Bransom, TX

a discussion place for our web site


You are not connected. Please login or register

BOTD 07-19-2013 Way Way Back 1931 - An Ivor Production

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Skater


Bransom Postmaster
Way Way Back 1931
An Ivor Production

You are the principal of a children's orphanage. Today you have just settled down with your mid morning cup of coffee and are taking the chance to read the local paper. On Page 8 you see the following picture:



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
is of two of your younger residents -  ten year old best friends, Amos and Andy.


You are responsible for discipline at the home and believe in the efficiency of the paddle. This picture was obviously taken some time ago as the local paper only comes out weekly but will the boys be going to bed tonight holding hot butts as opposed to cigarette butts?


_________________
Can you dig it?
http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=Skater

Skater


Bransom Postmaster
Pretty easy one this time... Paddle will be flying


_________________
Can you dig it?
http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=Skater

David M. Katz


Marshall
Boys, reach for your toes, please.


_________________
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=David+M.+Katz

Iconoclast


Trailboss
The boys butts are safe! The lack of visible smoke, in the photo, tells me this is a fake, staged photo! The boys are not really smoking, so their butts won't either!

Iconoclast

1strappedboy


Sherrif
Icono fails to take the era into consideration. The photo alone 'embarrasses' the 'good name' of the institution. The paddle/strap/whatever will be swinging with meaning today!!

AFinch


Sherrif
I'm in agreement with most everyone else. In 1931, the boys are toast. Just holding cigarettes for a "staged photo" would be grounds for severe punishment.

Kat


Editor Extraordinaire
I won't condemn the boys without a hearing. If an adult did, in fact, put them up to posing with the cigarettes, then even 1931, I would consider the adults responsible rather than punishing the boys. I'd also wonder if in 1931 smoking would be treated with the same sort of horror that it is now because of the widely known and publicized health risks.

Kat

kalico


Sherrif
I was kinda thinking the same as kat with the last part....that was when smoking was starting to become the "new cool" thing.....I think for the 1930's I would be more concerned with more on how they come about having the smokes.....did they steal them? I think I need to have a sit down and get some needed answers, then we will see if bottoms will be paddled and who's.




hugs kal

Stone Man


Marshall
The strop will be swinging tonight. Considering the time, even if the boys were put up to this I would be more concerned with public opinion and funding than I would be of whether or not they actually smoked.

John Boy


Sherrif
I will call them in talk with them first, show them the picture, then tell them to bend over.

http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=John+Boy

AFinch


Sherrif
Kat wrote:I won't condemn the boys without a hearing. If an adult did, in fact, put them up to posing with the cigarettes, then even 1931, I would consider the adults responsible rather than punishing the boys. I'd also wonder if in 1931 smoking would be treated with the same sort of horror that it is now because of the widely known and publicized health risks.

Kat

Even in the 1930's, at least according to my parents (who both smoked from the time they became "legal adults" until the "well known health risks" became known in the 1960s), while pretty much everyone's parents smoked, a kid caught smoking was the kiss of death.

Kat


Editor Extraordinaire
AFinch wrote:
Kat wrote:I won't condemn the boys without a hearing. If an adult did, in fact, put them up to posing with the cigarettes, then even 1931, I would consider the adults responsible rather than punishing the boys. I'd also wonder if in 1931 smoking would be treated with the same sort of horror that it is now because of the widely known and publicized health risks.

Kat

Even in the 1930's, at least according to my parents (who both smoked from the time they became "legal adults" until the "well known health risks" became known in the 1960s), while pretty much everyone's parents smoked, a kid caught smoking was the kiss of death.

Yes, that is undoubtedly true in some families. I suppose various cultural and religious beliefs would affect how adults reacted. I know people who began smoking in their teens and even earlier during the 1950s and 60s, without parental interference, as long as the kids paid for their own vice. In those days, no minor had the slightest difficulty in purchasing tobacco. Parents often sent their kids to buy a pack of cigarettes for them. That's why I suspect that smoking outrage in the 1930s may have been more focused on the likely theft of cigarettes than any moral opprobrium or health concern.

As always with scenarios set in earlier eras, it's easy to get locked into the mindset that harsh discipline was universally practiced. It was undoubtedly more commonplace and had great acceptance than now. Nevertheless, there have always been plenty of exceptions.

Orphanages typically have a reputation for harsh, often abusive, discipline, yet not long ago I saw a documentary on PBS about a Great Depression era orphanage/school in north central Texas run by the Masons, iirc. It was a place where parents could leave the children without giving up their parental rights to ensure the children got the basic necessities of food and shelter. A number of alumni of the orphanage were interviewed and spoke of the place with great fondness, with no mention of corporal punishment. Of course, that doesn't mean cp wasn't used, but it does suggest to me that if it was, it was moderate enough not to be part of these people's dominant memories of the place.

Kat

Padraig


Trailboss
In times of depression and poverty there were other things to worry about for parents (if exist) than smoking kids. Even more a (stolen?) fag could be a replacement for a meal oder at least lessen the hunger.

The better off the family, the more likely smoking would be frowned upon, I think.

I found an interessting article:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Children-Smoking-In-The-1930s&id=1199037

and a short video clip

http://www.efootage.com/stock-footage/18417/1920s_Urban_Poverty/


So I can't imagine if the kids would have been in trouble for smoking (probably for stealing).

Jack


Admin
I tend to agree more with Kat and Kal.

While Kat has a point about kids buying cigarettes (I remember being sent to get my mom a pack before I turned 7 (I was told to buy 2 packs and that I could buy candy with the change... from a dollar)). Still, I also remember being whipped for smoking at.... probably 12. On the other hand, I was in eighth grade when they got rid of the high school smoking area (and no, it wasn't for teachers).

The problem is, I don't really know what the attitude would be around here back at that time. Remember that cigarettes used to be advertised with health benefits! I think I'd be more concerned about why they'd posed for the pictures, and from where the cigarettes had come. Without a specific reason to think otherwise, I'd probably just let them know if I felt they were getting out of line, with maybe a swat for reminder.

http://bransomtx.forumotion.net

MemoryMan


Sherrif
This is difficult without seeing the caption.  It is clearly a posed picture and I presume the press then was just as irresponsible as it is now.

In 1931 smoking was regarded as a man's pursuit.  Women who climbed above their station to smoke were often regarded as being almost on a par with prostitutes.  Children were not men and hence were not allowed to smoke.  "It stunts your growth" was the reason paraded to me.  Children could buy cigarettes; I was often sent on an errand to get my dads.

Toy and sweet cigarettes were available right up to the start of the war for children wanting to emulate their fathers.  Were these they? The toys had varying degrees of realism, the sweets were simply candy cylinders decorated with a red end.

Boys in orphanages were pretty closely controlled back then, some were like prisons. I will be calling the boys in, but in reality I will be more concerned to ascertain whether they had permission to be where they were and that they hadn't been stealing.  If all turns out to be innocent, fine, otherwise it will be more than sweet cigarettes that acquire decorated red ends.

http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=MemoryMan

ivor


Marshall
I was waiting for MM's response to this one being the person nearest to the era in question.

My gut feeling is that smoking by kids wasn't viewed in the same way as it has become over the last 30-40 years. I think pictures of urchins with cigarettes from that time are not that rare.

I'd suspect the principal would probably be more concerned as to how they acquired them rather than the actual smoking, especially as unless there is a caption or editorial there is no evident link of the boys to the orphanage,

http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=Ivor+slipper

Iconoclast


Trailboss
MemoryMan wrote:This is difficult without seeing the caption.  It is clearly a posed picture and I presume the press then was just as irresponsible as it is now.

 Children could buy cigarettes; I was often sent on an errand to get my dads.

Toy and sweet cigarettes were available right up to the start of the war for children wanting to emulate their fathers.  Were these they? The toys had varying degrees of realism, the sweets were simply candy cylinders decorated with a red end.

.
Back then there was freedom, instead of the nanny state we have now; except in Germany:

A Nazi anti-smoking ad titled "The chain-smoker"  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
saying "He does not devour it [the cigarette],
it devours him"  

Iconoclast

squarecutter


Sherrif
With the reputation of the home at stake and in those I think a strap or a paddle would have been used. Parents may not all have been so bothered. Oh and candy cigarettes went on into the 70s till it became politically correct to stop them In the UK the climate changed so this became one item that people no longer wanted young kiddies imitating their elders with

AFinch


Sherrif
http://www.amazon.com/World-Candy-Confections-Cigarettes/dp/B001BU0JEK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374279525&sr=8-1&keywords=candy+cigarettes

They still make them. You just have to look--they are no longer ubiquitous. "Nanny Bloomberg's next target appears to be styrofoam cups.

And for those who insist this is all for our "own good" and based on "established science", check this out:

http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/17366/20130712/cdc-guidelines-salt-intake-salt-consumption.htm

Draw your own conclusions.

Kat


Editor Extraordinaire
AFinch wrote:http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/17366/20130712/cdc-guidelines-salt-intake-salt-consumption.htm

Draw your own conclusions.

I never believed that salt was evil. I've poured it on everything I eat for years, and my blood pressure has always been fine. Very Happy

Kat

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum