Terms Which Have Disappeared

[HudsonHawk]

That was a very common thing up this way -- the "Bostons" and the "Brooklyns" were common, but for some reason rarely the "New Yorks" or the "Philadelphias."

Another thing you rarely see anymore are fanciful nicknames for teams used in headlines. These were coined as a matter of necessity when making up a page -- the lines had to be a precise length to fit the layout, and it was less easy to do this with hot metal printing than with computer layout. So you had things like "Hose Nip Solons," which when translated meant that the Red or White Sox had beaten the Senators. Or "Flock Tops Jints," which any New Yorker would know meant "Dodgers Beat Giants." (The "Flock" was a holdover from the days when the Dodgers were called the "Robins.")

Many other such names were used -- the Tigers were the "Bengals," the Braves and Indians were both the "Tribe," the Athletics were the "Mackmen" or the "Macks," the Reds might be the "Rhinelanders," the Pirates were occasionally the "Bucs" or "Corsairs," the Cardinals were the "Redbirds," and in the twenties, the Yankees were often on the back page of the News and the Mirror as the "Hugmen," after their manager Miller Huggins. Nobody ever calls them the "Girardimen" today.

You'll still here this occassionally today. The Pirates are still the "Bucs", the Cardinals the "Redbirds", and the Indians the "Tribe". You'll also sometimes hear "Pale Hose", "North/South Siders", and the "Fathers" in addition to "BoSox" or "ChiSox". And don't Red Sox fans refer to the Yankees as the "Scum"?

 

[Stormy]

People don't say "shut up" anymore because it's sooooo offensive!

 

[Capesofwrath]

People don't say "shut up" anymore because it's sooooo offensive!

Better than “shut your cake hole” which you never hear anymore.

“Do shut up” or “do shut up dear” is quite common still though, and seldom gives offence if the person is known to the speaker.

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

... Another thing you rarely see anymore are fanciful nicknames for teams used in headlines. These were coined as a matter of necessity when making up a page -- the lines had to be a precise length to fit the layout,the Reds might be the "Rhinelanders," the Pirates were occasionally the "Bucs" ...

I can see where "Rhinelanders" might fit a headline better than "Cincinnati Red Stockings", but not by much. I imagine the fanciful nicknames are at least as much the product of sports writers wishing to be seen a clever with words (they are writers, after all).

As for the "Bucs" my family goes back in the Pittsburgh area to the middle of the 19th Century, so I grew up in a crowd of boys who talked a good deal about baseball and the Pirates. I remember taking a transistor radio (an expensive and prized possession) to school when I was in the second grade so that I could take it to the playground during recess one afternoon to hear the Pirates playing the Yankees in the 1960 World Series. The team was called the Bucs as much as the Pirates by everyone.

It was very common for people in my blue-collar neighborhood to sit on their porches on summer nights listening to Pirates games on their radios, the voice of Bob Prince was heard everywhere on the block.

 

[LizzieMaine]

You'll still here this occassionally today. The Pirates are still the "Bucs", the Cardinals the "Redbirds", and the Indians the "Tribe". You'll also sometimes hear "Pale Hose", "North/South Siders", and the "Fathers" in addition to "BoSox" or "ChiSox". And don't Red Sox fans refer to the Yankees as the "Scum"?

I've never heard "Scum," but it's very common on Sox discussion boards to refer to Yankee Stadium, in both its current and past incarnation, as "The Toilet."

This sort of juvenile anti-Yankee bile is actually relatively recent -- it started up in the late seventies, particularly after the infamous Fisk/Munson/Lee/Nettles brawl, and even then a lot of us thought it was unbecoming. Sox fans have traditonally viewed the Yankees as an enemy to be overcome, even in the days of Horace Clarke, but we also always had a certain level of respect for them. The louder and more drunkenly someone yells "YANKEES SUK" the more the old-school Sox fan views them as a pink-hat.

I've never heard "The Fathers" before -- what's the derivation?

 

[LizzieMaine]

People don't say "shut up" anymore because it's sooooo offensive!

They've never met my mother.

 

[scottyrocks]

I used to bank with "Depositor's Trust Company" before it became KeyBank, and I liked the old name better. Less corporate, less gimmicky, and no idiosyncratic capital letters. But that's the same kind of reasoning that got rid of great old trademarks like the RCA meatball or the Flying Red Horse, and replaced them with focus-grouped graphics. Bah.

In 1976, NYC's largest bank, The First National City Bank of New York became Citibank. Not as impressive, but dumbing down had begun by then, probably started in earnest in 1971 with All In the Family, the first TV show to glorify outright stupidity, as opposed to the implied stupidity of earlier shows.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I actually loved AITF as a kid, because it was the very first time I'd ever seen people on television who actually lived like we did. We didn't live in a nice clean suburb where everybody mowed their lawns and was always polite, nobody in my family ever wore a tie and a suit to go to work At The Office, my mother certainly didn't vacuum wall-to-wall carpeting in a tastefully-decorated living room while wearing spike heels -- she didn't even *own* a pair of high heels. The Bunkers were plain, dumpy, working-class people just like us, living in a plain, dumpy working-class house that looked and felt and probably smelled exactly like every house in my neighborhood. And we, and every other family I knew, communicated with each other like the Bunkers did -- with rough, loud language.

The older I got the more I came to appreciate the depth of the show -- Archie was a bigoted jackass, but he was made that way by his circumstances. He acted, not out of hate or viciousness, but out of fear for the precariousness of his own economic and social standing -- his kind was everywhere in Nixon's America, and is with us yet today. Mike was a fatuous know-it-all boob who claimed to be a radical but was deep down a petit-bourgeois hypocrite who was all talk and no revolution. And Edith was a decent, good-hearted woman just trying to survive in the middle of it all. As a show it reminds me more of a one-act play by Clifford Odets than any kind of a cheap sitcom.

It got crappy in its later years, as most all programs do. But from 1971-1974 or so, I remain convinced that it was the most intelligent show on television.

 

[Fading Fast]

People don't say "shut up" anymore because it's sooooo offensive!

The best version ever though still belongs to Ring Lardner - from a book in which a father responds to his daughter's inquiry about something: "Shut up" he explained.

 

[scottyrocks]

I actually loved AITF as a kid, because it was the very first time I'd ever seen people on television who actually lived like we did. We didn't live in a nice clean suburb where everybody mowed their lawns and was always polite, nobody in my family ever wore a tie and a suit to go to work At The Office, my mother certainly didn't vacuum wall-to-wall carpeting in a tastefully-decorated living room while wearing spike heels -- she didn't even *own* a pair of high heels. The Bunkers were plain, dumpy, working-class people just like us, living in a plain, dumpy working-class house that looked and felt and probably smelled exactly like every house in my neighborhood. And we, and every other family I knew, communicated with each other like the Bunkers did -- with rough, loud language.

The older I got the more I came to appreciate the depth of the show -- Archie was a bigoted jackass, but he was made that way by his circumstances. He acted, not out of hate or viciousness, but out of fear for the precariousness of his own economic and social standing -- his kind was everywhere in Nixon's America, and is with us yet today. Mike was a fatuous know-it-all boob who claimed to be a radical but was deep down a petit-bourgeois hypocrite who was all talk and no revolution. And Edith was a decent, good-hearted woman just trying to survive in the middle of it all. As a show it reminds me more of a one-act play by Clifford Odets than any kind of a cheap sitcom.

It got crappy in its later years, as most all programs do. But from 1971-1974 or so, I remain convinced that it was the most intelligent show on television.

I agree with this. The show pointed out, quite realistically, the plight of the everyday working man (and family), except that most people who were not quite so analytical took this show to mean that they could (further) relax their manners and their general way of relating to people.

Most of us here constantly point out that we are not pleased with the way humanity has come to act towards each other as the years have progressed. It has always been my contention that what people see in the media makes it okay to not only identify, as you have, with the Bunkers, but to open a mouth, so to speak, maybe at unacceptable times, when previously they may not have been inclined to do so. The lower standards were glorified, observed, and made (more) acceptable to be used.

That is my take on the glorification of stupidity.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think the big difference today is that the low standards -- the real lowest standards, not petty stuff like eating with your elbows on the table or saying "ain't" -- are being exhibited by those in positions of the greatest power, rather than those being ground under the boot.

 

[dh66]

That p.o.s. has demonstrated about the lowest standards possible. He makes Archie Bunker look like Mother Teresa.

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

 

[TimeWarpWife]

A friend of mine was just lamenting yesterday about a job interview she went on last Thursday. My friend has been a secretary, I believe the PC title now is Administrative Assistant, for 30+ years but had to quit her job about 2 years ago to take care of her elderly mother who had Alzheimer's. Her mother recently passed and now she's trying to find a job again. She said she wore a just below-the-knee skirt, nice white blouse (showing no cleavage, mind you), matching fitted jacket, and pumps - what she and I both consider usual business attire. Well, the woman who interviewed my friend and would have been her boss was dressed in leggings, riding-type boots, and an oversized sweater - and this is supposed to be a professional business office. My friend was shocked and so was I. You're right about the standards being lowered, especially in the business world. I guess I'm old fashioned having been a part of the business world in the 80s and early 90s, but when I see so-called business professionals dressed in casual clothes I automatically think they're anything but professional. And many times the word "slovenly" comes to mind. I actually saw one Administrative Assistant to the president of a company dressed in what can only be called sparkly spandex exercise pants, a Marilyn Monroe graphic t-shirt, black with pink polka dot socks, and bright pink high heels. My mouth nearly hit the floor when I saw her in this get up - and btw, not only was it not Casual Friday, her boss was dressed in a very professional-looking suit and tie. This is how she dresses every day because I know who she is and every work day she posts a photo of what she's wearing to work on FB. I'm assuming that it's politically incorrect now days to be able to tell someone to go home and change into something more business appropriate. I would never show up to work wearing anything that would not have been considered professional business attire in the 80s and 90s. But, then I also actually write out thank you notes and mail them to people rather than using the much more impersonal email.

 

[Stearmen]

INot as impressive, but dumbing down had begun by then, probably started in earnest in 1971 with All In the Family, the first TV show to glorify outright stupidity, as opposed to the implied stupidity of earlier shows.

Have you ever actually watched an episode of I Love Lucy from the 50s?

 

[2jakes]

Have you ever actually watched an episode of I Love Lucy from the 50s?

Besides the Saturday morning cartoons, I remember watching
“I Love Lucy”.

I was aware that my mom never wore high heels or
make-up doing the chores at home. This was back in
the days when the majority of the women, their dryer
consisted of a clothesline in the backyard.
I understand some folks still use it today.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed watching Lucy because for me,
she was screw-ball funny like Jerry Lewis.

In my day, Ralph Kramden was my "Archie Bunker”.
I can’t say I watched it regularly. I didn’t like the way he treated Alice.
All that shouting & arguing was too real for a kid.

I have watched the "Honeymooners" more today than back then.
Mostly because of Alice.
I simply adore the character she portrayed & she still sends me to
the moon by just looking at her.

Back then, I don’t recall anyone discussing the ramifications of these shows.
They were just something to enjoy.
When possible, we'd take in a show at the
$1 a car-load drive-in movies.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Have you ever actually watched an episode of I Love Lucy from the 50s?

As far as slapstick comedy was concerned, Lucy didn't do anything that Thelma Todd and Patsy Kelly hadn't already done to death in the thirties.

The fifties sitcom that really glorified idiocy was "My Little Margie." I dare anyone to watch even half an episode and not roll their eyes so far back into their heads that they'll have to go straight to an opthalmologist. It made "My Friend Irma" look like Shakespeare.

In 1961 Newton Minow, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, speaking before a convention of the National Association of Broadcasters, laid down a famous challenge:

But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite each of you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there, for a day, without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.

You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly, commercials -- many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you'll see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, I only ask you to try it.

Again, this was 1961 -- Boomer-era television at flood tide.

And how did the nation's broadcasters and producers respond to this speech?

They made "Gilligan's Island."

 

[Fading Fast]

Time Warp Wife, I work in Finance, in NYC and the trend of women dressing for work more as if they are going out on a Saturday night than to work really ramped up in the last ten and even just five years. Just my opinion, but the two biggest reasons is that, one, the generation coming out of college in those years seems not to have embraced, seems not to believe it is necessary to dress according to a business standard and instead want to express themselves through their clothes and not conform to an organizational or industry view of proper attire. The second is that almost everyone, even women in senior positions, are scared to say anything. I managed large teams throughout many of those years and would not say anything about anyone's attire as I knew I was risking a HR "event." It just wasn't worth it. So some members of the team dressed, IMHO, inappropriate - since many of that generation dressed that way, it really wasn't a big deal as no one stood out and, two, again, you judge which battles are worth it and which aren't and the last battle I wanted to have was to be a male in my 40s talking to HR about the "provocative" dress of a woman in her 20s - nope, not having that conversation. In the end, if that entire generation does it, then it will become unimportant.

I worked for an international bank in the late '80s and it was a big deal if a man wore a shirt other than blue or white - then some of the younger kids did and after everyone was sufficiently shocked - it, ultimately, didn't matter. The same with casual attire on Friday, etc. IMHO, would it be nice if we maintained a reasonable dress code for work - yup. If we don't, and it becomes acceptable to dress any way you like, will it really matter - nope. Because, once that is the norm, then so what - no one will care and it will be about who has the ability to do the job better. Clothing standards are social constructs that we can build, bend, brake or change each generation (or sooner, or not at all) and, once they change, the new standard or no standard is acceptable. I was raised in a time when dressing "appropriately" for business meant something and an emotional part of me will always feel that way, but objectively I realize it really doesn't mean much if that standard changes or goes away. We can have a conversation about if that clothing-standard change or the lost of clothing standards all together reflects a larger shift of values in society (it probably does), but then the clothing-standards change is just a symptom and fighting the symptom will prove ineffectual.

 

[MisterCairo]

I still (rarely) hear professional sports teams called by the names of their cities, but in the plural, as in "the Green Bays beat the Chicagos."

Such usage is almost never encountered in the West. Perhaps it never was. It's Northeasterners who most often used it, per my wholly anecdotal observation.

Toronto Maple LEAFS.

No one, and I mean no one, can explain that.

 

[MisterCairo]

There's a Canadian discount auto parts/hardware chain called "Canadian Tire," which is universally known as "Crappy Tire" by every Canadian I've ever met. The company tried to embrace that and actually tried to claim the "crappytire.com" URL, but a court wouldn't allow it.

I quite like shopping at Canadian Tire!

 

[MisterCairo]

We always sort of assumed that Zayre's was called that because it was founded by a Mr. Zayre. Turns out that Zayre was merely a phonetic corruption of the Yiddish word "Zehr," as in the phrase "Zehr gut" for "Very good." Who knew?

In my neck of the woods (SW Ontario) there's a chain of grocery stores called Zehrs, part of the Weston family's Loblaws conglomerate. Started in Kitchener, Ontario by one Emory Zehr and his sons in 1950.

Kitchener was, until the First World War, Berlin.

It changed names for the same reason the British Royal Family name went from Saxe-Cobourg Gotha to Windsor.

Because of... ze Germans.