" I ~1
’50s morals needed in ’90s
The decade known as “the ’50s”
has drawn a lot of attention in
recent years. Lately, there have
been movies, documentaries and
books all about the 1950s. And
there has been debate.
In general, liberals and “progres
sivists” tend to despise the ’50s and
everything they stood for, even if
those liberals weren’t around back
then. Elder conservatives, on the
other hand, are always referring to
the glory days of the ’50s.
The 1950s were again in the
spotlight last week, as critics
attacked Republicans — still fresh
from Tuesday’s congressional
takeover — for wanting to return to
the ways and days of the past.
“The 1950s are long gone,” a
Daily Nebraskan editorial cried.
“We have a lot to worry about
today.”
Indeed we do. This past week,
syndicated columnist Edward
Grimsley of Creators Syndicate
compared our worries of today to
those of the ’50s — the years he
deems “the happiest decade in the
nation's history.”
“Forty years ago,” Grimsley
writes, “most urban Americans
could walk to the neighborhood
store, even after dark, without
running a high risk of being
mugged or killed.
“Children who played in their
front yards were in little danger...
even the public parks were safe.”
Adding to the current morbidity,
Grimsley notes that back then,
schools were safe places that taught
children reading, writing and
arithmetic — not how to put on a
condom. He also notes that fewer
than 6 percent of the children in the
’50s were born out of wedlock.
Today, the illegitimacy rate is
almost 30 percent.
The '50s passed before
America’s sexual revolution, and
Grimsley notes that “most of the
But much of what has been lost
during the past 30 years still can
be retrieved. Those ideas and ide
als that made America a uniquely
good country in the 1950s have
not withered away with time.
men and women who lived together
then were married. Only slightly
more than half arc today.
“In the ’50s, nobody dreamed
that within 40 years, college
officials and society would become
more tolerant of sex than of
cigarettes on campus.”
Grimsley concludes by saying:
“America started to grow irritable,
contentious, promiscuous and
sloppy in the 1960s, and it has been
downhill ever since. How wonder
ful it would be if there was a
political leader with the courage to
promise and restore some of the
golden features of the 1950s.”
Indeed, the ’50s were of another
time — and of another America.
It was a time when the boys were
coming home from World War II.
Having crushed the Japanese
empire and Hitler’s Third Reich,
these young men were heroes who
brought the nation together.
It was a time when the “silent
generation,” those who grew up
during the Depression and carried
the country through that Second
World War, suddenly was paving
the way for the nation.
The '50s found Americans of all
walks of life enjoying unprec
edented prosperity. And it was a
time of hope for all Americans.
But times change.
Today, while more materially
prosperous than the America of the
'50s, we are a weaker society.
Today, the sense of national unity
and purpose, for which America
was notorious in the Eisenhower
and Kennedy years, is gone.
Back then, we are told, Ameri
cans all adhered to the same faith,
the same code of morality, the same
public philosophy. Truly, America
was a national community.
But in the 1990s, we are a
divided people, focusing more on
our differences than our similari
ties.
In the ’50s, America undoubt
edly knew less about science,
technology and economics than the
America of 1994. But it seems in
the 1950s, America knew more
about human nature. Back then, the
lessons of home and church and
school were what mattered.
“You can’t turn back the clock”
is the old clichd constantly thrown
to conservatives, and there is great
truth to it. Neither the world nor
the United States will ever again be
what it was after the Second World
War. The American high probably
is over.
But much of what has been lost
during the past 30 years still can be
retrieved. Those ideas and ideals
that made America a uniquely good
country in the 1950s have not
withered away with time.
They still are attainable and
begging to be embraced again.
Karl la a Junior newa-cditorlal and po
litical adencc major and a Dally Ncbraakan
columniat.
IO Vi* ' _ ~ " ^ ■■ I '
Don t let me down, Mr. Lucas
A long time ago, in a galaxy far,
far away (the third grade), I
believed I was Princess Leia.
Maybe I didn’t believe I was
Princess Leia. but I did believe IN
Princess Leia. And I clung to the
hope that maybe, just maybe, we
were distant relatives.
Needless to say, “Star Wars" left
a huge impression on me, even
though I didn’t get to sec it until
after “The Empire Strikes Back” hit
the theaters for the second time.
My mother was against “Star
Wars.” She deemed it morally
corrupt. I can’t remember why,
now. I think she thought Darth
Vadcr was spooky. And when
“Empire” came out, she called Yoda
“a little demon.” She made us cover
our eyes when the commercial came
on.
But my dad caved in and took us
to sec “Empire” during the re
release.
I was blown away. Bom again.
Born free.
Something about that movie,
which remains my favorite of the
trilogy, touched me inside. I don’t
know how or why. Never mind sex,
drugs, food, roller coasters and
back rubs. I was 8 years old. and all
I ever wanted, all I ever needed,
was “Star Wars.”
I couldn’t understand how
George Lucas could produce a film
so perfect. A pact with the devil,
maybe? I didn’t care.
I quickly made friends with a
rare VCR owner who had both
“Star Wars” and “Empire” on tape.
1 spent a whole summer at her
house, watching them again and
again.
We memorized our favorite
scenes — the romantic ones, of
course. I never got caught up in the
technological aspects. I never
memorized the names of all the
aliens or the spaceships.
I was more attracted to the
drama, the tension, the struggle
between good and evil... and, of
course, the men. The “Star Wars”
movies were about as romantic as I
/ was more attracted to the drama,
the temion, the struggle between
good and evil... and, of course, the
men. Vie “Star Wars” movies tvere
about as romantic as I could
imagine.
could imagine.
At first, I was hot for Luke. He
seemed so young and innocent and,
like me, he wanted to be treated as
an adult. But Luke got weird in a
hurry once he started messing with
that Jcdi stuff
As I matured, Han started to
look pretty dang good. He had it
going on in those tight black pants
with the yellow stripes — ai yi yi.
Sometimes we’d spend entire
afternoons torturing ourselves with
the scene in which Han gets frozen.
When we weren’t watching “Star
Wars,” we were playing “Star
Wars.” Playing “Star Wars” was a
challenge for girls, because there
was only one female character.
We argued about who got to be
Lcia, but the same person always
won. She had the darkest hair and a
battery-operated light saber that
went “woooo, woooo” when you
waved it around.
I always had to be her long-lost
sister or cousin, Princess Lean or
Princess Lia, if there were three of
us. Luckily, we made up brothers
for Han Solo, too — Juan Polo,
Don Pardo.
My mom softened her anti-”Star
Wars” resolve for a while. Then
“Return of the Jedi” came out with
Carrie Fisher wearing a bikini and
being tied to a big, alien sex fiend. I
had to throw away my entire
collection of “Empire” trading
cards.
I resent her. to this day.
For me, “Jcdi” was a disappoint
ment, especially the ending. It was
too pat, too contrived. And worse, it
didn’t promise a sequel.
After “Jedi,” I went through
“Star Wars” withdrawal. Every few
years, sequel rumors would circu
late, but nothing ever happened.
I had “ Misery ”-l ike fantasies in
which I forced Lucas to make a
sequel with lots of Harrison Ford
close-ups and maybe even a cameo
for moi. (I never broke his ankles,
though.)
As the years passed, I became
more worried about being a teen
ager than finding Endor. But “Star
Wars” remained the basis on which
1 judged my peers. I simply
wouldn’t associate with people who
didn’t like “Star Wars.”
And people who’d never seen
“Star Wars4? As if.
My freshman year at the Univer
sity of Nebraska-Lincoln, my
roommate dated a guy who’d never
seen “Star Wars.” It was ugly.
Well, the grapevine is abuzz
with “Star Wars rumors again. Mr.
Lucas, George, if you’re out there,
listen to me, please.
Don’t tease me this way. 1 can’t
take much more. You get my hopes
up, and then you let me down, over
and over and over again, ever since
I was a little girl.
I don’t even care if it’s a prequel
(Harrison Ford says he won’t play
Han Solo anymore anyway). Please,
I’ll be your best friend. Just do this
one thing for me, please.
George, make the damn movie.
Rowell U a senior newt-editorial, adver
tising and English major and a Dally Nebras
kan associate news editor.
1-1