How Progressive was the 'Progressive era'?

[Blair]

Not sure if this post goes here or in the History section but would be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts on it as it's the subject for my History module this year.

[NeverAgain]

IMO it was two eras - 1902-1920, 1933-1961.

[Blair]

IMO it was two eras - 1902-1920, 1933-1961.

The first one in that case Our lecturer went on a rant about the New Deal being it's own piece of history etc

[Mr. Reactionary]

They banned liquor, sterilized minorities, imprisoned thousands of political prisoners, and re-segregated the federal government. How progressive.

[OSR stands with Israel]

They banned liquor, sterilized minorities, imprisoned thousands of political prisoners, and re-segregated the federal government. How progressive.

and created an American Empire

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

They banned liquor, sterilized minorities, imprisoned thousands of political prisoners, and re-segregated the federal government. How progressive.

and created an American Empire

Please, please, please use something resembling anything close to proper punctuation. And how do you lack the wherewithal to realize that the audience you're speaking to has negligible emotional attachment--if not outright antipathy--towards any empire?

[OSR stands with Israel]

They banned liquor, sterilized minorities, imprisoned thousands of political prisoners, and re-segregated the federal government. How progressive.

and created an American Empire

Please, please, please use something resembling anything close to proper punctuation. And how do you lack the wherewithal to realize that the audience you're speaking to has negligible emotional attachment--if not outright antipathy--towards any empire?

First of all I quoted Reactionary's statement and then just mentioned what he forgot . Also I was not saying that America created an Empire similar to the British, but the foreign policy Teddy Roosevelt esposued would clearly be considered empire building by the left today.

[VPH]

Well, ideas like eugenics, serious immigration restrictions, etc were popular. Currently taking a class about the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era and the prof has emphasized that while leaders of that time envisioned their reform ideas as "progressive", these ideas would not be considered positive today.

[Kingpoleon]

They banned liquor, sterilized minorities, imprisoned thousands of political prisoners, and re-segregated the federal government. How progressive.

[NeverAgain]

IMO it was two eras - 1902-1920, 1933-1961.

The first one in that case Our lecturer went on a rant about the New Deal being it's own piece of history etc

Whoops, I read this as when was! Sorry! (damned dyslexia)

I would say progressive in many aspects, but not true progressivism (in the real sense). Much of the ideas like eugenics, creationism, and in afterthought, prohibition were all extreme moronic ideas proposed by many "progressives" of the time. Yet, the advances in Women's Sufferage, Economic Securities, and even African American advances (Black Georgia in the Progressive Era - Great Read) were great strides. Much of the "Progressive Era" can be attributed to the rise of (mostly rural) populism stemming much from WJB.

I look at it as less progressive and more of a Populism Era ruled by less ignorant white men.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Gilded Age was 1865/1877 to 1896; Progressive Era was 1896-1933; the New Deal Era was 1933 to 1968.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Honestly, attempting to apply contemporary political labels to events that occurred more than a century ago is an unhelpful way of evaluating history. Clearly the progressives of the Progressive Era held many policies that would be non-starters in modern progressive circles, but then Thomas Jefferson's vision of an agrarian republic where only white men could vote doesn't really chime with modern-day liberalism, despite Jefferson being the ideological forefather of the American liberal ideology.

[Intell]

F*ycking hell, banning liquor, in the 19th century was a progressive ideal (in many cases, support by most on the left, bar some) There were progressive reasons for this, such as stopping violence against women, alcohol problems among poor people, in many cases progressives enacted modern drug laws, to stop corporations (or any capitalist organisation) from the free selling of addictive drugs, and prohibition, worked in some regards and failed in others, while other drug laws, generally worked.

Neither was imprisoning political prisoners, nor segregation progressive, but a by product of the era, (progressives) fought against such things, these thing happened not because of the progressivism of such an era, or the fact as progressivism in such as an era didn't exist, but in spite of it.

Steralisation (racially) was (generally) opposed by progressives, however unfortunately many progressives support eugenics against people of disabilities.

Immigration Restrictions was supported by progressives, but that was because labour unions feared capitalist organisaitons would use cheap, foreign labour against the established working class. This was more supported because of progressive constituencies in trade unions and the (white) working class, though (some) trade unions were open to African-Americans.

It is a complicated era, with contradictions, but it did lay the foundation for many progressive reforms, that happened with FDR, and even progressive reforms under Teddy, Taft and Wilson, (however contradictory some aspects of their policy may have been).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

F*ycking hell, banning liquor, in the 19th century was a progressive ideal (in many cases, support by most on the left, bar some) There were progressive reasons for this, such as stopping violence against women, alcohol problems among poor people, in many cases progressives enacted modern drug laws, to stop corporations (or any capitalist organisation) from the free selling of addictive drugs, and prohibition, worked in some regards and failed in others, while other drug laws, generally worked.

Neither was imprisoning political prisoners, nor segregation progressive, but a by product of the era, (progressives) fought against such things, these thing happened not because of the progressivism of such an era, or the fact as progressivism in such as an era didn't exist, but in spite of it.

Steralisation (racially) was (generally) opposed by progressives, however unfortunately many progressives support eugenics against people of disabilities.

Immigration Restrictions was supported by progressives, but that was because labour unions feared capitalist organisaitons would use cheap, foreign labour against the established working class. This was more supported because of progressive constituencies in trade unions and the (white) working class, though (some) trade unions were open to African-Americans.

It is a complicated era, with contradictions, but it did lay the foundation for many progressive reforms, that happened with FDR, and even progressive reforms under Teddy, Taft and Wilson, (however contradictory some aspects of their policy may have been).

I know all this, but it can't be denied that a lot of it was far from 'progressive' by current standards. Which if anything is a sign that 'progressive' is a much more deceptively ahistorical term than its construction as a word would lead one to think.

[Intell]

F*ycking hell, banning liquor, in the 19th century was a progressive ideal (in many cases, support by most on the left, bar some) There were progressive reasons for this, such as stopping violence against women, alcohol problems among poor people, in many cases progressives enacted modern drug laws, to stop corporations (or any capitalist organisation) from the free selling of addictive drugs, and prohibition, worked in some regards and failed in others, while other drug laws, generally worked.

Neither was imprisoning political prisoners, nor segregation progressive, but a by product of the era, (progressives) fought against such things, these thing happened not because of the progressivism of such an era, or the fact as progressivism in such as an era didn't exist, but in spite of it.

Steralisation (racially) was (generally) opposed by progressives, however unfortunately many progressives support eugenics against people of disabilities.

Immigration Restrictions was supported by progressives, but that was because labour unions feared capitalist organisaitons would use cheap, foreign labour against the established working class. This was more supported because of progressive constituencies in trade unions and the (white) working class, though (some) trade unions were open to African-Americans.

It is a complicated era, with contradictions, but it did lay the foundation for many progressive reforms, that happened with FDR, and even progressive reforms under Teddy, Taft and Wilson, (however contradictory some aspects of their policy may have been).

I know all this, but it can't be denied that a lot of it was far from 'progressive' by current standards. Which if anything is a sign that 'progressive' is a much more deceptively ahistorical term than its construction as a word would lead one to think.

The thing is they weren't opposed to alcohol for conservative reasons, or inspite of their progressivism, but because of their progressive nature. Drug Laws came about alongside other progressive laws,in the US, and in other countries, by social democratic/liberal governments.

I'm just trying to reiterate that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

F*ycking hell, banning liquor, in the 19th century was a progressive ideal (in many cases, support by most on the left, bar some) There were progressive reasons for this, such as stopping violence against women, alcohol problems among poor people, in many cases progressives enacted modern drug laws, to stop corporations (or any capitalist organisation) from the free selling of addictive drugs, and prohibition, worked in some regards and failed in others, while other drug laws, generally worked.

Neither was imprisoning political prisoners, nor segregation progressive, but a by product of the era, (progressives) fought against such things, these thing happened not because of the progressivism of such an era, or the fact as progressivism in such as an era didn't exist, but in spite of it.

Steralisation (racially) was (generally) opposed by progressives, however unfortunately many progressives support eugenics against people of disabilities.

Immigration Restrictions was supported by progressives, but that was because labour unions feared capitalist organisaitons would use cheap, foreign labour against the established working class. This was more supported because of progressive constituencies in trade unions and the (white) working class, though (some) trade unions were open to African-Americans.

It is a complicated era, with contradictions, but it did lay the foundation for many progressive reforms, that happened with FDR, and even progressive reforms under Teddy, Taft and Wilson, (however contradictory some aspects of their policy may have been).

I know all this, but it can't be denied that a lot of it was far from 'progressive' by current standards. Which if anything is a sign that 'progressive' is a much more deceptively ahistorical term than its construction as a word would lead one to think.

The thing is they weren't opposed to alcohol for conservative reasons, or inspite of their progressivism, but because of their progressive nature. Drug Laws came about alongside other progressive laws,in the US, and in other countries, by social democratic/liberal governments.

I'm just trying to reiterate that.

I know that too. I've actually made qualified defenses of some of the motives (but not outcomes) of Prohibition before.

[RINO Tom]

There were CERTAINLY supporters of prohibition from a more Puritan (and therefore undeniably conservative in nature, IMO) perspective, too.