Vintage Things That Have Disappeared In Your Lifetime?

[vitanola]

He believed that without the moral brake applied by religion, man would inevitably follow a course that would lead to oppression of the many by the arrogant few..

But isn't the "oppression of the many by the arrogant few" a feature of this popular ideology, not a bug?

Of course, all of the little would-be John Galts types assume that THEY would naturally rise to the top of the heap if their own natural brilliance was not enchained by such foolish things as compassion.

 

[dnjan]

When I was an undergrad, we registered for classes with punch cards. You would stand in line for various classes to get the section that you wanted. Each subject had a different group of tables and set of lines. Could take hours to get all your courses.
I specifically remember, as a freshman, seeing an upperclassman who got so frustrated that he let out a primal scream and threw his cards up in the air.

The other thing related to punch cards that we no longer have is the punchouts. Small rectangular pieces of paper (about 1/16" by 1/8"). They made great confetti. People with extremely wavy hair could still have punchouts a week after a "punchout attack".

Ah, the simple joys of youth ...

 

[Otis]

Quite so. Bryan *loathed* the Trusts and the concentration of wealth in his time in a few haughty hands, and crusaded against them. The ordinary citizens and the righteous cause he fought for were those oppressed by the wealthy. He was, after all, "The Great Commoner."

This is true and might even be understating the case -- Bryan was by far the most radical mainstream candidate to ever run for President, which he did multiple times. No George McGovern or Nader or anyone has ever publicly called for the near 100% levels of taxation and redistribution that Bryan did. Radical now and REALLY radical in 1896!

It's unfortunate that people today know Bryan only as a bitter, dying old Bible-thumper, an image owing more to "Inherit The Wind" than to the nuances of his actual beliefs. Bryan rejected belief in Darwinism not so much out of biblical literalism -- he didn't believe in the six-day creation week, for one thing -- as out of a rejection of the idea of *social* Darwinism. He believed that without the moral brake applied by religion, man would inevitably follow a course that would lead to oppression of the many by the arrogant few.

I find Bryan a strange but fascinating mixture - he was a lay Presbyterian preacher who didn't believe the six-day creation account, (making him a 'Theistic Evolutionist') a spellbinding orator who could earn $25,000 over a summer by delivering speeches (equivalent of what, $750,000 tax-free today?) yet he had contempt for 'the rich'.
As for the film, it took a lot of liberties, particularly in the beginning and w/background material. The trial scenes were fairly close though. Some of the trial Q&As were taken from the transcripts.

As for Social Darwinism applied by "the arrogant few", he saw where it would lead -- to the reduction or elimination of charitable causes & anti-poverty campaigns he favored, and worse, the Eugenics movement, where tens of thousands of women deemed 'unfit' underwent forced sterilization, sometimes unknowingly. This went on into the 30's until a certain European Schickelgruber really ran with these ideas, making them unfashionable.

Bryan also had a brother, Charles, iirc, who was the inventor of the targeted political mailing list. I guess he could be a hero or a villain depending on your perspective.

Just as a personal aside, I find this part of FL, meaning the discussion of the attitudes, values and principles of the era far more interesting than the physical clothing/trinkets/artifacts that get so much attention.

 

[LizzieMaine]

This is true and might even be understating the case -- Bryan was by far the most radical mainstream candidate to ever run for President, which he did multiple times. No George McGovern or Nader or anyone has ever publicly called for the near 100% levels of taxation and redistribution that Bryan did. Radical now and REALLY radical in 1896!

And yet, many of Bryan's views were part of mainstream thought at the time -- they didn't call it the Progressive Age for nothing. Those who claim that a world of Rugged Laissez Faire Individualism came to an end with the arrival of the New Deal honestly don't know what they're talking about. Bryan was FDR's John the Baptist.

There was a powerful Progressive movement in effect before World War I, and it was tightly woven in with mainstream Protestant religion. The Methodist Episcopal Church in 1908 adopted an official Social Creed, which stated --

The Methodist Episcopal Church stands:

For equal rights and complete justice for all men in all stations of life.

For the principles of conciliation and arbitration in industrial dissensions.

For the protection of the worker from dangerous machinery, occupational diseases, injuries and mortality.

For the abolition of child labor.

For such regulation of the conditions of labor for women as shall safeguard the physical and moral health of the community.

For the suppression of the "sweating system."

For the gradual and reasonable reduction of the hours of labor to the lowest practical point, with work for all; and for that degree of leisure for all which is the condition of the highest human life.

For a release from employment one day in seven.

For a living wage in every industry.

For the highest wage that each industry can afford, and for the most equitable division of the products of industry that can ultimately be devised.

For the recognition of the Golden Rule and the mind of Christ as the supreme law of society and the sure remedy for all social ills.


This creed was soon adopted by the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, and variations were adopted by a number of other mainstream denominations. The Social Gospel *was* the Gospel in early 20th Century America, and William Jennings Bryan was a prime mover in promoting it. He was far, far more than the simple-minded anti-Evolution crank his detractors have made him out to be. But perhaps painting him as an overblown suspender-snapping rube renders him harmless to those who still fear the principles he stood for.

And yes, I agree that the values of the Era are far more interesting, and far more valuable still, than the height of armholes or the width of a sweatband.

 

[Stanley Doble]

No, they weren't discussed. I just meant that they had been in use a very long time here. Then again, IBM started here so we got it directly.

Yes they were in use for a long time. First use of punch card data processing was the 1880 US census. Government statistical experts said that without it, the census could not have been complete before the next census (1890).

Last time I saw them was some time in the sixties, I don't think they were used after 1970. At one time they were an everyday thing.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Yes they were in use for a long time. First use of punch card data processing was the 1880 US census. Government statistical experts said that without it, the census could not have been complete before the next census (1890).

Last time I saw them was some time in the sixties, I don't think they were used after 1970. At one time they were an everyday thing.

I remember punch cards well into the 1980's. Some processes still used them in 2012 for voting and such.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I remember punch cards well into the 1980's. Some processes still used them in 2012 for voting and such.

Mechanical voting machines where you pulled the lever to cast your vote.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Mechanical voting machines where you pulled the lever to cast your vote.

We have actual punch cards, where you slide the card into a slot, then punch out the vote with a little awl-like device.

 

[jamespowers]

We have actual punch cards, where you slide the card into a slot, then punch out the vote with a little awl-like device.

Yeah, we have that crap here too.

 

[kiwilrdg]

I remember one time a guy dropped a program computer card deck. We were sorting the cards for hours to get them in order. A few kilobytes of memory is more than you would think.

 

[Stanley Doble]

^ Reminds me of the story about the guy who suddenly got all kinds of perks at work, promotion, key to the executive washroom, company car, the whole VIP bit. His friends asked what he did to get ahead so fast, he said "I don't know but I've been having all kinds of luck since somebody stepped on my IBM card with a golf shoe".

Ha ha ha ha ha

 

[Otis]

And yet, many of Bryan's views were part of mainstream thought at the time -- they didn't call it the Progressive Age for nothing. Those who claim that a world of Rugged Laissez Faire Individualism came to an end with the arrival of the New Deal honestly don't know what they're talking about. Bryan was FDR's John the Baptist.

There was a powerful Progressive movement in effect before World War I, and it was tightly woven in with mainstream Protestant religion.

I agree completely. Ideas always have a germination period. The FDR era was merely the political realization of ideas that had been fermenting for at least a generation prior. Maybe two, going back as far as 1871 with the publication of Darwin's The Descent of Man.

The Methodist Episcopal Church in 1908 adopted an official Social Creed, which stated --

The Methodist Episcopal Church stands:

For equal rights and complete justice for all men in all stations of life.

For the principles of conciliation and arbitration in industrial dissensions.

For the protection of the worker from dangerous machinery, occupational diseases, injuries and mortality.

For the abolition of child labor.

For such regulation of the conditions of labor for women as shall safeguard the physical and moral health of the community.

For the suppression of the "sweating system."

For the gradual and reasonable reduction of the hours of labor to the lowest practical point, with work for all; and for that degree of leisure for all which is the condition of the highest human life.

For a release from employment one day in seven.

For a living wage in every industry.

For the highest wage that each industry can afford, and for the most equitable division of the products of industry that can ultimately be devised.

For the recognition of the Golden Rule and the mind of Christ as the supreme law of society and the sure remedy for all social ills.

Very interesting! It's easy to see by appealing back to the case laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy where about half of their positions came from, but can't find Biblical justification for the rest. Was there a particular Methodist academic or intellectual they appealed to?

This creed was soon adopted by the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, and variations were adopted by a number of other mainstream denominations. The Social Gospel *was* the Gospel in early 20th Century America, and William Jennings Bryan was a prime mover in promoting it.

I can accept that Bryan was a popularizer and major figurehead in the Social Gospel movement, but wasn't it Rockefeller who financed and ramrodded it? I'm fuzzing out a bit in this area.

He was far, far more than the simple-minded anti-Evolution crank his detractors have made him out to be. But perhaps painting him as an overblown suspender-snapping rube renders him harmless to those who still fear the principles he stood for.

Heehee made me laugh, but seriously, I can't fully agree with your conclusion. There was a church-Progressive alliance, but its' last big area of cooperation was Prohibition. It took 50 years but they finally got it through. With the social chaos and repudiation of it in 1932, the churches and Progressives publicly went their separate ways. Actually this probably started earlier, around WWI and no later than the Scopes trial. FDR was a secularist, and Progressive thought is still with us so I don't see where "fear" would come into it. The church side went into hibernation after Scopes, but after bleeding off members for decades (esp. after 1960-65) to small, independent, conservative "Bible" churches, it re-emerged fifty years later, ca. 1976-80 as the "Christian Right".

Otis

 

[LizzieMaine]

Very interesting! It's easy to see by appealing back to the case laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy where about half of their positions came from, but can't find Biblical justification for the rest. Was there a particular Methodist academic or intellectual they appealed to?

The Methodist tradition has always been one of social activism, going all the way back to John Wesley, who declared there was no holiness that was not social holiness. "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can." Northern Methodists had been prime movers in the abolition movement -- which led to a schism in the pre-Civil War era, when the Southern Methodists broke away -- and this attitude carried over well into the 20th Century as an essential part of the Methodist tradition. Even today a modified version of the Social Creed is part of the church Discipline manual.

I can accept that Bryan was a popularizer and major figurehead in the Social Gospel movement, but wasn't it Rockefeller who financed and ramrodded it? I'm fuzzing out a bit in this area.

Rockefeller was an early financial supporter of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ, but he had nothing to do with it ideologically -- he just signed the checks. The real influence behind his support was Frederick Taylor Gates, a Baptist minister and Progressive activist who was in full charge of Rockefeller family philanthropy until Rockefeller Jr. took over and continued along the same pattern Gates had established.

Heehee made me laugh, but seriously, I can't fully agree with your conclusion. There was a church-Progressive alliance, but its' last big area of cooperation was Prohibition. It took 50 years but they finally got it through. With the social chaos and repudiation of it in 1932, the churches and Progressives publicly went their separate ways. Actually this probably started earlier, around WWI and no later than the Scopes trial. FDR was a secularist, and Progressive thought is still with us so I don't see where "fear" would come into it. The church side went into hibernation after Scopes, but after bleeding off members for decades (esp. after 1960-65) to small, independent, conservative "Bible" churches, it re-emerged fifty years later, ca. 1976-80 as the "Christian Right".

I don't buy the idea of any substantive connection between the Progressive Era Social Gospel and the activists of the so-called Christian Right. The Christian Rightists for the most part are descended from Southern Evangelical fundamentalist millenarians, whereas the Progressives were Northern and Midwestern liberals who often took a non-literalistic view of the Bible. Theologically and philosophically they are diametrically opposed.

Roosevelt was a lifelong Episcopalian, and frequently framed his policies and programs in Biblical references, in much the manner of the early Progressives. Contemporary religious leaders like Rev. Harry Emerson Fosdick, Dr. E. Stanley Jones, Monsignor Francis J. Haas, and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise were staunch supporters of the New Deal, and framed their endorsement of the Roosevelt program in religious terms.

I'll agree that mainline religious Progressivism lost ground to the Evangelical right during the postwar era -- but the religious Progressives haven't disappeared by any means. They just don't spend all their money on cable networks and mass mailings. You'll find them doing their work face to face, in the streets, right in your town.

As far as "fear" goes, I believe there's a lot of people in high places who would have reason to fear an actual resurgence of a real, empowered Progressive movement -- not a bunch of greasy potheads sitting in moldy tents, but the sort of real, muscular movement embodied down thru the years by Bryan, FDR, and the CIO. The more they can discredit the very idea of such a movement with their revisionist histories and their propaganda campaigns the less they need to worry.

 

[Matt Crunk]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, as I admit I have not read all 294 pages of this thread, but getting back to the "Vintage Things That Have Disappeared In Your Lifetime" . . . here's one that just occurred to me: Shoe shine stands. I remember seeing them around as a kid, but can't recall the last time I saw one.

 

[Shangas]

There's a shoeshiner who works at the Burlington Arcade in London. I've seen him there many times.

 

[jamespowers]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, as I admit I have not read all 294 pages of this thread, but getting back to the "Vintage Things That Have Disappeared In Your Lifetime" . . . here's one that just occurred to me: Shoe shine stands. I remember seeing them around as a kid, but can't recall the last time I saw one.

There was one at our local airport last time I looked....

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Gas for under a buck. I remember when it went over a buck, our neighbor went over to the Shell station across the street from the house we owned at the time and chewed out the owner. He told him that there was no way any person in their right mind was going to pay over a dollar a gallon for gas.

This week, I'm excited fuel dropped to 3.39 a gallon.

 

[jamespowers]

Gas for under a buck. I remember when it went over a buck, our neighbor went over to the Shell station across the street from the house we owned at the time and chewed out the owner. He told him that there was no way any person in their right mind was going to pay over a dollar a gallon for gas.

This week, I'm excited fuel dropped to 3.39 a gallon.

I remember when gas was 77 cents a gallon.....:eusa_doh:

 

[BegintheBeguine]

Soon to disappear: grown-adult signatures on our nation's currency.

Our new Treasury Secretary, ladies and gentleman, coming soon to the lower-right-hand-corner of paper money near you.

So that's who has your brother's Bizzy Buzz Buzz Pen.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Cheapest my pops remembers it is a quarter, during the gas wars.

I remember when gas was 77 cents a gallon.....:eusa_doh: