First, the Confederacy was never the legitimate government of the United States, while Chiang Kai Shek's government was in China. Second, Mao never completely overthrew all of China, just the mainland. So by your logic, well, I can't find any logic there, just an attempt to equate two very unrelatable scenarios.

This will be one of those fun court cases where the property owners will claim no liability because the driver was trespassing, but the jury will still probably hand down a judgment of a few million dollars against them because of their negligence.

You see, sometimes in America, crime does pay because the victims (if you can call the victim of trespassing a victim) are dumb (OK, negligent).

Put up a rail or at least mark the hidden drop, FFS.

Kerouac's book was more popular than his lifestyle was among that generation. It became famous as an insight into a counter-culture, as opposed to being culture-driving as you suggest.

By the way, you do realize that just saying "Boomers" has become a disparaging way to refer to that generation? So when you use that term and say you are not disparaging, it comes off as disingenuous.

Being GenX myself, I am well aware of the many flaws in my elders' ways, but also of my own generation's and its successor generations, too. Unfortunately, it's not like any generation has figured anything out and is saving the world.

Edit: Re-reading your comment just triggers me further for its irresponsible generational view. You suggest that Boomers used up the world's resources and scold younger generations to care for the planet. These are not generational issues at all. Clearly there are people and parties within every generation simultaneously destroying and caring for the environment. I see elders caring for our planet (Jane Goodall, for example, was a "Boomer" icon) and see "Millenial" destructors (like Ben Shapiro, Lauren Bobert, the smug kid who claimed victory in staring down a Native American protesting) alike. To make these issues out to be generational divides is oversimplification at best and counterproductively divisive at worst.

I can understand you misunderstanding the impact and place of Kerouac's work within American culture since you are from elsewhere, but leveraging that to misconstrue complex social challenges as simplistic generational divides is not at all productive. I suppose it is at least open dialogue, but it's the sort that merits fervent disagreement.

Such is the nature of fashion. What I get a laugh about is when fashions that have reach "never again; what was wrong with those people!" status come back around as "the hottest new thing."

A touch of historical perspective is maybe the one true gift of old age.