Why the 1920s-1940s?

[nick123]

Interesting you should put it that way. One of my own migraine triggers is modern -- as in rock-era -- music. I have a visceral reaction to it and go to great lengths to avoid hearing it because an actual throbbing-pain-and-projectile-vomiting migraine will often be the result if I'm exposed to it for too long. I can tolerate sixties folk-type music, but anything with a loud electric guitar or an emphatic bass line literally makes me sick. When we have concerts or movies at work featuring this type of music I shut off the monitor or close the doors so I can't hear it, and tune in something on the radio in my office to block it out.

I can't agree entirely there. Most modern rock music gives me a major headache too, however I find great solace in late 50s-mid 60s rock n roll. Not sure if it would be classified as modern on the historical timeline. It wasn't until about 1967 where the heavily distorted/amplified "rock" sound as we know it today became fashionable. That cool little period from about '59-half of '66ish was often quite mellow, and a bunch of it not at all hard on the ears. There was a true art to that stuff and the bassists back then understood dynamics and finesse/how the bass was the platform that held the band up, rather than simply playing with them. The drummers too. You'll hear a lot of subtle notes being played in between the main snare drum beats. Some of it may have been a carryover from the jazz/big band era. If you can get past the fuzz and buzz, that jazz intelligence was still happening within as late as early psychedelic stuff. That craft is gone from today's rock music.

But good to know I'm not the only person who gets literally ill from certain things like this. Nobody believes me. They thing I'm only whining. lol

 

[Edward]

For me, it's purely aesthetic. Which is not to express disinterest - it's an important and fascinating period of history - but I certainly don't dress the way I do out of any notion that the world wa somehow "better" back then (different, yes.... some things were better, some much worse). As with anything, that's subjective.... a straight, white, male, wealthy Christian is likely to have had a very different experience of the forties than a Jew, a black woman, a gay man.... The former would never have been drafted and sent to die for a country where he struggled to be able to vote or wasn't allowed to sit at the front of the bus, for instance. For all sorts of reasons, I'd rather live now than at any other time in history.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Another thing I find superior from the Era is the comedy. Today's humor is all about the smirk, the snark, the raised eyebrow and the side-eye. While the Era had its share of crude slapstick and dopey insult comedy, the better humor of the period was extremely subtle. There is nothing today -- nothing whatever, in any medium-- that resembles the deadpan working-class surreality of "Vic and Sade." (Garrison Kellior tries, but his self-conscious preciousness ruins it.) There is no comedian today who expresses the sheer love of the humorous possibiliies of the English language like Fred Allen did. There are no modern directors able to capture the absurdity of daily life in the way that Preston Sturges did in every film he made.

 

[ChiTownScion]

There's quite a bit of evidence that the explosion of "public religion" in the United States during the postwar era had more to do with the greater glory of the Boys than the greater glory of God. The National Association of Manufacturers promoted an elaborate "Religion In American Life" publicity campaign designed to promote the idea that unrestrained capitalism and Christianity were two sides of the same coin, and to undermine the lingering effects of the New Deal, and a number of leading public clergymen of the period -- notably Billy Graham -- fully colluded in this effort. Historian Kevin Kruse fully documents all this in his recent book "One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America."

Opiate of the masses, indeed.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Opiate of the masses, indeed.

The most fascinating part of Kruse's exhaustively-documented book is his examination of how the NAM's long-range plan in putting Eisenhower in the White House was that he'd be an agreeable figurehead for their religious campaign. But Ike was a genuinely religious man in a very non-conventional way. He'd been raised a non-denominational home affiliated with the "International Bible Students" -- the group that evolved into Jehovah's Witnesses, of which his mother remained one until her death -- and he was never actually baptized into any faith until after he became President. And he wanted no part of their politicization of Christianity -- instead he used the Presidential pulpit to declare an extremely inclusive, generic sort of religious belief that was open to everyone, rejected no one, and was more sympathetic to Lazarus than to the rich man.

Eisenhower completely crossed up -- so to speak -- the whole thrust of the campaign, and many of its leaders abandoned him in frustration. A lot of the same men who were behind the campaign became prime movers in the John Birch Society and other far-right groups a few years later.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

For me, it's purely aesthetic. Which is not to express disinterest - it's an important and fascinating period of history - but I certainly don't dress the way I do out of any notion that the world wa somehow "better" back then (different, yes.... some things were better, some much worse). As with anything, that's subjective.... a straight, white, male, wealthy Christian is likely to have had a very different experience of the forties than a Jew, a black woman, a gay man.... The former would never have been drafted and sent to die for a country where he struggled to be able to vote or wasn't allowed to sit at the front of the bus, for instance. For all sorts of reasons, I'd rather live now than at any other time in history.

:arated: That's the most objective view in this thread so far.

 

[CONELRAD]

For me, it's purely aesthetic. Which is not to express disinterest - it's an important and fascinating period of history - but I certainly don't dress the way I do out of any notion that the world wa somehow "better" back then (different, yes.... some things were better, some much worse). As with anything, that's subjective...

I agree with this, and I also wholeheartedly agree with what Edward posted over in the "Era Immersion Living" thread about "modernity in moderation", and "keeping what was good about the past, without the blood-sports and the bigotry." My view is that the world wasn't overall a better place back then, but still isn't a place better today. Things have changed in a vast number of ways, some for the better and some for the worse, but I think that many things have changed less than many of us would imagine, also for better or worse. Reading a newspaper from 1925, I found some views expressed that I think many people today would find more "progressive" than they'd expect.

 

[LizzieMaine]

My view is that the world wasn't overall a better place back then, but still isn't a place better today. Things have changed in a vast number of ways, some for the better and some for the worse, but I think that many things have changed less than many of us would imagine, also for better or worse. Reading a newspaper from 1925, I found some views expressed that I think many people today would find more "progressive" than they'd expect.

Precisely.

If one hopes to learn about a period from contemporary sources, one has to do a lot more than just look at the pretty ads. Always be aware of who the target audience is for the newspaper or magazine you're reading -- the New York Herald Tribune is going to reflect the perspective of upper-class white people. The Daily Worker is going to reflect a perspective that would make upper-class white people pull down the shades and shake in fear. The Pittsburgh Courier will reflect a perspective that looks at white people of any class as outsiders. And yet they might cover exactly the same stories.

The deeper you dig into the original source materials of the time, the more diverse the opinions you'll find -- and the more rounded a picture you'll get. When people tell me how women were forced to fit into tight little molds in the Era, I ask them to read Marjorie Hillis and Elizabeth Hawes, for starters, and then get back to me.

And as far as dressing the way I do is concerned, I look ridiculous in modern clothes --even laying aside the fact that they're made by Bangladeshi slave labor, they're cut and designed for bodies entirely unlike my own. End of discussion.

 

[Fading Fast]

Precisely.

If one hopes to learn about a period from contemporary sources, one has to do a lot more than just look at the pretty ads. Always be aware of who the target audience is for the newspaper or magazine you're reading -- the New York Herald Tribune is going to reflect the perspective of upper-class white people. The Daily Worker is going to reflect a perspective that would make upper-class white people pull down the shades and shake in fear. The Pittsburgh Courier will reflect a perspective that looks at white people of any class as outsiders. And yet they might cover exactly the same stories. The deeper you dig into the original source materials of the time, the more diverse the opinions you'll find -- and the more rounded a picture you'll get.

And as far as dressing the way I do is concerned, I look ridiculous in modern clothes --even laying aside the fact that they're made by Bangladeshi slave labor, they're cut and designed for bodies entirely unlike my own. End of discussion.

While I have read the newspapers from the time - but with nowhere near the study and perspective that you bring - I have read many contemporary novels of the period and, as you noted, it is eye opening to see how much more progressive the thinking was than many of us assume (certainly than I did before I started reading contemporary books). You can also catch a brief window into this in the "pre-code" movies of the early 1930s (before the censors started enforcing the existing codes) where you will see much more opened and nuanced attitudes toward divorce, extra-maritial affairs, children born out of wedlock, abortions and even crime than we think existed in the '30s.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It goes back to what I said earlier, either in this thread or the "Immersion" one, I forget which -- most people today, if they're aware of the thirties at all, only see them thru the "Waltons Filter" of the seventies and eighties. That vision of the thirties is no more realistic than the "Grease Filter" of the fifties, but is just as pervasive. Both were manufactured, latter-day marketing images, not a genuine reflection of those actual historical periods.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

I have some blurred memories of the 60's, more defined memories of the 70's & 80's & of course excellent memories of the 90's until now & I could tell you how it was back then. The problem is I was brought up in a safe middle class enviroment, my parents weren't rich but we had enough to eat & the bills were paid, we lived in the leafy suburbs & we went on holiday for a couple of weeks every summer. I saw a little poverty, violence, injustice but from a safe distance & I can't even begin to imagine what hardships those less fortunate than myself had to endure. Their vision of the 60's to the present day would be quite different from mine. We can never know how it was back in a certain period, even less so if we haven't experienced it for ouselves, as taking chosen snippets from here & there through other peoples perspectives, can never give an overall & balanced view of the times. looking through a prism can only distort the past.
Even today who can clearly describe what it is like to live in the world in 2015, there are over 7 billion voices to be heard, each with a different story.

Sorry to have bored y'all.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I have some blurred memories of the 60's, more defined memories of the 70's & 80's & of course excellent memories of the 90's until now & I could tell you how it was back then. The problem is I was brought up in a safe middle class enviroment, my parents weren't rich but we had enough to eat & the bills were paid, we lived in the leafy suburbs & we went on holiday for a couple of weeks every summer. I saw a little poverty, violence, injustice but from a safe distance & I can't even begin to imagine what hardships those less fortunate than myself had to endure. Their vision of the 60's to the present day would be quite different from mine. We can never know how it was back in a certain period, even less so if we haven't experienced it for ouselves, as taking chosen snippets from here & there through other peoples perspectives, can never give an overall & balanced view of the times. looking through a prism can only distort the past.
Even today who can clearly describe what it is like to live in the world in 2015, there are over 7 billion voices to be heard, each with a different story.

Sorry to have bored y'all.

I'm probably your age or a little older, but came from a very different background -- one of my earliest memories is of my father chasing my mother around the kitchen table with a knife. I spent a lot of time with my grandparents, and their memories of the Depression Era were very real and immediate to them, and strongly colored their latter-day lives. They didn't experience that era as children -- they lived thru the entire span as working-class adults. Since my interest in the Era is from and in the perspective of the working class, I think I had a pretty good initial source to work from, and the more I study the period the more I find that their experiences are corroborated by documentation.

I knew, for example, straight from their mouths, that they'd had to stretch pennies during the thirties, that they lived in a house heated by an oil stove, and had no electricity or indoor plumbing until 1941. And when I was able to document that thru the 1940 US Census, revealing they'd earned a grand total of $450 the year my mother was born, it only served to back up what I knew to be true about how they became the people they were. I went on to examine the entire town thru that census -- the town I'd been raised in -- and recognized many names of people I had known personally, along with documentation of their living circumstances at the end of the thirties, their household incomes, and so forth. These weren't just numbers and names on the page -- I'd grown up knowing these people face to face, they were neighbors, friends, customers of ours -- and the information only served to document what I already knew about how they'd lived. I did find some things I hadn't known -- marriages that weren't quite as everyone believed, who was "fronting" their income and who wasn't -- but in general, what I had already known about these people was backed up by documented fact.

The Era may seem very remote to people today. But for those of us who grew up forty or fifty or sixty years ago, it was as close as the people we saw and knew every day. And it didn't just disappear because the calendar pages changed.

 

[Fading Fast]

I'm probably your age or a little older, but came from a very different background -- one of my earliest memories is of my father chasing my mother around the kitchen table with a knife. I spent a lot of time with my grandparents, and their memories of the Depression Era were very real and immediate to them, and strongly colored their latter-day lives. They didn't experience that era as children -- they lived thru the entire span as working-class adults. Since my interest in the Era is from and in the perspective of the working class, I think I had a pretty good initial source to work from, and the more I study the period the more I find that their experiences are corroborated by documentation.

I knew, for example, straight from their mouths, that they'd had to stretch pennies during the thirties, that they lived in a house heated by an oil stove, and had no electricity or indoor plumbing until 1941. And when I was able to document that thru the 1940 US Census, revealing they'd earned a grand total of $450 the year my mother was born, it only served to back up what I knew to be true about how they became the people they were. I went on to examine the entire town thru that census -- the town I'd been raised in -- and recognized many names of people I had known personally, along with documentation of their living circumstances at the end of the thirties, their household incomes, and so forth. These weren't just numbers and names on the page -- I'd grown up knowing these people face to face, they were neighbors, friends, customers of ours -- and the information only served to document what I already knew about how they'd lived. I did find some things I hadn't known -- marriages that weren't quite as everyone believed, who was "fronting" their income and who wasn't -- but in general, what I had already known about these people was backed up by documented fact.

The Era may seem very remote to people today. But for those of us who grew up forty or fifty or sixty years ago, it was as close as the people we saw and knew every day. And it didn't just disappear because the calendar pages changed.

Our life experiences have been very different, but we definitely shared - you through your grandparents and me through my parents and grandparents (really my Dad and his Mom) - an almost visceral feel for the Depression. As you said, it wasn't remote, it wasn't history. It fully shaped my Dad and Grandmother's life views and they intentionally and unintentionally imparted that to me.

I remember the first time I saw "The Grapes of Wrath" and was surprised as the Depression was a small town in N.J. where a middle class family lost their house, nearly lost their small business and spent years scratching and clawing to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. What the heck was the "Dust Bowl" and all this about - that was not the Depression I knew (I was probably eight or so when I first saw TGOW and hadn't yet studied it in school). Of course, over time, I studied the Depression and was able to put my family's experience in the context of the Depression writ large, but at some level, the Depression will always be the thought of my Dad and Grandmother nearly homeless and scared they wouldn't survive (a story - with all the details - I heard repeatedly growing up).

So yes, for many of us who grew up even forty-plus years later, the Depression wasn't history, it was the framework of our life as driven by our parents and grandparents. I know I mentioned this in an earlier post, but my Dad and Grandmother were always preparing for the Depression to happen again and, in a way, so am I.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I can remember a night in 1968 when my mother was convinced we were going to be evicted from our house. We packed up everything we could carry and stood outside in the street -- waiting. For some reason I was comforted by the fact that whatever happened, I was holding my favorite drinking mug, but I was also terrified. Nobody can tell me I can't understand the Depression mindset.

 

[tonyb]

Ancestors?

Mine are among the saltier of this Earth. I wouldn't wish to portray them as any humbler than they actually were, as they were plenty lowly enough anyway. No need to stretch the matter.

I heard plenty of talk of the capital D Depression, but I don't recall being left thinking that it was the worst thing any of the tellers had ever seen. It was more along the lines of, yeah, things were tougher back then than they are now, but we got through it okay. I may have heard the suggestion that we kids ought to be thankful for all we have now that they didn't have then, but don't ask me to tell you who said it, or when. It wasn't lorded over us, by any means.

 

[Edward]

I agree with this, and I also wholeheartedly agree with what Edward posted over in the "Era Immersion Living" thread about "modernity in moderation", and "keeping what was good about the past, without the blood-sports and the bigotry." My view is that the world wasn't overall a better place back then, but still isn't a place better today. Things have changed in a vast number of ways, some for the better and some for the worse, but I think that many things have changed less than many of us would imagine, also for better or worse. Reading a newspaper from 1925, I found some views expressed that I think many people today would find more "progressive" than they'd expect.

It's funny how often these details get missed; I've known people who got into the vintage era, then developed all sorts of quite reactionary views, seemingly out of some sort of notion of authenticity. Of cours,e if nobody had ever opposed the apparent norms back then, they'd still be norms now!

It goes back to what I said earlier, either in this thread or the "Immersion" one, I forget which -- most people today, if they're aware of the thirties at all, only see them thru the "Waltons Filter" of the seventies and eighties. That vision of the thirties is no more realistic than the "Grease Filter" of the fifties, but is just as pervasive. Both were manufactured, latter-day marketing images, not a genuine reflection of those actual historical periods.

It's intersting how nostalgia works - both in and of itself, and how that can be manipulated for marketing purposes, as you say.

Can I assume you've seen Midnight in Paris, given your profession? It's one of the sharpest commentaries I've seen on nostalgia.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Can I assume you've seen Midnight in Paris, given your profession? It's one of the sharpest commentaries I've seen on nostalgia.

That was a very very popular picture here -- even our Woody Allen-hating box office manager loved it. And it does resemble a lot of folks I've encountered in the "vintage world," who only imagine the past in terms of hobnobbing every night with cafe society at the Rainbow Room and then driving home in their supercharged Cord -- where in reality they'd be lucky to get one night out a week at Louie's Bar, and then drive home in a second-hand Ford.

But hey, that kind of dreamboating is harmless in most cases. It's when people like that think that's all there was to the period that it gets problematic -- and I've honestly never actually met anyone who sincerely believed that to be the case. Far more common are the Waltons-Filter people who believe that, as I said, everyone who suffered thru the Depression did so stoically, nobly, and individually rather than joining collectively to fight against what they believed to be wrong. That particular filter was used very effectively as a political cudgel in the US in the eighties and nineties, and variations of it are still used today. That's what I think is genuinely pernicious, not people dressing up for a play-acting jaunt on the Queen Mary.

 

[tonyb]

^^^^^^

Yup, that self-made man narrative strongly appeals to those believing (or wishing to believe) in their own exceptionalism. If you can keep the riffraff squabbling among themselves, if you can convince enough people that what is holding them back are all those people in very similar straits as that oh-so-extraordianary Sovereign Individual, well, you got yourself one helluva scam.

 

[ChiTownScion]

My aunt had a neighbor, befriended by my mom, who was known as "Depression Helen." Every time the three would meet for coffee and cake, the recounts of their impoverished childhood memories would pour forth faster than the percolated Maxwell House. Helen was always the one with the most dramatic accounts. Since my mom and aunt both grew up with their parents on relief (at times), or Granddad working for the WPA, that says a lot.

 

[LizzieMaine]

My grandfather used to talk about "Hoover Soup," the bit where you'd go into a lunchroom and get a cup of coffee and then ask for a free cup of hot water, which you'd mix with the ketchup on the counter to make a sort of ersatz soup. It was the sort of thing you expect to have been made up for a Steinbeck novel, but he swore he really did it. Up until the end of his life he also had the repulsive habit of chopping up cigarette butts and smoking them in his pipe.