Until the last ten or so years that has been the case. In all but the most powerful magnums, nobody cared about a little recoil.
So my time frame may have been off a bit. But I'm betting Elmer Keith would disagree with the premise that learning how to shoot a hard recoiling gun isn't the answer.
Your initial argument is off. The fact of the matter is people DID care about recoil. Hence the FBI offering the 38 special load even after the 357 revolver was introduced AND the bureau had switched to 357 revolvers as normal. While folks like Elmer Keith have been able to get impressive results the move towards heavier recoil has been resisted by all but the most committed shooters. Hence why many law enforcement agencies, whose agents carry firearms as part of the job rather than as being "gun nuts", didn't even commit to switching out of 38 special to 357 magnum even when they had firearms capable of it. I'm sure we have all heard stories of the 44 Magnum for sale with 44 rounds of ammunition left in the box. A good share of our fathers and grandfathers (or for some of you your own generation), who were by no means part of the current generational sensitivity shift you seem concerned about, simply were not interested in having a firearm that was problematic to shoot without excessive practice. The .41 Magnum designed as the middle ground between the .357 and 44 never did have the sales those behind it hoped for.
At one time in rifles the big game cartridges that we generally consider "classic" (like the .416 Rigby) were replacing heavier recoiling black powder firearms and recoil reduction was a big selling point of these big bores.
Now we have members of this board who advocate for lighter recoiling guns specifically due to follow-up shots that have nothing to do with their ability to handle recoil. Three shots of 9MM are ballistic ally superior to two shots of .40 and can be delivered in the same amount of time with controlled fire I believe is a reasonable synopsis of the argument. This may be a relatively new argument, at least in regards to the amount of support it has, but it is not based on some recoil sensitivity thing it is based on a tactical assessment. Please note this is not my argument and I am not going to advance if the argument is right or wrong itself only that it is a reasonable argument put forward in favor of the 9MM cartridge in guns of size and weight similar to harder recoiling cartridges.
Now technology has helped us get more powerful handguns, at an "affordable" price, with less perceived recoil. I think there is a reason Smith and Wesson ships the .460 and 500 with compensators on them and I doubt they would have pushed these to market had this alleged recoil sensitivity thing (the 500 was introduced in 2003) really been a sign of the times.
The move to ultra-light, ultra small, "pocket" 9MMs which have substantial perceived recoil due to size and weight further indicates that there is not some new recoil sensitivity. If anything modern firearm manufacturers and buyers seem accepting of recoil if it allows them to get 9MM cartridges into guns of a size that just a couple decades ago would have been chambered in 32. Surely those who have bought polymer pocket 9MMs realize they recoil more than the steel pocket .32s of yesterday. Especially those who have owned both. Yet one of these things is manufactured in something new every year and one is not.
But it seems in recent years it's becoming a must for newer shooters to have the lowest recoiling gun, but with magnum power
IF this were possible why not? I would love a gun with the sheer stopping power of a .500 that was the size, weight, and capacity of a .22 and had the same recoil. I mean why would this be a bad thing? I believe you are incorrectly attributing motivation though.
But as with so many things today, people are looking for the easy way out.
I think if one is going to be derisive they should at least have the premises lined up and fact checked enough that they are right. Its very easy to be derisive if accuracy is not required. There are, in fact, things one can even by correctly derisive about. I simply do not believe that recoil concerns being a recent phenomena is one of them.
This theory that recoil sensitivity is new disregards the fact that people like Keith were pushing the envelope and not everyone joined in on the results specifically because of the recoil. This is not "we want less recoil" winning the day it is "here is a gun with better ballistics BUT more recoil" NOT winning the day for the non-committed shooter. You seem to be trying to reverse this in your narrative which allows you to place blame on current trends and I believe it is simply incorrect in regards to what happened.