Retro-extremists? What are we called?

[jamespowers]

For everyone else, it's just part time play acting. And that's perfectly ok. Just don't try to make it something it's not.

How exactly is it acting? We aren't getting paid to do it. We aren't getting any accolades for doing it---in fact quite the opposite at times. We aren't reenacting any events that happened in the past. We are simply doing what we prefer to do as individuals, which is exactly why it is so hard to classify all of us under one banner. Acting has nothing to do with it. it is who we ARE.

 

[Senator Jack]

To the people on the outside looking in, it's play acting, and the goal of this entire thread is to acknowledge that opinion and then come up with an unequivocal explanation for this phenomenon.

To address the conflict of interest of an atavist using a computer to post, here's Lizzie's insighful post from Page 1 (again, which I urge everyone to read):

Maybe make the point that the Atavist generally makes use of elements of modern technology as a means to an end, rather than embracing them as an end in themselves -- computers and the Internet, for example, might be used primarily as tools for acquiring and maintaining the necessary accoutrements of an Atavist lifestyle, but the user may have little interest in other applications of such technology beyond its value as a source of goods and information -- preferring, for example, to write letters as opposed to the everyday use of text messages or email, or using eBay to acquire a set of hard-bound encyclopedias.

THAT USE OF TECHNOLOGY AS A MEANS TO AN END IS INHERENT TO THE SUBCULTURE!!!!

Personally, there are maybe three or four shows currently on television that I watch. My favorite era for the medium, however, is the 60s, and lo a behold through the miracle of DVD, I can make a night of The Avengers, The Saint, Danger Man, Green Acres, and The Wild Wild West. I use technology to create the life I want, even though that technology wasn't around back then. A paradox, certainly, but that's not the point.

None of us is saying that we completely live in the past. That would be nearly impossible, but we do try to capture the zeitgeist of our respective eras, and if we need to use anachronistic technology to do it, so be it.

Regards,

Jack

 

[Geesie]

Are there really that many people who take elements of modern technology,

embracing them as an end in themselves

outside the "geek" subculture?

 

[Senator Jack]

Are there really that many people who take elements of modern technology,

outside the "geek" subculture?

Yes.

 

[Geesie]

...

 

[LizzieMaine]

To the people on the outside looking in, it's play acting, and the goal of this entire thread is to acknowledge that opinion and then come up with an unequivocal explanation for this phenomenon.

To address the conflict of interest of an atavist using a computer to post, here's Lizzie's insighful post from Page 1 (again, which I urge everyone to read):



THAT USE OF TECHNOLOGY AS A MEANS TO AN END IS INHERENT TO THE SUBCULTURE!!!!

Personally, there are maybe three or four shows currently on television that I watch. My favorite era for the medium, however, is the 60s, and lo a behold through the miracle of DVD, I can make a night of The Avengers, The Saint, Danger Man, Green Acres, and The Wild Wild West. I use technology to create the life I want, even though that technology wasn't around back then. A paradox, certainly, but that's not the point.

None of us is saying that we completely live in the past. That would be nearly impossible, but we do try to capture the zeitgeist of our respective eras, and if we need to use anachronistic technology to do it, so be it.

Regards,

Jack

Exactly. I do the same sort of thing with I-Tunes and my computer and an SSTran AM transmitter -- since there's nothing of interest to me listen to on the local radio, I basically used these tools to create my own radio station, on the air 24 hours a day with a rotation of over 3000 digitized 78s, several thousand vintage radio programs, commercials, baseball games, and other such content. And yet I don't own an I-Pod, or any such other gizmo, because I couldn't ever comprehend why I'd want to go down the street isolated from the ambient sounds of the neighborhood with little plugs stuck in my ears -- and *that* is a cultural difference.

Frankly, I have very ambivalent feelings about computers, but they do have their uses.

I think the point's been made, too, that most of us who "live vintage" for the purpose of what's being discussed here don't consider ourselves re-enactors, living historians, or re-creators trying to generate an illusion. We simply choose, for whatever personal reasons we may have, to align ourselves culturally with a non-current era. In my own case, I consider it simply living according to the culture I was raised in, a culture which didn't just stop because the calendar pages turned. I don't see it as being any different from the life of an immigrant holding onto the ways of the old country.

I think this whole discussion's been fascinating -- because it only proves my point that there are good reasons for being able to succinctly describe what it is that we do that differs from that of other vintage folk, and how we ourselves view it -- because not only is it misunderstood by the general public, it's also widely misunderstood even within the "vintage community." The way in which a number of folks here who *don't* live or "get" that particular life, have jumped in to tell *us* how *we* should define ourselves is also telling. It's sort of like Presbyterians telling Methodists they ought to call themselves Baptists.

 

[Edward]

How about Warpers, short for Time Warpers?

When I'm Time Warping, it's fishnets ans a garter belt, not vintage....

I'm actually slightly frightened by thhose Stepford women in the Mail article.... each to their own, though...

 

[jamespowers]

Are there really that many people who take elements of modern technology,

outside the "geek" subculture?

Yes.

 

[jamespowers]

Exactly. I do the same sort of thing with I-Tunes and my computer and an SSTran AM transmitter -- since there's nothing of interest to me listen to on the local radio, I basically used these tools to create my own radio station, on the air 24 hours a day with a rotation of over 3000 digitized 78s, several thousand vintage radio programs, commercials, baseball games, and other such content. And yet I don't own an I-Pod, or any such other gizmo, because I couldn't ever comprehend why I'd want to go down the street isolated from the ambient sounds of the neighborhood with little plugs stuck in my ears -- and *that* is a cultural difference.

Frankly, I have very ambivalent feelings about computers, but they do have their uses.

I think the point's been made, too, that most of us who "live vintage" for the purpose of what's being discussed here don't consider ourselves re-enactors, living historians, or re-creators trying to generate an illusion. We simply choose, for whatever personal reasons we may have, to align ourselves culturally with a non-current era. In my own case, I consider it simply living according to the culture I was raised in, a culture which didn't just stop because the calendar pages turned. I don't see it as being any different from the life of an immigrant holding onto the ways of the old country.

I think this whole discussion's been fascinating -- because it only proves my point that there are good reasons for being able to succinctly describe what it is that we do that differs from that of other vintage folk, and how we ourselves view it -- because not only is it misunderstood by the general public, it's also widely misunderstood even within the "vintage community." The way in which a number of folks here who *don't* live or "get" that particular life, have jumped in to tell *us* how *we* should define ourselves is also telling. It's sort of like Presbyterians telling Methodists they ought to call themselves Baptists.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[dhermann1]

Keep in mind that the infamous "Stepford Wives" article was almost entirely fabricated, according to the subjects of the article themselves.

 

[reetpleat]

Now that I have been thinking about this, I think you might be moving in the wrong direction. What I mean is that if you are seeking simply a term for those people who are die hard, total immersion lifestylers, you are talking about how many, maybe 500 worldwide? 1000 maybe? whereas, even if you manage to get the public to embrace a word, they will rarely have anything to connect it to for lack of an example. So it would never catch on. if it idid catch on, it would be in use for anyone who seems to be putting effort into somehow recreating the era, be it their dress, dance, making music in old clothes, etc. I think there is definitely a dividing line between a fan of the culture, and one who would actually seek out and wear the clothes at least some of the time. There are quite a few of those out there. (The recreation stuff maybe is a bit different, the whole neo rockabilly/tatoo/gearhead/pompadpadour and jeans wearing guys and bangs wearing girls might be becoming a little too mainstream a look to classify) So, perhaps any hope you have of getting any word to catch on might have to embrace those who fit anywhere on the spectrum between wearing some vintage clothes to recreate the look for a night of dancing, a night out to dinner, or picknik in the park, to those who live the full lifestyle all the time. Not to say there is no difference, but to the general public seeing a guy dressed up walking down the street, they neither know nor care if he does it all the time. All they want to know, or we want them to know, is that they are part of a subculture of perfectly normal people do this for perfectly normal reasons (having fun) And, as I said, if we apply it only to the hardcore, then it is rather pointless as most people in the world will never encounter or know one.

 

[Tango Yankee]

Thanks, reatpleat!

I think you've just said what I've been sitting here trying to put into words.

And I'm not talking about those having a passing interest of vintage culture, I'm talking about the diehard Forgotten Man/Lizzie Maine/myself-included set that go on about life as though it really were still 1930,40,50, etc. .... Indeed, more important, I think, is the almost total rejection of the modern era.

I'm not sure what "passing interest" means exactly... I've always thought of it as something temporary whereas I've always had an interest in things vintage. The interest waxes and wanes, but is always there. I wear vintage hats, and would wear vintage clothes if I could find any I can wear. I like a lot of things about the 40s. I try to act as a gentleman not because it's from an earlier time but because it's how I was raised and it strikes me as the right thing to do. I bemoan many of the changes in our culture, but applaud others. I've been known to state that man did not become fully civilized until the widespread availability of hot showers and air conditioning. I love old movies, and the culture they portray, but there's a lot of new movies I thought were great, too. I've not been using personal computers as long as many of my peers, but I was on the Internet in 1994. (Before that my chatting online was limited to between terminals on a world-wide military computer network.) Of course, I have been working in IT for almost 30 years so that right there would disqualify me. When I'm on my motorcycle I wear a full-face modern helmet, not a yachting cap or leather helmet. I wear modern textile riding gear with armor, and my oldest motorcycle is only 38 years old.

I like music from most eras, but as is typical of people getting older don't really listen to current music.

In general, I like living in today's world even if I decry many of the changes I've seen over my lifetime and bemoan the loss of many things, not the least of which is general civility. I could be wrong, but I think I'm quite like a large percentage of the people who are members of the Lounge.

So a line is drawn to distinguish between people like me and those who are "vintage enough". As Reetpleat notes, I don't think the average person on the street really gives a darn about the difference between us. The mere fact that I often wear business casual (modern sport coat/tie, dress trousers, shirt, and shoes) is usually enough to make me stand out as being odd around here, much less adding a hat.

Oh, and there was this:

If you say someone's a 'biker', at least it evinces the stereotypical image of a fat, tatted guy drinking Bud on a Hog,

This is why I refer to myself as a "motorcyclist". See my description of my gear above, and add gloves and motorcycle boots.

In summary, I think that despite claims that Retro refers back to the 50s or 60s, I think I'll go with Retrophile. I know I'm not an antiquarian!

Regards,
Tom

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm kind of curious as to how thick on the ground we are myself -- I know Joeri has put together a network of such folks in Europe, but as far as I know no one's ever really tried to put a handle on how many atavists are stateside. If anything a Wikipedia article such as the Senator has suggested might be one way of at least letting them know they aren't alone, and perhaps might draw more of them into the discussion here. I know there used to be more around the Lounge than they are now.

I think another aspect of this whole project that might be very useful is that it could put the brakes on foolishness like the "Time Warp Wives" affair -- as dhermann pointed out, that project was full of exaggerations, fabrications, and misquotes, with the participants being made to look like dithering fools for the sake of a "freak show." Anything that can help tell anyone who might be wondering "hey, you know what, we *aren't* a bunch of delusional cake-bakers tripping merrily about our kitchens in stilleto heels because hubby wants us to" is, to my mind, a very useful and worthwhile thing.

 

[LizzieMaine]

So a line is drawn to distinguish between people like me and those who are "vintage enough".

See, I don't think that's it at all -- "vintage enough" implies a value judgement that isn't being made. It's simply a way of saying "this is what this particular subset of the vintage community does." I don't see it as any more exclusive or elitist than "rockabilly" -- it's simply a useful descriptive of a particular sort of interest.

 

[Geesie]

Yes.

Could you describe or provide examples of the prevalence of these people?
Generally, people I know have computers to do work or gather information, or make purchases more easily than they can in traditional stores. Only a few take an interest in them for their own sake. Generally they identify as "geek subculture".

 

[LizzieMaine]

Of course, then it begs the question, what is particularly atavist or retro about collecting things from the past and living in the past. Would this not be crazy for a person from the 20s?

I had meant to respond to this comment earlier, because it brings up a very interesting point. It's often remarked here that "if someone in 1927 went around living as though it were 1867 they'd be considered crazy." Well, think about that for a moment.

We have this image of the twenties as the roaring days of flappers and gangsters and college boys in raccoon coats playing ukuleles while sipping bootleg hootch out of Dad's flask, but there were still great swaths of the country where that culture didn't reach. You could go to many, many small towns and find people who lived pretty much *exactly* as they did in 1867 and were bitterly, aggressively opposed to any of that newfangled nonsense coming out of the big city. Cultural changes happened much more slowly before the days of full penetration of mass media --and I think it's the accelerated pace of those changes, especially in the last twenty years or so, that has a great deal to do with the development of an atavist subculture.

Consider again -- life in many American small towns in the 1970s differed little from life in those same towns in the 1950s. There were cosmetic changes, certainly, but the overall pace and substance of life had changed very little. I went to exactly the same schools my mother had gone to, sat in exactly the same seats that she had -- even used some of the same school books. Culture was changing quicker in bigger cities, of course, but there were still places where it was evolving very slowly.

Today, though, that's not true. Culture is changing faster than ever -- the technological developments alone of the past twenty years have changed our culture more than even television and radio did. Is it any wonder that there are some of us who say "Whoa! We didn't sign up for this!" and have as little to do with it as possible?

 

[JimWagner]

I think this whole discussion's been fascinating -- because it only proves my point that there are good reasons for being able to succinctly describe what it is that we do that differs from that of other vintage folk, and how we ourselves view it -- because not only is it misunderstood by the general public, it's also widely misunderstood even within the "vintage community." The way in which a number of folks here who *don't* live or "get" that particular life, have jumped in to tell *us* how *we* should define ourselves is also telling. It's sort of like Presbyterians telling Methodists they ought to call themselves Baptists.

Lizzie, of all the people I've seen post here you are, to me anyway, least in need of a label. A person like you cuts a swath through life and anyone who takes more than just a cursory look can clearly see you. The closest I <might> come to a label would be "eccentric". But I never use that term as a negative. Unique, maybe. And your uniqueness precludes a simple label.

I'm sure some of you believe through my posts that I'm attacking you. For that I apologize. Chalk it up to my lack of skill sometimes in communication. I rather like eccentric people. Makes life interesting. Besides, I have my own eccentricities.

For those of you like Lizzy, who have chosen for whatever reasons you may have to dress and live to the extent possible and practical and are secure in that lifestyle then I say, "Good for you! Why do you think you need a label? And why do you feel obligated to explain yourselves to anyone?".

There are, however, a number of people who regularly post here that are pretty doggone dogmatic about what constitutes this thing you are trying to label. Be wary that by insisting on a subculture label you are setting up a level of elitism and exclusivity that may work against any degree of true individualism. Or is it that this really isn't about individualism but conformity?

There was a funny exchange in a TV show recently.

Ducky: I thought you were an anarchist.
Abby: Not any more. There were too many rules.

Peace.

 

[Tango Yankee]

See, I don't think that's it at all -- "vintage enough" implies a value judgement that isn't being made. It's simply a way of saying "this is what this particular subset of the vintage community does." I don't see it as any more exclusive or elitist than "rockabilly" -- it's simply a useful descriptive of a particular sort of interest.

I'm not talking about it being an elitist sort of thing or even a value judgment. I think the only real difference between us is a matter of degrees. The question is, at what point does one become "hardcore" as Jack calls it? And how is it defined? Is it a mindset, or does it depend upon how much of the modern world one eschews and how much of your furnishings are vintage? What if you like things vintage and want to live that way, but for whatever reason cannot (spouse isn't that interested, need to have a reliable modern car to haul the family around in or to drive distances to work in all weathers, etc.)? How does one quantify it? [huh]

That is what I mean about a line being drawn. Since very few people can honestly claim to be living a fully vintage lifestyle (that's pretty much limited to the Amish and even they have to make some allowances for the modern world) at what point would a person fall within the definition of the term that Senator Jack is attempting to coin?

Regards,
Tom

 

[Tango Yankee]

Culture is changing faster than ever

Your comments about small towns and this comment of culture changing faster than ever reminded me that in my lifetime the culture of my home town went from being primarily WASPy to being almost 100% Hispanic. You can't get a more complete culture change than that! I truly cannot go home again! lol

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Geesie]

That is what I mean about a line being drawn. Since very few people can honestly claim to be living a fully vintage lifestyle (that's pretty much limited to the Amish and even they have to make some allowances for the modern world) at what point would a person fall within the definition of the term that Senator Jack is attempting to coin?

Regards,
Tom

Self-identification, of course. I don't think that the important thing is to define the "lifestyle" but to give a name to something that many here feel is part of their life.

I wouldn't use the term to describe myself, for example. I view myself as privileged to live in a time with the freedom and knowledge to pick and choose elements from every culture and time in human history and use them in my own life. I don't feel out of time or like I belong in any particular era. However, I might theoretically end up living more "vintage" than someone who would apply whatever term you all are looking for to themselves, but that's fine because they might just not have the means and ability to bring to fruition their preferences and feelings.

I hope that made sense.