If you went back to the Golden Era, what would you notice first?

[LizzieMaine]

One thing that just occurred to me was the relative effort and awareness that it would take to stay warm and also keep things from catching on fire. Rural homes are generally heated by wood, which requires constant stoking and feeding throughout the day, and homes in residential areas probably ran on coal furnaces. There are several comic stories and cartoons of the period about the challenges of lighting a furnace.

On the other side of the heat/fire issue, many kitchen appliances back then were not automatic, didn't even have off switches, and you would have to keep your wits about you to make sure you didn't leave the coffee pot or the waffle iron plugged in. I'm sure that smoke detectors were a ways off yet. Add to this the ubiquitousness of smoking indoors, or leaving kerosene lanterns where cows can kick them over...it seems a miracle we didn't burn down the whole country.

Kerosene stoves were very common in working class homes -- you'd have one in the kitchen and one in the living room, and that would heat the whole house if you closed off the rooms you didn't use. But they had to be turned down at night and re-lit in the morning, which meant the first person to get up in the morning would hit a very chilly floor.

Appliances with thermostats became popular in the late thirties, but the non-thermostatic models remained common well into the sixties. I still use a manual toaster, and you develop a habit of holding the power cord in one hand when you're turning the toast, as a reminder to pull it out of the wall when you're done. A lot of people used asbestos pads underneath toasters and percolators and such in case they forgot and left them plugged in.

 

[Nobert]

I've gone through quite a few appliances that either were manual or had thermostats but were busted in some way so as to make them functionally manual. Given my normal absent-minded distractibility I'm amazed I managed to navigate this situation without major incident.

 

[herringbonekid]

What would be the first thing that you noticed that clued you in that you were in 1940?

in Brighton: that trams are running down the high street and that the Burtons shop is open (the building is still there with carved Burtons logo on the side).
problem is, what would we hypothetical time travellers use for money ? the staff would be very puzzled by modern five and ten pound notes.

 

[LizzieMaine]

in Brighton: that trams are running down the high street and that the Burtons shop is open (the building is still there with carved Burtons logo on the side).
problem is, what would we hypothetical time travellers use for money ? the staff would be very puzzled by modern five and ten pound notes.

Anyone flashing a ten pound note in 1940 would attract more than their share of attention. It'd be like walking around with a hundred dollar bill here.

I have $50 in small-denomination Julian-Morgenthau currency in my desk drawer, just in case.

 

[Stanley Doble]

in Brighton: that trams are running down the high street and that the Burtons shop is open (the building is still there with carved Burtons logo on the side).
problem is, what would we hypothetical time travellers use for money ? the staff would be very puzzled by modern five and ten pound notes.

Least of your worries. You can buy currency for any era, going back thousands of years. Worn coins and bills of the small change variety are quite cheap.

 

[Stanley Doble]

Speaking of logistics, you would do well to go as some type of foreigner, immigrant or outsider in your time travels. This would cover up your empty background, lack of local knowledge, your odd accent and peculiarities of language and explain any gaffes. They would just think you were a greenhorn or tourist, not a time traveller.

 

[scottyrocks]

Hi, I'm from Barsoom . . . '

 

[Stearmen]

Speaking of logistics, you would do well to go as some type of foreigner, immigrant or outsider in your time travels. This would cover up your empty background, lack of local knowledge, your odd accent and peculiarities of language and explain any gaffes. They would just think you were a greenhorn or tourist, not a time traveller.

[video=youtube;JXmzTRi70es]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXmzTRi70es[/video]

 

[sheeplady]

Up until the fifties vegetable gardens in the back yard were common. I remember shopkeepers and people with good jobs had them even though they could well afford to buy food. By the sixties it seemed only the older generation, like people born before 1920 kept up their gardens. I remember one old man who had a large garden even though his children were grown and moved away, and only himself and his wife to feed. I asked him why he had a garden and he looked at me like I was an idiot and said " do you know how much groceries cost?" I guarantee you , his house and car were paid for and he could have gone down to the bank and drawn out $10,000 any time he felt like it.

Half his garden was potatoes and at that time potatoes were less than a dollar for a 50 pound bag.

This was not the suburbs but an older residential neighborhood in town, mainly 2 story brick houses built in the late 1800s or early 1900s. They all had large back yards, some still had a small barn or stable and at least half had vegetable gardens.

In the new suburbs of the fifties such gardens were unknown and probably illegal, at least according to the home owners' association. Flower beds and rose bushes OK but nothing you could eat.

Yeah, here gardens were quite common in the 1950s. I know this because of pictures I've seen of our house back then. We don't have a homeowners association and never will- we're an area of working and lower middle class people. HOAs don't tend to form in neighborhoods like this.

Growing up in the 1980s and 1990s, everyone had veggie gardens where I lived. But this was rural. And you can buy vegetable seeds with food stamps (and occasionally food pantries have them). In the area I lived, most people depended on food pantries and the like (what they call "Food Insecure" today) and therefore seeds are a great way to stretch your food dollar. In the country it is also just something you do.

So it is very much a function of place and time.

One thing that just occurred to me was the relative effort and awareness that it would take to stay warm and also keep things from catching on fire. Rural homes are generally heated by wood, which requires constant stoking and feeding throughout the day, and homes in residential areas probably ran on coal furnaces. There are several comic stories and cartoons of the period about the challenges of lighting a furnace.

On the other side of the heat/fire issue, many kitchen appliances back then were not automatic, didn't even have off switches, and you would have to keep your wits about you to make sure you didn't leave the coffee pot or the waffle iron plugged in. I'm sure that smoke detectors were a ways off yet. Add to this the ubiquitousness of smoking indoors, or leaving kerosene lanterns where cows can kick them over...it seems a miracle we didn't burn down the whole country.

Some areas of the country still have coal furnaces. Our neighbors in our new place all have coal heat, with furnaces with automatic augers. It is near pennsylvania, so lots of coal. It is apparently very cheap heat.

Having lived without electricity for a relative time period as a kid, I can assure you it is not that difficult to keep your home from burning down. And I'm a person who is rather concerned about fire. Although it is a pain in the butt to be the first person that has to get up and light the woodstove. It is even worse if someone "forgot" to bring in a load of wood the night before, and you get to run out the woodpile. Although the bonus of not having central heat for a number of years and no cookstove other than the "parlor stove" means that I can always, always, always get a fire lit. I have never given up getting a fire lit.

Doing your homework by lamplight is not the most fun, but I always made it through. Sometimes I'll still have a night in our own house that I'll get the lamps down and light the candles and not bother turning on the lights.

Although as they say, you get sick of burning your belly and freezing your *** with just woodstove heat.

 

[GHT]

Some areas of the country still have coal furnaces. Our neighbors in our new place all have coal heat, with furnaces with automatic augers. It is near pennsylvania, so lots of coal. It is apparently very cheap heat.

Some areas in the UK are without mains gas, the only choice for central heating is oil or coal. The coal is actually anthracite, a manufactured coal that gives of few pollutants, contains relatively pure carbon and burns with little flame & smoke. Anthracite was developed to keep within a law that was passed in the 1950's, known as: "The Clean Air Act," that law saw the end of the choking smogs that plagued our country. Lived with anthracite for about 15 years, high maintenance, much dust and forever having the flue/chimney swept. It was an absolute pain in the proverbial.

 

[GHT]

I think the world would be a better place with about 1/3 the present population, myself. But a lot depends on where, exactly, you are -- my town would have about a third more people living here in 1940 than live here today. Entire downtown neighborhoods were leveled here in the late sixties to build parking lots, which now stand empty -- or filled with mountains of grimy grey snow -- six months out of the year.

And again, standard of living depends on your own standards. For those of us who've rejected the luxury-consumer mentality of the postwar era, a return to a 1940-type working-class standard of living would be exactly what we'd like to see.

For many years, from the late 70's to the mid 90's, my wife and I would visit some friends in Savannah GA. It was there that we first saw an out of town shopping mall. That mall killed the centre of Savannah. Having not been there now for almost 20 years, I do hope that there has been some sort of regeneration. We imported those out of town "shopping experiences" and in some parts of our country, all that is left in the High Streets are betting shops, pay-day loan sharks, food take-aways, funeral directors, real estate agents and the odd professional with a High Street office, like lawyers and accountants.

 

[hatguy1]

First thing would be the extreme poverty that'd be rampant. The effects of the Depression would still be felt and there'd be a whole lot of have nots, empty buildings and empty shelves. Alot of folks were out of jobs, with no Unemployment, homeless and in food lines, before govt assistance.. The Middle Class was wiped out, there were only the very poor and very rich.The news would be full of rumors of war as Hilter's war machine was marching across Europe. Polio and small pox is wiping out thousands of folks every day. 1940 was a dark time, full of uncertainty. The entire decade was full of broken families, rationing, curfew, empty shelves and empty lives. The last part of the decade was dealing with all the dead, wounded and broken soldiers, before PTSD. My Grandfather was one of them. Dropped in Normandy, threw a hand grenade into a cave and charged in shooting, only to find it was full of women and children. He checked out that day. Never spoke again, just sat in his chair and stared into space, until he died.

6 years later, alot of the same folks( and a whole new generation) were in Korea.

America didn't breath a sigh of relief until 1954, where the economy was soaring, everyone had a job, a new home and new car in the driveway. Innovations to make the new brides' lives easier came out every week.

Sounds to me like you're discussing more the 1930s than the 1940s.... From what I remember the wartime economy post December, 1941 put danged near anyone to work from there til the end of the Space Race in the early 1970s...

 

[hatguy1]

This was very briefly referenced in the beginning post (and maybe others but I'm not reading 10 pages of comments), but the most visible thing to me would probably be that almost everyone would be smoking back then everywhere - on the street, in offices, in bars and restaurants etc. I'm not ranting against tobacco here, just noting that the use of tobacco would be far more visible and common back then than today.

 

[LizzieMaine]

This was very briefly referenced in the beginning post (and maybe others but I'm not reading 10 pages of comments), but the most visible thing to me would probably be that almost everyone would be smoking back then everywhere - on the street, in offices, in bars and restaurants etc. I'm not ranting against tobacco here, just noting that the use of tobacco would be far more visible and common back then than today.

Interestingly, the use of tobacco peaked in the United States in 1965, when slightly more than 42 percent of the adult population smoked. There has never been a time when a majority of Americans have been smokers -- it might have seemed so, because public smoking was certainly more common, but it's never been as overwhelming as memory makes it seem.

Amazingly, the per-capita consumption of cigarettes in the United States in 1940 was actually less than it was in 1999.

 

[hatguy1]

Interestingly, the use of tobacco peaked in the United States in 1965, when slightly more than 42 percent of the adult population smoked. There has never been a time when a majority of Americans have been smokers -- it might have seemed so, because public smoking was certainly more common, but it's never been as overwhelming as memory makes it seem.

Amazingly, the per-capita consumption of cigarettes in the United States in 1940 was actually less than it was in 1999.

That is interesting. I know how on my first visit to Europe around 2000 how struck I was by the amount of smoking I saw compared to the States - even back then.

By the way, would you mind sharing your source for the statistics you referenced? I might have use for that and know the source will be asked for.

 

[sheeplady]

Interestingly, the use of tobacco peaked in the United States in 1965, when slightly more than 42 percent of the adult population smoked. There has never been a time when a majority of Americans have been smokers -- it might have seemed so, because public smoking was certainly more common, but it's never been as overwhelming as memory makes it seem.

Amazingly, the per-capita consumption of cigarettes in the United States in 1940 was actually less than it was in 1999.

I wonder if this is due to the additives? They say cigarettes today are much more addictive and that might count for higher consumption per smoker.

I had a great uncle who smoked one cigarette a day for decades (he quit because he didn't like the taste of the "new cigarettes" in the 1970s or 80s, I think). I don't know anyone who manages that today and I've heard that can't be done because they are so addictive.

 

[hatguy1]

For many years, from the late 70's to the mid 90's, my wife and I would visit some friends in Savannah GA. It was there that we first saw an out of town shopping mall. That mall killed the centre of Savannah. Having not been there now for almost 20 years, I do hope that there has been some sort of regeneration.

Thanks to significant private investment (e.g., the late Jim Williams) followed by grants etc in the restoration of the Old Town area of Savannah, that area has came back and in a big way with the big mansions restored and related nearby business revitalization.

Sadly, not only has what you mentioned hurt local areas, but the overpopulation of huge box stores in grocery, dry goods, hardware, home furnishings and on and on and on really ran a lot of little locally-owned and outside the shopping mall businesses right out of business. Additionally, out-of-state ownership of said properties (malls) made it all but impossible for the "small fry" from having a presence in most of them because the overhead charged to be there is so high and cut-throat the smaller, locally-owned businesses about can't afford to be there. And those that are will tell you they have to have a bang-up Christmas shopping season to afford to pay for the rest of the year in there.

 

[Nobert]

I wonder if this is due to the additives? They say cigarettes today are much more addictive and that might count for higher consumption per smoker.

I had a great uncle who smoked one cigarette a day for decades (he quit because he didn't like the taste of the "new cigarettes" in the 1970s or 80s, I think). I don't know anyone who manages that today and I've heard that can't be done because they are so addictive.

I think genetics play a role. My mother was able to have a cigarette once in a while years after she officially quit ("Don't tell your father"), My Dad, on the other hand, was a three-to-five pack per day man until he gave it up entirely.

I'm going to take a wild guess that changing social mores and regional expectations might play into it. Back whenever, there may have been a difference between city/suburban ideals, and those of the smaller towns (which encompassed a greater percentage of the population at the time), where a good citizen might be more expected to abstain from drink, not smoke and go to church or risk being ostracized by the community. Again, that's just a guess.

Additives may play a role, but I've tried quitting a couple of times and I smoke rollies (rolling tobacco has considerably fewer additives than most ready-mades). It's an activity that's associated with stress, and most of the smokers I know are generally working-class, or in the increasingly broad spectrum of service industry jobs...including absolutely everybody I've ever met who works in a kitchen. And don't let me forget nurses.

Of course, another thing you'd notice if you went back to "The Era" would be the number of advertisements in which smoking was endorsed by doctors or cartoon characters.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I wonder if this is due to the additives? They say cigarettes today are much more addictive and that might count for higher consumption per smoker.

I had a great uncle who smoked one cigarette a day for decades (he quit because he didn't like the taste of the "new cigarettes" in the 1970s or 80s, I think). I don't know anyone who manages that today and I've heard that can't be done because they are so addictive.

I started smoking at 13. At 27, I dropped a two a pack-a-day habit, cold turkey. It was actually quite easy. What's tough is staying a non-smoker. I wouldn't say it's so much what's added to cigarettes today so much as what's absent from most 21st century individuals. We're just not as doggedly tough and determined as the people of that generation. My Grandpa, who was a Doctor, quit cold turkey the day he read the first Surgeon General's report on studies linking smoking to lung cancer (1959ish?). He never touched a cigarette again in his life. Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing . . .

 

[Guttersnipe]

Interestingly, the use of tobacco peaked in the United States in 1965, when slightly more than 42 percent of the adult population smoked. There has never been a time when a majority of Americans have been smokers -- it might have seemed so, because public smoking was certainly more common, but it's never been as overwhelming as memory makes it seem.

I've seen this aggregate statistic before, but I've also seen it broken out by gender. As I recall, the percentage of adult males that smoked was higher than 42 percent, but not more than 50; the percentage for women was lower than 42.