Chiff and Fipple Forums

How come there are no rebelious kids around anymore . In the past we had teddy boys,mods ,rockers hippies, skinheads and punks to mention just a few. What have we got now ? Nothing thats what. Do kids not feel the need to rebel anymore?

RORY

These days they join ISIS or the white supremacists.

s1m0n wrote:These days they join ISIS or the white supremacists.

This.....it's all too serious now. We need more MUSIC!
More Tin Whistles!

In addition to what Simon said, MS-13 and numerous other gangs.

And, geez, if you're listing mods and rockers, what about emos and goths and punks, or whatever punks have evolved into (body piercings, etc.)?

Most are too busy playing computer games to know what's going on in the real world!

chas wrote:And, geez, if you're listing mods and rockers, what about emos and goths and punks, or whatever punks have evolved into (body piercings, etc.)?

Ah, the paradox of group nonconformity.

fatmac wrote:Most are too busy playing computer games to know what's going on in the real world!

I was talking to the mother of a few teenagers (I have one) about our kids getting drivers' licenses. My daughter went to take the test for her learners permit the day after her 16th birthday, while this woman's son doesn't show any signs of wanting his. Our next-door neighbor's son didn't get his license till after his 18th birthday. One theory espoused by someone is that kids don't really need to interact face-to-face anymore, they spend all their time interacting via social media, texting, and all that.

Nanohedron wrote:

chas wrote:And, geez, if you're listing mods and rockers, what about emos and goths and punks, or whatever punks have evolved into (body piercings, etc.)?

Ah, the paradox of group nonconformity.

Yes, I love how youth, when their parents don't let them do something all their friends are doing, complain about not being able to express their individuality.

chas wrote:Yes, I love how youth, when their parents don't let them do something all their friends are doing, complain about not being able to express their individuality.

In Western popular culture we continually hear the idea that for our life to have meaning, we should express "ourselves". Fair enough, but what does this mean? I don't see it. I go to a bar and everyone dresses like each other. Then someone calls me a conformist because I wear a sport jacket, but look around: no one else has one on. Go figure. Do I wear the jacket expressly to assert my individuality? No. I like the look because it sits well with my age, but in truth I actually need pockets for all my stuff, and the jacket serves the purpose perfectly. And there you have it. Of course I know it sets me apart, but I live with that because I have my beloved pockets.

Even as conformists we have individuality. Even as individuals we conform to something. Consequently, I have arrived at some difficulty with the overarching assumption of the necessity of individuality. But I think we popularly confuse "individuality" with the expression of alternative lifestyles which, ironically, so often already imply their own sets of conformities. Try as you might, you can't get away from the circularity of it.

Nanohedron wrote:someone calls me a conformist because I wear a sport jacket

Nanohedron wrote:I like the look because it sits well with my age

I think this hits the nail on the head: the rebels are still with us; it's just that we've aged. The youth of today? Can't be bothered.

Nanohedron wrote:Try as you might, you can't get away from the circularity of it.

... unless, in fashion terms, you're a square.

benhall.1 wrote:The youth of today? Can't be bothered.

In the era of Bernie Sanders, Momentum, Anonymous, and Ooh Jeremy Corbyn, that's a bit hard to believe. There are plenty of rebels around. You're just not seeing them. And the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville were largely college-age (OK, frat-age) men in their twenties, too.

s1m0n wrote:

benhall.1 wrote:The youth of today? Can't be bothered.

There are plenty of rebels around. You're just not seeing them.

I'm trying to gather how Ben's statement means he's not seeing them. But I read it as HE can't be bothered. Maybe he meant THEY can't be bothered. He'll have to be the one to tell us.

benhall.1 wrote:... unless, in fashion terms, you're a square.

Which leads me to ask: From what end do we define these things, and in a world where real stuff is happening, why should my sartorial signals matter? Am I more validated because I abandon the classics for a pink mohawk and a spiked dog collar? Am I merely a cog because I favor the classics? Of course not, and of course not. For that matter, I look at the rare few Punks left and wonder why they haven't tired of it and moved on.

Maybe we need to play Bowie's Rebel Rebel on Uilleann Pipes, fiddle, and tin whistle.

kennychaffin wrote:Maybe we need to play Bowie's Rebel Rebel on Uilleann Pipes, fiddle, and tin whistle.

One of my bands did White Rabbit with Trad instruments (pipes, cittern, fiddle, and if you don't count the snare on the bodhrán). When it came to the "Feed your head!" part, the singer held his beer aloft. It was a lot of fun and a perennial crowd-pleaser. I like to think we kicked Grace Slick's ass. With permission, of course.

If that's not rebellious in almost every direction, please point me to the door.

But Rory's question focused on the present generation, not holdovers like me. I think rebellion and activism are still alive and well, but people have more important things to do than dress the part - whatever that actually means.

s1m0n wrote:

benhall.1 wrote:The youth of today? Can't be bothered.

In the era of Bernie Sanders, Momentum, Anonymous, and Ooh Jeremy Corbyn, that's a bit hard to believe. There are plenty of rebels around. You're just not seeing them. And the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville were largely college-age (OK, frat-age) men in their twenties, too.

Although this post of yours is sailing a little close to the wind, I can't resist replying ...

I don't see any of those things as being particularly rebellious. In one way or another, they all relate to a desire to look back, to turn the clock back, to refer to imagined utopias of the past. Oh, and all movements led by old, white men. Not terribly rebellious at all. Reactionary, maybe.

benhall.1 wrote: I don't see any of those things as being particularly rebellious. In one way or another, they all relate to a desire to look back, to turn the clock back, to refer to imagined utopias of the past.

There's golden age thinking in every revolution. "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" was the great slogan of the peasants revolt of 1381, for instance. It's hard to get more golden age than the Garden of Eden.