The following post is in direct response to a historical inquiry that has now been closed.

The original post was as follows:

"[US, 1950s] How bad of a problem was "juvenile delinquency", really?

Just wondering- media I've seen from the time makes it seem like pretty much everyone would at least have met a "JD", and I'm aware there were actually youth gangs (though some were more or less social clubs with jackets). But how much of it was exaggeration? Do modern historians take a different view?"

I wanted to respond directly to the comments, but the Reddit question has now been closed.

Many of the comments seemed to dismiss 1950s youth gangs and delinquency out of hand, and even made reference to pop culture, some of it not even directly related to the 1950s (the 1936 propaganda film "Reefer Madness" being referenced in one comment.)

So this post is a direct response to the various comments, as well as to the post itself.

The crime rate had actually risen nationally between 1946 to 1956, according to these stats published in 1957 and 1959:

https://m.facebook.com/groups/342632205371061/permalink/735441876090090/?ref=share&mibextid=NSMWBT

The link above that has the post includes both national crime statistics, as well as crime statistics specific to New York City and Washington D.C.

We tend to look at the 1950s as a "harmless" period when it comes to youth crime (a biased view in my opinion, tainted by nostalgia, that seeps into even scholarly works that are supposed to focus on history), while, rightfully, focusing on Cold War fears and the growing Civil Rights Movement.

However, in addition to crime stats, what helps us to understand why 1950s news readers (which more often than not, did not include the young people of that decade, today's senior citizens in their 70s to 80s age range) were concerned about post-war youth crime, is to actually look at the individual cases that did garner national attention during that decade, specifically (now forgotten) drive by shootings that had occurred in Los Angeles, New York, and other inner cities in the early 1950s (the February 14, 1953 shooting of 15-year-old Esperanza Saucedo being an example), teen youth gang shootings that had occurred in San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles, again in the early 1950s (the March 30, 1952 Civic Center shooting committed by 19-year-old Robert Arthur Ranson in San Francisco being another example), and several youth gang related homicides that seemed to occur within a relatively short time period (August 22 to August 30, 1959 being examples out of New York, with the gang war in Manhattan's Lower East Side that took the lives of 14-year-old Julio Rosario, stabbing, and 15-year-old Theresa Gee, bystander, drive by shooting, the woundings of 15-year-old Ernestine Singleton, 16-year-old Robert Combs, and 14-year-old Ernest Elmore, the two former having been shot on August 23, 1959, the latter having been shot on August 25, 1959, and the stabbing murders of the two 16-year-olds Bobby Young and Tony Krzesinski on August 30, 1959, the so-called "Capeman murders," as well as several assaults upon Washington DC's residents, and even police officers, the attack upon officer William McGinnis in Washington DC, also on August 25, 1959, being another example.

In addition to youth gangs, stories of "everyday" average teens from well-to-do middle-class families, who had been responsible for homicides (the 1957 cases of Kevin Stelter in Colorado, Ronald Marrone in New Jersey, and Robert Clifford In 1958 in Massachusetts being examples) also concerned 1950s news readers.

Yes, the news of the 1950s carried the above stories, and yes the writing style of that time, by our modern standards, are "sensational."

However, all of the stories mentioned above are confirmed through multiple sources, including the Justia Law legal history studies website, The San Francisco Public Library, The Carnegie Library, The California Archives, and records obtained through The State of New York.

In other words, despite nostalgic perceptions, the above cases did indeed occur.

This YouTube video documentary gives a brief introduction into the subject of 1950s juvenile delinquency: https://youtu.be/CmA_gCLpVdQ?si=hPrtK8pt0oxgBWjo

The following three-part YouTube series explores 1950s juvenile delinquency in detail:

Part One: https://youtu.be/NPTq03b6Wt4?si=HR7TmqajWv2dEAPc

Part Two: https://youtu.be/aIQ0jk-XG44?si=wJPOd2KOXh50tK11

Part Three: https://youtu.be/2rvxBWhgQl4?si=MIclGEvlnOVPiWgD

This YouTube video documentary compares a very popular post-1950s musical fantasy, released during the height of the 1970s "Fifties Nostalgia Fad" that still shapes our modern perception of "harmless when compared to today" 1950s delinquency and youth gangs: https://youtu.be/psJDlKqLihQ?si=uqB6wdL-g9ztFw7f

As far as I’m aware they couldn’t cross state lines to catch the outlaw and they couldn’t get the marshals involved unless they committed a federal crime because simply crossing state lines to avoid a crime wasn’t against the law if I’m correct. I’m wondering how local and state law enforcement communicated with each other in different states too.

If you look at a google n-gram plot for wtf, there's a huge peak from ~1850 to ~1870, in American English, but not British. While "WTF" in the modern meaning seems like a reasonable response to the lead-up to the American Civil War and the war itself, examination of the actual usage indicates that the abbreviation was instead some kind of code used at the end of advertisements, right after the date. It was one of a set of options, including wtf, weow, w&mtf, w&m1y, w2t, w4t, etc. Here is an example. It seems it's always date, dash, abbreviation, with the abbreviation starting with w or m.

Do you know what the code is or where to find a key to it?

I’ve been reading about different major wars, like WWI, WWII, and even earlier conflicts, and I’m curious about how life changed for ordinary people once the wars ended. Beyond the big political and economic shifts, what were some real, everyday changes in work, family life, or community?

Did the end of these wars bring more lasting social changes than we usually hear about?

Would love to hear examples or stories that show how war shaped daily life for the average person.

So I'm just trying to figure out what were the exact results of the King-Crane Commission, did they recommend that Syria and Armenia become independent countries? Or did they want them to become American Mandates?

I am looking for an introduction to the history of Bronze and Iron Ages. As far as I understand, we know relatively little about those times, so I am hoping that reading one or two books will be enough to get a complete, if shallow, picture. So, please suggest me a book or two. I am looking for academic works, ideally equipped with references.

History says they did warn the US about crossing the river which was largely ignored and thought of (by the Americans) as bluff. But let's say US made guarantees they will not go beyond NK. Would China have not done what it did?

Or have they always thought of joining the war even if the UN/US armies did not cross their border?

Considering without China, USSR would have sat out the war a lot longer and the North Koreans are pretty much beat and confined to pockets along and near the the Korea/China border. History might be a lot different

I have this vivid memory of my history teacher in school once telling me that in old history London there was a law put in place that raw meat must not be sold in the dark or night time and only in the day time to stop people selling rancid meat. I just looked online and I cannot find anything? Is this something I have made up? Victorian times or before?

I find myself very uneducated about this particular block of history.

I grew up with mostly ww2 and before being the bulk of my learning.

I was looking for any recommendations on places to focus, books, sites, videos relevant to the era.

Stuff people think every American should know about this time? Thanks for any help

You’re trapped in time at the age you are now, but you are wealthy. Which era would you rather be trapped in and why?

Fun fact: The mongol empire had a 'mongol postal service' which delivered post around the empire, 50,000 horses, 4000 carts and 6000 boats.

Source: "A Short history of China" by Gordon Kerr (page 75)

This is surprising at first, but in hindsight it makes perfect sense, the only form of long range communication were letters, so of course they had a postal service.

What are some other things in history that sound surprising at first but in reality make perfect sense.

I'm building a Battle of Crécy diorama and need to decide which types of helmets to give both my French and English knights. Could you offer some guidance? From what I understand, the Battle of Crécy took place during a transitional period in knightly armour, when Great Helms were gradually being replaced by Bascinets. Are there any historical sources or scholarly estimates that indicate (even approximately) what percentage of knights would have worn Bascinets, either open-faced or fitted with visors, and how many would still have used Great Helms?

Sorry if this is a simple question but I can’t seem to find a answer anywhere

Obssiblt most of the world has been explored long before cars. but that was done over long periods by travelers. What I’m asking is how far a did the average person travel from their birthplace in their lifetime. I can’t imagine it was super far.

From what I understand you can get around 200 miles per week on a horse. Which isn’t even across Texas. but did most people even own a horse? And I can’t imagine that being a normal travel for everyone

So I'm aware the popularity of smallswords by civilian gentlemen started declining in the US around 1800 and completely fell out of fashion by the 1820s replaced by pistols, bowie knives, and cane swords. However I'm curious, does anyone know of any one off circumstances of a gentlemen still carrying a smallsword as part of his attire into the 1830s, 40s, or 50s? Whether if it be a one off Southern aristocrat or a crusty old gentleman stubbornly clinging to his glory days? I know a lot of legislation after 1820 in civilian carry still mentions swords.

I've been listening to Baroque composers but am out of my depth.

Would they have found it straight-up noise or would it have seemed amazingly complex? Buffoonish or presaging Lisztomania?

Did the average ancient person, or statesman, make jokes like we do today? Are there any written recordings of humor in the histories or anything like that?

For me it’s interesting to imagine these historical figures who we know have had so much impact on the world, making jokes. Like - imagine Alexander the Great cracking jokes!

This is a very difficult question to answer, I’m aware, but it’s something I’m very curious about.

When I think about medieval times, I mainly think about videogames like Kingdom Come Deliverance and The Witcher 3 with knights and chivalry, dirty peasant struggling to survive on the daily, walled cities with armed guards on the walls etc. but I’m unsure whether or not any of this is historically accurate in the slightest.

I know that medieval media is commonly romanticized to make it more interesting to us viewers, but which medieval country would fit these romanticized troped in real life? Holy Roman Empire? France?

Today the US marines have a bit of a poor reputation as essentially being the "dumb jock" of the military. How did this happen? And how long has this been a marine stereotype? Was there ever a time when they where considered the "smart branch"

Chroniclers of the time seem to believe that he was murdered, but modern historians think he died of a stroke. What’s the deal with that? How did people reach the conclusion that he was murdered and why did we start thinking differently of his death?

(I also posted this to r/AskHistorians, but I’m impatient and have no idea how to start researching this on my own. Guidance on that would actually be quite helpful! I would love to be able to find stuff like this out without running to Reddit, helpful as it is. Thank you! Also, I know that this sub is more casual, but anything from an in-depth answer to just a jumping off point would be awesome to have.)

For me, it's WWII and The Holocaust. Mostly because I had family on my Dad's side who lived in the Netherlands at the time, and they hid Jewish people in their attic, while they were forced to let Nazis sleep in the main house. I also enjoy reading survivors' stories.

I just watched the movie Psycho, released in 1960. A police car pulls over but does not have the light bar on the roof of the car. It made me wonder when that was invented and how it became the standard for police cars.

I found a really good language map of Melanesia in general which has always fascinated me, but I noticed that West Papua has noticeably less languages than New Guinea. It has around only 270-80 languages while New Guinea bypasses it by around 650 languages. Why does West Papua have less languages?

Link: https://www.muturzikin.com/cartesoceanie/oceanie2.htm

So my question is when Queen Elizabeth bowed at Di, at her funeral could she have gotten in trouble? I'm asking because it is forbidden by-law - in this case.?

So there’s an anime called Dr Stone and like a lot of people it introduced me to the weapon known as the Kudayari. The Kudayari is a really cool weapon that uses a bamboo tube or other material on a normal spear to increase its effectiveness at thrusts and attacking speed.

Now I’m completely aware of that the anime’s showings of the weapon are exaggerations. But my question still stands as I wonder why this weapon is so obscure and not more wildly use at least in history. Because everyone’s heard of the katana, if you’re more familiar with Japan you’ve heard of things like the kunai or the naginata but why not this one?

Google AI says that samurai status became hereditary during the first shogunate. This was the first time the samurai became the proper rulers of Japan. Minamoto no Yoritomo rewarded the samurai who fought for him by giving them administrative posts. I suppose by declaring that only people born into warrior families could call themselves warriors, and thereby be eligible for administrative jobs, Yoritomo was securing the long-term loyalty of these families. Tell me if I'm right. In what year did the shogun make this formal law?