A random lurch through some old TV advertisements on YouTube produced some glaring examples of how many so-called zeitgeists have been roundly condemned, executed and stigmatised into oblivion even within my own lifetime. Remember for example when racism and fellatio were standard fodder on TV even before the watershed?









And so on ...

Things we or our ancestors found entertaining, noble, innocent and generally "good" are now in many cases not only frowned upon but so reviled that even their mention is enough to risk ostracisation (death by ostrich - now when did that go out of fashion?). Suggesting that you and your chums all meet up for a little spot of hare-coursing, or even these days an evening sitting around the lounge with a box of finest Havanas, could well see you end up in the modern social equivalent of the stocks. Suggesting everyone head off for a bout of bear-baiting would land you in something worse.



Are there other examples one could turf in with these lost ("harmless", as once amazingly believed) pursuits and popular notions?

Not an advert but a program that made me cringe was 'Love thy Neighbour'… and even Alf Garnet and the freaky Mrs. Blair’s farther in ‘Till death us do Part’ was more than a wee bit risky.

Various forms of fishing - whaling, sealing in particular. Not just cigars, but any form of smoking. Freedom for kids to roam. Not sparing the rod. (I find it quite easy to shock my daughters-in-law just by simply mention hitting my kids, or leaving them in the car. And as for the time I casually mentioned my father touching me a little inappropriately - it was definitely a conversation stopper.) I suppose drink-driving was never quite approved of, but driving with dozens of people in or on the car was considered quite fun, and now would have a nasty way of landing you in court, if not jail. Drugs? Early marriage - I mean of 10 or 12 year olds, not 16 year olds, though that raises more eyebrows now too.

On the other hand some things are now celebrated which were reviled or at least barely known of where I lived - gay/rainbow parades. Decent coffee. Food beyond English/Scottish styles. Wine.

Yes, "cringe" has everything to do with what I'm getting at. I remember "Love Thy Neighbour" and cringing even then at the blatantly racist tone (and poor humour anyway), so I would reckon that it was a programme which had actually missed the zeitgeist it depended on to be popular. There was another programme just a few years later called "Mind Your Language" which also attempted humour from racial and ethnic stereotyping, and both of them attempted to justify their existence by citing that the humour resided as often as not in the fact that the foreigner, or the black person, was portrayed as the "winner" in the contrived exchanges used to propel what little story they had. I don't ever remember this as being anything but a failed attempt to justify a humour based on prejudices which were already under attack within society. A rearguard action from some die-hard racists, in other words.

Alf Garnett, also from around the same era, was a completely different proposition. Like Archie Bunker, his American counterpart, the audience was always invited to laugh at the bigot, not his victim. At its best "Til Death Us Do Part" (and to a lesser extent "All In The Family") was splendid parody, and therefore far more representative of the zeitgeist at the time.

I am reminded by all this of the excruciating convolutions on the part of publishers when re-issuing Agatha Christie's "Ten Little Niggers". She had of course taken the title from a popular children's rhyme of the early 20th century and intended only to suggest a plot whereby victims are picked off one by one. By the 1940s this title was already deemed unusable in the USA, where she enjoyed considerable sales, so was switched to "Ten Little Indians" - also a version of the rhyme which was actually more popular anyway in that country. For years therefore that was its title globally until the 1970s or so when of course the flaw in the logic was eventually understood and that one minority's sensibilities had been spared only at the cost of another's. You can now buy the book as "And Then There Was None", the last line of both versions of the ditty but which of course now hardly makes sense at all since neither rhyme is considered suitable for children to recite any more. Here are some of those convolutions with evidence that the change was not always abrupt:






and my favourite (though unfortunately not a real title) ...




Slapping children in "western" society is a very good example of how suddenly the zeitgeist dies and is replaced at times, isn't it? One can almost pinpoint a day on which the practise went from normal to be seen as abuse. And one can equally readily list a slew of unrelated attitudes and practises which went along with it at the same time, almost as if their demise had simply been put on hold until a suitable trigger (such as the outlawing of corporal punishment in schools) came along.

Child rearing practices are among the more obvious examples of this and not just with regard to corporal punishment: feeding routines and potty training figure as well. Those of us who are grandparents are very aware of this.

It would be a mistake though, I think, to generalise too much. Whereas the old racist, sexist (Wives and Lovers - Hey little girl, fix your hair, do your make up.....) and homophobic attitudes are now largely considered cringeworthy, it's far from being by everyone. At the height of Alf's popularity he was regarded as a positive role model (I know, but you know what I mean) by a worrying number of people.
The same applies to cruel sports; badger baiting is a major and spreading problem as is the hunting of urban deer and dog fighting.

I own the 'banned' Rupert Annual, and the story line that caused the outrage - many years after- was my favourite though I was uncomfortable with the word for the delightfully naughty little black child, in true Rupert style jingle it rhymed so well with soon. I am not even sure if one is allowed to sell it on e-bay? Probably, because I have seen it mentioned. Gollies are on sale again and no one seems outraged - but the Black and White Minstrel Show will not resurface; I hope.

I was stunned the other day at a meeting when the president, a little older than me and a bit silly in my opinion, mentioned "Eeny, Meeny, Miney, Moe, catch a nigger by the toe". Someone else said, "You can't say that now." And she said, "Why not?"

How could you get to 2012 and not have an inkling why that isn't permissible any more?

Was polygamy ever acceptable in the western world? It certainly isn't now. And I read just yesterday about a three-year-old in Britain whose parents were arrested because he urinated in public view, though in their own property. It does seem to me that at the same times as some things are unacceptable, other things closely associated are honoured. Laddishness and drunken behaviour is considered at least normal among young people, if not de rigeur, at the same time as an odd prudishness has swept the world. And over-protection of children seems to go hand-in-hand with a sexualisation of them. And stronger laws of privacy at the same time as governments and organisations expect to know everything about you.

I think your paper may have got its facts a bit confused Caro, good job it wasn't the BBC or there would be another uproar. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/caroline-robboy-mom-ticketed-police-son-pees-video_n_1881659.html
Toileting procedure is a another area where mores have changed, using a chamber pot in the dining room while enjoying a cigar is about as unacceptable as it's possible to get these days.

My granddaughter was saying that rhyme the other day but it's now a nipper that gets caught by the toe.

When my kids were young it was 'tiger'.

The book I am reading about a man and his piano seems to have anticipated your question, Nordmann. At least he has answered it to some degree. He says, "Only in the past twenty years has the indiscriminate slaughter of elephants for their tusks troubled piano lovers. It;s one of those cultural conceits, like bird-of-paradise feathers for women's hats in the late nineteenth century, that now seem unimaginable but at the time were seen as perfectly normal, indeed necessary."

This has reminded me of the difficulties we have here over one of our most well-known ornithologists who has provided wonderful knowledge of the birds in early Pakeha history. He catagorised them all and described them, but also captured them, even when he knew they were rare, and put them into museum collections. http://terranature.org/huia.htm

The huia became extinct partly because a feather was given to the Prince of York in the early 20th century and caused a rush on them for fashion reasons.

Some corkers here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103400/Cocaine-toothache-The-outrageous-adverts-allowed-now.html

But this has to be my favourite:





So, ladies of Res Historica, forty years or so ago we all apparently were longing for a man-up-a-mountain who left us dangling on a rope while he admired his chum's Drummond sweater, who blew his stinky cigarette smoke in our faces, and who gave us us a vacuum cleaner for Christmas.

You'd never see a man in a cardigan like the one on the right now, would you? It's a very feminine style. Our PM has been in trouble (not enough to get him voted out, unfortunately) for talking of 'gay red shirts' - I don't know what he'd have to say about that one.

There's no doubt I would be a drag on a mountain, and only yesterday I did think that women are often a bit of a handicap to men when there are tramps and long walks to take. And I've never minded useful presents - better than silly little knick-knacks that just mean dust gathers under them and spider webs over them (at least that is the case in my home where the vacuum cleaner does not get over-used).

Caro wrote:

...only yesterday I did think that women are often a bit of a handicap to men when there are tramps and long walks to take.

An observation based on your own immediate and limited experience of the activity, I hope, Caro. Having recently survived a 50km traipse around "hills" which required oxygen tanks to traverse and where my co-"strollers", all ladies of a certain age, were intent on never dropping below an average km/p/h that wouldn't disgrace a cheetah in heat, I can confidently predict that your repetition of the above remark in this neck of the woods would result very rapidly in a case of murder by gåstav.

Oh, Caro, I am thinking such bad thoughts as to what the dangling lady is shouting up at those two.

But let us be about our womanly duties now, making every effort to be both pleasant and useful.

PS I'd quite like a posh new Dyson for Christmas - I love vacuuming.

A collection of vintage underwear (or instruments of torture) ads for the discerning male and female.
I particularily like the electric corset, what a woman could do with that baby.........

Yes, some advertisements from the past are cringeworthy, but before the theme descends into one of changing fashion sense and while you're in surfing mode, are there examples you can find of - as the thread was designed to elicit - examples of behaviour once thought innocent or even desirable which now are considered in quite an other light entirely?

Changing fashion was not my point, but that corsets and gurdles were once innocently thought to be beneficial for a female. When, in fact, quite the opposite is true.

And there you indeed have a point. Corsets like this in the late 18th century ...



... led to illustrations like this in early 19th century medical textbooks:

I'm not quite certain if this is the sort of example you want, nordmann, of "behaviour once thought innocent and even desirable" - but as late as 1868 a public execution was regarded as a fun day out for the whole family.

Not just fun either - I'm sure I've read somewhere that children were taken to such spectacles as part of their moral and religious education. Nothing like a good hanging, a burning or a disembowelling to get across the message: "Behave yourself, or else!"

Indeed - the most thriving business in the immediate vicinity of Tyburn (present day Marble Arch) for several centuries was the tavern industry. In the late 18th century there was an attempt to licence them as their number had exceeded three hundred premises. It was cited at the time that competition for the patronage of those attending executions had become so fierce that it was suspected (ie. well known) that tavern owners were passing bungs to anyone who could keep the steady flow of condemned prisoners on tap. Children were especially prized as guaranteed to attract bumper crowds, and of course particularly notorious criminals delivered huge pay-days to the property owners and proprietors. When Dick Turpin was condemned quite a lot of money was rumoured to have changed hands both in Tyburn and in York to ensure he was dispatched locally. York won out, but not before some very shady shenanigans behind the scenes. After his arrest in Brough Turpin made no effort to escape custody despite several apparent opportunities, and one rumour was that the Duke of Newcastle (who coincidentally owned quite a bit of property in Tyburn) had ensured him he would be liberated as he (Newcastle) had felt deprived of revenue due to the upstart MP, George Crowle's, successful retention of Turpin's prosecution at the East Riding Assizes. All men's actions motivated by the huge profits generated by just such public behaviour and attitude as you describe.

Quote :

An observation based on your own immediate and limited experience of the activity, I hope, Caro. Having recently survived a 50km traipse around "hills" which required oxygen tanks to traverse and where my co-"strollers", all ladies of a certain age, were intent on never dropping below an average km/p/h that wouldn't disgrace a cheetah in heat, I can confidently predict that your repetition of the above remark in this neck of the woods would result very rapidly in a case of murder by gåstav.

Yes, I supposed based on my daughters-in-law, all fit and happy to walk long distances, but still not really able to go as far as their husbands would like. It's difficult when you are a 4'9" woman with a 5'11" man, and my wee dil goes on three-day tramps with him, up 'hills' and across difficult terrain, but at a much slower pace than he would go. And my other sons tend to want to do mountaineering rather than walking. But outside my own experience it is just that much harder for women with shorter legs and less height to take on some of the challenges that men manage more easily.

We have here a walking group mainly of women and some of these people are in their 80s and still do weekly walks of some 20 - 30 kms on hills and roads; amazing ladies. (After twenty years with this group some of their members have had to drop out or join in only briefly, because of hip replacements and other difficulties.)

This activity is another reversal of what was considered right and proper, though in the opposite direction from the original question. It's not that long ago (the early Olympics didn't encourage women's participation on the grounds that it was unhealthy for them) that physical activity for women was frowned on, if it was more than a gentle stroll. Now it seems to be compulsory. (like work outside the home.)

Yes Nordmann even in my lifetime (next year seventy) I have seen the behaviour and attitudes against the black man in the former Belgian Congo changing from paternalistic, not to respect in most cases, but to reckoning with the new realities. Most ex-colonials in Belgium that I met, are a bit like (as I remember from the ex-BBC) our Dirk Marinus still posting at Jiglu. If there was a more gradual change under the lead of the colonisator, the ex-colonies would have been far much better off...but that's another debate...

But back to the attitudes against the black man, especially from the now ex Belgian Congo. And in the between the two wars period it was even more pronounced. It was an attitude of the wise white man with his modern knowledge, who brought civilisation to the still nearly wild black bushmen. That was also the attitude of Hergé (Remi Georges (er gé)). And now modern Congolese can't understand this attitude from the Thirties...:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Zc7fCjrA6I

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/herges-racist-adventures-of-tintin-not-so-court-decides-6894770.html

I still recall from my childhood that in nearly every shop on the counter was a plaster nigger and when you put a nickel in it there was a mechanism that the head was bowing as "merci" for the money. And it was all as they said for the missionaries to spent for the poor little niggers (voor de arme negertjes...) and then we had to collect "silver paper" from around our chocolats to melt it and I suppose sell it...and the money also for these same little niggers...

But some "habits" will perhaps not easely die?

As for instance as a woman losing your maiden name when you get married...

As for instance Angela Kasner...

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~carve22r/classweb/eightwomen/ambiography.html

But to be honest I read a German commentary and although she is for the second time married, she could easely legally have had again her maiden name, but as she is now well known as Angela Merkel it will stay that way for the coming centuries...

In the hospitals and perhaps in the factories too at least here in Belgium however nowadays the women are named with their maiden name...

I am always wondering as for the US when a person is even only partly has black anchestry it is a "black". For instance in my logical opinion is the nowadays US president as "white" as he is "black"...From some curiosity I did some research for the first lady and there there seems no "white" anchestry...but is that still that important in the US nowadays? Have we still to mention that nowadays? It recalls me of the "viertel Jude" (the quarter Jew) of the Nazi time when there was one grandparent Jew...Couldn't they say about Obama to be more neutral the more undefined: of mixed anchestry...or something like that?

To come back to changing attitudes. The idea of homosexuals that could marry to each other in my childhood was unheard and they were especially by the older generation as my parents seen as "abnormal" (out of the normal), excentric (out of the centre) and look nowadays...last month I attended a homo marriage of a male family member...

Kind regards and with esteem,

Paul.

Chocolate cigarettes!

Whilst attitudes to smoking itself have changed enormously over the past couple of decades, I was nevertheless, even as a child in the sixties, slightly bemused by all the fake smoking confectionary specifically aimed at young children. I distinctly remember my aunt and uncle (not themselves actually smokers) giving me a 'junior smokers kit' complete with white chocolate pipe, a dark chocolate cigar, a packet of chocolate imitation cigarettes, and a box of candy matches... all carefully designed to look exactly like the real things. And I seem to recall you could also buy packets of brown sweet strands of candy, called 'Old Jamaica Blend' or something like that, which again was made and packaged to look like tobacco.... not that at six years old, I really knew what tobacco looked like.

To me they were just, albeit slightly odd, sweets. My parents, again both non-smokers, never seemed to see anything odd (although they may just have decided not to make a fuss). But most people would be appalled today. Can you imagine Cadbury coming out with a 'my first junkie kit', complete with sherbert-filled syringe etc ? Maybe for the really keen proto-addict that wants to play at taking e's or ketamine, we do still have Smarties (and I remember my sister used to play harmlessly at doctors and nurses whilst dispensing Smarty pills). But Smarties were never specifically marketed to represent drugs.

Yes I remember those lollies and chocolates MM, in Australia we had Fag's. Now I think renamed as Fad's. And there was another sweet named Redskins.
The images won't upload but the link is here with pics of both...
http://pinterest.com/suzannealix/memories/

Looking at that link reminded me of much that was popular when I was young that we'd not see today, including the Story of Little Black Sambo



Noddy and Big Ears, a no-no now because they must be gay......

The Morecombe and Wise show springs to mind... always a sketch of them both in bed together and very funny it was. But I don’t ever remember any thoughts of them being gay... but then when I was a boy scout the lines of an old camp fire song went out with the chorus of sitting around the campfire and being all happy and gay... it wouldn’t work well today.

Deliberate mortification of the flesh - self-flagellation or the regular wearing of a garment specifically designed to irritate and inflame the skin - would suggest to us today rather serious psychological or sexual problems. Not so in the past of course.

It was not just priests and nuns who went in for these (to our modern eyes) very strange practices: many pious laymen (and women) considered such self-inflicted pain to be - perhaps not exactly *fun* - but certainly a necessary and beneficial part of their spiritual life.

Catherine of Aragon wore a hair-shirt under her rich court dresses and, according to the Carthusian monk, John Bouge, Thomas More also wore such a shirt as "a constantly chafing reminder of the temptations of the devil".

"He was devout in his divine service, and what (sic) more, keep this privily to yourself, he wore a great hair next his skin...it tamed his flesh till the blood was seen in his clothes."

More also practised self-flagellation on a regular basis.

I have no idea when such activities came to be considered as "odious" (and rather odd) rather than saintly.


EDIT: original wording made it sound as if Thomas More also wore rich court gowns - as far as I know he didn't.

normanhurst wrote:

The Morecombe and Wise show springs to mind... always a sketch of them both in bed together and very funny it was. But I don’t ever remember any thoughts of them being gay... but then when I was a boy scout the lines of an old camp fire song went out with the chorus of sitting around the campfire and being all happy and gay... it wouldn’t work well today.

You are right Norman. Some stuff from the past deserves to be blacklisted or frowned upon today, the racial stereotypes and general racism, the sexism, the various products that were promoted but later proved to be dangerous or bad for health etc.

Then there are also reactions to other things or behaviours that have reached ridiculous proportions, like the silly homosexual suggestions that now surround the Noddy books or the Morcombe and Wise sketches, especially when absolutely nothing of the sort was ever intended.

I used to enjoy the Capt. Pugwash books, and then it became a television series... in the 70s my children loved them as well... and then I heard it had been ‘pulled’ for its sexual undertone with references to the crew i.e. Master Bates and Seaman Stains etc... never gave it a thought and at the time I was a chief officer in the merchant navy.


To make sure I just got this from wiki.


There is a persistent urban legend, repeated by the now defunct UK newspaper the Sunday Correspondent, that ascribes sexually suggestive names – such as Master Bates, Seaman Staines, and Roger (meaning "have sex with") the Cabin Boy – to Captain Pugwash's characters, and indicating that the captain's name was a slang Australian term for oral sex. John Ryan successfully sued both the Sunday Correspondent and The Guardian newspapers in 1991 for printing this legend as fact.

Further up there was talk of casual racist statements no longer being at all acceptable, but you can take this too far. We have been a little bemused here to learn that a judge has included racial abuse in his judgement in the case of a neighbourly dispute in England where a NZ woman was called a stupid fat Australian. If every NZer called an Aussie was to sue, the courts wouldn't be able to hear any other case. It is tiresome - my husband got sick of kangaroo jokes and impressions when he was teaching in England.

In a discussion on this today, our radio wondered if this meant the British considered Australians to be less appealing than NZers. I don't think there was a decision made on this by the (Ausstralian) interviewee. It always seems to me that the offensive in most of these sort of cases is the use of the word 'you'. (You bloody idiot, you black bastard, you stupid Australian, you idiotic child, etc. - the offensiveness is in directing it to a person.)

The headline in my local paper today is "SNP pledge smoke free Scotland". Attitudes to the fragrant weed is one example of how the zeitgeist can change almost out of recognition over a comparatively short period; an activity that was once so normal as not to even register has turned into the object of contempt and, it might be argued, outright discrimination.

The other side is how activities and practices that were once not just crimes but, and to some still are, sinful have become widely accepted and legally sanctioned. Divorce, abortion, extra marital sex and same sex relationships, once socially and legally constrained if not barred, are now just part of the daily reality and barely merit notice.
It's not so long since a woman in a pub, unless in the snug or 'family room' was worthy of comment. Even eating in the street used to be seen as quite unacceptable in polite society.

ferval wrote:

.... Even eating in the street used to be seen as quite unacceptable in polite society.

Here eating in the street still is unacceptable..... And quite right too!

Although this is France and attitudes are different. But it's true, everything .... shops, offices, even telephone call centres and the emergency services - even strikes and civil unrest .... everything stops for lunch! .... preferably to be taken at an absolutely fabulous but nevertheless inexpensive little bar or restaurant. And evening dinner at home, is even more hallowed ... it's almost a sacred rite, at least if you believe the French TV ads and newspapers.

But seriously, although McDonalds etc. are increasingly popular here (quelle horreur!), most people do still eat sur place, rather than à emporter ie take away and eat in the street. It's not exactly frowned upon, but it is something that most people just don't do. Locally this is perhaps because of high unemployment/low wages, so that most young people still live with their parents. Many businesses close for a full three hours at lunchtime to allow their workers to go home to eat .... and to avoid legally having to provide canteen services. Young workers and students can't afford to eat at Maccy D's everyday, and so lunch is still mostly eaten at home - having been prepared by mum.


EDIT : Sorry, veered off at a tangent and looks like rather killed the thread. Mea culpa.

Islanddawn wrote:

You are right Norman. Some stuff from the past deserves to be blacklisted or frowned upon today, the racial stereotypes and general racism, the sexism, the various products that were promoted but later proved to be dangerous or bad for health etc.

Then there are also reactions to other things or behaviours that have reached ridiculous proportions, like the silly homosexual suggestions that now surround the Noddy books or the Morcombe and Wise sketches, especially when absolutely nothing of the sort was ever intended.

Exactly! Personally I never viewed Noddy, Capt'n Pugwash, or Morcambe and Wise .... nor a host of other characters ... from RM Ballantyne's: Ralph, Jack and Peterkin Gay, in 'Coral Island' ... through to say, the all male crew of 'Red Dwarf', ... as gay .... until it was pointed out by the "moralists".

But I think that these sort of extreme views are no longer so widespread, and that opinions have generally become less polarised and less politicised. Maybe now these characters can just seen as a reflection of the whole of range of society (and of society as it has always been). I think this is a much healthier view, rather than stereo-typing and pigeon-holing ... and then either promoting or banning... that went on before. But I am not naive enough to think that current accepted views will remain unchanged in the future especially should "fundamental" religious believers get more than just a handhold around the neck of civilised society.

There are many, many , many people in the world, both east and west, who still think I personally should be hanged, stoned, or buried alive, just for being who I am. But they still expect me to respect their own, personal, bizarre, idiosyncratic, unproven, anti-social, dangerous, religious beliefs!

Enid Blyton's Toytown was populated by the inhabitants of any well stocked nursery of the 1950s in the UK and therefore is a very valuable documentary historically of that aspect to that society at that time. Or at least it was until the revisionists got hold of it.

In years to come future generations might look with horror too on the modern day equivalent with its profusion of pink in toys aimed at female children, its inordinate emphasis on stylised violence in those aimed at male children and the recruitment of toy production into mass-marketing strategies for promoting branded products, often using sexuality as a selling point in a manner hitherto directed solely towards adult consumers.

In fact if one looks at the contents of a child's toy locker from any era with revisionist and moralistic eyes one is bound to find shocking elements therein, I would imagine.

And on a lighter, more historical note .... regarding smoking:

During the 1665 plague it was actually compusory for the schoolboys of Eton to smoke during break periods .... whether behind the bike-sheds or not .... every boy had to smoke his regulation pipe of tobacco.

I distinctly recall Captain Pugwash from when I was a lad and I'd lay ten gold dubloons and a puncheon of grog that the cabin boy was called Tom and that no-one was called Seaman Staines, Master Bates or Bosun O'Fiddly.

I wonder which things we all say and do now will look cringeworthy, offensive and generally bloody awful in 20 years time? It'd be nice if cultural relativism went into the pot, together with nationalism, the glorification of war, simpering over people who are on the Telly, the honours system, the obligatory gap year in Thailand, singing pixie talent shows and burying enormous piles of radioactive crap under West Cumbria.

Regards,

AR

There are so many dead zeitgeists in the above image that it's difficult to know where to start with this view of the home team at Portman Road relaxing after a match in the 1960s. Mind you, if you thought things were tight for the Tractor Boys spare a thought for the Brentford Town players from the same era and their club's idea of a communal bath ...