I don’t indulge in the boxes of freebies the thrift store puts out; they’re usually loaded with junk. But Friday morning, a huge number of the freebies were … art books!
Oldish art books, but in good shape; once obviously some painter’s cherished possession. I grabbed seven or eight, and along with them the book on the right, 101 Classic Homes of the Twenties, with floor plans and photographs.
101 Classic Homes is one of those marvelous books Dover does, where they find some quirky, usually artsy, material in the public domain and reprint it. In this case, it’s a plan book from 1925 from Elmira, New York, builder Harris, McHenry & Baker Co.
The houses themselves are pretty neat, ranging from Tudors and Colonials to Cape Cods and a few that prefigure the “modern” homes of the 1950s. Mostly there’s and lots of variations on American Craftsman.
What struck me, though, was the the brief descriptive copy with each house. I’ll let it speak for itself:
A child seldom becomes a burden on society whose home life has been one of happiness and contentment. The home is the localized center from which initial impulses for good and evil go out. Those who select THE STONELEIGH as a home in which to purify the environment for their children may well pay the debt to humanity which all of us owe.
On THE CORNELL, a solidly suburban two-bedroom:
True peace and enduring happiness are found only by those who unselfishly seek to develop the best in themselves and others. The most natural place for such growth and influence is the individual home where inner strength is constantly developed by conscious freedom, and fear is shut out and destroyed by a sacred purpose.
This house was named THE EUCLID:
The education that counts in life’s competition is the education that elevates and enobles. The race for supremacy in the sensible pursuit of sane business is not won by the fleet-footed but by the strong. In private homes like THE EUCLID there is a chance for children to absorb the essentials of a sound, unselfish education.
Now that was another big, substantial place and you can see the intellectual snob appeal. But most of the homes in the book had just two bedrooms. And even they had these grandiose, aspirational descriptions. Here’s one clearly marketed as a starter home:
One of the greatest possible assets a man can plan and develop for the future safety of his wife and children is a home. If all men had the backbone and stamina to build for their family substantial homes similar to THE CLIFTON, charitable institutions and orphan asylums would soon go out of business for the lack of inmates.
I believe my favorite blurb was on a Shakespearean cottage that featured a library and a servant’s quarters with its own staircase:
If those who occupy homes like THE STRATFORD are not happy, it is because they have violated some natural law, or are not conscious of the fact that happiness is a condition of the mind and comes as the result of the mastery of one’s moods. It is not a thing to be purchased at a price, but rather a fact to be recognized or accepted, regardless
Yes. If you are not happy in your home it can only be because you’ve violated a law of nature or are too puerile to suck it up and rise above your troubles.
And THAT was considered appealing selling copy.
—–
Now, of course all this is just advertising, which is by definition pandering bulls*it. And there’s pandering aplenty here. These builders really knew which part of a couple was their real customer; there’s lots of “maternal instinct,” “sacred hearth,” “the woman whose husband appreciates her,” “fairness to the woman who does her own housework,” and “earnest maternal longings.” But even the maternal longings are “… for better conditions for the culture and refinement of their children.”
So yes, it’s BS. Who becomes a better person because his home has dignified columns or hers has an efficient kitchen? AND plenty of families back then were burdened with abuse, neglect, overwork, overdue bills, sibling rivalries, crappy education, and general familiarity breeding contempt, just like today. I doubt few of those 101 homes ever housed a saint or a paragon.
But don’t you find the aspirations charming? And the whole idea was not just to live the good life (as defined by customs of the day), but to become better people, and raise your children to be better yet. To do that: practice self-mastery, value education, work hard, and expect the best.
Can you imagine anyone making a popular appeal like that now? Even when you see ads for upscale products, they’re usually all about self-indulgence and appearances. Even “the highest quality” is positioned mostly as an attribute that makes buyers look smart. But most of Mssrs. Harris, McHenry & Baker’s audience was middle class or working class ready to move up. And they lured them with pitches not only about happiness and contentment, but duty and hard work and a desire to contribute to society.
You made a pitch like that now, you’d have all of Twitter coming down on your head for sexism, racism, white privilege, and using “dog-whistle” words.
—–
When I was young, I was an idealist. Well, who isn’t an idealist in adolescence? But later I came to see ideals mainly as the launching pad for hypocrisy.
When I was older, I stood on principles like a rock. But older still, I see principles as things to measure against so we can be honest with ourselves when life compels (or entices) us to violate them.
I’m imperfect. Let me make a wild guess that you are, too. And it often seems as if our degree of imperfection is in inverse proportion to our degree of high-falutinness.
When I hear some mucky-muck going on about high ideals and aspirations, I find myself waiting for the sex scandal or the money swindle that’s soon to be revealed about said mucky-muck. When some neighbor or co-worker is holier-than-thou, I can be relatively sure he’s got a large and colorful collection of porn involving underage transvestites in bondage.
It was also quite liberating to have been released from all those calls to betterment and duty. And, for us women, to be released from those paeans to our inborn domesticity and the chains they placed upon us. To hell with imposed duty! Down with clichés! Take your social conformity and shove it! Yep, I was right in there for all of that. Still am.
At the same time, though, it’s sad that society has such low standards for its individuals today. And worse, you can’t even call them low standards since there’s not much to measure them against. As long as you’ve got your smartphone and your selfie stick, who gives a damn about character, culture, education, and personal contributions? You can be as wicked or as haphazard or as aimless or as rude as you wish to be because there’s always a ready excuse at hand. You’re a victim! No one should expect more of you.
Yes, there are still parents who aim for exactly the sort of betterment that was aspirational back there in 1925. Their names are frequently Patel, Wong, Yamamoto, or Goldstein; not so much Smith and Jones any more. And bless ’em; I’m glad we have the Patels and the Goldsteins and all. They, and the homeschooling and homesteading families who want both independence and betterment, are our best hope.
But what happened to the regular Smiths and Joneses standing a little straighter as they aspired not only to do better, but to be better?
“…I see principles as things to measure against so you’ll be honest with yourself when life compels (or entices) you to violate them.”
Exactly how I have come to feel about my principles. I fall short, and I know it because I have principles.
What’s interesting about those ads is the year 1925. We talk of “sheeple” today, and wonder when America lost its backbone and its ideals, but if they were still pandering to out “better nature” in 1925, then it seems we might have lost it all relatively lately.
Perhaps with Roosevelt and the rise of the Welfare State. The influence of multiple entitlements that has been creeping up on us has certainly not helped. Each decade has taken us farther away from our American dream, and led us as individuals and as a country away from the self-reliance that was America at its founding.
I live in one of those Craftsman houses.
Aiming to be better means you have to admit you’re not perfect now. That there is “better” than you are. That’s something a lot of people won’t do.
“Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when nobody’s looking, even when doing the wrong thing is legal.”
Aldo Leopold, c 1940.
From my Texas Hunter Education class.
But what happened to the regular Smiths and Joneses standing a little straighter…
Some of them, and their kids, are at 4-H. Around here we see some of them at summer camp. (Not computer/STEM/football/band “camp.” Real no-phones play-in-the-dirt summer camp.)
But yeah, a minority.
some mucky-muck going on…
People bragging about such are like the guy who is always telling you how he was a Secret Agent Man. Rule of Thumb: He wasn’t.
Just wondering: what is your evidence that earnest striving is rarer among Smiths and Joneses than among Patels, etc.? In the absence of supporting evidence, this strikes me as an unjustified slur on the legacy or Anglo-Saxon population of this land. Or am I reading you incorrectly?
“If you can’t be happy with this product, there’s something seriously wrong with you. Get over it!”
Wait. That’s not how ad copy is supposed to read?
Dammit! That’s what I was doing wrong!
James — My evidence is in the news every day. It’s in working class men dying younger of alcoholism, meth, and opiate abuse. It’s in kids going to college to take degrees in what amounts to grievance studies. It’s in the fact that millions are proud of their victim status and think it’s unreasonable to be expected to rise above their problems. I’m not saying that every individual is this way and certainly not saying that all Anglos are; just that striving and aspiration no longer seem to be mainstream social norms.
It’s also demonstrable that when it comes to educational achievement, East Indians, Chinese, Japanese, and Jews are champs. That doesn’t mean I believe that no WASP kid can compete academically or that no working class person can rise economically. I’m using broad generalizations.
No, I’m not slurring Anglo-Saxons. Nor my fellow Celtic-Americans. I used the names Smith and Jones to represent all ordinary working folk, who may be white or brown or black or pink with purple polka dots. Nor am I casting blame; I perceive a lot of reasons why things are as they are today.
“I live in one of those Craftsman houses.”
And I’m sure you’re a better person for it and that any children you may have will be handsome and above average because of it. 🙂
We have lots of Craftsman homes where I live. I love them but I’ve never been fortunate enough to own one.
“Wait. That’s not how ad copy is supposed to read?”
Maybe you were just born in the wrong era, Joel.
With profound respect, allow me to suggest that the evidence you cite from “the news every day” is anecdotal at best, and often purposefully serving a cultural-political agenda that is inimical to many of what I’m guessing are your own beliefs and values. After all, “the news every day” is a major part of what is teaching us all, by incessant repetition, that “white” is a pejorative, if not an actual obscenity. What I meant by evidence would be numerical in nature.
As for Jewish and northeast Asian intelligence, I would agree that they are superior to that of what I described as the legacy population. South Asian (Indian)? There I have my doubts. My son is a software engineer whose work often requires the correction of the outsourced products of Indian software shops, and he tells me that they’re horrible. No firm conclusions from here, though, as that’s also, obviously, anecdotal.
” What I meant by evidence would be numerical in nature.”
I don’t have that. Not at my fingertips, anyway. I’m sure some of it (e.g. working class men dying younger) is available, but some will remain subjective. Your point is well taken about the news.
“My son is a software engineer whose work often requires the correction of the outsourced products of Indian software shops”
I don’t doubt that at all. I’ve also heard that from other software engineers. And heaven knows, most of us dread calling customer support and discovering we’ve reached Mumbai. But East Indian immigrants in North America are a different matter — from spelling bee champs to precocious inventors.
Good point.
An Indian friend told me several years ago that in his son’s MBA class at Stanford, 23 out of the 25 members were Asian. I believe the new head of Microsoft is as well. I also remember hearing a number of years back that if M.I.T. took every Asian who scored an 800 on the math SAT’s, there wouldn’t be any room for anyone else. I can’t remember the name of it, but there is a school in India that has 60,000 applicants every year; some of the ones who fail to get in come to the U.S. and M.I.T. I remember reading that China offers the graduates very handsome salaries.
Here in Central Florida I am told repeatedly (and get concurrence whenever I ask) that it’s terribly hard to find people who want to work. There appears to be plenty of work available in the trades and not too many people who want to put in the effort. I think it’s simply the predictable deterioration of society described by Glubb in his “The Fate of Empires…” The best hope for individuals is to work hard (unless taxes force an Atlas Shrugged situation) because industrious individuals will have less and less competition, as noted by Robert J. Ringer in his 1983 book, How You Can Find Happiness During the Collapse of Western Civilization.
Shel writes: Here in Central Florida I am told repeatedly (and get concurrence whenever I ask) that it’s terribly hard to find people who want to work. There appears to be plenty of work available in the trades and not too many people who want to put in the effort.
Oh, there’s plenty of work available. Work eight hours/day, then work through lunch, then work two more hours because somebody else isn’t organized, then, more work in the evenings and on the weekends because the cell phone is expected to be on 24×7 and the worker is expected to answer it, then more work for self-improvement because training isn’t budgeted.
Instead, ask about jobs which are only 40 hours/week, perhaps four 10 hour days, and don’t require a cell phone or on-call duty, commuting or travel or self-supplied tools or training which eat up your profit from working. These jobs don’t exist because employers find it more important to block a worker from having options, to prevent them from getting ahead. The putative “work” is usually not that important; what is important is the employer gets to act on their envy. Most employee work is emotional work, and massively consumed with politics. Most “jobs” are fundamentally a tax collection of time.
Funny, I don’t have a “work” motivation problem when the trade work is to put in a week of 14 hour days to repair something on my own house. Downright pleasant to do a good job, and know it’s been done, and no one complains when I get up late and work into the night under lights.