Terms Which Have Disappeared

[Inkstainedwretch]

My parents went to high school in the mid-30s and could remember their marching bands practicing the goose-step. It was soon to fall out of favor.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Yep. And it's been controversial as long as it's existed. One of the most furiously-debated domestic issues of the mid-1930s was compulsory flag saluting, with critics arguing that the practice was something right out of the Nazi playbook -- not just the raised arm salute, but the whole idea of forcing children to "pay honor" to the flag.

There was a long string of court cases in the late 1930s stemming from the refusal of Jehovah's Witnesses to salute the flag -- they consider such an act to be idolatry -- and in 1940 there was a coast-to-coast wave of mob actions against them, including cases of arson, beatings, tar-and-feathering, forced marches, castration and attempted lynching, such actions usually led by the American Legion and other "patriots." The rioting got so bad that the Attorney General had to go on the air and demand an end to it. Finally, in 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that schools, or any other Government authority, cannot compel anyone to salute the flag in any way, and that's remained the law of the land ever since.

I had an undergrad prof (pre-law advisor and a terrific mentor) who was fond of bellowing in his Constitutional Law class, "You owe a debt to the [Jehovah's] Witnesses that you'll NEVER be able to repay!" And he was right: no other religious group has force the Supreme Court to define the protections of the First Amendment as many times as the JWs. Interestingly, the case you refer to (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette) was a reversal of a 1940 ruling in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, where the Court ruled 8-1 that the Witnesses had to salute the flag. The whole dynamic that evolved over those two cases is one we relive to this day. Douglas' comment in his concurring opinion in the latter case ("Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions.") would seem to be something that all Americans could agree with, but it wasn't then, and it isn't now, I'm sad to say.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Out of the "traditional" Christmas songs, very few are much older than 50, let alone dating from the Victorians.

And far from being the result of some very recent movement toward secularization of the holiday, goofy novelty Christmas songs were very popular in the early 1930s. "Here Comes Santa Claus" was a huge hit for Harry Reser and his Eskimos in 1934 (and is still the best version.) "Christmas Night in Harlem" was a hit for Cab Calloway a year before that. "I Want You For Christmas," which is due for a revival, rang the bell in 1937. And so on and on and on.

Christmas wasn't a legal holiday in the US until 1873. Most of the current holiday traditions don't go back much further than our great-grandparents' time.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I had an undergrad prof (pre-law advisor and a terrific mentor) who was fond of bellowing in his Constitutional Law class, "You owe a debt to the [Jehovah's] Witnesses that you'll NEVER be able to repay!" And he was right: no other religious group has force the Supreme Court to define the protections of the First Amendment as many times as the JWs. Interestingly, the case you refer to (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette) was a reversal of a 1940 ruling in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, where the Court ruled 8-1 that the Witnesses had to salute the flag. The whole dynamic that evolved over those two cases is one we relive to this day. Douglas' comment in his concurring opinion in the latter case ("Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions.") would seem to be something that all Americans could agree with, but it wasn't then, and it isn't now, I'm sad to say.

Yep, it was that 1940 ruling that kicked off the riots and the violence -- basically ripping the lid off something very deep and very ugly just beneath the American veneer of freedom.

The leader of the Witnesses at the time was Joseph F. Rutherford, a hard-nosed fellow who was lawyer by profession, and a very well-known radio personality of the 1930s, who argued some of the Supreme Court cases personally. But the real legal powerhouse was a Witness lawyer named Hayden Covington, who won the Barnette case and went on to become one of the top civil rights lawyers in the country during the 1950s and 60s -- among other cases, he represented Muhammad Ali in his draft case in 1967.

 

[BlueTrain]

It has always seemed ironic to me that someone makes a big deal out of saluting the flag or otherwise "paying respect," whatever that might be taken to mean, and yet we don't actually require anyone to actually do anything like serve in the armed forces. Doing something like saluting the flag or putting an American flag sticker on your Toyota is what I call "flag waving." It's cheap patriotism. It costs nothing and does no one any good. Just like the "support our troops" bumper stickers.

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Patriots" in Litchfield, Illinois survey their handiwork after attacking a group of Jehovah's Witnesses on June 16, 1940. I once interviewed one of the mob victims, who said that after being beaten they were chained up and force-fed castor oil by a doctor with a stomach pump and then marched out of town. All of them refused the demand that they salute a small, hand-held flag -- which was apparently the only flag these 100 Per Cent Americans could find. One of the victims eventually died as a result of the beating he received.

Similar mob actions occurred in 44 of the 48 states that summer. You didn't need to go to Europe to look into the face of Fascism.

 

[ChiTownScion]

It has always seemed ironic to me that someone makes a big deal out of saluting the flag or otherwise "paying respect," whatever that might be taken to mean, and yet we don't actually require anyone to actually do anything like serve in the armed forces. Doing something like saluting the flag or putting an American flag sticker on your Toyota is what I call "flag waving." It's cheap patriotism. It costs nothing and does no one any good. Just like the "support our troops" bumper stickers.

Particularly in light of the fact that the oath taken upon entering the armed forces of the US is to defend and protect the Constitution. Not a piece of cloth.

What I love about the Greatest Generation is that they seemed to be of all political persuasions. People could take different sides of a political debate, but questioning your adversary's patriotism was generally considered bad form.

One small example: remember the (in)famous Chicago Seven trial of 1969-70? Passions were running white hot, but the courtroom battles were led by Thomas Aquinas Foran, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and chief defense counsel William Moses Kunstler. Foran had served as a dive bomber pilot on the Navy, and Kunstler served in the Army, attaining the rank of major and being awarded the Bronze Star. Both served in the Pacific Theatre of the Second World War. Two very different visions of how patriotism should play out, but there is no doubt that either truly loved this country and wanted the best for it.

Not saying that all of that generation were flawless altruists. Far from it. But from what I saw, there were enough of that generation on all sides willing to stand up and be the adults in the room and remind us younger people that no one owns a monopoly on patriotism. I take it that they had seen enough flag waving jingoism from their elders who had experienced the First World War: the US didn't declare war until April of 1917 and they then were in it until the Armistice of 11/11/1918. Thus the doughboys had never experiences the relentless years of casualties that their Allies, and the Central Powers, had to endure. By the time the US entered the Second World War, I think that there was more of a general (and yes, there were exceptions) attitude of downplaying the jingoism and just doing one's job. Seems like a better attitude to me.

And I'd submit that mindless flag waving is not only meaningless and cheap and has no nexus to the real love of country: it's downright dangerous. Actions have consequences, and recklessness can result in the deaths of good men, women, and yes, even kids.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Particularly in light of the fact that the oath taken upon entering the armed forces of the US is to defend and protect the Constitution. Not a piece of cloth.

What I love about the Greatest Generation is that they seemed to be of all political persuasions. People could take different sides of a political debate, but questioning your adversary's patriotism was generally considered bad form.

One small example: remember the (in)famous Chicago Seven trial of 1969-70? Passions were running white hot, but the courtroom battles were led by Thomas Aquinas Foran, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and chief defense counsel William Moses Kunstler. Foran had served as a dive bomber pilot on the Navy, and Kunstler served in the Army, attaining the rank of major and being awarded the Bronze Star. Both served in the Pacific Theatre of the Second World War. Two very different visions of how patriotism should play out, but there is no doubt that either truly loved this country and wanted the best for it.

Yep. An estimated 25,000 members of the CPUSA served in the American armed forces during WWII, despite efforts to keep them out of uniform. Many of them had prior military experience fighting against Fascism in Spain, and many of them served with distinction in front-line combat. Daily Worker editor John Gates enlisted right after Pearl Harbor and served as a paratrooper. When he got home, the Truman Administration sent him to prison for five years for his political beliefs, while simultaneously extending the hand of friendship and fellowship to that "fine Christian gentleman" Gen. Francisco Franco and signing payroll checks to the order of Klaus Barbie. I'm sure that really gave Comrade Gates something to think about.

 

[BlueTrain]

It is interesting that it has been pointed out that no one "owns" these various symbols of patriotic Americanism, though many claim to, to the exclusion of everyone else. It isn't so much that any group or anyone in particular is entirely wrong in their views, because things are a lot more complicated than something that will fit on a bumper sticker. Also, people do not always behave as badly as it sounds like they do, which is more complication.

The things that are bad are peoples intolerance of anyone else's point of view, which suggests that keeping your mouth shut is sometimes a good idea. Sometimes people can be violent or threaten violence or other things (like firing an employee) and those things work, to some extent. But probably the most irritating thing is when people say one thing and do another. They are hypocrites, to put it bluntly. And the higher up the latter they are, the worse they seem to be, apparently because once you climb the latter high enough, you are about the law and any form of social constraint.

Now I feel worse than I did.

 

[MisterCairo]

So, terms no longer in use (or in declining use), here's an odd one:

VD.

I made use of the letters (venereal disease of course) in the context of a legal file I'm working on base, and my friend, mid-thirties and fellow JAG, had no idea what I meant. He got STD* though.

* As in, he understood what it meant...

 

[BlueTrain]

Oh, you mean a "social disease!"

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Cupid's diseases."

In the '70s there was a sports radio show in Boston run by a couple of gravelly old-time newspaper reporters called "Clif and Claf." They were popularly known to their listeners as "Syph and Clap"

It was a gentler time.

 

[Fading Fast]

I was thinking about some of the above posts and my father - a true product of the Golden Era - and how he felt about the Flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. These are my impressions of his views based on what he both said specifically about it and based on his overall views on life, etc. They are trying hard to not be political - they are not necessarily my views nor are they a direct comment on today's Pledge issues - they are just meant to reflect how one person from the Era saw it.

My dad deeply loved this country, but had no problems criticizing it, nor did he have problems if others did - but in his view, that is part of why he loved it: you could criticize it. To him, the country was the best of what the world had to offer in country selection, but it could still be a lot better.

When he stood for the National Anthem or displayed affection for the Flag in some way, it wasn't a blind patriotism or mindless flag waiving, but it was to show a thoughtful respect and gratitude to a country - flawed as it may be - that gave him an opportunity and his parents an opportunity (one an immigrant and one whose family had been here since the 1700s) to make better lives for themselves.

His standing for the National Anthem (and other displays of respect and affection) said this is my country, this is a great country and this is a way to reflect and honor that at a holistic level, at a big-picture level, but it in no way says it is perfect a perfect country or that it couldn't be better, couldn't be improved. He saw no contradiction in standing for the National Anthem and expressing outright disapproval of the current president (if it was one he disliked) - one was a macro / strategic view and one was an of-the-moment / tactical view.

And that divide - the big-picture of this being a country that overall gets more things right than wrong, whose Republican structure and respect for individual rights, whose history of improving (for example, taking painfully long to eliminate slavery and then passing civil rights legislation) and its imperfect defense of freedom around the world has earned that respect versus the day-to-day need to improve and fix the many things domestically and internationally - was not a challenge to him. He loved the country, respected it, showed that respect in ways that made sense to him - standing for the National Anthem - while also being quite vocal in his criticisms of its many imperfections.

My words, his thoughts: this country is the best out there, has, overall, the right core principals and values, was created by great men of their time and has shown an unbelievable ability to correct its course (he was amazed by how it had continued to do this) - that's why you stand for the National Anthem or say the Pledge of Allegiance - but it is a flawed country, should be criticized as that's how we improved it (and that we can criticize it is both one of its strengths and greatest gifts).

I don't remember this ever coming up, but my impression based on all that I knew about him is that he would have thought someone wrong for not standing for the National Anthem (show a big-picture respect even though you have grievances), but would have respected their right (in their personal life) to not stand. Basically, not standing was the wrong way (even if a protected right) to show dissatisfaction (but again, if you did it on your own dime and time, I'm 99+% sure he'd have believed that it was your right). How he would have felt about one doing it while in the role of an employee (like the NFL players), I can guess, but I don't know.

To emphasize, these are my impressions of how one true product of the Golden Era would have felt about these issues. Many from the Era felt differently and none of this is intended to say what is right or wrong about today's flag / pledge imbroglios.

 

[BlueTrain]

My father was a WWII veteran and had also been a prisoner of war to boot. Yet I have no memory of us ever being at any event where we had to stand or salute or anything like that. Likewise, I don't remember him ever expressing his opinion about any of the things discussed here. But he was generally very close with his opinions, if he had any, so I have no idea what he thought on most things.

Sometimes I think that a lot of people who express strong opinions have too much time on their hands and, well, that might include me, I suppose.

 

[Zombie_61]

So, terms no longer in use (or in declining use), here's an odd one:

VD.

I made use of the letters (venereal disease of course) in the context of a legal file I'm working on base, and my friend, mid-thirties and fellow JAG, had no idea what I meant. He got STD* though.

* As in, he understood what it meant...

The late George Carlin had a brilliant routine he called "Euphemisms", and one of the examples he used was how the term "Shell Shock" from World War I had changed to "Battle Fatigue" for World War II, "Operational Exhaustion" for the Korean War, and "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" for the Vietnam War. Each subsequent change may have been more accurate descriptively, but they were also longer, more complicated, and more clinically sterile to the point where the human element had been almost entirely removed.

 

[Fading Fast]

The late George Carlin had a brilliant routine he called "Euphemisms", and one of the examples he used was how the term "Shell Shock" from World War I had changed to "Battle Fatigue" for World War II, "Operational Exhaustion" for the Korean War, and "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" for the Vietnam War. Each subsequent change may have been more accurate descriptively, but they were also longer, more complicated, and more clinically sterile to the point where the human element had been almost entirely removed.

A general rule is that if something - a group, a process, an event, a cultural issue, an ideology, etc. - keeps getting renamed, there is a marketing / impression-changing agenda at work and, usually, not a benign one.

Every example I can think of is directly or indirectly political, so I'm not going there, but if one thinks about the things whose names - over many years - have stayed unchanged versus those that haven't, you'll notice that those that are changed usually have an agenda at work to improve their image or change the narrative in a more favorable direction.

 

[ChiTownScion]

A general rule is that if something - a group, a process, an event, a cultural issue, an ideology, etc. - keeps getting renamed, there is a marketing / impression-changing agenda at work and, usually, not a benign one.

Every example I can think of is directly or indirectly political, so I'm not going there, but if one thinks about the things whose names - over many years - have stayed unchanged versus those that haven't, you'll notice that those that are changed usually have an agenda at work to improve their image or change the narrative in a more favorable direction.

First thing that popped into my mind: hookers have become "sexual industry workers"...

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, they are, aren't they? But hooker is not a euphemism. It's a nickname. Well, maybe it is a sort of euphemism. "Camp follower" was an old term for the same thing, I think.

The shell shock story (and shell shock is not a euphemism in my book) is interesting. All the following terms certainly capture the essence of the thing. Only someone who's never had any traumatic stress in their life, and that probably includes most people, would object to any of those terms. A similar term is "nervous breakdown," again something that some people would deny because they've never had any real stress in their life. For some who have experienced great stress--to the breaking point, we might say--it is possible that they become so overloaded with concerns, worries, work and so on, without any prospect of relief, that the simply shut down and become non-functional emotionally and physically. That's what I see as a nervous breakdown. Simple exhaustion is close to being the same thing.

Personally, as far as euphemisms go, I think life as most people live it has enough ugliness in it that we can do with a little euphemism now and then. Thoreau said the poor are not so much hungry, naked and cold so much as they are dirty, ragged and gross. It's also been said that the same things happen to all of us, if there's enough time.

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Nervous breakdown" itself was often used in the Era as a euphemism for "alcoholic collapse." You'd often read in fan magazines of popular celebrities who were taking a rest following a "nervous breakdown" when in fact they'd been institutionalized to dry them out. John Barrymore, John Gilbert, Buster Keaton, W. C. Fields, and even Marian "Molly McGee" Jordan were all famous "nervous breakdowns" of the 1930s, and all were in reality being treated for alcoholism. Today we'd say that all of these personalities were "in rehab," which is just as euphemisitc.

 

[BlueTrain]

I didn't know of anyone who was an alcoholic when I was little and I don't think I ever heard the term then. But there were two men in particular who were drunks. They would go to their favorite tavern just over the hill or down the street, all of two or three blocks away--I don't think they went to the same one. They would come back home literally falling-down drunk, especially the one who went to the one just over the hill. There was a steep hill opposite our house, technically a street, but never paved and much to steep to actually use. The one fellow, a pot-bellied paper-hanger who didn't look all that clever, would attempt too walk down that hill on his way back from drinking and would never make it without a tumble. This was one of the memories of my life growing up in a charming small town in the 1950s. Wasn't as bad as I make it sound but it also wasn't as nice as I thought at the time. Such is reality.