Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Wednesday, September 13. 2017

Bums

A "bum" was/is a term for an idle adult male. A shameful condition. These three bums are from the South Ferry (NYC) Flophouse, 1941. I wonder how they ended up. Maybe in the Army. Guy on the right should have gone to Hollywood.


From this photo collection. 


Posted by The News Junkie in The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 16:35 | Comments (18) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Then bums. By today's standards, dressed for job interview
#1 Another guy named Dan on 2017-09-13 17:33 (Reply)
Bums, tramps, and hobos were slightly different in the old days, and I think this still obtains now. Bums were the lowest order. Hobos traveled in search of work, and tramps traveled, sometimes accepting work and sometimes not. Bums stayed put and didn't work.

I have a friend who intends to go hoboing when he retires.
#2 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2017-09-13 17:49 (Reply)
My town is close to 50% bum.
#2.1 forest on 2017-09-13 22:35 (Reply)
I read a book called Hobo by Eddie Joe Cotton a few years ago that educated me in the differences between bums, tramps, and hobos. It was written in the early 2000s and many things haven't changed out on the rails, according to the author. You're right about the differences. Hobos and tramps didn't want to be confused with bums.

It's an amazing book. If I would have read it in my twenties I can almost guarantee that I would have jumped a train and rode it somewhere for a while. There are hobo jungles in existence today in the same places they were 70 years ago. It's a lonesome, tough, and free lifestyle.
#2.2 Jack Walter on 2017-09-13 23:10 (Reply)
Somebody started up a 'Hobo Convention' in Britt, IA near my hometown. Never attended but I did see a few news reports and articles on it. I'm a rail fan and came across this version of your description of the difference between the three

A Hobo is a migratory worker.
A Tramp is a migratory non-worker.
A Bum is stationary non-worker.

I don't know about considering them 'bums' from their dress (dude in the middle even has on a tie). Maybe transient workers? By 1941 the economy was getting better as we were starting to ramp up war production for Britain, France, et al.
#2.3 Christopher B on 2017-09-14 08:57 (Reply)
Normally your comments make me chuckle but, wHy would these guys be in Europe serving their country? Pearl Harbor wouldn't be for another 6 months from when this photo was taken.
#3 Michael on 2017-09-13 18:00 (Reply)
woops. my bad.

hope they went
#3.1 BD on 2017-09-13 18:07 (Reply)
For bums, they took care of themselves and how they dressed. For example, from another picture you can tell the middle guy is wearing a suit and his trousers are pressed with a sharp crease. You didn't have "permanent press" in those days, somebody had to do that.

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/results/detail.do;jsessionid=A1517B6BC1BAC12ED0C24E365F5E2062?query=city%3A%22New+York%22&page=1&pagesize=20&display=thumbcap&action=search&pnum=P02301
#4 Jim on 2017-09-13 18:41 (Reply)
A sharp crease, like Obama.
#4.1 Bird Dog on 2017-09-13 18:53 (Reply)
I wonder how much the shoes cost the guy on the left in terms of a day's wages. It seems like they didn't make cheaply made shoes back then. His are in bad shape, but how do they compare in cost to today's shoes? A cheap $60 pair of dress shoes won't last long these days if you have to wear them every day. I'm sure his are well stitched and all leather, except for the newspaper liner to plug the holes.

I wonder the same thing about the middle guy's suit. How much did it cost in terms of hours of labor and how would it compare to a suit today with the same hours of labor? I'll bet it's worlds apart.
#4.2 Jack Walter on 2017-09-13 23:25 (Reply)
I notice in the collection that the streets are clean; and of course no graffiti, which only became ubiquitous in cities later.
#5 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2017-09-13 20:17 (Reply)
The guy on the right appears to wearing dungarees and what looks like a tattoo peaking out from under the left sleeve. If so, I guess that would make him a navy man or maybe merchant marines.
#6 Ken in NH on 2017-09-13 22:29 (Reply)
The guys look too old for the Army. Maybe they were in the service in WW1.
#7 forest on 2017-09-13 22:43 (Reply)
"Guy on the right should have gone to Hollywood."

If you squint a little, left to right it's DeNiro, Eastwood and DiCaprio.
#8 hammond aikes on 2017-09-13 23:01 (Reply)
Jack Klugman, Clint Eastwood and Warren Beatty?
#8.1 K on 2017-09-14 07:04 (Reply)
I had it: Tommy Lee Jones, Eastwood and a young Brando!

Anyway you look at them, they look like MEN! Even at a young age, males in those days looked like MEN; look at any photo of GIs in the field.

The average age of Marines on Iwo Jima was 19. Yet in photos from that hellhole, they all look like they're 25-27, by todays standards.

Not a pajama boy or metrosexual among them !!!
#8.2 Old Codger on 2017-09-14 10:03 (Reply)
1935 Ford
#9 bgarrett on 2017-09-14 08:26 (Reply)
Like my grandparents had. Only new car I ever rode in until I bought my white over red '55 Plymouth Belvedere.
#9.1 BillH on 2017-09-14 10:49 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.