rambling about nostalgia

[redbird]

browngirl has an interesting post in which she points out the flaws in a certain kind of nostalgia, the sort that sees seatbelts and lead-free paint as threats to, um, something or other.

Somewhere in the comments is the observation that people who talk about the wonders of the family of the past tend to stop dead when asked to specify what year they're talking about. Small wonder.

People want to live in a hypothetical, broadly sketched, past with all modern conveniences. They want to be rid of seatbelt laws, but probably not to drive a 1950s car, even a brand new one, but without the air conditioning or the modern brake systems. They want to use rollerblades without helmets or kneepads, not the old-style roller skates you attached to your sneakers with a key. And, of course, they want the Internet, cheap long distance phone calls and affordable air travel, and such.

The past is a foreign country, and they don't have tourist facilities.

Comments

Re: Seat belt laws

[ailbhe]

They can be useful for drivers. If you are driving a car and your passenger isn't wearing a seatbelt and you are in a no-fault accident and your passenger is hurt, you can still be liable for their injuries.

If the law demands that they wear a seatbelt, it makes it easier to insist that they do.

Re: Seat belt laws

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

I don't see that. It seems perfectly possible to me to refuse to drive someone who won't wear a seatbelt in your car without insisting on the weight and majesty of the law to back you up.

Re: Seat belt laws

[ailbhe]

I don't drive at all, so I have no first-hand experience, but I have been in a car as an observing passenger when a colleague was driving us and our boss somewhere. It did take citing the law to make the boss put on his seatbelt.

As far as I can see, in the UK, not wearing a seatbelt is a masculinity thing; I have known a large number of men who avoid it whenever they can get away with it.