of the fact that the author of the article acts as if nobody is thinking or planning for a nuclear attack. I feel as if this would be on the fore front of everyone’s mind. It seems to me that because people were not frantically making their homes “fallout proof” didn’t mean they were not constantly thinking about a nuclear attack. Plus to make these upgrades was really expensive. Cost a home owner $150-$200 dollars which was a good deal of money back then. It almost feels as if the article more attacks the government for not properly preparing the people for a nuclear attack. It seems as if so much information, in the forms of movies and pamphlets made people a little numb to the situation. People were hearing so much about the initial attack and how to prevent themselves from dieing that they wouldn’t be prepared for the 2 weeks after.
    I cant blame people for not being prepared. I think it would have been extremely nerve racking living in a time when death could be any second or at least the threat of death. I think it would be hard to prepare for something like that. With your house/ bomb shelter as a constant reminder of a possible attack.

  4. The document I am going to be discussing is from Chapter 10 of Major Problems, document 5 entitled “The Truman Doctrine Calls for the United States to Become the World’s Police, 1947.”

    Although this document covered a topic that was mostly straightforward, I do think it is a document that is important to understand because it had so much to do with the foreign policy of the United States in this time period. What I found interesting about this document was that the Truman Doctrine, which worked to allow the United States to police the world, was initially set up to aid just Greece and Turkey. The president outlined his argument to Congress that both Greece and Turkey need the financial aid of the United States “if Greece is to survive as a free nation.” Because the U.S. was the only country that was able to provide financial aid to these countries, President Truman felt that it was the duty of the U.S. to aid them in their time of need.

    The one question that I do have about this document is how the United States was able and willing to provide financial aid to almost any country. To me, it seems that there is only a certain amount of help that you can extend to so many countries. I do see that because the U.S. was one of the only major powers that came out of WWII, that they were looked to to aid these countries.

    Thanks,

    Devin W

  5. The document that I will be discussing is from Chapter 11 of Major Problems, document 1 entitled “A Young American is ‘Born on the Fourth of July,’ 1946.”

    I thought that this document was rather interesting because it reminded me of people that I know that have a birthday on a holiday. I have a few friends that were born on Christmas, Halloween, on a Leap Year, and on New Year’s Day. It was interesting to me to read how being born on the Fourth of July affected this writer. I enjoyed the first paragraph of the document in which the author claims “The whole sky lit up in a tremendous fireworks display and my mother told me the doctor said I was a real firework.” The document was intriguing in that there was a long description of cartoons that appeared on television shows, a description of Elvis Presley, and how there were reenactments of scenes from movies that the author had seen. The author describes that his favorite toy “was the green plastic men with the bazookas. They blasted holes through the enemy.” The carefree life of the author as a child was an interesting read.

    One question that I do have came from the little blurb that was given about each document at the beginning of the chapter. The blurb states that the author later lost the use of his legs in Vietnam as well as lost the trust in his government. Is there any writing available from the author after he fought in the Vietnam War explaining how the war had changed him? I think it would be really interesting to do a examination of the differences between the thought process of the author when he was a child, compared to the author after he had fought in the Vietnam War.

    Thanks,

    Devin W

  6. I am going to discuss an article that came out in Good Housekeeping in 1956 titled “Every Executive Needs a Perfect Wife, 1956,” located in Chapter 11 Article 3. I found this article to be very amusing to me as I was reading it. Basically they are describing the perfect woman and stating that a man is who he is depending on his wife. When I began to read the qualities I also got another giggle out of it. “A good wife is friendly” “A good wife is part of her community” “A good wife’s primary interest is her husband, her home, and her children.” Was this serious?! I could only image what some of the women were thinking as they read this in the newspaper. They then described the “troublemaker.” Really?! I guess I can see this happening back in the 50’s and women being okay with it. But I think that if this article were to come out today then the audience would most likely make a fuss about it. After reading this, I thought to myself, “Is this what men want?” So I want to ask this question to whoever is reading. Is this what men want? What do you expect out of your women? Do you agree with this article?

    -Nadin T.

  7. Jordan Kirchberg-
    The end of World War 2 is a fascinating time because we as a nation obtained two different feelings. One was a new form of patriotism. We were powerful, we helped end the war in europe and we demolished hiroshima to our west with a single bomb. We had become a super power of the world. The next feeling that we had obtained was fear. America feared that the Soviets had nuclear weapons causing us to be in a state of fear and anxiety. We were preparing ourselves for the worst possible outcome. We even were preparing for this armageddon scenario with the lovable Bert the turtle. We and the soviets were ready to put up our arms for battle but we each were waiting for the other to make the first move. Despite our fear of conflict, United States was prepared to fight against the Soviets.

  8. I will be discussing the fourth article from chapter 11 titled, “Life Magazine Identifies the New Teenage Market, 1959”. After reading this article I got the sense that this era was the beginning of teens “breaking out” of the past traditional necessities of the previous era. That they starting gaining a sense of individualism and more wants, and it seems as many got them. It is stated that teen-agers have “emerged as a bigtime consumer in the U.S. economoy”, which makes me only imagine the roles of teenager consumers in the economy today. It is funny because sometimes I would joke with my Dad about how I am technically an “investment” for the sake of all the money that gets spent along with me. In 1959, an upper-class family spent $1,500 a year on their daughter which was a large sum at the time. I could only imagine the amount of money that even a middle class family spends on a teenager today. Which makes me wonder what are the numbers compared to today? As well as I wonder how much money teenagers spend as consumers today?

  9. The document I will be discussing is in Chapter 11 (The Postwar “Boom”: Affluence and Anxiety) in Major Problems entitled “Good Housekeeping: Every Executive Needs a Perfect Wife, 1956”

    During these years of 1945-1965, woman did not have much control on what they were allowed to do and how they were allowed to act. The document is a perfect example of how woman were looked at and what was expected of them. What really struck me most about this document was how much influence a man’s wife had on his job. This piece explores what is seen to be characteristics wanted and not wanted in a wife. She is expected to cater to her husband’s every need. Everything is about him and his success. Employers explain that the wife is actually one of the main things that they look at when considering a man for a job. Because if the wife doesn’t make her husband happy then his stress might affect his performance at the work place. No where in this document does it mention anything about the wife’s goals, dreams, happiness, and opportunities. It states that her “primary interest is in her husband, her home, and her children.” A marriage is a partnership, and it was not treated like that during this time. Part of the ‘types of wives not wanted‘ list is a dominating woman. This is sick to me how the woman have no power, control, or say in any part of their life. It is simply not fair! The document is concluded saying, “but if he can keep his wife successfully under control he can keep his job…” The man trying to get hired should be the only person being looked at when making the decision whether he is worthy of the spot or not. And wives should not have such high, unrealistic, and sickening expectations.

  10. The document I am discussing is from chapter 11 entitled “Good Housekeeping: Every Executive Needs a Perfect Wife, 1956” on page 334.
    It was very humorous when I first read it. The family support system is an important factor in making anyone successful, but this document exaggerated when it claimed that every executive needed a perfect wife. For instance, a right wife could not be too emotional, possessive, complaining, or dominating in the relationship. This could bring loss to the company where the husband was working at because he would not be able to maintain a stable spirit for his job. In my opinion, work and personal relationship are two complete different topics. They might intertwine to help each other in various areas but they should not influence one another if the person was professional enough. In this situation, the magazine was talking about an executive; I expected that this person was a professional. Therefore, he needed to understand the barrier between private life and work affairs. It was his responsibility to fulfill his job with best effort and it should not relate to the experience he had with his wife (whether if it was a good or bad wife). Therefore, maybe this article might make sense to people during the time period when it was published but it might not be true during our current time period.

  11. Those 20 years were very formative for the U.S. as a nation. For the first time we really emerged as a superpower. Our influence had been expanding, but during the Cold War, the U.S. truly had global influence. We united as a nation by defining what we were not. We were not communists and atheists. We united under a new idea, the idea of the shared religion of Judeo-Christianity. Even though Protestants, Catholics, and Jews had been killing each other for centuries, they were united as consumer capitalists in the postwar U.S.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *