Nice, thank you

Seems to be the case that it was popularized in the 1940s and 1950s. Not sure about the tropical conditions of the South Pacific thing, it's not like adults were going out and having it done.

Dr. Spock wrote in 1989

> What I recommended to parents about circumcision in early editions of Baby and Child Care is quite different from what I recommend now. In the 1940s, I favored circumcision performed within a few days of birth for a couple of reasons. First, there was, at the time, a commonly held belief in medical circles that women married to uncircumcised men were more likely to develop cancer of the cervix. The second reason I favored routine circumcision was that if the operation were performed on a newborn, there would be no chance of a physician scaring the bejeebers out of a boy by performing the operation when he was older.

...

>In the 1940s and 1950s circumcision became quite common. By the 1960s, 90 percent of all male newborns in the United States were being circumcised as routine procedure. Ten years later, however, opinion among doctors swung away from the belief that certain groups of women developed cancer of the cervix because their husbands were uncircumcised.It was concluded that the cause was actually lack of good male hygiene - which is not as much of a problem in this country as it is in some other parts of the world. Also, by the early 1970s, more physicians - though not all - were aware of the psychological harm that could come from circumcision after infancy, and circumcision of an older child was not suggested as frequently as in the past.

Might be one of my favourite little-known resources online - I could quite honestly sit and stare at it for hours.

That is what I was looking for thank you.

That Map of London is amazing and a lot less has changed than I was expecting.

Dr. Lewis Sayre's wiki page says this—In 1870, he introduced circumcision in the United States as a purported cure for several cases of young boys presenting with paralysis and other significant gross motor problems. He thought the procedure ameliorated such problems based on the then prominent "reflex neurosis" theory of disease, with the understanding that a tight foreskin inflamed the nerves and caused systemic problems.

The source however says nothing about him "introducing" it in 1870 specifically. And he couldn't have "introduced cirumcision in the United States" as there had been Jewish communities in the US since colonial times.

Circumcision was "popularized" in the late 1800s with the support of the creator of JAMA. Based on extremely dubious reasoning and probably with a humoral understanding of medicine. Bloodletting was still popular into the 1830s, don't forget.

The Remondino source makes it clear that most Christian Americans were still not circumcising their children as the standard in the 1890s.

Here's the source wikipedia cites.

># 1101

>THE ORTHOPEDIC ORIGIN OF POPULAR MALE CIRCUMCISION IN AMERICA Barbara Chubak*, Bronx, NY

>INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Prophylactic male circumcision, in the absence of any existing urologic pathology, has been and continues to be controversial, as evidenced by the recently and frequently updated American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement on that surgery. This paper investigates the origins of popular circumcision in America, to determine the foundation of the current controversy.

>METHODS: Review of the relevant primary and secondary source literature, including the LA Sayre archival collection at the New York Academy of Medicine.

>RESULTS: Male circumcision was first popularized in late 19th century America by Lewis Sayre, a renowned orthopedic surgeon, public-health activist, and creator of the Journal of the American Medical Association. On the basis of a few orthopedic case reports, Sayre used his influence to promote male circumcision, by redefining it as a systemic therapy, rather than a local anatomic alteration. This redefinition was consonant with the contemporary reflex neurosis theory of disease, as well as the historic humoral-mechanical understanding of the human body.

>CONCLUSIONS: Sayre successfully redefined male circumcision as a systemic therapy, positioning it for continued popularity as a sanitary intervention into the 20th century. Since then, research into the benefits of this surgery has most productively focused on the ways in which it might prevent systemic diseases, such as HIV. However, the dubious evidentiary origins of Sayre’s influential work are a caution against too uncritically accepting as true even the most exciting and promising research.

>Source of Funding: None

The Remondino source says this.

> In the early part of this book, in speaking of female circumcision, it was mentioned that when the medical part of the volume should be reached some medical reasons for its necessity would be given. Dr. Price, in his paper, gives some information on this subject, which is of the greatest interest. In the course of the paper he says as follows: “Nor do I think these reflex neuroses from adherent prepuce wholly confined to the male sex. The preputium-clitoridis may be adherent and produce in the female similar reflexes. During the session of the American Medical Association, held in Chicago in 1874, I think, I attended one afternoon a clinical lecture by Dr. Sayre. A little girl, fourteen years of age, but about the size of a seven-year-old child, was brought in, who had never walked nor spoken, but with quite an intelligent countenance, who was in constant motion, and who presented very many nervous symptoms. Dr. Sayre examined her, and found the prepuce adherent the whole extent of the clitoris. He gave it as his opinion that here was the primary and sole cause of the symptoms, and that appropriate treatment shortly after birth would have prevented all the serious consequences so painfully apparent, and which was then too late to remedy.

[removed]

>Well... > >> “We had all these big people around the country thinking our guys were really doing this, and it was starting to make us all look bad,” former rackets investigator Tobias Fennel explains. The class backgrounds of the victims certainly didn’t hurt,[...] > >So had they not been rich and influential, they might have not gotten any help. But indeed they ended up helping gay men.

If they hadn't been rich and influential, nobody would have bothered blackmailing them in the first place.

I read some of the stuff by Sylvester Graham. That claim seems to have the same issue as the Kellogg's Cereal claim.

Look at the sources used as evidence that the Kellogg Brothers developed Kellog's Cereal to reduce "self-abuse" i.e masturbation. Look at what they cite. Try and find any proof of this that isn't making strange and specious connections.

I encourage you to read the entire thing.

[removed]

You are correct, but you said 'would we still be in the bronze age', that implies society would've halted at bronze. In any case, the point remains: different alloys serve different purposes. So, assume the easier availability of bronze was a thing, at some point society would reach a point where the ends were no longer met by it. The reasons could be various, but it is hard to imagine human ingenuity would just stop innovating. Consider martial purposes, steel is far better than bronze, assume iron was not relied on that much, the chances of discovering steel are quite likely & and subsequently, so would the urge be to apply it. Hence, my point is that if more availability was around it would plausibly allow the usage of bronze to stick around longer, that is until a superior alloy (like steel) was discovered. No warrior in his right mind is going to choose bronze over steel.

Reading his writings, he does not seem that much out of the ordinary for a liberal heterodox Christian of his time period.

Any good historical sources for the extent the nuclear bombing of Japan causes its surrender? I’m not looking for modern day articles per say, but more so speeches or documents from the 40s-50s that show the opinion at the time.

I just read that one of the main reasons why humans switched from bronze to iron is that iron ores are widely available, so after we could not made bronze - we need to replace it. What if we wouldn't have needs to replace it?

Also there were no needs to build skyscrapers in middle ages and ancient times.

[removed]

Really cool piece of history to be found again.

MLK Jr.

Fred Hampton

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Now that I think about it, I would say that unless you are a navy seal or something like that, all of us are wimps compared to people back then. Their tolerance for pain and discomfort was far higher than ours.

No, not all of the "chickens" were underaged. Some were teenagers, others young adults. Even today 16 is the age of consent in most states of the USA and it was lower 60 years ago or only applied to young girls, not boy.

The leverage and extortion of the victims (no quotes necessary) came almost entirely from the social stigma and criminality of homosexuality.

Certainly being homosexual added to the leverage the blackmailers were able to exert on the victims during this era, but didn't the article also mention that all these men's partners were children? I'd suspect that this fact alone would make targets like this even more vulnerable to blackmail - for example to those with security clearances - today. And as well, for this reason it might also be appropriate to allocate at least some of ones own outrage toward these supposed "victims" themselves.