Inkstainedwretch
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,037
- Location
- United States
My parents went to high school in the mid-30s and could remember their marching bands practicing the goose-step. It was soon to fall out of favor.
Yep. And it's been controversial as long as it's existed. One of the most furiously-debated domestic issues of the mid-1930s was compulsory flag saluting, with critics arguing that the practice was something right out of the Nazi playbook -- not just the raised arm salute, but the whole idea of forcing children to "pay honor" to the flag.
There was a long string of court cases in the late 1930s stemming from the refusal of Jehovah's Witnesses to salute the flag -- they consider such an act to be idolatry -- and in 1940 there was a coast-to-coast wave of mob actions against them, including cases of arson, beatings, tar-and-feathering, forced marches, castration and attempted lynching, such actions usually led by the American Legion and other "patriots." The rioting got so bad that the Attorney General had to go on the air and demand an end to it. Finally, in 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that schools, or any other Government authority, cannot compel anyone to salute the flag in any way, and that's remained the law of the land ever since.
Out of the "traditional" Christmas songs, very few are much older than 50, let alone dating from the Victorians.
I had an undergrad prof (pre-law advisor and a terrific mentor) who was fond of bellowing in his Constitutional Law class, "You owe a debt to the [Jehovah's] Witnesses that you'll NEVER be able to repay!" And he was right: no other religious group has force the Supreme Court to define the protections of the First Amendment as many times as the JWs. Interestingly, the case you refer to (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette) was a reversal of a 1940 ruling in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, where the Court ruled 8-1 that the Witnesses had to salute the flag. The whole dynamic that evolved over those two cases is one we relive to this day. Douglas' comment in his concurring opinion in the latter case ("Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions.") would seem to be something that all Americans could agree with, but it wasn't then, and it isn't now, I'm sad to say.
It has always seemed ironic to me that someone makes a big deal out of saluting the flag or otherwise "paying respect," whatever that might be taken to mean, and yet we don't actually require anyone to actually do anything like serve in the armed forces. Doing something like saluting the flag or putting an American flag sticker on your Toyota is what I call "flag waving." It's cheap patriotism. It costs nothing and does no one any good. Just like the "support our troops" bumper stickers.
Particularly in light of the fact that the oath taken upon entering the armed forces of the US is to defend and protect the Constitution. Not a piece of cloth.
What I love about the Greatest Generation is that they seemed to be of all political persuasions. People could take different sides of a political debate, but questioning your adversary's patriotism was generally considered bad form.
One small example: remember the (in)famous Chicago Seven trial of 1969-70? Passions were running white hot, but the courtroom battles were led by Thomas Aquinas Foran, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and chief defense counsel William Moses Kunstler. Foran had served as a dive bomber pilot on the Navy, and Kunstler served in the Army, attaining the rank of major and being awarded the Bronze Star. Both served in the Pacific Theatre of the Second World War. Two very different visions of how patriotism should play out, but there is no doubt that either truly loved this country and wanted the best for it.
The late George Carlin had a brilliant routine he called "Euphemisms", and one of the examples he used was how the term "Shell Shock" from World War I had changed to "Battle Fatigue" for World War II, "Operational Exhaustion" for the Korean War, and "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" for the Vietnam War. Each subsequent change may have been more accurate descriptively, but they were also longer, more complicated, and more clinically sterile to the point where the human element had been almost entirely removed.So, terms no longer in use (or in declining use), here's an odd one:
VD.
I made use of the letters (venereal disease of course) in the context of a legal file I'm working on base, and my friend, mid-thirties and fellow JAG, had no idea what I meant. He got STD* though.
* As in, he understood what it meant...
The late George Carlin had a brilliant routine he called "Euphemisms", and one of the examples he used was how the term "Shell Shock" from World War I had changed to "Battle Fatigue" for World War II, "Operational Exhaustion" for the Korean War, and "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" for the Vietnam War. Each subsequent change may have been more accurate descriptively, but they were also longer, more complicated, and more clinically sterile to the point where the human element had been almost entirely removed.
A general rule is that if something - a group, a process, an event, a cultural issue, an ideology, etc. - keeps getting renamed, there is a marketing / impression-changing agenda at work and, usually, not a benign one.
Every example I can think of is directly or indirectly political, so I'm not going there, but if one thinks about the things whose names - over many years - have stayed unchanged versus those that haven't, you'll notice that those that are changed usually have an agenda at work to improve their image or change the narrative in a more favorable direction.