Tonight on a very old rerun of a show (from the 1960s) I won't name because you'd all laugh at me, they used the word "hoodlum," which seemed to be used for the word "gang member." Does anyone know if the word "hoodlum" used to be used for "gang members?" Or was it used for those who aren't quite gang members, but are bad actors. That's how I'd think of it now, though it surely isn't used much.

The word hoodlum itself is rather interesting. This is what the Online Etymology site says about it:

quote:

1871, Amer.Eng. (first in ref. to San Francisco) "young street rowdy, loafer," later (1877) "young criminal, gangster," of unknown origin, though newspapers have printed myriad stories concocted to account for it. A guess perhaps better than average is that it is from Ger. dial. (Bavarian) Huddellump "ragamuffin."

It's an old-fashioned word for a criminal, which includes many gang members.

I can recall many nights when my mother would call out at twilight, "Time for bed, you little hoodlums."

My father used the word frequently.

Although there's no etymological connection, it's interesting that hoodlums were known for hanging about the neighbo(u)rhood on street corners.

There's also the parallel with present-day hoodies.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Tonight on a very old rerun of a show (from the 1960s) I won't name because you'd all laugh at me,

Ah, go on!

I guess what I wondered is whether in the 50s and 60s gang members (like in the inner city of Chicago) were called "hoodlums." I suppose I could check the archives of the Chicago Tribune.

Well, Bob, it was Andy Griffith. Mostly I like to have the TV on when I am working on my computer, and nothing else was on. My kids think I am an old codger for having it on, as they watch things like the Kardashian family (or however it's spelled). I can't stomach that show or other reality shows, so I stick to Andy, which is on at every hour of the day it seems.

See, I'm not laughing.
I never heard of him.
Or the Kardashian family for that matter.

What Bob said.

Incidentally, is there anything less real than reality TV shows?

quote:

Incidentally, is there anything less real than reality TV shows?

Yes. Wrestling and political debates.

We are soon to have our first ever US-Presidential style televised debate. Opinion is split on whether this is a good thing or a bad one.

And in the list of "less real" things there are those nature documentaries by the bloke who is always catching rare snakes. I remember seeing him crawling down into a hole where there was supposed to be a nest of rattlesnakes. The give-away was that some shots were filmed with him crawling towards the camera which, if real, would have meant some poor sod of a cameraman must have been crawling arse first towards a nest of rattlesnakes. Now that's a bad job!

Many years ago, when we first got cable, one of the more interesting channels was TLC (The Learning Channel). They specialized in documentaries recounting historical events and explaing scientific cncepts and inventions. Over the years their programming changed to the point where every night's viewing consists of bizarre people and things in incredible situations. These programs always seem to sink to the depths to attract viewers.

Excuse me. A film about a three-headed one-legged Enlishman trying to board a bus just came on. I heard him say, ""Ello. 'Ello. 'Ello."
And the motorman said, "'Op on board."

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
We are soon to have our first ever US-Presidential style televised debate.

Oh, how dull! I much prefer the English style, with fisticuffs, occasional swordplay, etc. We haven't had such political horseplay since 11 July, 1804, when Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel.

Geof

quote:

Opinion is split on whether this is a good thing or a bad one.

No doubt. It's bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Well, Bob, it was Andy Griffith.

I like Andy Griffith. I watched The Andy Griffith Show as a kid and I watched the reruns when they were on. Also Matlock. He was always the "good guy." See A Face in the Crowd (1957) and Savages (1974) for his "bad guy" side.

quote:

He was always the "good guy." See A Face in the Crowd (1957) and Savages (1974) for his "bad guy" side.

Then he wasn't "always" the good guy.

I can understand how those in England wouldn't have heard of the Kardashian family reality show because it stinks. But I am a bit surprised those in England haven't heard of the Andy Griffith show because they have heard of others, such as "Friends" and "Office," and Andy Griffith has been around forever. Perhaps it is only recently that England has been interested in American TV.

I could be wrong as I don't watch it, but I believe that "Office" was originally a British series, now rewritten for the USA.

And we do get loads of US TV programmes - but I am the wrong person to ask about them as I rarely watch sitcoms and the like, preferring the kind of fare one sees on the Discovery and History channels.

We do get a lot of American TV shows. Without them a lot of satellite/cable channels wouldn't have anything to put out at all, and some of the five national broadcast channels would have little content.

AS Richard says, "The Office" was originally a British show, although it was later remade in America for American audiences. The US version is currently being shown over here, although I don't think it's watched very much.

I don't think Andy Griffith has ever been shown over here, although, given the large number of shows that do appear, I wouldn't be surprised if some obscure channel is running it. I do have a faint memory of seeing "Matlock", though.

Since the subject of hoodies came up earlier, this may be of interest.

The word "hoodlum" was subject to mention in Randy Cassingham's most recent "This is True" newsletter - http://www.thisistrue.com - You have to subscribe to read it but the basic subscription is free.