Good point Mason. In discussing the ethos of the sixties yesterday, Reeser and I came to the conclusion that the sixties weren't as unique as everyone thinks they are. Sure, they have some very interesting events happen and many things come to a head in the sixties, but if you look at the twenties, the same thing is happening. It is the sixties, however, that gets the brunt of this definition because it is closer to our own time. We know people who were alive in the sixties, we hear stories from the sixties, and watch movies about the sixties. None of this happens for the twenties, and why? Simply because it was farther away. It's not as if the twenties are any less important or had any less impact on society, it is simply that the sixties are the forground of the painting with the twenties being that river in the background, a little blurry and not the center of the painting. That is what I liked about this book so much, it explains why we study and remember the sixties in such great detail, but leave out the twenties almost entirely.