I am enjoying the documentary. It is a complex story worthy of the time spent. For me it seems to be a story of women's empowerment in this country. They rose up against a social problem and affected change. Unfortunately the solution had unintended consequences and did not solve the problem. But that speaks more to the complexity of human nature rather than the earnestness of the goal. And I believe some real good did come out of women gaining more of a voice which I'll bet lead to more government protection for family members. In the 1920s it would be unthinkable to have Health and Human services take someone's abused kids away or protect a battered spouse.
The issue was real for women at that time. A large number of men were squandering the family's money on booze and there was a lot of family abuse with no recourse. The solution seemed simple, get rid of booze. These women were so brave. They were going up against business in a way unthinkable today. Protesting outside of saloons in Winter they would be invited in from the cold, doused with beer and sent outside to freeze! But they didn't back down. In today's cynical connection between business and government, their success would be unthinkable. There are so many poignant stories in this documentary. Earnest people trying to make positive changes. Unfortunately banning a substance that people want is just not gunna turn out well. The parallels to today's drug war is important. How can a government be so clear about the impossibility of banning alcohol which must be fermented and or distilled then believe that it can ban a plant that grows like a weed? And do we have to realize that we can't always legislate our way out of human problems caused by our nature? I'll stop here because I have only seen the first one. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Tom Pall <thomas.pall@> wrote: > <snip> > > I turned off Ken Burns' Prohibition. His sthick has been > > copied so many times, it's no longer novel and exciting. > > Plus, his handling of Prohibition is just so polemic. > > Don't bother going into the history. Just slant it your > > own way. > > That's what it sounded like to me just watching the trailer. > He apparently thinks Prohibition was a ridiculous idea. Did > he relate that in any way to the prohibition of marijuana > and other potentially highly useful and largely benign > psychedelics, or did he ignore that as you say he ignores > the history of the temperance movement? >
