|
Until the invention of artificial dyes in the 1860s, you could tell the wealth of person by the mere color of his clothes in addition to how much of it was sewed. As late as my father's youth (the 1920s) it was common for pre-school MALES to be wearing dresses, for they were simpler to make then pants (as children come to see what they sex are, males tend to reject dresses completely in the western world thus by the time most males are in first grade they are wearing pants or shorts instead of dresses for that is what all the other boys they know are wearing, this was the case even in the days of hand sewing).
Now, if you study the American West (and what I mean by the term "American West" I include the Colonial time period) during the Colonial time period (and until the widespread adoption of the sewing machine in the late 1800s), men and boys went around in "Hunting shirts" (i.e. Long shirts down to their thighs, about the length of modern coats and suit tops) AND leggings that reached up and were overlapped by the long shirts. In the few pictures of frontier men you did not see any skin (and in the movies the leggings are made to be pants) but the combination performed the same function as pants without any of the sewing needed in the "Crotch" area. The Hunting shirt needed the sleeves sewed on, and then the two sides (Such Hunting Shirts did NOT have pockets or collars). The Leggings, were sewed up on one side, and held onto the thighs by belts (Either around the top of each leggings or to the hunting shirt, if not both).
The reason for such dress was simple, it was the easiest thing to sew and still give the impression of a man in pants. With the invention and adoption of the Sewing Machine, pants became the norm even for farm and hunting work (Pants became what you wore to Church and to town long before that date, but kept back for those occasions given the extra work needed to sew them and this the extra cost in the time of hand sewing only).
We do NOT have many reports on such leggings and long shirts, for the simple reason every one knew of their use and it was common (i.e. we do NOT have to many reports of people going to the "Rest room" either, for the same reason, everyone did it, it was so common no one thought of wasting good linen paper to write down such events unless it related to something more important. An example of that was a plan to kidnapped Benedict Arnold after his defection to the British, the plan involved capturing him when he went to the garden every night at the same time every night, the reason Arnold went to the garden was unstated, for everyone reading it at that time period knew the garden was also where the toilets were).
Dyes, prior to the 1860s, were expensive, indigo was the most common dye and thus blue was the favorite color of the time period (and was avoided by Rich people for it implied you did not have enough money to pay for more expensive dyes, thus after the defeat of the former King of England James II in Ireland, the troops of King William and Mary, took off the red coats of King James men and wore them themselves to show they were BRITISH troops and could afford Red Dye instead of Blue). Blue dye became the color of the lower classes and people who had support of the lower classes (Thus the term "True Blue" was meant you supported the Puritans who adopted blue as their color for it was the dye of the working class and the Puritans wanted the working class on their side, Red became the color of the supporters of the Kings of England, for it cost more to produce).
Side Note: Imperial Purple, the color of the Imperial Roman Emperors, was a rich deep Violent AND very expensive. It was the color only the top elite of the Ancient World could wear and did so till what is now Israeli feel to the Arabs in the 600s. Then, it fell out of use under the reforms of Emperor Heraclitus (Considered the first "Byzantine Emperor", the Eastern Empire in 600 AD was still an Empire of the Roman Elite with a mercenary army and the Roman Elite owning much of the Valuable lands of the Empire. By 650, Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Carthage were all lost, thus losing most of the land controlled by the former Roman elite. The Roman Army had been converted from a Mercenary Army to one based on the duty to serve in the Army in exchange for use of land i.e. what we call Feudalism. This conversion permitted the Byzantine Empire to field an army without the high taxes common in the late Roman Empire. For the common farmers it meant Military duties, but low taxes AND a promise (mostly kept) that their land would remain in their family.
Among the other Changes during that time period, was the shift from Egyptian Bread for the City of Constantinople to Bread from the Ukraine. Another change was the shift from Roman style of eating meals (Seen in most toga flicks to this day) to one of eating meals at a table with both Men and Women sitting at the same table (Also the start of the Shift in Religious observance of males on one side and women and children on the other side of the Church to one where families stayed together, i.e. Husband, Wife and Children together as opposed to Husbands being with other adult males, while the Women and Children were on the other side of the Church, through the shift was NOT complete till the late Middle ages c1300). Pants for men became the normal in this time period, do to the increase is the use of Cavalry (Through this seems to have started in the 500s, Historians use to say the 300s but recent research indicate that the Roman Army of the 300s were overwhelmingly Infantry, the shift to Cavalry was underway, but of minor concern till the reforms of Heraclitus).
I bring up the 600s for it is like the late 1700s and early 1800s, what was the norm before then, changed radically afterward. Roman Style had been relatively stable from the days of the last Punic War (c150 BC) till the time of the Arab Conquest (c630). Then it disappeared, replaced by the new norms adopted in response to the Slavic Invasions of the 600s deep into the Balkans and even Greece, more so then even the Arab Conquest of the same time period. The long Togas and Tunics of Roman times were replaced by the Trousers of the Dark Ages. In some aspects the old Roman Dress survived, but only in ceremonial clothing (The Dress of the Roman Period survived enough to be worn by the Emperor Charlemagne when he visited Rome, but Charlemagne appears NEVER to wear such clothing outside of Rome. The main shift seems to be the fact that do to the various attacks on the Roman Empire, the power of the Wealthy decline drastically while the power of the peasants increased, thus it was no longer possible for many of the rich to afford what their ancestors could afford just 100 years before. This change in economics lead to change in dress.
The same thing happened in the early 1800s and late 1700s, pre-revolutionary France had seen a huge increase in the wealth of the elite of France, then a subsequent decline in that wealth under the Republic and the Empire (at the same time the money going to the lower classes, including the Peasants increased for the first time in centuries). Many of the lower levels of French elite could no longer afford the servants to do the leggings and dress of the 1700s by the 1800s, so the style of the 1700s was replaced by the much more simpler dress of the mid-1800s, which in turn was replaced by modern dress do to the introduction of artificial dyes AND the Sewing machine (For example, men shirts, for the first time in history, started to have pockets as more and more women obtained and started to use sewing machines, pockets took up to much time if hand sewed, but a quick add on if done by machine).
Thus since the mid 1800s, it has been hard to tell the rich from the poor just based on clothing. The traditional changes, dyes and style, just do not work, it is the same dyes and sewing effort to make a business suit as to make jeans and denim jackets. Shirts are easy to sew, thus, except for tee-shirts, tend to cost to produce about the same (In higher end shirts, sold in higher end stores, the higher price tends to be more a product of marketing then actual cost to produce).
Now, the Burka, was and is a functional dress, air flows through the Burka thus minimize overheating. It is simple to sew, thus the main cost is the material not the labor to produce the Burka. Given the push to look western over the last 100-150 years even in the Middle East, the Burka is a statement, that the wearer supports tradition. It is a political Statement to wear a Burka, just like it is a Political statement to ware modern western dress in the Middle East.
Now, during the switch in dress of the 600s and the late 1700s, wearing old fashion style was also a political statement, wearing old style clothing meant you supported how things were done in the past. Wearing the New Style was a political statement that you supported change. We saw that again in the 1960s, men wore long hair and jeans to show rejection of the "Tradition" of fighting the Cold war AND the restrictions of the 1950s (other men showed their support for that tradition by wearing crew cuts and Dress pants to show support for those "Traditions". By the 1980s things had changed back, almost all men were wearing hair short AND dress pants (The Three piece suit even made a come back in the 1980s and lasted to the 1990s when the vest was done away with to cut costs, then the return of the three button tunic what was the style of men business suits after 2000). Jeans fell by the wayside, for it was no longer a political statement to wear jeans, it had become to common to wear jeans by the late 1970s. During the Coal Strike of the 1980s BDUs became the "color" of the strikers, but after that strike was adopted by Right Wing Elements to show their support for military solutions to economic problems (The Militia are still active, I am one of those people that believe the army decision to drop BDUs colors and replace the Teri-color Forest camouflage with "Digital" camouflage was influenced by how wide spread the old northern Forest BDU camouflage had been adopted by Right wing Militia Groups).
I went into the above details to show that what we wear is often a Political Statement, Blue in the 1600s was support for the Puritans, in the late 1700s Blue became the color of the American Revolution for it was a Color of the working class. The adoption of pants by the Byzantine empire was not only a reflection of the adopting of Cavalry as the main force in the Military, but also a political statement that you accepted the changes of the 600s in Europe. A similar political statement was made when the Pants replaced the leggings of the 1700s during the French Revolution. It reflected the reality of the situation on the ground AND acceptance of the political changes of 1775-1815. Clothing is not to keep people from appearing naked (which itself may be a political statement) but also to show who you are and what you support. What can show support can vary over time, but it is still a factor in what we wear.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
