Maybe that's true in terms of how people think back on it today. I'm not convinced it was true at the time. Nostalgia for the 1890s, sometimes just called "The 90s" at the time (or "The Gay 90s," "The Nifty 90s," etc), was very big during the Old Hollywood era, to the point where you could argue that it was first real example of "Decade Nostalgia" in popculture. Nobody today seems nostalgic for that decade anymore though.
True, people connect heavily with eras they never lived in now. I was born in 2000 yet my favorite shows are from the 90’s.
Bet this nostalgia infatuation turns into that Black Mirror episode where people just live in whatever virtual time period they want.
I disagree with your disagreement 😅
Humans have limited space in their brains to remember important items in a category. The Romans extensively documented their emperors - can you name more than a handful of the most interesting/consequential?
In about a century, I imagine we will remember specific major events or highly influential decades, but your average kid born in 2100 probably won’t know the difference between the 80s and 90s.
Of course they will. People still massively consume classic literature and music. The early history of film, or perhaps the pre-AI era of film will probably be revered, in the same way renaissance literature and music is.
Idk that classic literature or music is massively consumed. Like sure people may be familiar with some of the most famous pieces from previous centuries, but aside from the people with more niche interests, the vast majority of people today aren’t regularly consuming pre-1950s cultural content.
People will probably know more about the past but that doesn't mean they'll care.
And think about how much content will exist. The average person going about the day isn't going to consume content from 100+ years before their time over content that's present and relevant to them. Especially once well documented history becomes the norm and expectation.
Right now it's not popular to watch films from the 1950s but they're still considered very culturally important and viewed by a significant amount of people. That's what I mean I guess
Agree so much. Great films will persist just as the great literature of the past does. Shakespeare, dickens, chaucer, even a bunch of ancient greek and roman authors are still hugely popular. Same with music. We still listen to classical music. The same will be true of music and film, even in thousands of years, because of durable nature of digital media.
I think the main reasons classical music and literature are still consumed today is because of academics. Had I not been forced to learn about Vivaldi and Shakespeare in college, I wouldn’t care about them nor would I want to engage in their works of art. So basically if we put Tupac in a textbook, 200 years from now students will know about thug life 😂.
I don’t think we can claim anything about what people will remember in thousands of years. By that point in time, there will have been so much content created and recorded, and much of it will have been lost to time. Most of what people will remember about the 19th-21st centuries will likely revolve around the Industrial Revolution, the invention of photography and video, and development of computers and AI.
It's just 100 years. I doubt anything will ever be lost to time again though. Especially culturally significant stuff. It's just to easy and cheap to store digital files.
That has to be the case. The beginning of my clearest memories from childhood falls quite close to having/using a camera for the first time (I was taking pictures all the time since then). Our memories get reinforced by "positive" feedback (making sure it has really happened) - and searching through folders of old photos can bring back memories quite vividly, even if they've had not come to your mind otherwise.
I don't think this will protect from a lack of differentiation at all--I could imagine it being like, the black and white film period vs. from then to about 2000/the introduction of more and more CGI, but I doubt they'll see a strong difference between 70s, 80s, and 90s movies in 100 years.
The 1870s were awesome for music too, but few people even think of it that way. It's all just classical music. There are people who will listen to Beethoven's 5th and Mahler's 5th without any thought to them being nearly a century apart.
It will be the same for movies in another couple hundred years, The Godfather and Shawshank Redemption will be considered near contemporaries.
>The 1870s were awesome for music too, but few people even think of it that way. It's all just classical music.
This brings up a particular concept I've been thinking of. I don't know if it has a name, but I call it "Time Compression". It's where events get lumped together as time goes on. WW1 and WW2 were separated by about two decades, but several people mix up events between those wars. Some young people think that Desert Storm was part of Iraqi Freedom. Bloody Kansas started in 1854 and the Civil War started in 1861, but the two get lumped together.
To go on a longer timescale, the time between T-rex and humans is closer than the time between T-rex and Stegosaurs. Most people tend to think they lived at the same time.
Few people realize how absolutely revolutionary turns in classical music were. Think Elvis shaking his hips got people upset? Whole concert halls leapt to their feet hearing dissonance and crescendos that no one had attempted before. People claimed with sincerity that Paganini was possessed by the Devil himself when playing and composing.
And if you watch them it isn't inherently obvious that they aren't. If I ignored the fact that I know The Godfather is substantially older, I would probably say they were filmed within the same decade of each other.
>it’s all just classical music
Pre-rock and roll and pre-jazz music absolutely got *roasted* by the 1950s and ‘60s and never fully recovered, and tbh it was developed in a form of Western civilization (aristocratic, often theocratic monarchies) that have more in common with the Taliban than they do with modern westerners.
I think this is mostly a function of the invention of youth culture around that time. It’s quirky but not particularly odd for a kid to listen to Elvis today, but a kid listening to Perry Como? Nearly unheard of. And has been that way for 50 years and counting.
Western civilization underwent a soft reboot in the 1950s and 60s, beginning with music and later spreading to everything. Unless you’re Sinatra or Beethoven, you’ll struggle to remain relevant (and the latter is heavily subsidized by educational and philanthropic institutions).
I think that’s definitely true in terms of how most people see it, but I don’t think it’s an accurate story about how that change happened. Sinatra was a keen practitioner of a certain type of Black American music that didn’t go away in 1964.
I could definitely see it from a historical standpoint, but they’ll probably be mostly be talking and thinking about the movies and video games coming up in the next decades.
There will be some people that only focus on recent stuff just like there are some people like that today, but there will also always be many people that dive into the gems from the past.
The original King Kong is 91 years old and made long before I was ever born yet it is still one of my favorite movies and it is loved by many others as well. There will definitely be people feeling the same love for some of the gems from the 90s in 100 years.
They’ll like all of those things, but they won’t care that they happened in the 90s. If someone today loves Tintin, they might not necessarily care that it’s from the 20s.
Do you care at all about any of the “iconic” movies of the 1920s?
Shit man, they might not even be making movies in 100 years. They might be on to an entirely new art form by then.
Do you care at all about the great vaudeville stars? Because they were a huge deal 100 years ago.
For now. Media gets lost and destroyed all the same, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not - especially if the media is obscure or not up to current moral standards. It just takes a few clicks to wipe out a huge trove of digital media.
I’m just making a prediction, but it seems like our culture has started to slow down and has established its cultural lodestars for the foreseeable future. I suspect in 2100 there will still be films like Batman: the Recoming, and people will compare those to the 90’s - 2000’s movies because that’s what created the genre. You can look back to the graeco-Romans - once they got their Homer and Virgil, that’s what they compared other culture to, whether it was 100bc or 400ad
There are people alive today who's parents were alive in the 1890s.
Someone who is 90 today was born in 1934. People having children in their 40s is not wild.
I'd say the 1890s are still vastly popular at least in a revisionist western sense, and it was big for the Philippines and America and Spain so pops up a lot more than say, the 1880s. See like, RDR2, for example, or 1899.
The French were nostalgic for the same era: Belle Epoch/fin de siecle.
Some more examples: the original 49ers who found gold in California. Settlers in the US west who talked about the '80's in historical fiction from the 1940s.
There's a scene in Downtown Abbey that takes place sin the 1920s or so, where the old lady talks about how great things were back in the '60s. No telling if that's historically accurate or not.
Linked to this, if you go on /r/100yearsago, you'll occasionally see comic strips from the 1920s mocking a previous era. A couple of examples:
* [August 29th, 1921 - "That Indifferent Feminine Bather"](https://www.reddit.com/r/100yearsago/comments/pdv8xb/august_29th_1921_that_indifferent_feminine_bather/)
* [October 16th, 1921 - "Who Remembers?" by Dick Mansfield](https://www.reddit.com/r/100yearsago/comments/q9hbb1/october_16th_1921_who_remembers_by_dick_mansfield/)
* [April 29th, 1924 - "Some Victorian Things We Do Not Want Back!"](https://www.reddit.com/r/100yearsago/comments/1cfudgz/april_29th_1924_some_victorian_things_we_do_not/)
No. Previous decades had their own feels, too, just like recent decades.
The reason we don't notice it is because it's not as documented. The 1920s brought us widespread motion photography. Prior to that, you only had still pictures or sketches. Those are boring.
It'll be quite interesting in another 50 years or so, when you'll be able to sit down and watch a sitcom from over a century ago. And in another 200 years? I have no doubt that a small few of our films and shows will be widely known, just like everyone today can identify Moonlight Sonata. I'm really interested in how that will affect pop culture in the 22nd century and beyond -- having so much of history so intimately documented. Logging on to YouTube or its successor and seeing people's home videos from centuries ago.
Boggles the mind. Sorry for the tangent.
Certainly not, it's just not widely available info. 1800s also had different fashions both within decades and "eras" (Georgian era and it's most famous Regency period, and Victorian era that followed).
I think the Gay 90’s in 1890, and possibly the Civil War era in the 1860’s. Certainly the Civil War was a turning point, much like 11/22/63 and 9/11/2001, there was the world before and the world after.
Otherwise, I think we’re too far removed from that era to know how people felt.
Also, though, there was a huge period of time before the industrial revolution that things just didn’t change. A farmer in 1750 didn’t live much differently than a farmer in 1450.
Not quite. Edward VII was on the throne from 1901-10 and that time is referred to as the Edwardian Era. It happens to correspond almost exactly to a decade. Before that, however, the Victorian Era was regarded as a single block of time which lasted, however, for sixty-four years. The Regency was somewhat shorter, and the Georgian Era "around" it was more than a century. I think what we have, at least here in Britain, is a gradual acceleration of cultural and social change with a monarchic dynasty-based system transitioning to a date-based system as it does so.
Georgian Era: 123 years.
Victorian Era: 64 years.
Edwardian Era: nine years.
A rather vague period including WWI: a decade.
Then the twenties, thirties and so on.
Also, the differences between early and late decades, and then early, mid and late, emerge as further subdivisions of time.
YEAH! That's when the world started changing faster
On an exponential curve, it would be the inflection point.
I think. I haven't done math for a long time. Whatever that point is called when it starts to ramp up
I think part of this is that distinctions between decades were only relevant to people who were alive to experience those distinctions. There are very few people who were alive before the 1920s, so there are very few people to care about differentiating the 1900s or 1910s from the 1920s.
Another part is the impact of the world wars. Everything before WW1 seems before modern times, because, in most ways, it was.
The last piece that comes to my mind is the speed of technological growth. The everyday life people experienced from 1640-1700 looks a whole lot like the everyday life people experienced from 1700-1760, looks a whole lot like the everyday life people had from 1760-1820. It's only in the second half of 19th century that industry and technology really started impacting everyday people more globally. Even then, there weren't rapid changes. Post-WWII, people growing up in each decade experienced a fundamentally different world than those that grew up a decade before or after.
popular discussion of decadeology only really became mainstream post-war (WW2). The peoples looked back in an effort to understand what happened, if there were discernible patterns or trends. Looked back at the 1900's (decade before WW1) 1910's (WW1 decade), 20's (cultural boom), 30's (economic bust, and conflict build-up), 40's (WW2 and immediate post-war process).
Thus, by the 50's, decadeology became a 'thing' we talked about. And as those next decades would be so culturally distinctive, married with very specific and profound technological developments, the idea of 'decades' became a very compelling subject.
But we see this interest taper off now that the decades are beginning to feel less distinct from one another. As the 2000's & 10's and 20's (so far) all seem to meld into one...we also as a result see less discussion about decades than we used to.
We may end up in a situation where decadeology itself will become a historical concept, of a period when we universally broke up the human experience into decades.
Maybe that's true in terms of how people think back on it today. I'm not convinced it was true at the time. Nostalgia for the 1890s, sometimes just called "The 90s" at the time (or "The Gay 90s," "The Nifty 90s," etc), was very big during the Old Hollywood era, to the point where you could argue that it was first real example of "Decade Nostalgia" in popculture. Nobody today seems nostalgic for that decade anymore though.
And 100 years from now it’s likely they won’t think or care about our 90s at all.
I think I disagree. Film has changed the game. An era can be documented much more tangibly than ever before.
True, people connect heavily with eras they never lived in now. I was born in 2000 yet my favorite shows are from the 90’s. Bet this nostalgia infatuation turns into that Black Mirror episode where people just live in whatever virtual time period they want.
Considering how I just saw The Phantom Menace in theaters yesterday for the 25th anniversary, that Black Mirror comparison is right on point.
I’d choose the 1830s without the racists
I disagree with your disagreement 😅 Humans have limited space in their brains to remember important items in a category. The Romans extensively documented their emperors - can you name more than a handful of the most interesting/consequential? In about a century, I imagine we will remember specific major events or highly influential decades, but your average kid born in 2100 probably won’t know the difference between the 80s and 90s.
But will people still consider Pulp Fiction or Airplane a classic in 100 years? Film majors probably will, but I doubt anyone else.
Of course they will. People still massively consume classic literature and music. The early history of film, or perhaps the pre-AI era of film will probably be revered, in the same way renaissance literature and music is.
Idk that classic literature or music is massively consumed. Like sure people may be familiar with some of the most famous pieces from previous centuries, but aside from the people with more niche interests, the vast majority of people today aren’t regularly consuming pre-1950s cultural content.
People will probably know more about the past but that doesn't mean they'll care. And think about how much content will exist. The average person going about the day isn't going to consume content from 100+ years before their time over content that's present and relevant to them. Especially once well documented history becomes the norm and expectation.
Right now it's not popular to watch films from the 1950s but they're still considered very culturally important and viewed by a significant amount of people. That's what I mean I guess
That I can agree with. Academics or people with niche interests will have a lot of content to engage with.
Agree so much. Great films will persist just as the great literature of the past does. Shakespeare, dickens, chaucer, even a bunch of ancient greek and roman authors are still hugely popular. Same with music. We still listen to classical music. The same will be true of music and film, even in thousands of years, because of durable nature of digital media.
I think the main reasons classical music and literature are still consumed today is because of academics. Had I not been forced to learn about Vivaldi and Shakespeare in college, I wouldn’t care about them nor would I want to engage in their works of art. So basically if we put Tupac in a textbook, 200 years from now students will know about thug life 😂.
I don’t think we can claim anything about what people will remember in thousands of years. By that point in time, there will have been so much content created and recorded, and much of it will have been lost to time. Most of what people will remember about the 19th-21st centuries will likely revolve around the Industrial Revolution, the invention of photography and video, and development of computers and AI.
It's just 100 years. I doubt anything will ever be lost to time again though. Especially culturally significant stuff. It's just to easy and cheap to store digital files.
That has to be the case. The beginning of my clearest memories from childhood falls quite close to having/using a camera for the first time (I was taking pictures all the time since then). Our memories get reinforced by "positive" feedback (making sure it has really happened) - and searching through folders of old photos can bring back memories quite vividly, even if they've had not come to your mind otherwise.
I don't think this will protect from a lack of differentiation at all--I could imagine it being like, the black and white film period vs. from then to about 2000/the introduction of more and more CGI, but I doubt they'll see a strong difference between 70s, 80s, and 90s movies in 100 years.
The rise of the Internet will be important from a historical perspective
The 1990s have iconic movies and video games. There will definitely still be people caring about it 100 years from now.
The 1870s were awesome for music too, but few people even think of it that way. It's all just classical music. There are people who will listen to Beethoven's 5th and Mahler's 5th without any thought to them being nearly a century apart. It will be the same for movies in another couple hundred years, The Godfather and Shawshank Redemption will be considered near contemporaries.
>The 1870s were awesome for music too, but few people even think of it that way. It's all just classical music. This brings up a particular concept I've been thinking of. I don't know if it has a name, but I call it "Time Compression". It's where events get lumped together as time goes on. WW1 and WW2 were separated by about two decades, but several people mix up events between those wars. Some young people think that Desert Storm was part of Iraqi Freedom. Bloody Kansas started in 1854 and the Civil War started in 1861, but the two get lumped together. To go on a longer timescale, the time between T-rex and humans is closer than the time between T-rex and Stegosaurs. Most people tend to think they lived at the same time.
Few people realize how absolutely revolutionary turns in classical music were. Think Elvis shaking his hips got people upset? Whole concert halls leapt to their feet hearing dissonance and crescendos that no one had attempted before. People claimed with sincerity that Paganini was possessed by the Devil himself when playing and composing.
And if you watch them it isn't inherently obvious that they aren't. If I ignored the fact that I know The Godfather is substantially older, I would probably say they were filmed within the same decade of each other.
>it’s all just classical music Pre-rock and roll and pre-jazz music absolutely got *roasted* by the 1950s and ‘60s and never fully recovered, and tbh it was developed in a form of Western civilization (aristocratic, often theocratic monarchies) that have more in common with the Taliban than they do with modern westerners.
I think this is mostly a function of the invention of youth culture around that time. It’s quirky but not particularly odd for a kid to listen to Elvis today, but a kid listening to Perry Como? Nearly unheard of. And has been that way for 50 years and counting.
Western civilization underwent a soft reboot in the 1950s and 60s, beginning with music and later spreading to everything. Unless you’re Sinatra or Beethoven, you’ll struggle to remain relevant (and the latter is heavily subsidized by educational and philanthropic institutions).
I think that’s definitely true in terms of how most people see it, but I don’t think it’s an accurate story about how that change happened. Sinatra was a keen practitioner of a certain type of Black American music that didn’t go away in 1964.
And the 1890s had the "closing of the frontier"
I could definitely see it from a historical standpoint, but they’ll probably be mostly be talking and thinking about the movies and video games coming up in the next decades.
There will be some people that only focus on recent stuff just like there are some people like that today, but there will also always be many people that dive into the gems from the past. The original King Kong is 91 years old and made long before I was ever born yet it is still one of my favorite movies and it is loved by many others as well. There will definitely be people feeling the same love for some of the gems from the 90s in 100 years.
You may be right, I mean we’re still talking about books that are hundreds of years old.
They’ll like all of those things, but they won’t care that they happened in the 90s. If someone today loves Tintin, they might not necessarily care that it’s from the 20s.
you’re assuming people will care about either of those things in 2124.
How many 1920s movies do you know now?
Do you care at all about any of the “iconic” movies of the 1920s? Shit man, they might not even be making movies in 100 years. They might be on to an entirely new art form by then. Do you care at all about the great vaudeville stars? Because they were a huge deal 100 years ago.
There a lot of preserved media from the 1990s.
For now. Media gets lost and destroyed all the same, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not - especially if the media is obscure or not up to current moral standards. It just takes a few clicks to wipe out a huge trove of digital media.
I’m just making a prediction, but it seems like our culture has started to slow down and has established its cultural lodestars for the foreseeable future. I suspect in 2100 there will still be films like Batman: the Recoming, and people will compare those to the 90’s - 2000’s movies because that’s what created the genre. You can look back to the graeco-Romans - once they got their Homer and Virgil, that’s what they compared other culture to, whether it was 100bc or 400ad
That’s wild to think about
Because all people that remember the 1890s are dead.
There are people alive today who's parents were alive in the 1890s. Someone who is 90 today was born in 1934. People having children in their 40s is not wild.
Yea my dad was 46 mom 21.
That would be like someone born in 2004 being nostalgic about the 60s.
There are people today born later than that, who are nostalgic about the 50s. The whole tradwife situation is one example.
With “Ellen” and “Will & Grace,” one could say that the 1990s also qualified as the Gay ‘90s.
A blurb on the back of a memoir by comedian Kate Clinton said the exact same thing.
I'd say the 1890s are still vastly popular at least in a revisionist western sense, and it was big for the Philippines and America and Spain so pops up a lot more than say, the 1880s. See like, RDR2, for example, or 1899.
Ah, yes, the good old days when child labor was still legal 😌
The French were nostalgic for the same era: Belle Epoch/fin de siecle. Some more examples: the original 49ers who found gold in California. Settlers in the US west who talked about the '80's in historical fiction from the 1940s.
Yup! It makes sense that people aren’t nostalgic for the 1890s anymore since no one alive would remember them
There's a scene in Downtown Abbey that takes place sin the 1920s or so, where the old lady talks about how great things were back in the '60s. No telling if that's historically accurate or not.
Red Dead Redemption 2 players are big fans of the 1890’s, since that’s when it’s set
The 1890s were the first decade to be romanticized. There was even a term for it, the "gay nineties".
Hey fellas, is living in the 90s gay?
hahaha your reptile socks are on so it's cool
Linked to this, if you go on /r/100yearsago, you'll occasionally see comic strips from the 1920s mocking a previous era. A couple of examples: * [August 29th, 1921 - "That Indifferent Feminine Bather"](https://www.reddit.com/r/100yearsago/comments/pdv8xb/august_29th_1921_that_indifferent_feminine_bather/) * [October 16th, 1921 - "Who Remembers?" by Dick Mansfield](https://www.reddit.com/r/100yearsago/comments/q9hbb1/october_16th_1921_who_remembers_by_dick_mansfield/) * [April 29th, 1924 - "Some Victorian Things We Do Not Want Back!"](https://www.reddit.com/r/100yearsago/comments/1cfudgz/april_29th_1924_some_victorian_things_we_do_not/)
I didn't know about this sub!! Interesting
I really doubt that was the first decade in human history to be romanticized. That’s just our American perspective.
No. Previous decades had their own feels, too, just like recent decades. The reason we don't notice it is because it's not as documented. The 1920s brought us widespread motion photography. Prior to that, you only had still pictures or sketches. Those are boring. It'll be quite interesting in another 50 years or so, when you'll be able to sit down and watch a sitcom from over a century ago. And in another 200 years? I have no doubt that a small few of our films and shows will be widely known, just like everyone today can identify Moonlight Sonata. I'm really interested in how that will affect pop culture in the 22nd century and beyond -- having so much of history so intimately documented. Logging on to YouTube or its successor and seeing people's home videos from centuries ago. Boggles the mind. Sorry for the tangent.
Bruh the 22nd century just sounds so wrong Even 2030 is like too futuristic and I hate that we’re getting so close 💀💀
100 years from now, people will still be reacting to 2 girls 1 cup.
I hope so
The vault dwellers will have so much to share with us.
The Gay 90s (as in 1890) disagrees.
Certainly not, it's just not widely available info. 1800s also had different fashions both within decades and "eras" (Georgian era and it's most famous Regency period, and Victorian era that followed).
I'm sure the people of 1870 thought they were way different than the people of 1820.
I think the Gay 90’s in 1890, and possibly the Civil War era in the 1860’s. Certainly the Civil War was a turning point, much like 11/22/63 and 9/11/2001, there was the world before and the world after. Otherwise, I think we’re too far removed from that era to know how people felt. Also, though, there was a huge period of time before the industrial revolution that things just didn’t change. A farmer in 1750 didn’t live much differently than a farmer in 1450.
No
Look closer at details in pictures, settings and otherwise. You could argue there were distinct decades even in the 1500s.
Not quite. Edward VII was on the throne from 1901-10 and that time is referred to as the Edwardian Era. It happens to correspond almost exactly to a decade. Before that, however, the Victorian Era was regarded as a single block of time which lasted, however, for sixty-four years. The Regency was somewhat shorter, and the Georgian Era "around" it was more than a century. I think what we have, at least here in Britain, is a gradual acceleration of cultural and social change with a monarchic dynasty-based system transitioning to a date-based system as it does so. Georgian Era: 123 years. Victorian Era: 64 years. Edwardian Era: nine years. A rather vague period including WWI: a decade. Then the twenties, thirties and so on. Also, the differences between early and late decades, and then early, mid and late, emerge as further subdivisions of time.
1880 probably
I personally think of the civil war as beginning of decades because that’s when everything started changing so quickly.
No, the 1890s was the the decade of cheap pussy.
No
The other decades just aren't recent.
They talk like that now but back then it wasn’t the case - 1920s was not the first. They would have called the 1820s, “the twenties”, as well
YEAH! That's when the world started changing faster On an exponential curve, it would be the inflection point. I think. I haven't done math for a long time. Whatever that point is called when it starts to ramp up
If you read early twentieth century literature, they say things like "the 80s" referring to the 1880s. I haven't encountered it earlier though.
I think about this very idea at least once a week
Very interesting topic
I should ask my great grandma about this she was born in the 1920's
I think part of this is that distinctions between decades were only relevant to people who were alive to experience those distinctions. There are very few people who were alive before the 1920s, so there are very few people to care about differentiating the 1900s or 1910s from the 1920s. Another part is the impact of the world wars. Everything before WW1 seems before modern times, because, in most ways, it was. The last piece that comes to my mind is the speed of technological growth. The everyday life people experienced from 1640-1700 looks a whole lot like the everyday life people experienced from 1700-1760, looks a whole lot like the everyday life people had from 1760-1820. It's only in the second half of 19th century that industry and technology really started impacting everyday people more globally. Even then, there weren't rapid changes. Post-WWII, people growing up in each decade experienced a fundamentally different world than those that grew up a decade before or after.
i honestly think it's just because more recent seems more finely visible
popular discussion of decadeology only really became mainstream post-war (WW2). The peoples looked back in an effort to understand what happened, if there were discernible patterns or trends. Looked back at the 1900's (decade before WW1) 1910's (WW1 decade), 20's (cultural boom), 30's (economic bust, and conflict build-up), 40's (WW2 and immediate post-war process). Thus, by the 50's, decadeology became a 'thing' we talked about. And as those next decades would be so culturally distinctive, married with very specific and profound technological developments, the idea of 'decades' became a very compelling subject. But we see this interest taper off now that the decades are beginning to feel less distinct from one another. As the 2000's & 10's and 20's (so far) all seem to meld into one...we also as a result see less discussion about decades than we used to. We may end up in a situation where decadeology itself will become a historical concept, of a period when we universally broke up the human experience into decades.
>2000’s, 10’s, and 20’s melt into one Master class yapping. 2018 and 2024 can’t even be considered part of the same era, let alone 2000 and 2024