Ok, so some things in the golden era were not too cool...

[LizzieMaine]

Yeah, I guess John T. Flynn and Father Coughlin are having the last laugh after all. I guess I should be thankful so many people went out of their way to prove the point I've been trying to make all along -- we really haven't come as far as people want to think we have. They talk about the '20s as "The Lost Generation," but I think they're going to have to revise that now -- if there's a Lost Generation, we're soaking in it. And I think that really, truly, is tragic.

(I guess Rockwell must've been a pinko too...)

 

[Miss Golightly]

I've read this thread with interest and many points have been raised for and against living in the Golden Era and I have to say I agree that "These are the good old days". From stories that my Mother has told me to looking at the history of my country I would have hated - particularly as a woman - to have lived back then. Firstly the stranglehold that the Catholic Church had on people was simply horrendous - basically being told to not use contraception (priests telling you outright in confession not to do so) and spending a huge chunk of your life being pregnant and just having baby after baby - I've heard of women having 17 children (and there could have been many miscarriages and stillbirths inbetween) and all growing up in a tiny cramped homes not built to take that amount of people and trying to all survive on scant wages.

My Mum had awful experiences (at the hands of Nuns) in maternity hospitals (a millions miles away from the wonderful experience and care I had when I was having my daughter) - and her Mother before her (who nearly died and miscarried her baby as a result) had the same. One of my brothers who is left-handed was forced to try and write with his right hand by the Christian Brothers - as a left-hander I would have gone through the same if I was in school back then (and it wasn't even that long ago when you think about it). There are hundreds more stories where all this came from - too many to include here. I'm sure a lot of this went on elsewhere but I can only speak about what I know - so for me, living now with all the choices and options I have and so much available to me is infinitely more appealing.

 

[Flicka]

That's exactly right. The more this stuff gets discussed -- not just here, but everywhere -- the more I get the feeling that there's somehow some sort of Acceptable Misery Quota -- as long as no more than xx percent of people are miserable, we're justified in saying Wow Look At All The Progress. Maybe I'm just naive, but I think the Four Freedoms really ought to be more than just magazine covers hanging on your grandmother's kitchen wall -- and especially the last two. And we're still a long long long way from that -- probably no closer, really, to accomplishing those goals than we were when FDR laid them out seventy-one years ago.

Having read what you've said in this thread, I think I'm going to have to back on my earlier statement and say that yes,I'd go back in time if I could.

I think what you say here about a perceived Acceptable Misery Quota is pretty much what I meant when I said we've lost hope. So some things are better now, but others are not and in no way should we pat ourselves on the back and settle down. I agree with you that there was an idealism then that we've lost and honestly, after reading your posts, I agree that if I could turn back the clock to the end of WWII, I would because we had every chance of making the world much, much better than it is and I am cynical enough to doubt we can turn things around now. So yeah, if the future was unwritten, I'd go back there in a heartbeat. Not because things were ideal, but because it was a much better starting point for making the ideal come true than today.

 

[sheeplady]

I just want to add that I think I heard of the four freedoms when I was in high school, but they were never emphasized. I went to a really horrible school, however, so that could be at fault. We did have to learn the US Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the US constitution) starting in 6th grade, and unfortunately I have to go and look up which is which from time to time because the numbers and what they are get scrambled- I do ok through the 5th but after that it's downhill.

I honestly can't see the New World Order in FDR's speech, so I'm a bit perplexed by that one. Is it because of the "freedom from fear" and disarmament?

The reason why things like racism exist is because people benefit from it. I totally agree with LizzieMaine on that. And until we, as a society, are willing to have many thoughful discussions about it and change our behavior, nothing will ever change for our society and those of us in it. Being a racist society hurts us all; because we hurt and damage and exclude people who have potential from participating in our society. Some people may benefit on an individual level, but as a society, racism is pulling us down the tubes.

 

[Noirblack]

OMG!!!

While you all debate these points madly we have forgotten all about the baby that started it all. We have to get a rescue party together to save that little kid!!!

:baby:

 

[LizzieMaine]

I just want to add that I think I heard of the four freedoms when I was in high school, but they were never emphasized. I went to a really horrible school, however, so that could be at fault.

In my own case I think the fact is significant that virtually all of the authority figures of my childhood -- teachers, church leaders, scout leaders, etc. -- were actually members of the Depression/WW2 generation. Those values weren't simply something out of a book to them -- they were mainstream beliefs and goals that most Americans of that era shared, and that they passed on to me. Those who taught otherwise in the Era were considered fringe characters at best -- and Fifth Columnists at worst.

Increasingly, though, the "Golden Era values" that are discussed today are in no way those of the actual 1930s and 1940s -- but those of the 1980s and 1990s, wrapped up in a very thin Golden Era veneer and passed off as the real thing on people who have no way of knowing the difference. I think if we're going to discuss the Era in comparison to today, it's essential to understand what most people then actually taught and believed.

I'd bring up President Roosevelt's "Second Bill Of Rights," declared in his 1944 State of the Union message, but it might send people into coronaries.

 

[scottyrocks]

The reason why things like racism exist is because people benefit from it. I totally agree with LizzieMaine on that. And until we, as a society, are willing to have many thoughful discussions about it and change our behavior, nothing will ever change for our society and those of us in it. Being a racist society hurts us all; because we hurt and damage and exclude people who have potential from participating in our society. Some people may benefit on an individual level, but as a society, racism is pulling us down the tubes.

Racism exists because both sides buy into it. But make no mistake, it is very much perpetuated by the oppressed, themselves. People, as a group, become down and out, and they become used to being down and out. That, in turn, permeates the group, and those values are passed on to the children, and it becomes a norm. This makes the whole situation akin to a snow ball rolling down a hill.

Entitlement and lowest-common-denominator are very large parts of what makes, and keeps, people in way less than ideal conditions. When you live in a world where it seems nothing will come of you, it's difficult to become motivated to get ahead. Some, maybe many do, but the socio-economic status of a group plays a large part in their value system, which affects their whole lives.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

My Great-Grandparents were Catholic and had 19 kids. The oldest born in 1939 and the youngest was born somewhere close to my mother, who was born in 1965. They had a small three-bedroom farm house outside Germantown and Great-Grandpa was a 3rd shift baker. Things were not easy for them. They are, to this day, one of the closest families you'll ever see in your life. When Great-Grandma died a few years ago, at 89, I had never seen such a sad funeral in my life. Those kids all loved their mother to no end.

I've heard of women having 17 children (and there could have been many miscarriages and stillbirths inbetween) and all growing up in a tiny cramped homes not built to take that amount of people and trying to all survive on scant wages.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Are you suggesting that Republicans would or should oppose these ideals?

No.

 

[Miss Golightly]

My Great-Grandparents were Catholic and had 19 kids. The oldest born in 1939 and the youngest was born somewhere close to my mother, who was born in 1965. They had a small three-bedroom farm house outside Germantown and Great-Grandpa was a 3rd shift baker. Things were not easy for them. They are, to this day, one of the closest families you'll ever see in your life. When Great-Grandma died a few years ago, at 89, I had never seen such a sad funeral in my life. Those kids all loved their mother to no end.

I have no doubt that many of these families were so close - I come from what would be considered a fairly big family these days (7 brothers and me) and we all get on wonderfully thank God - but I feel that a lot of couples back then had many, many children because they had no choice in the matter and felt railroaded into it. There is a huge difference between wanting lots of children and having someone telling you that that is what you should be doing and therefore doing it out of obligation.

 

[Atomic Age]

I have no doubt that many of these families were so close - I come from what would be considered a fairly big family these days (7 brothers and me) and we all get on wonderfully thank God - but I feel that a lot of couples back then had many, many children because they had no choice in the matter and felt railroaded into it. There is a huge difference between wanting lots of children and having someone telling you that that is what you should be doing and therefore doing it out of obligation.

Well to be fair, in the days before the majority of American's lived in cities, one of the reasons you had large families, is because the children were expected to work in the family business, often a farm or ranch, or at least around the house, easing the burden on the house wife. Also in those days children were expected to take care of their parents in their old age. Its easier for 8 or 9 kids to take care of 2 parents than for 1 or 2. I think its also possible that many women in those days didn't consider having lots of children a burden. (though I'm sure some did) It was a different mindset.

One other point to consider is that before about 1950, birth control was not what anyone today would consider reliable.

Its only since the migration of Americans to cities and suburbs that having more than 2 or 3 kids is considered excessive. I find it amusing that 20 years ago having 3 or 4 kids was considered normal, and today many people seem to feel that more than 1 is excessive.

Doug

 

[John in Covina]

I think, with all the much-vaunted technological prowess of the last seventy years, it's entirely possible for those goals to have been accomplished long ago -- if we can come up with a way for any teenager to watch zit-popping videos from anywhere in the world, surely Freedom From Want and Freedom From Fear should be a piece of cake. But deep down, *modern society -- not The Man, not The System -- but modern society in general doesn't want that.* Because then they wouldn't have Those Other People to look down on, and what's the point of prosperity if there's no rabble to lord it over? If every kid has a quality education, what's the point of bragging about sending your kid to Such and Such Academy? If everyone has a job and enough to eat, how will all the riff-raff be kept in its place?



Sad. Seventy years ago, we put those very same Freedoms on postage stamps, and sent millions of men off to fight and die for them.

Freedom from Work.

 

[Miss Golightly]

Well to be fair, in the days before the majority of American's lived in cities, one of the reasons you had large families, is because the children were expected to work in the family business, often a farm or ranch, or at least around the house, easing the burden on the house wife. Also in those days children were expected to take care of their parents in their old age. Its easier for 8 or 9 kids to take care of 2 parents than for 1 or 2. I think its also possible that many women in those days didn't consider having lots of children a burden. (though I'm sure some did) It was a different mindset.

One other point to consider is that before about 1950, birth control was not what anyone today would consider reliable.

Its only since the migration of Americans to cities and suburbs that having more than 2 or 3 kids is considered excessive. I find it amusing that 20 years ago having 3 or 4 kids was considered normal, and today many people seem to feel that more than 1 is excessive.

Doug

Yes - I agree that this was most certainly the case but it makes me so glad to live in a world where you can choose to have children - or not, or choose how many you want, and if you do have children that good medical care is available to you throughout.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Are you suggesting that Republicans would or should oppose these ideals?
.

In the Era, mainstream Republicans most certainly did not oppose those ideals. They were seen as non-partisan American goals, not the goal of any particular party or creed.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron"

-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953.

 

[John in Covina]

thank goodness there are no actual threats against the US

 

[vitanola]

thank goodness there are no actual threats against the US

That changes everything.

The same sort of folks who said that The Second World War was not our fight, and that Fascists could be worked with even should Britain fall, and who called our objections to the atrocities in Manchuria a "needless provocation" of the Japanese Empire, ranted about the "loss of China" and now call for, well, watch the news or listen to the radio...


The discourse has indeed changed over the past thirty or so years.

(SIGH)

 

[sheeplady]

Yes - I agree that this was most certainly the case but it makes me so glad to live in a world where you can choose to have children - or not, or choose how many you want, and if you do have children that good medical care is available to you throughout.

Me too. There was some limited forms of birth control available in the Golden Age- if you were educated enough or in the right circle you might know how your cycle worked at least a little bit and therefore your fertile times. There was also some limited knowledge of herbal medicine (some herbs can induce miscarriage or decrease your fertility). But it was not universal knowledge or even accepted by many people and institutions.

Although, I have to say, the basic knowledge that people have about sex is severely lacking today, at least in the US. And in the US we have a relatively high infant mortality rate, suggesting the need for a lot of work to be done yet.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Me too. There was some limited forms of birth control available in the Golden Age- if you were educated enough or in the right circle you might know how your cycle worked at least a little bit and therefore your fertile times. There was also some limited knowledge of herbal medicine (some herbs can induce miscarriage or decrease your fertility). But it was not universal knowledge or even accepted by many people and institutions.

We had a good thread about vintage birth control in the PR a couple years ago, which might be worth searching up for the full discussion. But the gist of it is that there were commercial spermicidal jellies and similar products on sale in the US well before the war -- you could order Ortho-Gynol from the Sears catalog as far back as 1938 -- but they were very discreetly marketed as being "germicidal" products due to a conflicting network of state laws about the distribution of birth control information. Some states were quite liberal about such things, but others prohibited birth-control information outright, usually states with a significant Catholic influence. The Ladies Home Journal during the thirties pushed heavily for liberalization of birth-control laws, and published many frank discussions of this topic before the war.

 

[amador]

LizzieMaine you are astounding. You continuously remain most informative. In addition you have reigned as the adult in some threads. Thank you.
IMHO economic opportunity may be an incentive to have fewer children. Two incomes raises the standard of living and offspring survival rate is greater so parents can hope to have their turn at being taken care of in their dotterage.

 

[Bluebird Marsha]

Lizzie, thanks for that tidbit. I was curious about the idea of birth control being inadequate/non-existent. All I could think of was that in my family, everyone has had 2 or 3 children. And that's going back to the 1900's. I know there were miscarriages and infants who died in there. But that never squared with the idea of no reliable contraceptive.

Prurient curiosity has now been activated.