The episode really does a great job explaining WHY prohibition came to pass and also why there were so many saloons in the first place.
Most people then had a meager to miserable existence as it was and there was political corruption at every level of government.
I love this documentary. Ken Burns really knows how to grab people's attention on any given subject. This is packed full of information that let's us know how the "Dry's" and the "Wet's" felt.
Celebrating 10 years on IMDB
I was actually really disappointed at the explanation.
Prohibition came to pass because of a specific pressure group, and the documentary kind of just accepts the notion that America was "a nation of drunkards" at face value as presented by the pressure group.
Even the "shocking" statistic of 88 bottles of whisky per person per year isn't really that shocking; it amounts to less than 6 ounces per day. I know people who drink this much every day without any ill effect, health-wise, professionally or socially. A 2 oz drink every day will get your a 1/3 of the way there and I don't know anyone who would consider that being a drunkard or even close at level or even twice that level.
Outside of that, it was entirely apocryphal and more of a political history. Which was entertaining, but I found myself still wondering if it was REALLY that bad or if it was merely a weird combination of early 20th century progressivist zeal coupled with a resurgence of yet another flavor of nativist politics.
Burns does a good job of that, even linking the anti-German fervor of WWI to a backlash against the German brewery barons.
and then there's the water quality of the era.
"It's for the pain. Rarely touch the stuff...Can I have another?"
Even the "shocking" statistic of 88 bottles of whisky per person per year isn't really that shocking; it amounts to less than 6 ounces per day. I know people who drink this much every day without any ill effect, health-wise, professionally or socially. A 2 oz drink every day will get your a 1/3 of the way there and I don't know anyone who would consider that being a drunkard or even close at level or even twice that level.
[deleted]
Did Burns mention any reference to states or federal laws governing times of operation?
[deleted]
I totally agree. I'd never thought about the effect of the sudden transition between low alcohol beers and wines to the widespread availability of hard liquor. It seemed understandable a person would turn to drink after 6 day work weeks, 14 hour shifts in horrible conditions, yet before social services, real divorce law, recognition of domestic violence, the effect on families was horrible. Which is not to say every man or even most men were drinking excessively, or that this was really the force behind Prohibition. That said, the first episode was very sobering and really almost legitimized the misguided effort.
shareNo, it didn't legitimize it at all. Part of the problem, and the documentary didn't seem to cover this much, is that the very people who pushed so hard for prohibition were the very ones that help caused excess alcoholism. The biggest backers of prohibition were in big business. Companies didn't want workers who drank, but the horrible conditions of the times literally drove men to drink. As other poster said, working six long days a week for a meager existence wasn't living. Companies wanted good little slaves who work themselves to death for 10c an hour. To a lesser extent it was puritanical Victorian era women who also help make matters worse. Remember, this was also a time when cities started cracking down on prostitution and ratcheting up enforcement against so-called pornography. So you had a generation of men who just returned from war coming home to a nation full of prudes and all they had to look forward to was life as a drone in some factor. I think most men would drink themselves in to a stupor under those circumstances. What is funny is that prohibition ultimately lead to the first sexual liberalization in the US. I guess that was the ultimate FU to the prohibitionist.
shareThat is very well said ...
I've often wondered why it was the US that spawned such ideas and movements as Prohibition or think that it would truly do any good to better conditions in the home. If you live the life of a proletarian worker-slave, the way to better conditions is to pay honest wages and make safe and decent working conditions. Not to take away the only little bit of pleasure workers and the poor had.
I thought the first part of the documentary far too sympathetic sounding to the Prohibitionist movements.
I think a lot of it had to with Women. They had absolutely no rights and no protection. And as the documentary stated, a man would drink away an entire paycheck then come home and beat his wife and kids and nothing was going to be done about it. Yeah I think Prohibition did more harm than good, but holy smokes! I can't even imagine not having any help when someone is beating you.
shareAll good and well, but why not change the laws and rights pertaining to women instead? Why not change or simply enforce the existing laws against inflicting bodily harm on others?
Frankly I think the argument about the beaten wife was merely a way to solicit sympathy for Prohibition, a false flag, all emotional and tear-jerking. Cause if you're honest, Prohibition didn't change anything in the way abusive men treated women. It was the same before, during and after Prohibition.
Well you know men were not going pass a law on a woman's word. Those were different times.I'm sure they felt they had a better chance of outlawing booze than locking a man up for beating his wife and children or as it was called back then correcting your wife and children.
shareThe wife beating argument for Prohibition was just a straw dog, an emotional tear-jerker argument that had little to do with the reasons behind Prohibition.
It was a way of garnering interest, sort of how Greenpeace later started out with the clubbing of baby seals, something heart-wrenching that grabs people and creates outrage.