Bizarre, Criminal law, Politics, Society

In Memory of the Eighteenth Amendment

lips-that-touch-liquor-shall-not-touch-oursSince we recently passed the 87th anniversary of passage of the Eighteenth Amendment and the start of the Prohibition period, I could not resist posting this picture that I spotted on the Internet. One wonders why the prohibition was not more successful.

For those who say that marketing is everything, this may be a cautionary photo.

45 thoughts on “In Memory of the Eighteenth Amendment”

  4. By golly darn, now *I* am offended by the removal of the best witticism of the entire satirical presentation!

    Professor Turley, your wit is too invaluable to throttle (within reason, of course). I will boycott this site (no great loss) if you continue such self-censorship (however will I know until after the fact…hmm).

    That flapper and Ms. Nation’s juxtaposition conjured up some neat thoughts and memories that I otherwise would have never thought of and therefore to which I would have been deprived.

    Thought provocation…therein lies the true value of satire.

  5. Jonathan,

    I’m not worried about being offended. I just said it was sexist. By sexist I am refering to the text of the post that was there earlier about bad girls etc. I think the temperance crowd (at least most of it, with the exception of those I spoke about) deserves a real thumping. They were acting like the Taliban and I’m all for making fun of any version of the morals police!

  6. Jill:

    I am sorry if this offended you. I would indeed have shown the same photograph it were men pictured. After all, it was the subjects who poised the question of choosing between boozing and smooching.

  8. mespo,

    Those are only pictures of women and the comments are made on women’s attractiveness. You can’t get out of that entry being about women’s sexual “attractiveness”. It is exactly the same as equating black’s with the eating of watermelons. Both are ridiculous stereotypes.

    FFLEO,

    Thank you for what you said. Please be clear that I do not wish to prohibit the posting of the card or this entry by JT or any responses to it by others. Saying something is sexist isn’t the same thing as saying it shouldn’t be put out in the public domain. I believe the first, but not the second. Still I am struck by the different responses to something that is racist to something that is sexist. It tells us much of our own society.

    As to the temperance movement itself, it has a very mixed history. The part of it based on the “morality” that drinking is evil is quite fascist, much as the war on drugs is today (and I recommend puzzling’s analysis of this under the Eric Holder entry). But there was a group of people, primarily women but also some men, who oppossed drinking because of its economic ramifications. At that time a man did pretty much whatever he pleased with his paycheck. There was not much in the way legal recourse for women to get access to the money. Men often took their paycheck and drank it, leaving their wife and children to starve. These family members were really desperate. You have to remember that the ability of women to support their families was there but limited and complicated by having little access to birth control.
    So even the temperance movement had real reasons, not just some dumb-ass “moral’s police”, behind it. They may have been wrong in trying to deal with the problem by banning alcohol but there was a desperate, hard-time reality behind their actions.

  10. “What in the Wide World of Sports is going on here!?!” If anyone ever doubts the value of satire as both sociological and political commentary, just watch “Blazing Saddles” again. ‘Nuff said.

  12. Jill,

    One aspect about you that I especially like is that you most often remember the positions that others espouse within this blawg. Regardless of your stance on any topic, that means you take the time to read and think about opposing views.

    I cherish satire and free speech because such devices expose all manner of human thought, prejudice, and frailties. I never want to see a throttle on the freedom to express ideas and we have laws to punish those who take free speech/satire across the threshold of criminal culpability.

    Yes, I did not object to the satirical implications of watermelon card. Would I have forwarded the e-mail and did I laugh when I read what it said? No! However, I do not want such sarcasm, wit, irony, criticism, etc. limited because to do so would disallow lampoons of the real tyrants and fools such as George Bush and company and despots throughout the world.

  13. Jil:

    I would think the same reaction would be had if the subjects were male instead of female. The criticism seems to be more against he past and its “tight-ass” ways coupled with the decidedly unattractive marketing scheme, than against women. The watermelon “humor” had no such mitigations.

  14. Yes, but in the one case most people agreed that the speech should not be muzzled but should be challenged, that people should not remain silent about racism. Why be silent about sexism? (I realize that you are being consistent in your position because you did not object to the watermelon card.)

  17. Um, beauty *lies* in the (drunken) eyes of the beholder?

    I know I am being sexist here, but Ms. Nation’s looks scare me more than her wielding that hatchet does.

  18. C’mon, that photo simply HAS to have been put out by the liquor industry back in the day. Doncha think? Who could poosibly be inspired to quit drinking or accept Prohibition based on these sirens’ call? Whew!

  19. I know many people think the baby boom happened due soldiers coming home from WWII, but it did not happen after WWI, so I submit this photo as proof it was the repeal of prohibition, and the rediscovery of beer goggles.

Comments are closed.