Lex Anteinternet: Let the whining commence

When I published this a few days ago. . . 

Lex Anteinternet: Let the whining commence: Pope Francis is releasing an encyclical on the environment. People have been complaining about it for nearly a year.  The encyclical, w...

the new Papal Encyclical on the environment hadn't even been released yet, but was already drawing controversy.  Now that  Laudato Si is out, it really is.

One thing that should not be missed about the encyclical is that it's probably the single most widely noticed essay on the environment that has ever existed.  Other environmental works have drawn widespread attention, Silent Spring comes to mind, but this is the first pronouncement by a single human being that's drawn this sort of attention.  It isn't as if prior global figures haven't spoken on environmental topics.  Al Gore did, of course.  Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands has as well.  In terms of religious figures, Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamo famously has as wells, and for years.

But of these figures, perhaps only Gore drew really widespread attention.  The Dutch Queen's statements drew notice in Europe, but only briefly, and I dare to suspect that most Americans associated the world "Queen" only with the name "Elizabeth".  The Metropolitan's comments did draw global notice, but really only the sort of audience that subscribes to First Things or The New Republic.  The Pope, however, proves to be impossible for anyone to ignore.  It's an answer, once again, to Stalin's old question, "how many divisions does the Pope have"?  Well, quite a lot, it would seem.

So, not surprisingly, the encyclical is drawing praise and condemnation.  Perhaps somewhat ironically, and again, perhaps very much in its favor, some of the praise its drawing comes form quarters that desperately ignore or are even hostile to the Pope's Catholic faith otherwise, and whom are probably self consciously squeamish about seeing the mantle of conservationism retrieved from a species of pagan environmentalism, but whom are praising it none the less. And some of those condemning it are squirming in their seats as they otherwise would normally be fully behind elements of Catholic social conservatism.

All this is a good thing, as it refocuses this topic where it ought to be.  In human terms, not in pagan terms, and neither from the right or the left.

Now, I haven't read the entire document by any means.  Its very long. But one quote here should stand out:

The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish.

Agree with the Pope on climate change or not (and only a portion of the document is on that topic), this is true.

And the Pope then goes on to criticize both the pagan nature of radical environmentalism and the tunnel vision nature of those who focus only on technology and the generation of economic capital.

In this, the Pope, it seems to me, has taken up the cause of  Rerum Novarum and set it out in modern economic terms.  Probably the only world leader who can do so, he's answering the question posed by Wendell Berry in What Are People For? and is reminding us that life is for the living, and a decent living, not just for the generation of work.  It is essentially, it seems to me, a document drafted in the spirit of the Distributist really, which of course makes sense as Rerum Novarum gave rise to that movement.

All the furor aside, and whether or not a person agrees with the science in the document, this is something that should cause people to think again about what people are for, and what sort of world those people get to live in.  That shouldn't be provoking cries from industry (and it really isn't), nor should it be provoking rejoicing in liberal camps who would otherwise ignore nearly everything that Pope Francis stands for.  By coming in from the middle as he has, he's really come from where most people instinctively live, and hopefully taken these topics out of the hard core left and right partisan camps where they seem to be residing these days.

Today In Wyoming's History: A Bicentennial: Waterloo

Today In Wyoming's History: A Bicentennial: Waterloo: Okay, it's not Wyoming history. "Scotland Forever". The Charge of the Scots Greys at Waterloo. Or maybe it sort of is...

Ray Kinney with Dick McIntire & His Harmony Hawaiians – 1936

Ray Kinney with Dick McIntire & His Harmony Hawaiians – 1936

Lex Anteinternet: Expatriates: Looking at it a bit differently.

 Father and son farmers, farming and ranching are one of the few local industries that's still often a family business.

I ran this item on the long running perceived problem  of Wyoming's youth leaving the state last Wednesday:

Lex Anteinternet: Expatriates: Looking at it a bit differently.: Okay, I know that this is a history blog, and it's now been running so long as research for a book, that it's becoming historical i...

 And I've run items on family businesses here before.

 Proprietor of family butcher shop, 1940s.  This industry still exists, but the butcher shop has yielded at least partially to the chain grocery store.  For people who like little clues from movies, the film "Marty" involves the story of a simple butcher who has bought such a shop from an owner who has no family.  The intrusion of the super market is actually mentioned in the film.

The two, it occurs to me, don't seem to be obviously tied together, but I wonder if in fact they aren't a bit.  And if they are, it reflects a long term change in the economy that, at least with our current economic model, we can't do a whole lot about.  Something could be done, of course, but I don't think it will be.

 British soldiers in World War Two overlook a man making a fish net in Sicily, an art that was done as a family enterprise at the time.

The concept of a "family business" is an old one. Beyond that, the idea of father's following their sons into their father's profession is an old one.  Interestingly, I'd note, recently I have seen quite a few examples of daughters going into professions occupied by their mothers.

 Drug store in Southington Connecticut, 1940s.  This family had a shop on this corner for about 200 years at the time this photograph was taken. Do they still?

Now, it's really easy to make too much of this, as this has never been a hard and fast rule by any means. Still, if you go back into antiquity, you find that it was so strong that at one time entire families would end up being named for the occupation that they generally held.  My last name, for example, stems from a Westphalian name (it also occurs as a Dutch name) which identified men whose occupation was making wooden shoes.  At one time, and that time was extremely long ago, most of my ancestors who bore that name did that for a living.  Thankfully, they don't now, as I wouldn't care for that much.

Cartoon of dancing, pipe smoking, Dutchman wearing wooden shoes, which my ancestors at one time made, and which I'm tankful I neither make nor wear.

Be that as it may, even relatively recently quite a few people followed a father into a business.  Some of my near relatives, for example, had a "drug store" in which the sons went to work for their father.  My same ancestors mentioned above, when they immigrated from Paderborn Westphalia, opened a general store that became classic "drug store" and which is still open and still owned by a member of the family that I'm distantly related too (the last member of my direct line who would have worked there would have been my great grandfather). 

 Family that was, at the time this photograph was taken, entirely engaged in the fishing industry.  This is hard work, and chances are you would never see such young laborers in it today.  Fishing remains a family industry in the US, although it's greatly imperiled. 

As noted in the earlier post on this topic, my grandfather owned a packing plant locally, amongst other businesses, and there was briefly enough of a family connection that one of his brothers went into the same industry, which he worked at until he retired in the Mid West.  My grandfather died when he was only in his 40s, which through the family into a crisis, and that ended up in the loss of those businesses.  I've sometimes wondered if he'd lived if the family would have continued on in that occupation.  I suspect so, which would have made, maybe, for a much different daily existence for me.  If he'd lived at least until his 60s would my father have followed him into that business?  My father has noted how the margin in that industry is very thin and while he missed his father greatly, I think for the rest of his life, he never indicated to me that he lamented the decision to sell the plant. At the same time, however, he never said anything really negative about the industry either.  My grandmother insisted he get a university education, and he did, but I also know that he wasn't independently inclined to do that, in spite of fairly clearly having a genius level IQ.  I suspect that, had my grandfather lived, he would have entered that industry.  And if the plant still existed when I graduated from high school, I very strongly suspect I would have probably pursued a business degree and entered that business as well.

Otherwise, obtaining a business degree is something I never would have considered and still wouldn't now.  One of my friends has lamented to me how often this degree is overlooked by people who feel that they must have a professional degree, and as he's done very well as a businessman, and loves it, I can see why.  Still, that pursuit sounds really dull to me (although, quite frankly, a law degree has business elements and I didn't find that dull). 

My point is that at one time this path, entering into a family business, was a fairly easy and obvious one to take.  And it's still one that people take today. And, and this is significant, it's one that was available to quite a few who didn't take it either.  At least part of the reason that this path is so less common today is because so many of those local enterprises just don't exist as local entities anymore.  People transferred their loyalty from a local shop or artisan to a big box entity or chain, and so many of those jobs are just simply gone.  Not all, but many.

Not that this is a new topic here. We've touched it before. The point is, however, that this is a significant aspect of our economy that's changed quite a bit in recent decades. We still hear, quite frequently, that the majority of jobs in the US come via small business, and I suppose that's true.  Supposedly a majority of business start ups also fail (which is sort of counter intuitive.  At any rate, we've certainly cut into this class of business enormously in recent decades and, when we look at the story of returning sons and daughters, the family business, if there would have been one, certainly isn't what it once was.  Americans have long held, as part of that really vaguely defined, if defined at all, concept of the American Dream that every generation should be upwardly mobile (although there's some evidence that this isn't the dream of the younger Middle Class anymore).  To some extent, the demise of the family business forces that decision, and departing the state, in a way earlier generations didn't have to face.

“Lindbergh (The Eagle of the USA) / “Lucky Lindy” – Jack Kaufman 1927

“Lindbergh (The Eagle of the USA) / “Lucky Lindy” – Jack Kaufman 1927

Holscher's Hub: One of the old ones, still being used.

Holscher's Hub: One of the old ones, still being used.:

Studebaker pickup truck from the early 1960s.  Actually being used by a fisherman, much as it was originally intended to be.

The FDA to ban trans fats

Good.

Trans fats are a largely artificial fat.

 Margarine advertisement. This advertisement refers to it as Oleomargarine, and my father always referred to it as Oleo.

This blog, as we all know, theoretically focuses on historical matters.  In that context, we've occasionally touched on food. 

There isn't a shortage of fat in the food of the Western world, and there never really has been, save for periods of wartime.  That's not actually true of the entire globe, as there were some fat starved regions of the globe even relatively recently.  I doubt that's the case now.

Artificial fats have come about relatively recently.  Margarine was the big early one, and was an alternative to butter.  For some reason, and I don't really know what it was, my parents had switched to margarine when I was a kid and I grew up with it.  I didn't switch to butter until I was married, as my wife liked butter and it really is much better.   Anyhow, I understand margarine gained ground in the Great Depression, probably due to cheaper cost, and World War Two, when there were fat shortages.  I dimly recall butter being really expensive during the 1970s as well, which might be the reason that we went to margarine.

Now, we're such aficionados of butter that we buy Irish butter, which his super.

Anyhow, good riddance on industrial fat.  And perhaps that should lead us to ponder the nature of industrialized food to a greater extent.

Lex Anteinternet: Concepts of Race

Well, I simply can't help myself.

Back in November, 2014, I wrote this entry on concepts of race.

Lex Anteinternet: Concepts of Race:    The way that things ought to be, and at that age typically are.  But beyond that, chances are these two young girls are actually of t...

In that I noted that our concepts of race are actually quite phony.  Over time, what's considered a race at one time has changed and the same cultural demographic is not considered a race later on.  The Irish and the Italians, for example, were once actually considered to be another "race", but certainly are not now.

Well, this has come into the news, although not in the more analytical fashion that we addressed it here, due to the story of  Rachel Doleza.  Doleza was working, apparently fairly successfully, for the NAACP and representing herself as black. She isn't.  She isn't genetically anyhow.

In an interview she recently gave, she essentially claims a sort of "blackness" by way of "self identification".

This is a very curious recent development.  People have always self identified as things that they actually are, and which particularly matter to them.  So, for example, people have identified themselves as "Irish Catholics' or "Norwegian Lutherans" as these identifiers reflect a cultural and religious identity that matters to the.  But you can't really identify yourself as something you flat out aren't.  That's delusional.

But it's become interestingly popular, which says something about how phony the culture has become in some ways.  And here Doleza may be doing us a huge favor.

Delusional self identification has become enormously popular of late.  There are authors who will use a self identifier like those noted above when their own personal lives show those connections to be very thin.  Beyond that, I'm fairly certain that the positions of those who have same gender attractions has become such a cause celibre, no matter what you think of it one way or another, that there are those who self identify in that category who actually don't have the attraction.  And now we see men self identifying as the opposite gender, and vice versa, to the extent that they actually seek surgery to cause that appearance.  In northern Europe, that required a person to have to undergo psychological evaluation before such a surgery is performed, but in the US it does not, in spite of the massive level of severe depression associated with the surgeries and the fairly demonstrable examples of a change in the person's views upon receiving the psychological analysis.

This is really an interesting phenomenon in that in an era when things "natural" are celebrated, this is deeply unnatural. People who are supposedly unhappy with their gender still have the DNA that they were born with, and that's their natural gender.

Race is trickier, as in actually the genetic differences between "races" don't even exist in some circumstances and are purely cosmetic where they do. Race is more of a cultural identifier than anything else, but you can't really run around claiming an cultural identifier that's phony.  Can't be done.

And it's pretty darned insulting too.  Here, ironically, things were once so bad for American blacks that light skinned American blacks would sometimes attempt to pass for "white".  Those days are thankfully over.  But it sure doesn't do current blacks any favors when people run around trying to falsely claim that identifier.

Let the whining commence

Pope Francis is releasing an encyclical on the environment.

People have been complaining about it for nearly a year.  The encyclical, which will go under the name Laudato Sii, will concern the environment.  In the US, those on the political right have been unhappy about this since they knew it was coming out.  US Catholics on the political right have oddly been particularly unhappy, which might be because people have a disturbing tendency to inform their religious views by their political ones, when it should go the other way around.   But there's been a lot of that in the US to some degree in recent decades, in all areas of religion.

Another reason might be that Pope Francis is undoubtedly more "liberal" than his two immediate predecessors, and this causes concern in some quarters.  He's frankly not my "favorite" Pope, but I don't think his encyclicals, so far, have been off the mark.  And by encyclicals, I should say encyclical, as there's been only one so far. That one was   Lumen Fidei.

Lumen Fidei was pretty darned controversial in and of itself, in some quarters, as it brought up some topics that economic conservatives, or rather free marketers, were made uncomfortable by.  It didn't espouse free market economics, but then no Pope ever has, so that makes the controversy so very interesting.  People getting upset should have recalled that Pope Leo XIII made both socialist and free marketers upset when he issued Rerum Novarum, which criticized free market economics and socialism both.  Rerum Novarum was so hugely influential at the time that it gave rise to Distributism, the economic "third way" that's really more "free market" capitalist than the model we actually use.  It'd be tempting to look at the economic comments in Lumen Fidei as reviving those arguments, but people have not tended to do so.

What this does point out, however, is that Papal Encyclicals, which are simply writings of the Pope, and which do not bind anyone to agree with them in any fashion (i.e., Catholics and others are free to disagree fully with them), have tended to be pretty darned on the mark on the topics they address.  Rerum Novarum sought to explore, in part, economic justice in terms of the individual and the family.  Over a century later some similar themes still needed exploration, which shows how relevant Pope Leo XIII had been in the 1890s when he issued it.  

Right or not, it's well to remember that Popes haven't shied away from controversial topics and they've often made a lot of people mad with encyclicals.  Pope Paul VI created such a controversy when he issued Humanae Vitae in 1968.  This was such the case that it caused somewhat of a revolt in some Catholic circles and the conduct warned against has been largely ignored.  None the less, it's also often noted that the future warned against proved to be remarkably accurate.

In terms of ignored, we also have Pope Pius XI's  Mit Brennender Sorge (released in German, not Latin), released in March 1937 and aimed injusticies within Nazi Germany.  Things only got worse, of course, but as an international declaration, it's pretty darned early.  Most of the world didn't really get around to being fully appalled by Nazi conduct until Allied troops began to liberate the camps and the full nature of what occured became painfully evident.

Okay, so what's the point. Well, perhaps people need to consider what's written and ponder it, rather than resort to a political position first.  That doesn't mean that they'll agree, but sometimes pondering is in order.

Automotive Transportation III: Motorcyles

I started this series last summer, I think.  I started this entry on motorcycles months ago, and I'm only just finishing it now.  That probably reflects the degree of my knowledge on motorcycle, or perhaps where I place them in the story of transportation.

Racing motorcycle, 1914.

Which isn't to say that I despise motorcycles or something.  I don't. And indeed, when I was young I used to occasionally find them fascinating enough that I thought of buying one, and I did know quite a bit about certain ones.  I was fascinated with Harley Davidson's in the late 1970s and early 1980s, in an era when they were still a motorcycle that was associated only with hard core motorcyclists (now they've become sort of the default bike for hard core motorcycle fans and men in their late Middle Age for some reason).  I also once had quite a fascination with BMW motorcycles, and even knew a little about Triumph motorcycles.  I still find Harleys and offroad/street combo BMWs very interesting, but I've gotten over really wanting to buy a BMW or a Harley Sportster.  And that's a good thing.  Motorcycles are really dangerous.

Anyhow, while motorcycle fans would no doubt dispute it, no means of engined transportation has changed less than the motorcycle.  This doesn't mean that they haven't changed at all, they most certainly have, but if you look at a motorcycle from a century ago, it's obviously changed less than the automobile, or about anything else.

Motorcycles were an easy transition from the Safety Bicycle, and even now there's a class of two wheeled vehicle that's a cross between the two. When the internal combustion engine came on, motorizing the safety bike was an obvious thing to do.  Commercial motorcycles arrived as early as cars, and were offered commercially in the late 19th Century.  Royal Enfield, which still makes a motorcycle, albeit in India rather than the UK where it originated, started making motorcycles out of its bicycle shop in 1901.  Triumph had one a year later.  American bicycle racers formed the Indian Motorcycle Company in 1901.  Two years later Indian's big competitor, Harley Davidson, was founded by William S. Harley and Arthur Davidson who operated out of a back shop of a friend.  As with automobiles, there were a lot of early manufacturers, which is particularly not surprising with motorcycles, as they were easy to make.

Motorcycles were also comparatively cheap to make and they were fast (and dangerous).  They therefore had, right from the onset, all of the attributes they do now.  They were cheaper than cars (or could be), they were very versatile and could go anywhere. They were fast.  And they were dangerous.  They appealed to many of the same people to whom they appeal now, and many of the same things we associate with them now, even racing, existed from nearly the onset.

They did, however, have a wider appeal in certain quarters than they do now.  This was the case for a variety of reasons, with a significant one being that cars were enormously expensive prior to Henry Ford depressing the price. Even Ford, however, didn't depress the price of cars uniformly and globally, so in some regions of the globe the motorcycle, in spite of its one passenger, open air, two wheeled disadvantages, became competitive with cars.  This was particularly the case in Europe, which caused there to be a lot of early manufacturers of motorcycles in  Europe.

 U.S. Army Harley Davidson's during the Punitive Expedition.

The fascination with motorcycles lead quite quickly to their consideration as a service vehicle, and even before World War One various armies began to experiment with them in this capacity and police forces adopted them as an alternative to horses and cars.  World War One saw widespread use of motorcycles, and while we don't think of the Great War in this fashion, World War One may really be the high point of the military motorcycle, as the vehicle was sufficiently fully developed to offer any advantage then that it would later, which was not true of the automobile. At any rate, all sorts of use, and experimentation, with military motorcycles was seen during World War One.

U.S. Army motorcycle with sidecar in  France, World War One.

 

Harvard Military Motorcycle Club

And of course the use of motorcycles by police came fully on in this era, and thereafter, as well.

 Motorcycle policeman, 1923.

Motorcycle policeman, 1932.

Just as with cars, motorcycles took a hit during the Great Depression, although that is somewhat surprising given that they were cheaper than cars. Also following World War One, and into the 1920s and 1930s, the American motorcycle began to take on a family form that it retains to this day, in so far as big street bikes are concerned.  Harley introduced its teardrop shape gas tank in 1925, and it's retained the look ever since.  Big V Twin engines became a feature of American bikes, with Harley introducing its 45 cubic inch V twin in 1929, where as other options were explored elsewhere. BMW, for example, introduced its legendary horizontal opposed twin engine bike in 1923.  BMW also introduced dampered forks in 1935, a true advance in the motorcycle which oddly wasn't copied in bicycles for decades.

 

 1922 Harley Davidson with sidecar.  Note that in 1922 Harley s had not yet acquired the archetypical appearance that they would shortly have.

World War Two once again saw a lot of motorcycle use, although its somewhat misunderstood.  The U.S. Army did use motorcycles, for example, as did the British, but it was really the European armies that were transportation challenged that made large scale use of them. The Germans, for example, were heavy users of motorcycles, but they were also heavy uses of horses.  The Soviets used a lot of them too, and in both armies they were really an alternative to horses or, in the German case, bicycles.  The Germans used motorcycles, really, as they didn't have the production capacity to make something like the Jeep in sufficient numbers.

 

German, or perhaps East German, motorcycle and side car of the type used by the Germans during World War Two.  This design is unusual in that the sidecar had a powered axle.  This motorcycle was a hugely successful design and not only saw civilian application, but it was copied by the Soviets who made a basically identical version.  The same motorcycle was made in East Germany in a former BMW plant, under the BMW name, after the Soviets relinquished control of the plant.  A lawsuit ultimately caused the East German BMW to become EMW.

 Military Harley Davidson on display at the Pacific Aviation Museum in Oahu.  This type was widely used by the US Army during the war, but motorcycles have never seen the same extent of use in the U.S. armed forces that they have in other armies.

American motorcycles being used by the Australian army, 1943.  Its not immediately clear to me if these are Harley's or Indians.

Following World War Two when civilian production resumed, some interesting things began to happen. For one thing, and for the first time really, motorcycles in the US became associated with gangs. This was actually a direct byproduct of World War Two, as the early motorcycle gangs were made up of restless returning servicemen.  Indeed, the initial early appearance of the gangs reflected this, as surplus Army Air Corps flying jackets were pressed into service as motorcycle jackets.  The creation of the gangs proved to be enduring, and of course they are still with us.

Following the war, Harley Davidson dominated the American market for some time.  Indian ran into financial trouble immediately post war, and in 1950 it quit offering bikes.  Harley had the entire field to itself for a long time, in terms of American production.  It wasn't without competition, but the competition that did exist simply didn't offer a motorcycle that was really comparable.  Triumphs, for example, were imported into the US, but they weren't a heavy bike like the Harley Davidson.

 

Triumph cafe racer, probably of 1970s vintage.  Harley Davidson also made a cafe racer, but you very rarely see them.

In the early 60s, however, a revolution in motorcycles occurred when Honda began offering their really light and really cheap motorcycle in the US.  A global standard, and aimed at the bottom dollar, the Honda really took off in the US as it was so affordable.  Purely a town bike, the bike inspired an immediate follow8ing and even an enduring popular song by a band named after the company and which was covered by the Beach Boys.

I'm gonna wake you up early
Cause I'm gonna take a ride with you
We're going down to the Honda shop
I'll tell you what we're gonna do
Put on a ragged sweatshirt
I'll take you anywhere you want me to

First gear (Honda Honda) it's alright (faster faster)
Second gear (little Honda Honda) I lean right (faster faster)
Third gear (Honda Honda) hang on tight (faster faster)
Faster it's alright.

The song pretty much nailed the Honda's appeal.

It's not a big motorcycle
Just a groovy little motorbike
It's more fun that a barrel of monkeys
That two wheel bike
We'll ride on out of the town
To any place I know you like

The Honda was the Anti-Harley, and its appeal was huge.  Soon thereafter the Honda was joined by other cheap Japanese motorcycles, and Harley found itself competing in the American market with motorcycles that were originally aimed at an impoverished Asian market.  Harley took a pounding and by the 1970s it was in serious financial trouble.

At about the same time, the Japanese strongly entered the field with the "dirt bike", a type of motorcycle designed just for off road use. Hugely popular, Harley's attempt to enter the field failed, even though a Spanish manufacturer, Bultaco, was successful at the time.  The dirt bike gave rise to the Enduro, a type of dual use bike.  In recent years, BMW and Triumph has expanded this concept into a new type of motorcycle that can be used for absolutely everything.

 All purpose BMW. Street, touring, off road, it does it all.

Just as with automobiles, the Japanese motorcycle manufacturers were not content to allow Harley to dominate the big vehicle market and by the 1970s Honda had introduce a really large touring bike. The Super Glide found itself competing with the Golden Wing, and it still does today.  

Since the 1970s, Harley has gotten back on its feet, and in doing so it operated to attempt to shed itself of an outlaw image that it had never courted.  It now not only makes its classic cruisers and street bikes, but it competes with the Japanese under the name Buell with their style of motorcycle. The really cheap motorcycle era has ended, save for Royal Enfield which really produces for the Indian market but which imports into the United States.  All of the major players since 1950 are still around and some new ones are as well, so Harely, which is doing well, now competes once again against some American manufacturers.

Technologically, motorcycles  bear a striking resemblance to the original product, although there have been advances in the engines and a belt  has replaced the chain, and there have been other changes as well. Still, they very closely resemble the original products.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Postscript

But wait, you didn't touch on motor scooters!  Aren't they motorcycles?

Modern motor scooter

I think they are, but as sort of a distinct category of the bike, apparently a lot of people don't.  At least in my state, you need a special license to operate a motorcycle, but not a motor scooter.  I have no idea why that's the case, but it is.  Somehow the authorities must not regard them as being as dangerous, although I'm sure they are or at least darned near are.

The scooter is a low powered motorcycle with a unique platform. They're just made for local transportation, not "over the road", as it were.  They date back to the teens, at least, and have a long history we really don't think of much.  

Cushman, a company that specialized in low powered vehicles, introduced a scooter into the American market in 1936.  It went on to produce one, the Model 53, that was designed for use by U.S. airborne troops during World War Two, although the extent to which they were used is something that I have no idea of.  Other Cushman scooters were purchased by the Army for local use in the United States.

Behind this military bicycle, a Cushman scooter is visilbe.

Another Cushman motor scooter, this one also showing World War Two colors for the U.S. Army.

It was really after World War Two, however, when we start to really think of scooters.  This is partially due, at least, to the introduction of the Vespa after World War Two. Somehow, a major reconsideration of the Italian culture in the US occurred in the 1950s, and the Italians went from being considered backwards and destitute to being the coolest thing ever.  This must have been a very odd experience for Italians, who went from being treated as cowardly peasants to the global standard setters for style in less than a generation, and who found that they were suddenly admired on everything, and this included their vehicles.  Vespas, a light scooter, were regarded as very cool.

Not too surprisingly, the Vespa craze died off, but it's revived in recent years and the popularity of scooters with it.  Now, once again, scooters are very common.  A while back on  a trip to Denver they were literally everywhere, although I'd personally live in fear of driving one in that big city.

While mentioning scooters, I probably ought to conclude with the other species in this genus, and there are  few.  Minibikes are one. These are simply miniature motorcycles that were designed for children.  These tiny motorcycles were hugely popular in the 1970s, but they've passed by the wayside now, and even though they still exist, they aren't as common as they once were, and I'm glad. They always struck me as really dangerous.

"Trikes", motorized three wheeled vehicles are also closely associated with motorcycles, probably because they were often originally built from one.  They're offered commercially now and you see variants of them around.  They're a vehicle I know very little about, other than that they've been around for quite awhile and are popular to some degree with those to whom motorcycles appeal, but who don't want a two wheeled vehicle.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Related threads:

Automotive Transportation I:  Trucks and Lorries.

Automotive Transportation II:  Cars.

Air Transportation.

Horsepower

Riding Bicycles.

Rail Transportation

The Rise and Decline of the SUV

Water Transportation

Walking

Courthouses of the West: Federal Courthouse, Sheridan Wyoming

Courthouses of the West: Federal Courthouse, Sheridan Wyoming:

Now no longer a courthouse, but a private building.  Featured here on an earlier thread on that topic.

Why Must Americans Clean Up a Foreign Sport?

Why Must Americans Clean Up a Foreign Sport?

Saturday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: B'nai Israel Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah

Churches of the West: B'nai Israel Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah:

Overall readership

Overall readership here:

United States	57760
Russia	4948
France	2892
Germany	2423
Ukraine	1957
China	954
United Kingdom	923
Turkey	762
Poland	621
Canada	542

More people from the Ukraine have stopped in here than from Canada?  That's odd.

And Russia is a (distant) number two?

Hmm. . . sort of deflating statistics in some ways.

Why Do So Many Eggs Come From Iowa?

Why Do So Many Eggs Come From Iowa?

The "Avengers", seriously?

There's a new "Avengers" movie out that's receiving a lot of press.

And by that, I mean serious press. Serious film critics are reviewing it seriously.  In some quarters, it's receiving some (well deserved, by what I'm reading) critique on its symbolism. The movie, The Avengers:  Age of Ultron, is apparently a big cinematic deal.

Well, I say. . . seriously?

Just skip it.

I'm simply stunned that a movie based on Marvel's comic book characters merits any serious consideration and that anyone over twelve years old is interested in it.  Marvels super heros?  You know that they're aimed at a segment of the adolescent male demographic, don't you?

Maybe because I never liked these cartoons in the first place (I was never into comic books), but the real world and serious fiction are more than interesting enough to capture the imagination of any adult mind. That movies based on adolescent pulp are now big budget affairs for people who are presumably out there working, voting and raising families is simply mind boggling.

There are those who argue that the entire culture has been suffering from delayed development, and we've reached a point where adolescence now stretches out a good decade longer than the teen years.  The fact that movies like this are now regarded as a big thing is pretty good evidence that they're stretching out longer than that.

Posing for war relief.

Gentrification

This building was built as the Barteldes Seeds Warehouse in Denver Colorado.

Built in 1906, this building now features lofts.  The building is right on 16th Street, in what is now considered "lower downtown Denver".

Its interesting what the transition of this building tells us.  For one thing, the need for agricultural seed stock was so significant in this area that a warehouse dedicated to it was located right down town.  Having said that, this are of downtown Denver is only a block from the railroad, and there were other industrial buildings downtown, so perhaps its not as surprising as it might at first seem.  Like some other photos we put up of Salt Lake recently, the early 20th Century division between retail areas and industrial areas was slight. 

And I'm quite certain you can still get seeds in this region of Colorado, which in spite of the urban sprawl still features quite a bit of agriculture.

LoDo itself was pretty seedy some decades ago, but it's really turned around and is now a trendy urban area.  Hence, we see lofts in what was formerly a seed warehouse, something the builders of this building, over a century ago, would probably have found surprising.

Quite a bit of Denver history, all in one building.

Expatriates: Looking at it a bit differently.

Okay, I know that this is a history blog, and it's now been running so long as research for a book, that it's becoming historical in and of itself, but we do a lot of commentary.  Oh well.

Here's one, however, that has a real history to it, and which touches on an aspect of history.

Wyoming, for my entire adult life, has been worried about the young leaving the state.  But so often, the analysis isn't really quite on or perhaps it's not too deep.  Perhaps that is in part why we're still talking about it in 2015, as we have been for the past 30 years or more.  The Oil City News recently noted the following:

The outmigration isn’t as bad today as it was in the 1990s. Back then Wyoming’s sluggish economy spurred an exodus of young people that one reporter referred to as a “brain drain.” Census data from 2014 shows Wyoming’s population of young people age 25-34 has grown over the past decade, but mostly in the larger counties with active energy development.

Even so, young people continue to leave the state in droves — among 18-year-old workers in the year 2000, only four out of 10 were still in Wyoming a decade later, according to state data.

Who are they, and who are "we"?

Okay, first of all, what is the general topic. Well, it's long been noted that around 50% of Wyoming youth leave the state after high school graduation, and this is conceived of as a problem.  "We're" losing out young, is the thesis. And let's start with the thesis.

No doubt the figure is correct, but who is that "we"?  Almost never noted in that analysis is the fact that about 50% of Wyoming's residents at any one time are from somewhere else, and we have a high transient population. Given that, the "our young" we identify with to a certain extent aren't really "ours", but rather are people who likely already identify with some place else or don't identify with any place.  New residents from Colorado, New York, or Chihuahua.  If they pick up and leave, they aren't doing anything that unnatural and, frankly, perhaps we ought not to worry about it.

In any one high school class there's a fair number of students whose connection with Wyoming is pretty thin.  Many are very recent arrivals.  It isn't really realistic to think of them having a close connection with the state, and at least a few of those people no doubt retain a strong connection with where they were from to start with, or they have no real connection with any place at all.  Indeed, I once overheard an oilfield too salesman talking to another one, who was new to the job, in an airplane reflect that the city was basically two cities, one made up of people passing through, and another made up of people from here who knew they were going to stay.

This is even truer of college and university populations, I"d note, as Wyoming attracts a lot of out of state students, often from neighboring states.  Yes, these people graduate and move on, but they moved on when they entered school as well.

The transient economic model.

Indeed, if we are to worry about the young leaving their homes and families, perhaps we should worry about it nationally. The entire nation is transient to some extent, and missed in this analysis is that society in general, and quite frankly rural society in particular, has bought off on the idea that "success" means a transient job.  We tend not to think of it that way, but that's how we actually behave.

Success, in the modern economy, means getting a job that takes you to that in place, and moving up the ladder to that next place, and so on.  When Wyoming, including the governor's office, worries about that, it's actually arguing against the prevailing economic model, including the one that's basically taught to high achievers in school.  Do "well" and you can get a "good job". That good job is going to be in Denver, or Chicago, until it takes you to Houston, or so on.  Interestingly, here in the state, while we promote that, we also argue against it, and interestingly sort of pitch a distributist economic model of "we can have good jobs locally". We can, but we need to be what those are, and we tend not to.

“Any given year, we have about 50 percent of youth leaving the state,” Gov. Matt Mead (R) said at a recent press conference. “We have great career opportunities and they are leaving the state

The governor's statement here is the typical one. So what are those "great career opportunities"?  Well, perhaps not that great really.

I'll start here by noting that Governor Mead was born into a well connected political and ranching family.   That isn't saying anything against him, but things are different for people like him than they are for somebody whose father was a laborer.  Mead has a landed connection to the state and political ones as well.  Most people would like to have the landed connection (more on that later), but really don't, other than maybe their parents' home.  So they get an education, and they have to apply it.

Mead's concept on good jobs was spelled out in his statement on the topic in which the Oil City News noted:

In response, Mead recently rolled out a Department of Workforce Services website called Wyoming Grown. The program touts a high quality of life in hopes of enticing Wyomingites living out of state to move back home, no matter what age. Mead said the program is aimed at recruiting workers for in-demand positions like computer programmers, doctors, welders, engineers and others.

So, great, right. Ever young person can just get a job like that?

Well, quite a few can actually, and quite a few actually have.  My father had a professional degree as did one of my local uncles, which allowed both of them to stay here. I have one as well, and likewise I've been able to stay here.  Yesterday I was at an event where four out of the six lawyers on the location were all from the state and a fifth one had grown up here, but wasn't born here.  Only one had moved in as an adult.   And were in fact plenty of opportunities like that.  Doctors, lawyers, accountants, mechanics; there really are a lot of local opportunities.

Wait, did you just say were up there somewhere?

Yes I did, were. As this is changing and we best be aware of it.

I don't want to exaggerate this too much, as that would suggest something that isn't true, but something that should be kept in mind is that at the same time the state makes pronouncements like this it actively operates to hurt some local professions.  For example, there's the UBE.

Governor Mead, in addition to being from a ranching family, is a lawyer.  But when he practiced law we didn't have the UBE.  Now we do, and the effect of the UBE has been to cause a swell of admissions to the state bar of lawyers who live in Denver.  This is only one example, of course, but its not insignificant.  The profession of lawyer in a rural state has always attracted a different type of person that it does elsewhere.  Lawyers in Wyoming have tended to be from the state, rarely does somebody move into Wyoming to practice law, although it does happen.  Now, however, people can practice without moving here at all.  This is happening to a notable extent, and over time, and it won't take much time, this will impact the nature and even the ability to practice law in the state, to the detriment of Wyomingites.  

As another example, a profession that at one time attracted a lot of locals, that of Game Warden, is now being filled by out of staters.  The field has always been very competitive, but in some ways it was a natural Wyoming profession for a lot of people here.  So much so that its probable that most people who pursued a degree in wildlife management weren't able to obtain a job.  At any rate, for a long time the way it worked is a person applied to take a test administered by the agency, and if they passed that qualified them to be hired. The test was administered annually in  Cheyenne.  It was possible for an out of state resident to take it, but it wasn't really easy.

Now it is. The test has even been given out of state recently and a person can apply for the position on line, making it easy to do so. The new hires that the Game and Fish announce, I've noted, are almost 100% out of state residents.  Now, I have nothing against these bright happy new faces, but when we tell our own residents that opportunities are available here, and for something a lot of them would like to do, and they help cut them out, we're not thinking things through.  In comparison Alaska requires a game warden applicant to be a resident of Alaska.

We could easily do things just like that.  A game warden applicant could be required to be a resident of Wyoming. A lawyer could be required to take a real state bar and have a real office in the state, and so on.  But instead, while we decry the loss of our young, we set out making it difficult for them to stay with policies that tend to operate against them.

State v. Region

And just where are they leaving anyway?

That may sound like a strange question, and I'll start expanding on it with this.  I love Wyoming, and very strongly identify with it.  My love of Wyoming is like the Dr. Zhivago like love of Russia in the movie.  When Laura turns to Komarovski and says "he'll never leave Russia", that's pretty much how I feel.

But even at that, I have to note that Wyoming is an American state, and most American states have sort of arbitrary borders.  Not all.  Some actually have natural boundaries, but most do not.  Wyoming, like Colorado, or North Dakota, is a big rectangle, and that's not a natural boundary.

This isn't to say that there isn't actually a distinctiveness to Wyoming, or Colorado, or North Dakota, but we need to be aware that there are actually regional boundaries naturally formed in the United States, and they play into this in a huge way.  While people may be leaving the state, quite frankly, a lot are not moving out of the region, and for that matter, there's a lot of movement within the region into Wyoming.

Of my four really good high school friends, two are still right here in town. So, out of the four of us, three have statistically beat the odds.  Of the other two, one lives in Colorado.  Indeed, he lives in norther Colorado, just 50 miles away from where we attended university and where his Wyomingite wife grew up.  He didn't really move far, but he isn't in the state.  The other friend has been more of a traveler, having worked in California for quite awhile. But he also moved back here in town and worked for a very long time, before just taking a job in Utah. Again, he's left the state, for the second work life time, but he's not really far outside the state.  Of the five of us, four were from Wyoming, indeed this town, but the fifth was from Bartlesville Oklahoma.

In my own family, my grandmother was from Leadville Colorado, but spent quite a few of her formative years in Denver.  My family has strong connections with the Scotsbluff Nebraska area.  Of my cousins, one set of cousins has moved all over the country, but another set has basically moved north of this city, with most of them now living in Buffalo, a really neat Wyoming town, but one of them having gone as far north as Montana, with that all being, however, on one long highway drive.  One of my late partners also had strong connections with Nebraska, even though he'd been born here in the early 1920s.  Of my son's friends, yet another has very strong connections with Nebraska, where he's from. One of the local Federal judges is from western Nebraska and his father is a practicing lawyer in western Nebraska and eastern Wyoming.  Here in the office, one of my partners is from North Dakota.  We had a paralegal at one time that was from North Dakota and has returned there.  Another paralegal was married to a man from North Dakota.  

We see a lot of Colorado law firms practicing in the state (and at least one Montana one).  I've noted that before, and complained about it, but I should further note that of the Colorado lawyers I work with, two are actually from Wyoming originally.  We at one time had a lawyer who was from Colorado who worked here, before returning to Colorado.

So, what's all this have to do with anything? Well, one thing that is rarely noted is that young people may be moving out of the state, but they tend not to be moving out of the region. The region may actually be a more "natural" entity than the state. Perhaps, put another way, the state is a natural and political entity within a larger natural region.  That changes things quite a bit, and the fact is that its well demonstrated that most of the young people who move out move to a neighboring state, usually Colorado.

Part of what makes this all the more interesting is that the nature of the region in contemporary terms has rarely been explored.  We will hear of the "Rocky Mountain Region", but I"d submit that while there is such a thing, it isn't accurate in this context.  The cultural region is larger, and it somewhat omits at least one of the states in the Rocky Mountain region, that being Idaho. We find some Wyomingites moving to Idaho, and vice versa, but not many. Idaho is really part of the Pacific Northwest.

If we look at cultural and demographic ties, the region that Wyoming is in would include, really, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and even to some extent New Mexico and Oklahoma. It also includes Alberta and Saskatchewan.  People in these areas share a lot of mutual identity and tend to recognize a lot in each other, and in their localities. They also travel to each others states and provinces like there is no tomorrow.  It's nothing for a Casperite to travel to Billings Montana or Sidney Nebraska for sporting goods.  Wyomingites travel up to Alberta to hunt waterfowl, where the hunting is better for ducks and geese, just as they also go to Nebraska for the same.  Quite a few people from neighboring states will hunt antelope here.  Residents of rural Saskatchewan tend to occupy the same professions and have the same hobbies as residents of rural Wyoming.  Rodeo, the regional sport, stretches south to the Mexican border and north to the Arctic circle.

As regions are natural, whereas political boundaries are not always natural, that may be more significant than we think, and we ought to take that into consideration.  If we consider the area mentioned a vast region, what we would tend to observe is a different pattern.  Young people might move out of the state, but they don't tend to move out of the region as much.  Moreover, much of the movement pattern reflects a big type of movement that's been going on since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

What we tend to see in Wyoming is what we've seen everywhere since industry converted our economy from an agrarian one to an industrial one.  People have been moving from the fields to the towns, and from the towns to the cities.  We see that a lot in a Wyoming context.  It's not unusual to find people from Thermopolis or Greybull living in Casper.  They grew up in those smaller towns, graduated high school, went to university, and then pretty much had to relocate in one of the larger cities in the state. Just the other day I was working with a lawyer who was from Buffalo but whom had spent his entire working life in Cheyenne, which isn't even remotely similar in location or character.  A lawyer he's related to is from Sundance, a small Wyoming town, but has practiced his entire life in Sheridan, which isn't large, but which is the largest town in north central Wyoming.  We had a lawyer who was from Laramie (but whom moved back there) and we have another who is from Greybull.  And I know two lawyers from very small Wyoming towns who work in Denver.

This is the classic American, indeed Western World, situation.  If a person grows up in a very small town their economic options are very limited.  If they obtain an education, ironically the options shrink.  If a person gets a law degree, for example, and comes from a town like Medicine Bow, he can't go back there.  It's impossible.  His choices are to look for a job in one of the larger towns or cities, or to go to a big city, which quite a few do, but with the typical option being Denver.

Expanding this out, and looked at regionally, what we'd see is that in this region there are a lot of little towns, but most of them have very limited economies.  Economies that are, in fact, much more limited now than they were 50 years ago, in spite of the recent oil boom which has impacted some of them in the other direction.  Every 200 miles or so, there's a sizable city.  In Wyoming there's Casper and Cheyenne that are fairly sizable cities.  North of the state border there's Billings, which is also a fairly sizable city, and is a city which in fact residents of northern Wyoming look up on as the "big city".  For southwest Wyoming there's Salt Lake City.  For northeast Wyoming, there's Rapid City.  For the "Wyobraksa" region, there's Scottsbluff.

All of the region, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, etc., look to Denver as the true big city, and for anyone doing business, they're going to do business in Denver to at least some extent. Salt Lake City stands in as distant second in those regards, but it does stand in.  For people associated with the oil and gas industry in any sense, Tulsa Oklahoma and Houston Texas are also "must go to" cities.

The point of all of this is that a pattern naturally exists, with the economy we ave, which will draw a large segment of our population in this state, as well as that of Montana and Colorado, to Denver.  It just will.  The same is true of Salt Lake.  There's absolutely nothing that can be done about that.  The young from really small towns sometimes go to larger towns or local cities, but those we send into certain industries or whom we send through with university degrees stand a really good chance, indeed an in creasing chance, of being "from Wyoming", but living in Denver or Salt Lake City.

So, what can Wyoming do?

So what of that?  Considering the last item first, but approaching the overall topic as well, what does that leave us with.  Should we just abandon the whole topic?

I'd say no, but at the same time we need to realize that failure in this area is not only a possibility, but perhaps a high likelihood.  Or maybe not. But in order to really address things, the typical solutions of funding local starts ups and the like is a waste of time, in my view.

Some fixes are pretty easy, if we'd only do them.  Part of the problem in doing them, however, is that Wyoming has a massive inferiority complex.  For some reason, we feel that bringing in outsiders is always the solution to any problem, and as already noted, we actually gear some industries that way. We should stop that.

A good way to stop that would be to stop actually exporting jobs.  Can the UBE, require lawyers to have real offices here.  Require that game warden applicants, and law enforcement applicants, actually live here.  This won't create a massive number of jobs for locals, but it will create some, and not an insignificant some.

Next, however, perhaps its time to look towards what we have, rather than look at other towns and cities elsewhere and wish we had what they do.  Not that swiping good ideas isn't a good idea.

What we do have, is what we've always had. We have a lot of agriculture.  While we've been wringing out hands on this topic and the demise of the most recent oil boom, agriculture just keeps on keeping on, not that it doesn't have problems.  The big problem it has, like everything else, is that while at the same time agriculture is boosting the economies of the Mid West massively, we're exporting it here.  That is, we're exporting the ownership of our ag lands.

We should stop that, and realize that agriculture is actually the one economic constant we've always had.  If we took some steps to require, as Iowa has, that land be held be held by local corporations, we could work towards supporting local ownership, and that supports local farmers and ranchers.  It also supports local jobs, albeit typically low paying, for those who work for them.  

And we might also consider that we are exporting nearly 100% of the agriculture products we produce.  As late as the 1970s, there was a large packing plant here in Natrona County (my family owned it in the 1940s).  Now there isn't a large one in the entire state.  Indeed, I can't think of there being any facility in the state that actually produces any locally grown or raised agricultural product on a large scale, other than sugar (and one of the sugar processing plants just closed).  We grow wheat, but we don't refine it. We raise cattle, but we don't pack them. We raise sheep, but we don't process wool.  We grow barley, but we don't brew beer on a large scale.  We timber, but we have few timber processing plants.  In short, we just export everything.

Now, some would say that the day of local processing of these items is over. But it doesn't really seem to be on a regional scale.  Colorado has a large meat processing facility in Greeley and three substantial breweries, in addition to a fairly large commercial canning facility.  We just don't do this.

Now, at this point, doing something along these lines would require some thinking out of the box, and that would require state assistance.  That usually makes Wyomingites cringe, but the state already provides seed money to other industries (there's some, for example, being provided to our local airport for a large new hanger).  Doing something to get a local packing plant going, or to get Budweiser or Coors up here brewing beer, etc., would be a good idea, even if we have to take the approach that North Dakota, which has a state owned flour mill, did.  I.e., if we can fund a lot of peculiar business propositions as start ups, we can look towards some of the ancient ones that actually have a direct and strong connection with the state.

Not that this is the only thing we can do.  Wyoming has a law school (and the UBE), but it has no medical school, no dental school, and no veterinary school.  We import a lot of doctors from all over, when we could simply educate our own.  Those who go off to study in these areas do in fact often come back, but not always.  Indeed, life is what it is, and if you are in medical school and meet an attractive opposite, whose from Wichita and who wants to go back there, chances are good that that's where you are going to go.  Accepting life as it is and having that medical school in Laramie makes more sense.

And it would be better for the state as well.  I've long been baffled by why Wyoming thinks it needs a law school in this day and age, when there are so many, and while its seeking to export the practice of law elsewhere anyhow, but it doesn't have any sort of medical, dental, or veterinary school.  Everyone gets sick, and most people own cats and dogs.  Making it easier for Wyomingites to enter these fields would be a good idea.

And maybe boosting the non Laramie campuses of the University of Wyoming would be as well.  That's already been a huge success, and something that's changed things enormously since I was 18, and encouraging the further expansion of the University of Wyoming outside of Laramie would appear to be a win win proposition.  One of the really attractive things about UW, truth be told, is that for Wyomingites its not only an excellent education, but it's cheap.  If you can attend where you already live, it's cheaper yet.  And if you attend where you have a connection, you're more likely to stay there.  Indeed, while its a bit counter-intuitive based on he supposed statistics, quite a few people who graduate in Laramie never get any further than that.  Indeed, just yesterday I was working with a lawyer from Casper who grew up here, but met his spouse who was from Laramie.  When he graduated, they both found jobs there.  One good friend of mine, while he didn't stay in Laramie, stayed in nearby Fort Collins, only fifty miles away, which is another sort of example.

Anyhow, those are my thoughts on these thorny issues.  This is another one of those areas where we seem to repeat the old ideas to our detriment.  Maybe its time to look around at what we have, and what we don't, and do something with it.