Fascinating. Wish I could take a history class from you. May I offer my own historical perspective from having lived and worked in the media world? The media has always censored, promoted and filtered what they serve up to their readers. They want to sell papers. I also never completely trust letters to the editor since as a child in the 60s I knew a famous gossip magazine editor, who was my dad's client. His letters section was incredibly popular. His way of ruining a career by saying an actor was gay was by responding to a supposed letter to him about an actor by saying “He's good to his mother.” The question to ask at any time is “why is this news being printed?” Right now, if you do a search on Trump, it's unbelievable what cones up. No articles or video links to what he's actually done in the last week. Here's Victor Davis Hansen on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzCVELIL1rY. So 30 years from now, will historians believe the media accounts actually reflect something about our era?
As one historian to another, this is the sort of thing that people *have to get*. They may not, but analysis of this sort leading to an “it’s complicated” is the real work.
Thanks man! So much of what passes for "history" is ridiculously shallow. There are ways to write history that recognize complexity without getting bogged down, but it's more work than most writers want to engage in.
Great article! And an important reminder to not judge the past by today's mores.
Regarding explicit descriptions of crime scenes, I recall my college journalism class, circa 1980. The professor, a working journalist himself, impressed upon us the importance of describing things plainly and not employing euphemisms. He challenged us to think of a piece of shrouded language that would be appropriate to use. I drew a blank, and he said, "See, there isn't any excuse, always talk straight."
He went on to his next topic, but I was certain there must be something. Five minutes later, I had it! I shot my head up and called out, "Deviant sexual assault!" This phrase was very common in newspapers, TV and radio at the time. But it was never spelled out. "Deviant sexual assault" covers a multitude of sins, and crimes, but they never told you exactly what happened.
As I recall the professor did not appreciate the interruption. He said something about prurient interest not being newsworthy, and went back to his topic.
One thing to consider in that chart of crime is that the huge drop from 1941 to '45 is clearly because a huge load of men were removed from America, including "sex fiends" and killers and ne'er do wells. So the return of a lot of men would seem to be a "spike" unless you're aware that there was a drop off to begin with.
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Norma Thomas’s concerns of “sex pests” in the 1950’s. If we look at the number of confirmed cases of sexual abuse by priests within the Catholic Church we see a relatively low level of offense from 1900-1950 (practically zero prior to 1940) followed by a sharp rise from 1950 to 1970 which plateaued until the mid 1980’s followed by a significant drop to pre-1940 levels. We also see the most common years of ordination for these abusive clergy was 1950 to 1970.
I bring up the clergy sex abuse scandal as I believe its not unique and “something” was deeply broken in our collective psyche with respect to this postwar period especially with respect to sexual behaviors. You see sexual abuse spike in Scouting, “all” religious denominations (the church being the most well studied and documented), the foundation of pro-pedo groups like NAMBLA, challenges against age of consent laws in Europe, Helmut Kentler's experiment where German authorities placed foster children into the guardianship of known pedophiles (there are so many examples, I could go on for pages) ..... the spike in sexual abuse was a culture wide phenomenon and no one seems to wonder why.
Although I have theories of my own, I have yet to see a good explanation for what was behind this.
One of the more commonly thrown around theories is there wasn't an increase, just an increase in reporting but I reject this. I was part of my Archdiocese task force to review policies and procedures related to sexual misconduct and the rise in incents after 1950 was a real phenomenon not just a case of more accurate reporting.
Maybe Norma Thomas wasn't just falling for a moral panic .. perhaps like an old experienced sailor her intuition told her there was storm over the horizon.
My impression of the crisis with priest abuse is that, prior to the 60's or so, the priesthood was attractive to many more males and the church had the ability to cull out problems back then because they had more choice. After the 60's interest in a career as a priest likely declined dramatically. I recall a fair amount of foriegn, sometimes African and South American, priests at my parishes. I think the church became desperate to have merely ENOUGH priests and chose to move the problems about as they had no other option but to allow married men become priests...couldn't do that though, could they?
That isn't reflected in the demographics or the time periods in question. The single largest cadre of abusers, over 70%, were those ordained between 1950 and 1965 and to reiterate, the rise in sexual abuse was seen across the broader culture. The prevalence of clergy from South America/Africa/Asia is really a phenomenon that began in the mid-1980's.
Edit: I agree that the Church moved the priests around due to manpower issues but the whole conversation about abuse in the Clergy is just illustrative of a larger and broader trend (Clergy sexual abuse been very heavily studied and makes a good benchmark).
There are some facets of history that you almost have to have been there. Or at least talked to someone who was there.
My (sadly now late) mother was born in 1926 and was in high school/college during WWII. I wish she was still with us so I could ask her questions such as 'what did people think about X?' or 'how did people feel about Y?' There are a few things I remember her telling me. She had a group of friends in college that included a young woman who had survived polio and walked with a pair of canes. If any or all of them were walking with her they would plot courses that avoided stairs and they would dawdle, walking at her pace as if it was the most natural thing in the world. They didn't comment on it, they didn't discuss or plan it, they just did it. That was what everyone did. Small norms such as FDR always being photographed to omit the wheelchair were ... well, normal.
I am currently researching mass murder in American history. I have more than 2400 incidents so far and I am only to 1967. It is certainly true that language was more discreet. A surprising number were eliminating witnesses to a rape. Was a woman "interfered with"? The most explicit statement in the 19th century newspapers was an article quoting the coroner that the little girl's hymen was intact, so rape was NOT the motive. Other articles even in the 20th century, are careful to let the reader decide.
Detroit, Mich. (1966)
02/23/1965: Police believed robbery motivated the murder of two men and a woman in a bar. In addition, the woman’s shirt and underclothing were scattered about the floor.
Category: public
Suicide: no
Cause: robbery
Weapon: firearm
But:
Chicago, Ill. (1955)
10/16/1955: Police were still uncertain whether a street gang murdered three young boys, ages 14, 13, and 11 or if “one or more sex perverts” were the murderers. The description of the boys as “nude, mutilated,” clothes ripped off them, and tape binding their eyes and mouths. would suggest more strongly the latter. The murderer later told others that he picked them up when they were hitchhiking.
In September 1995, a jury convicted the murderer based on his detailed description of his murdering them to several people, one of whom burned the stables where the murders took place to destroy any evidence. There was circumstantial evidence that he might have murdered two teenaged girls some months later.
Thanks for that information. Good luck with your research. Drop a note or a comment when you're ready to present it or write about it. Love to take a look at your conclusions.
Guess I may need to visit my historical museum and see what I can dig up about Mrs Norma Thomas. This was 1955 and less than 20 years later a young boy was abducted walking home from school only to return another 10+ years later. He then worked with the FBI developing educational materials to protect children from “stranger danger”.
Fascinating. Wish I could take a history class from you. May I offer my own historical perspective from having lived and worked in the media world? The media has always censored, promoted and filtered what they serve up to their readers. They want to sell papers. I also never completely trust letters to the editor since as a child in the 60s I knew a famous gossip magazine editor, who was my dad's client. His letters section was incredibly popular. His way of ruining a career by saying an actor was gay was by responding to a supposed letter to him about an actor by saying “He's good to his mother.” The question to ask at any time is “why is this news being printed?” Right now, if you do a search on Trump, it's unbelievable what cones up. No articles or video links to what he's actually done in the last week. Here's Victor Davis Hansen on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzCVELIL1rY. So 30 years from now, will historians believe the media accounts actually reflect something about our era?
As one historian to another, this is the sort of thing that people *have to get*. They may not, but analysis of this sort leading to an “it’s complicated” is the real work.
Thanks man! So much of what passes for "history" is ridiculously shallow. There are ways to write history that recognize complexity without getting bogged down, but it's more work than most writers want to engage in.
Great article! And an important reminder to not judge the past by today's mores.
Regarding explicit descriptions of crime scenes, I recall my college journalism class, circa 1980. The professor, a working journalist himself, impressed upon us the importance of describing things plainly and not employing euphemisms. He challenged us to think of a piece of shrouded language that would be appropriate to use. I drew a blank, and he said, "See, there isn't any excuse, always talk straight."
He went on to his next topic, but I was certain there must be something. Five minutes later, I had it! I shot my head up and called out, "Deviant sexual assault!" This phrase was very common in newspapers, TV and radio at the time. But it was never spelled out. "Deviant sexual assault" covers a multitude of sins, and crimes, but they never told you exactly what happened.
As I recall the professor did not appreciate the interruption. He said something about prurient interest not being newsworthy, and went back to his topic.
Good anecdote and very appropriate for this piece. Thanks for sharing it!
One thing to consider in that chart of crime is that the huge drop from 1941 to '45 is clearly because a huge load of men were removed from America, including "sex fiends" and killers and ne'er do wells. So the return of a lot of men would seem to be a "spike" unless you're aware that there was a drop off to begin with.
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Norma Thomas’s concerns of “sex pests” in the 1950’s. If we look at the number of confirmed cases of sexual abuse by priests within the Catholic Church we see a relatively low level of offense from 1900-1950 (practically zero prior to 1940) followed by a sharp rise from 1950 to 1970 which plateaued until the mid 1980’s followed by a significant drop to pre-1940 levels. We also see the most common years of ordination for these abusive clergy was 1950 to 1970.
I bring up the clergy sex abuse scandal as I believe its not unique and “something” was deeply broken in our collective psyche with respect to this postwar period especially with respect to sexual behaviors. You see sexual abuse spike in Scouting, “all” religious denominations (the church being the most well studied and documented), the foundation of pro-pedo groups like NAMBLA, challenges against age of consent laws in Europe, Helmut Kentler's experiment where German authorities placed foster children into the guardianship of known pedophiles (there are so many examples, I could go on for pages) ..... the spike in sexual abuse was a culture wide phenomenon and no one seems to wonder why.
Although I have theories of my own, I have yet to see a good explanation for what was behind this.
One of the more commonly thrown around theories is there wasn't an increase, just an increase in reporting but I reject this. I was part of my Archdiocese task force to review policies and procedures related to sexual misconduct and the rise in incents after 1950 was a real phenomenon not just a case of more accurate reporting.
Maybe Norma Thomas wasn't just falling for a moral panic .. perhaps like an old experienced sailor her intuition told her there was storm over the horizon.
My impression of the crisis with priest abuse is that, prior to the 60's or so, the priesthood was attractive to many more males and the church had the ability to cull out problems back then because they had more choice. After the 60's interest in a career as a priest likely declined dramatically. I recall a fair amount of foriegn, sometimes African and South American, priests at my parishes. I think the church became desperate to have merely ENOUGH priests and chose to move the problems about as they had no other option but to allow married men become priests...couldn't do that though, could they?
That isn't reflected in the demographics or the time periods in question. The single largest cadre of abusers, over 70%, were those ordained between 1950 and 1965 and to reiterate, the rise in sexual abuse was seen across the broader culture. The prevalence of clergy from South America/Africa/Asia is really a phenomenon that began in the mid-1980's.
Edit: I agree that the Church moved the priests around due to manpower issues but the whole conversation about abuse in the Clergy is just illustrative of a larger and broader trend (Clergy sexual abuse been very heavily studied and makes a good benchmark).
There are some facets of history that you almost have to have been there. Or at least talked to someone who was there.
My (sadly now late) mother was born in 1926 and was in high school/college during WWII. I wish she was still with us so I could ask her questions such as 'what did people think about X?' or 'how did people feel about Y?' There are a few things I remember her telling me. She had a group of friends in college that included a young woman who had survived polio and walked with a pair of canes. If any or all of them were walking with her they would plot courses that avoided stairs and they would dawdle, walking at her pace as if it was the most natural thing in the world. They didn't comment on it, they didn't discuss or plan it, they just did it. That was what everyone did. Small norms such as FDR always being photographed to omit the wheelchair were ... well, normal.
I am currently researching mass murder in American history. I have more than 2400 incidents so far and I am only to 1967. It is certainly true that language was more discreet. A surprising number were eliminating witnesses to a rape. Was a woman "interfered with"? The most explicit statement in the 19th century newspapers was an article quoting the coroner that the little girl's hymen was intact, so rape was NOT the motive. Other articles even in the 20th century, are careful to let the reader decide.
Detroit, Mich. (1966)
02/23/1965: Police believed robbery motivated the murder of two men and a woman in a bar. In addition, the woman’s shirt and underclothing were scattered about the floor.
Category: public
Suicide: no
Cause: robbery
Weapon: firearm
But:
Chicago, Ill. (1955)
10/16/1955: Police were still uncertain whether a street gang murdered three young boys, ages 14, 13, and 11 or if “one or more sex perverts” were the murderers. The description of the boys as “nude, mutilated,” clothes ripped off them, and tape binding their eyes and mouths. would suggest more strongly the latter. The murderer later told others that he picked them up when they were hitchhiking.
In September 1995, a jury convicted the murderer based on his detailed description of his murdering them to several people, one of whom burned the stables where the murders took place to destroy any evidence. There was circumstantial evidence that he might have murdered two teenaged girls some months later.
Category: public
Suicide: no
Cause: rape
Weapon: strangle
Thanks for that information. Good luck with your research. Drop a note or a comment when you're ready to present it or write about it. Love to take a look at your conclusions.
If you could email at claytoncramer@cwi.edu, it will be easier.
Guess I may need to visit my historical museum and see what I can dig up about Mrs Norma Thomas. This was 1955 and less than 20 years later a young boy was abducted walking home from school only to return another 10+ years later. He then worked with the FBI developing educational materials to protect children from “stranger danger”.
Holy crap! I'd forgotten about Steven Steyner. I didn't know he was abducted from Merced. Good catch.