Retro-extremists? What are we called?

[Bourbon Guy]

I'm not sure what that means, but certainly nothing intended other than to produce a smile.

 

[Widebrim]

I dunno, really. I myself was never much of a manly-man, except for the whole attraction-to-women thing, which has, perhaps predictably, not panned out too well. Yet I persist, somehow, driven by forces I do not fully understand.

Just persist in letting those incomprehensible forces drive you on, Fletch, and someday...

 

[carebear]

Jack/Doran,

I have no problem with lists myself.

I'm a golfer, within that label are tiers; I'm a duffer, I'm a scratch golfer, I'm a low handicapper, etc.

That's a list, that has a tiering effect in terms of skill, but denotes no negative connotation to any (other than what you usually hit of course).

There is no moral connotation implicit or explicit in the activity, thus such a list can only be descriptive.

Similarly, I'm an atavist, an anachrotist, an "occasional vintage wearer" simply describes, not any degree of "value", but rather a level of immersion in this particular lifestyle.

There is no "negative" judgment possible from merely descriptive terms, except that which arises from the individual who chooses not to participate at a certain level but wishes they did. And that, as in any envy, is their problem, not the envied.

Write the article, note the community is still evolving and hasn't settled on a useful identifier and then list some of the better with their approximate meanings.

*edited to add: "Little ditty, bout Jack and Doran..."

 

[carebear]

As for Jack's choice about the bar, the important question is if revenue and profits rose or fell after he left.

Seriously though, in any given situation a human being has three, and only three, choices:

1) Escape the situation

2) Seek to change the situation

3) Endure the situation

The morality, nobility or rationality of the various choices will be situationally and personally dependent but it will always come down to one of the three.

Implicit in being an adult are the codecils:

a) There will always be consequences for your choices
b) Nobody ever said life would be fair
c) Nobody ever said life would be easy
d) Nobody ever said life would be convenient
e) Knowing the above going in, you don't get to whine if you choose #3.

Of course, at the point you fail at, or are no longer willing to continue attempting, #2, you must choose either #1 or #3.

 

[Lokar]

For the absolute risk of being out on a limb ( and i HOPE this post isn't political, but rather just informative), this should be clarified- nazism isn't "far right" in the traditional sense. nazism has two branches- the hitlerite branch and the strasser branch. Neither would qualify as "right wing" Both would probably be "extreme centerism" if you will in that both will entertain socialistic notion of "equality" between economic groups. The various movements associated with the "far right" today, ie falangism, iron guardism, nazism, were in their time, revolutionary and the antithesis of the "right wing" which would be associated more with monarchism, legitimatism, divine right, etc. All the nationalistic organizations would have been anathematic to genuinely aristocratic, "far right" ideologies. Really by the 1930s the whole "far right" as far as monarchistic ideology ceased to exist. Our "far "right " today would have been essentially centrist by the european standards of the 1930s. What made it controversial wasn't its "centrism" but its vocal militaristic aims.

I recommend looking at mussolini's definitions of fascism, etc to really get a well balanced view of the idea. The idea of "far left" and "far right" are really outdated ideas and inaccurate to describe either marxism or any form of fascism.

Oh, the right/left scale is absolutely useless nowadays, but going by generally accepted standards, at least in the UK, fascism is far right. It generally ignores economic views and focuses almost purely on social views, and Nazism was extremely right wing socially. The Nazi wiki page is reliable as it is heavily monitored and cared for - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism. "... in practice, Nazism is a far right form of politics.[9]"

The political compass is a great system for showing political views. Nazism is Authoritarian, but only a little right economically. Socialism is Libertarian and Left economically.

However, the main point is that Nazism is economically slightly right wing, despite the "socialism" in the name, and is very conservative politically - so the statement that the Nazi party were socialists or "liberal fascists" is a falsehood.

 

[Lokar]

Regarding "manly men", the modern concept of "manliness" was created when homosexuality started being more public knowledge, and not quite so illegal (at least in the UK). Men didn't want to be branded as a homosexual, so they stopped doing anything "feminine" or with other men. In the Victorian Era, men walked around holding other men's hands or walking arm in arm, they loved floral decorations, they cared after their appearance, and could you imagine a Victorian gentleman burping and farting? Hell, Lincoln shared a bed multiple times with other men. Can you imagine how people would react if Obama were to do that today?

Cary Grant and Gene Kelly are manly, and they were much closer to metrosexual than macho.

If my history isn't failing me, it was after Wilde's trial that the fear of being branded homosexual hit London. It wasn't an overnight change from gentleman to caveman, but I think that was London's catalyst.

 

[Maguire]

Oh, the right/left scale is absolutely useless nowadays, but going by generally accepted standards, at least in the UK, fascism is far right. It generally ignores economic views and focuses almost purely on social views, and Nazism was extremely right wing socially. The Nazi wiki page is reliable as it is heavily monitored and cared for - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism. "... in practice, Nazism is a far right form of politics.[9]"

The political compass ( http://www.politicalcompass.org/ ) is a great system for showing political views. Nazism is Authoritarian, but only a little right economically. Socialism is Libertarian and Left economically.

However, the main point is that Nazism is economically slightly right wing, despite the "socialism" in the name, and is very conservative politically - so the statement that the Nazi party were socialists or "liberal fascists" is a falsehood.

No worries, while this would make a worthwhile debate elsewhere, i don't want to go down that road myself- i wrote that last post when i was on the verge of passing out and drunk.

 

[Senator Jack]

As for Jack's choice about the bar, the important question is if revenue and profits rose or fell after he left.

Seriously though, in any given situation a human being has three, and only three, choices:

1) Escape the situation

2) Seek to change the situation

3) Endure the situation

The morality, nobility or rationality of the various choices will be situationally and personally dependent but it will always come down to one of the three.

Certainly, my being exposed to the ravings of this fellow at an early age has never allowed for my selection of option #3.

As for the term, Anti-modernist, I think that about clinically states it the best even though there is the paradox of an Atomic Era Anti-modernist, such as myself, having an apartment of Danish Modern decor. A sort of Ant-modernist Modernist.

I have noticed that in this thread members are tending to pick up and then harp on one word or idea that gets stuck in their craw. My reason, again, for starting this thread was not only to 'pick a name' but to explore the entire psychology of what we do. Yes, there were a few things I didn't see through or consider about the subculture in the first few posts, but that's only because I was learning about myself, 'ourselves', as we went along. Had I ever thought of my lifestyle as an 'affliction' before? No. Do I consider it to be one today, three days after I wrote that? Perhaps. I'm still not sure. Affliction or not, what it definitely is not, however, is the accepted norm of the society in which we live, that being the 21st century digital one, (so please no comparisons to the Bushmen or Amazonian Natives, let's say.), and that fact cannot be denied.

I like to think of this thread as a dialectic, and that inherently implies a change of course as opinions are given and facts are stated. What we started out on this journey 500 posts ago will certainly not be where we end, and that's if we ever do. What I'd like, however, is not to take these side trips to Nazism, Socialism, Sexual Identity and the like. I've refrained from quite a bit of hair-trigger replies here, and I ask all to do the same.

Thanks and kind regards,

Jack

 

[Maguire]

On the general question- i am not sure we'd all fit neatly under one category or another. there are some folks who are "stuck in the 1940s" in every single way, some who simply like a certain aspect, be it hats, the clothes, or the pinup models or the cars, for some i'd say it has to do with mod and punk subcultures already in existance.. I see wearing suits and dressing neatly as just "fitting in", not creating an impression of anything outside of a typical young male. I am not doing it to stand out, infact part of why i do it is because it conjures up anonymity, it is nondescript, no colorful pictures or cute phrases all over a t shirt. Its timeless, neat, and appropriate for nearly everything.

But my reasons may not be someone elses reasons, infact i doubt they are for some. I couldn't say its a subculture or even a definable group here outside of enthusiasm for vintage things.

Ohyeah, and forgive me as i said- you'd be jumping on phrases or rambling onto uncharted territory in the thread if you'd had as many whiskeys as i did.

 

[SGT Rocket]

Hang on to you hats

On the general question- i am not sure we'd all fit neatly under one category or another. there are some folks who are "stuck in the 1940s" in every single way, some who simply like a certain aspect, be it hats, the clothes, or the pinup models or the cars, for some i'd say it has to do with mod and punk subcultures already in existance.. I see wearing suits and dressing neatly as just "fitting in", not creating an impression of anything outside of a typical young male. I am not doing it to stand out, infact part of why i do it is because it conjures up anonymity, it is nondescript, no colorful pictures or cute phrases all over a t shirt. Its timeless, neat, and appropriate for nearly everything.

But my reasons may not be someone elses reasons, infact i doubt they are for some. I couldn't say its a subculture or even a definable group here outside of enthusiasm for vintage things.

Ohyeah, and forgive me as i said- you'd be jumping on phrases or rambling onto uncharted territory in the thread if you'd had as many whiskeys as i did.

This is me to some respect, less the nondescript. I HATE wearing T-shirts and such with phrases on it. I also wish to dress my age. I would not want to be considered a 41 or 42 yo guy who dresses like a kid in the suburbs that has watched too much MTV. So dressing, if not vintage "classic style" from the 1930's and 1940's, I'm sort of in the "head-space" of it. I haven't really thought about it, so bear with me this is all sort of stream of thought right now.

I'm the guy who likes 1930's and 1940's clothes, cars, "atmosphere" for lack of a better word, and of course hats (due to lots and lots of skin cancer). Also, for me, in my perspective, being in that type of vintage "atmosphere" helps me slow down and enjoy family, food, beer, life, etc...

But I have a 3yo boy and a 20 month old little girl, and I'm looking for a job. Now, I can't see myself living a 40's lifestyle in it's entirety. It would be neat if I had a community where I could do it, like a little town somewhere stopped in time. But where I live now, that is out of the question. I LOVE disposable diapers. I love that my lactose intolerant daughter can drink soy milk, etc...

So, do I like the clothes, cars, styles, and cool objects? Sure! Would I buy a good quality vintage influenced item, sure. Would I buy a good quality vintage item, sure. I have lots of vintage furniture in my house. But I also have a washing machine and dryer. It's just more practical for the kids clothes and for my ACU's after drill or ADSW (Guard work) that I get sometimes.

Part of the idea of that era in my head space, whethere it is correct or incorrect, is that things were a little slower (no boss paging, cell phoning you, or emailing you on the weekend). Also, it seems like, from what my grandparents told me the food out of the garden in back was much better than the stuff imported from Mexico or Central/South America. I haven't really flushed all this out. But, you guys get the idea. I never really felt a need to think about all this before.

My dad had an awesome garden growing I used to help with when I was growing up.

There is a great article by Mark Steyn in January 26, 2009 National Review called Hang on to Your Hats (it's in his Happy Warrior column). He talks about men in the 1940's and such and about being a man back then, vs, what we are churning out as men nowadays. And, a little on how our culture worships the new for a profit, $$. Of course giving much kudos to Humphrey Bogart, Gary Cooper, and William Powell: "you put on a hat and suit and you keep going until you die." I LOVE that.

I found an online copy of the article here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2205711/posts

I can't say I agree with the entire article but I do with a lot of it.

Edit: That is most of the article, some of it was left out. Se la vie

Anyway, lunch is being served so I must run. Sorry about the rant and forgive my spelling! No time to re-check my work.

 

[Feraud]

On the general question- i am not sure we'd all fit neatly under one category or another. there are some folks who are "stuck in the 1940s" in every single way, some who simply like a certain aspect, be it hats, the clothes, or the pinup models or the cars, for some i'd say it has to do with mod and punk subcultures already in existance..

Agreed. We all do not fit neatly into a category. If you are in the above "certain aspect" group then you are not the person being discussed in this thread. While everyone's input can be heard there should be a major caveat on considering the source. The "weekend vintage" or vintage in my heart and soul types cannot help define something they know little about.

The people being referred to in this thread are the guys and gals living the era.

 

[Feraud]

Bump.
Is the manifesto complete?

 

[Senator Jack]

No, I got sidetracked into writing the book for a musical. When that's out of the way, I'll try to get back to it.

Regards,

Jack

 

[Richard Warren]

Lokar: "Socialism is Libertarian"

If you can believe that, I guess you can believe anything, including that Cary Grant and Gene Kelly were really manly guts. So go for it.

To answer the original question, either well dressed or aging fantasists, depending.

 

[MisterCairo]

fftopic:

I really like vanilla.

 

[Undertow]

Agreed. We all do not fit neatly into a category...The people being referred to in this thread are the guys and gals living the era.

I think I struggle with this quite a bit because I'm neither vintage, nor modern, or anything specifically other than plain old-fashioned.

I'm afraid to speak up because I'm not consciously choosing to LIVE vintage, but I'm such a vintage person, with so many vintage habits, that it's hard to pull my life away from the vintage life.

I don't go out of my way to purchase vintage items, however I do try to make sensible purchases within my means, for items that are durable and practical. I do much by hand because I can't afford to do it otherwise, and because hard work is good for the soul. I go walking for fun, or read a book, or occassionally sneak in a Hitchcock film at home (only because no local theaters play it). I don't have cable, I don't have a cell phone, I don't even know what Facebook is (beside what I read in the newspapers) - and I still read newspapers.

I dress in the same mended clothes I've owned for a decade and I dress up for anything formal (and by formal, I mean any event in which more than my immediate family is present). I'm polite and curteous because that's how I was raised, not because it's the "in" thing.

So where does that leave me? I believe that still boots me out of the aforementioned group because I'm not really living vintage - I have a modern car, I live in a modern apartment, I have modern utilities and utensils and I purchase most things modern because they are inexpensive and practical.

So now I wonder where that leaves me? I think that puts me in the "Heart and Soul" category.

Oh and any news on the Manifesto?

 

[Fletch]

Are we, perhaps, a sect of the Phoenix that has become self-aware?

Jorge Luis Borges invented this group of outwardly ordinary folk who have only one thing in common: the preservation of a humble rite, learned from people at the margins of society and undertaken in drab and shabby places. Most of them don't know about each other and can't articulate what it's all about.

This describes 78 collectors better than just about anything I've ever come onto. Loungers are different in that they have "made a thing out of it" and share with each other freely, without caring who's into what.

Borges didn't make a point of the Phoenix, but of course, it's the bird that rises from its own ashes. Much like what we do with the discards and obsolete things of society.

 

[Bustercat]

Retrophile makes the most sense to me: and it doesn't really require an explanation for most people, yet is general enough not to call up any past era in particular.

If a name sounds too contrived, it's alot harder to spread into the vernacular and sounds like a club or at best a tiny movement, not a bonafide cultural phenomenon.

It doesn't really sound too faddish, either... certain eras may come back into fashion as fads. But 'retro' is pretty universal, has a history, and it seems to be a word that's here to stay.

I predict it will come to mean anything 20th century over the next several decades.

Atavist sounds too barbaric and reactionary, IMO.

It can be modified with any number of prefixes, too... hard-line or absolutist retrophile, moderate retrophile, technological, musical, linguistic, culinary, whatever....
Barring that, how about some variation on the word Nostalgia? (nostalgiacist, nostalgist, etc.)

 

[Jack Scorpion]

Retrophile makes the most sense to me: and it doesn't really require an explanation for most people, yet is general enough not to call up any past era in particular.

I like "retrophile." I don't think I entirely qualify though.

Where does this phrase come from?

Fashion is fleeting, but style is forever.

Seeing that lede under "Suits" on The Fedora Lounge homepage impressed upon me very much, because when I tend to wear clothes from a bygone era, I don't think of myself as rejecting the current decade, or being obsessed with a bygone decade. I just like the way it looks. Just because I am interested in and embrace the fashions of the past doesn't mean I reject current trends by definition. I look for style everywhere; the past just happens to have most of it.

I think it can be expanded to cover related things, like:

Movies are fleeting, but cinema is forever.

I am a big film geek, and many times I have been accused of neglecting films from the past 30 years in favor of watching old movies, but that isn't true. I watch more contemporary films than older films. I just love older films, too, because I love movies, and I don't want to neglect great films because there are X years old.

Etiquette is fleeting, but decorum is forever.

This one needs to be rewritten, but I think I get the point across. Some people like to compare the morality of the past to the amorality of now, and most people like to compare the manners of the past to the present. Guys do not take off their hats when a woman enters the elevator, etc. But being a humble, decent and respectful person can just as much be a contemporary quality as a retro quality. Acting a gentleman is not looking toward the past. If you like the certain Emily Post-esque etiquette of the past, that is "retrophilia". If you reject modern day manners if favor of them, "extremist" might not be the wrong word.

This can go on and on, and it's just how I personally feel on the matter. I think some of the Fedora Lounge can be grouped into a more extremist category, but I think the majority believe that appreciation doesn't deserve to be pigeonholed.

 

[Fletch]

how about some variation on the word Nostalgia? (nostalgiacist, nostalgist, etc.)

Anything derived from "nostalgia" ultimately has to involve a longing for one's own past. Implied in nostalgia is a very limited view of history - history is only meaningful as personal memory, and only relevant if it relates to one's own experience and consciousness.

We're about much more here. In a sense, we want to expand our consciousness to other times, in so far as that's possible.

Some people like to compare the morality of the past to the amorality of now

That's a real rhetorical straightjacket. I like to compare the morality of the past to the morality of now, and the amorality of the past to the amorality of now. That confounds nostalgiacs.