MovieChat Forums > Warm Springs (2005) Discussion > FDR's Cigarette Smoking

FDR's Cigarette Smoking

posted 17 years ago by blainefielding
10 replies | jump to latest

It's one of those delicious ironies of "historical" film-making that while this movie glorifies FDR's supposedly heroic effort against one public health menace it ignores his complicity in a far greater one.

Polio was a public health concern in the U.S. from the late 19th century until the mid-1950s when the vaccine was invented. Yet even in its year of peak incidence in 1952 there were only 21,000 cases. And polio crippled, but did not kill. Cigarettes on the other hand are held accountable for over 300,000 deaths a year. And FDR smoked like a chimney. Moreover, probably no individual has ever been so publicly identified with smoking. His most famous pictures show him posing with his cigarette holder between his teeth. He positively flaunted his smoking. { Eleanor smoked too, but only privately}.

And it is not true that cigarette smoking was deemed harmless in the early 20th century. Prior to WWI, when Roosevelt came of age, cigarette smoking was widely fowned on in American culture for much the same reasons as today. His cousin Teddy for example was an adament anti-smoker. And FDR was himself banned from a Congressional hearing during WWI when he was an assistant Navy Secretary.for his public smoking.

Probably no one individual did more to make smoking publicly respectable than FDR for an entire generation of Americans. And with dire consequences for the future.

Blaine in Seattle

[–] ColonelDEH 16 years ago

Firstly, the specific effects of smoking on health were not made public untill after Roosevelts death. Oh, and TR was an anti-smoker because he was also asthmatic. There have always been people who chose not to smoke, but the actual affects of smoking, beyond the fact that it wasn't especially good for you, weren't known.

Secondly, I would argue that FDR did nothing to popularize smoking. He didn't need to. Smoking was already an extremely widespread and accepted activity among men of that time. It was traditionally considered polite for gentlemen to abstain from smoking in front of women, but the ever-bluring gender roles of the 20th century relaxed many rules of ettiquette.

Thirdly, cigarettes have never killed a single smoker. A persons decision to smoke is what kills them. I happen to enjoy tobacco from time to time and expect that I may pay a price for it someday. I'm willing to accept the responsibility for that.

Fourthly, one must never attempt to force our 21st century views on a historical figure. To do so gives a biased, jaundiced, and incomplete view of history. Men are simply products of their time. I'm speaking as someone who has a little experience in the historical field here.

[–] blainefielding 16 years ago

I am a smoker myself, and indeed I have smoked for over half a century.

In any event, my post was not to castigate FDR, who on I balance I like. It was simply to point out the irony.

Your assertion that "Men are simply products of of their time" is crude nonsense. Every age has a multitude of models to choose from. I grew up in the heyday of smoking after WWII. Even then there were a number of anti-smoking advocates, not least from my sports coaches. Your "historical experience" is lame.

And "the everyone does it" or did it rather- defense is rather childish. FDR himself would hardly advocate it- as shown by his attitude toward blacks' treatment in the South- though always muted publicly for obvious political reasons.

If you want to learn something about cigarettes from an historical standpoint read the following:

-Brandt, "The Cigarette Century; the Rise, Fall and Deadly Persistance of the Product That Defined America" {2007}.
-Tara Parker-Pope, "Cigarettes; Anatomy of an Industry From Seed to Smoke" {2001}.
-Cassandra Tate, "Cigarette Wars; the Triumph of the "'Little White Slaver'" {1999}.

Blaine in Seattle

[–] ColonelDEH 16 years ago

I didn't employ a bandwagon defense. I simply pointed out the fact, and it is a fact, that while there were opponents smoking was widely practiced and accepted.

And my assertion that men are products of their time is far from "crude nonsense". It is a view used by responsible professional historians when one is analyzing motivations and effects of a persons life. Of course you can find men of varying viewpoints for any period and any subject. But they were all products of their surrounding culture and environment, just as I am a product of mine. It is vital to keep these things in mind when studying an historical figure.

And I must admt that I have read none of your recommended books, though I give you my word I will look into them. I did notice that they were all written very recently. While historical texts are great tools to assist in analyzation, they can never compare to Original Documents if one is truly trying to understand a subject within the context of its time.

One final word. Using a word like "lame" to criticize something you have no way of knowing about is rather childish and actually serves to weaken an argument.

[–] blainefielding 16 years ago

You are asserting an expertise without any foundation. Those three books you criticize for being so "recent" and not based on the "Original Documents" are, in fact, based on a wealth of historical and archival research. The first, in particular, was written by a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who is considered the leading expert in the U.S. on cigarette smoking since the 19th century. All are based on the most recent and most comprehensive analysis of the history of smoking. Compared to them your knowledge is paltry indeed.

I myself majored in History in college and spent three years in Law School and practiced for many years. I am quite sophisticated in the use of evidence and historical research. I hardly need to be lectured by you on such basics.

Of course smoking was widely accepted from the time of WWI until the 1950s. I know personally, having begun smoking in the mid-1950s. And indeed those "very recent" books you criticize document in great detail the changing public perceptions toward smoking, the public controversies and the scientific studies about smoking.

You are in way over your headd.

Blaine in Seattle

[–] ColonelDEH 16 years ago

Alright, now I understand. You don't come to these forums for a free and civil exchange of ideas. You come here to pontificate. Knock yourself out buddy.

[–] dudleydemon 13 years ago

"I myself majored in History in college and spent three years in Law School and practiced for many years. I am quite sophisticated in the use of evidence and historical research. I hardly need to be lectured by you on such basics."

It is possible to disagree without being insulting. Perhaps you missed that lecture.

[–] blainefielding 16 years ago

Thanks "Colonel" for confirming again something I have noticed about human nature. Namely, we criticize in others what we are most sensitive about in ourselves. As a pontificater you are unexcelled. You never addressed the simple point I made about the irony of FDR's smoking. Instead you launched an irrelevant lecture of simplistic and crude historical "truths".

And, in any event, these IMdb message boards are hardly a medium for the "exchange of ideas". This is just a very popular venue for discussion of entertainment.

And on a scale of merit your "ideas" hardly qualify anyway.

Blaine in Seattle

[–] MalJMD 16 years ago

She would work her way through half a cigarette at formal dinners in order that women who smoked would feel comfortable doing so. Women would not light up until they saw ER take a few puffs, then, the smoking lamp was lit, as it were.

[–] pioneergrrrl 15 years ago

Smoking was considered 'glamorous' through the popularization by movie stars and other public figures---much like the reverse of today.

The concept was that smoking made one 'thin' and modern'. But it's now popularized that smoking cuts short a person's life and damages the human body.

[–] dudleydemon 13 years ago

"Moreover, probably no individual has ever been so publicly identified with smoking."

I think Winston Churchill would give him a run for his money. Indeed, some large cigars are now known as "Churchills". I also heard that Eisenhower smoked 80 cigarettes a day. But the cigarette holder was certainly an FDR icon.

It's an historical irony that Churchill smoked around 20 cigars and drank a bottle of brandy per day, and lived into his 90s. Meanwhile, Hitler was a non-smoking, non-drinking, vegetarian and probably wouldn't have made it to 70 given his general state of health.